 Good morning and welcome to the 24th meeting in 2022 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. Members should note that the convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, Eleanor Whitham MSP, will also join us for this meeting for both our substantive evidence sessions today. I welcome her to this meeting. I would ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting and that we have received apologies from Annie Wells this morning. The first item on our agenda today is to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Our members agreed. We are all agreed. We now turn to agenda item 2, which is to take evidence on the emergency legislation on a rent freeze and a moratorium on evictions. We have two panels of witnesses this morning with some of panel 1 participating remotely. Joining us in the room today, we have Caroline Collie, member and Emma Saunders, who is the national organiser of living rent. Timothy Douglas, who is the head of policy and campaigns at Property Mark. Riana Sims, who is the senior policy officer at Crisis. Joining us online, we have John Blackwood, who is the chief executive of Scottish Association of Landlords. Aaron Hill, who is the director of policy and membership at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. John Kerr, who is the vice chair of the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers. Once our first panel has concluded, we will then hear from Patrick Harvie, who is the minister for zero carbon buildings, active travel and tenants rights. I welcome our first panel of witnesses to the meeting. Before we move to questions from the committee, I wanted to make clear that the cost of living protection of tenants Scotland Bill has been published last night. Parliament has agreed that all three stages of the bill should be taken before Thursday. With that in mind, there is no formal role for this committee in its scrutiny. However, the committee previously agreed that it would be helpful to explore issues arising from the bill with stakeholders and the minister to help to inform scrutiny of the bill in the chamber over the coming days. Given those timings, there is no expectation that witnesses will be fully up to speed with the specific content of the bill itself. I will now open to questions and begin asking for your understanding of the process. Members will have an allocated amount of time to ask their questions. What we try to do is direct questions to people, so that you are not necessarily expected to answer every single question. If a question gets directed to somebody and you still want to come in on a response on that one, then just indicate to yourself or Euan, or if you are on blue jeans, just put an R in the chat function. Given the current cost crisis that has required the Scottish Government to take legislative action to protect tenants, is it interesting if you think that this is a proportionate response that balances the rights of tenants and landlords? I would like to begin with Aaron Hill. Good morning, convener, and thanks for the opportunity to give evidence this morning. From a housing association perspective, we recognise the gravity of the cost-of-living crisis that is being faced by people right across communities at the moment. An emergency response is absolutely necessary from the Scottish Government here. Housing associations have been working with their tenants over a number of months to support them with food, fuel and cash in their pockets. The cost-of-living crisis is structural and requires supply-side action as well as a response to the symptoms of that crisis. That requires significant interventions in building thousands more social homes, retrofit and existing homes, bringing down energy costs. I think that our concern in terms of the balance of the action taken by the Scottish Government is that, if a rent freeze were extended beyond 31 March, it would be an ineffective attempt to tackle some of those symptoms and reduce the collectivability of housing associations and our partners to tackle some of those longer-term systemic challenges around poverty. Ultimately, the social housing regulator's evidence alongside the bill today shows that around £50 million of income would be taken out of housing association business plans in year 1. Over the course of four years, that rises to more than £200 million and that would be billions over the course of the business plan. What that adds up to is fewer homes being built, fewer homes being retrofitted to zero carbon standards and less service provision in terms of tenants and the support that can be offered to tenants to support them with things like the cost-of-living crisis. That said, the legislation that is drafted currently only takes us up to 31 March and we want to work with the Scottish Government collectively and collaboratively to find a solution. There is strong evidence that Government intervention is not required beyond that point. Social rents in Scotland are consistently half of that of the private rented sector and social rents in Scotland are the lowest in the UK. That has happened because we have not had Government intervention up to now. The role that housing associations play in their communities in consulting with tenants, working closely with them on setting rents, is why we have got to that point. If you look at other interventions on rent across the UK, what you see is that rent policy often drives unintended consequences. Social landlords in England and Wales have uncertainty. They will often take the highest rent rise available to them because it gives them certainty in that year. We have not had that position in Scotland and the position of being able to consult over a number of years gives us a chance to smooth out some of the challenges that we face over the course of business plan. The final point that I would make is the role that tenants play in that. Social housing tenants are a vital part of the rent setting process in Scotland. They have a formal consultation role. Last year, when social landlords went out to consult with their tenants, less than 50 per cent chose the lowest rent increase that was available. When social housing tenants are informed about the impact that rent increases make on businesses, make on services, they take informed decisions. I think that there is a danger that we underestimate social housing tenants in saying that it is for Government to make this decision and not that. I totally understand that. You have been here before this committee talking about the three issues of building new supply, better fitting and keeping the rents affordable. Given that challenge, I would be interested to hear from you if there are new proposals that you would like to see coming forward or bringing forward yourself in relation to a future of how we can tackle this situation. As I said, we want to work collectively with the Scottish Government on what happens beyond 31 March. We have been giving some thought to what that might look like. I think that there could be concerted action, as there is already, from social landlords around the cost of living. Support for tenants around food, fuel, getting cash into people's pockets, but what we need is certainty and stability on the home building issue and on the retrofit issue. The unprecedented nature of Government intervention in this space in Scotland has already spooked some of our key partners, not least the lenders. I am aware of a number of housing associations who have had loans withdrawn that were about to be signed off. In one example, that was a £90 million loan, half of which was for refinancing and half of which was for new build, and the new build element of that was withdrawn. I have heard of big housing associations over the last few days prior to some of what else has happened in the market, having financial agreements taken away to be repriced. In terms of alternative proposals, what we need is stability and certainty early on from the Scottish Government around what is happening. We need management of that relationship with the lenders and strong engagement from the Scottish Government with UK finance and key partners in the sector. Ultimately, housing associations are carrying about £6 billion pounds worth of debt. We cannot carry out those key functions that we have talked about without that lending from private lenders. We need to make sure that that relationship is a positive one, both between ourselves and that sector and between that sector and Government. I would say that the Scottish Government has committed a huge amount of support to the development of new homes during this Parliament, but the cost increases that we have seen—I have spoken about this with this committee before—have already been enormous over the life of this Parliament. Without the ability to increase rent moderately, and moderate is really important, development will ultimately fall off a cliff. To come back to that point around moderate rent increases, we completely acknowledge the unprecedented situation that we are in around inflation levels. Inflation is often the marker that informs rent increases in the social housing sector. There wasn't a single housing association that I was aware of that would have gone anywhere near inflation this year had the power to increase their rent. Last year, we knew that the average rent increase was below inflation, and we were looking at similar this year. We were talking to members who were in the five or six per cent increase mark way below inflation. It is really important that we are able to balance the pressures of the cost increases that we face on the business side, the ability to meet the needs of staff, the ability to meet the needs of the wider community, as well as supporting tenants. The same question to John Blackwood. Do you think that the emergency legislation is required, given the housing and economic context that we are in? First of all, I thank you for inviting us along this morning to give evidence. Rather than repeat some of the issues that have already been mentioned, I echo a lot of the points that have already been discussed. I emphasise that we do not believe that that is proportionate, because landlords are affected as well as tenants through the cost of living crisis that we are living through at the moment. I emphasise that it is important that landlords work together in partnership with tenants to be able to overcome some of those issues. We likewise agree that landlords and tenants need to be supported in these difficult times. Increases in the cost of living, as I say, affects landlords as well as tenants, and what we are seeing is interest rates on mortgages going up. That is already happening. In fact, access to mortgages is going to become a major problem for landlord investors. Those are issues that really need to be taken on board, because some existing landlords, quite frankly, will not be able to continue to operate in the sector. It was mentioned earlier that landlords are spooked by the potential bill, or the bill that we have before us now. Indeed, when the First Minister made her statement back in 6 September, it was very clearly along the lines that there would be a ban on evictions and also a rent freeze. From looking at the bill, it seems to be a watered-down version of that statement, so it is not quite what she promised. Of course, that type investors are a lot to worry about, and many of them decide to pull out of the sector. We are really worried about investor confidence in the private rented sector. We need more supply, which is really important in both social housing and the private rented sector, because ultimately we want to be able to bring prices down so that tenants can afford to live in the homes that we all provide. You mentioned the concern that people have been leaving the sector, and yet the sector has been growing dramatically over the period of regulation interventions. For example, even with the new tenancy agreement of 2016, the sector has grown. I will be interested to hear why you think that something like that, in the context that we are in right now, will ensure that people have a home over the winter and that it helps to shape Scotland in a fairer direction. Why do you think that people might choose to leave, or where the evidence is? The landlords have been leaving the sector. We have evidence of that through landlord registration figures over the past couple of years and evidence from tenants who are struggling to find a home. We know from our members that individual landlords are letting agents. When they are putting properties in the market, they are absolutely inundated with prospective tenants wanting to view. We know that there is a lack of supply, because our members and other landlords are telling us that they are selling, actively selling their properties just now. They no longer see Scotland as a place to invest, as a landlord, and they are looking to invest elsewhere. That is not good news. That tells us that not only do we have a housing crisis at the moment with landlords leaving the sector, that situation is going to get much worse very soon. I would like to turn to the living rent. It is the same question whether you think that the emergency legislation is required giving the housing an economic context that we are in. Whoever chooses between you. Thank you for inviting us to speak today. We absolutely believe that the legislation needs to go through. Everyone is in a crisis, but tenants especially, food bank use has gone up, energy bills are spiralling and rents just keep increasing at insane rates. From some of our members, we have heard that a one tenant in Glasgow, their rent went up from £660 a month to £895. That is a 35 per cent increase. The property has poor fitting, single glazing, so it is freezing in the winter and the heating is ineffective and expensive and they are having to move out. There is another tenant that is in Edinburgh and they have seen their rent increase by 32 per cent. They have stated that we cannot afford to stay and we will have to move out, but that requires more money for deposits and so on, which we also do not have. In Dundee, tenants have a 20 per cent increase and had to move out of their home and are now illegally living in someone's living room. The current market value is completely unsustainable. In the last few years, between 2010 and 2021, there has been a private rent increase in Glasgow of 30 per cent and Lothians has gone up by 42 per cent. In the last year, since the pandemic, it has increased by 12 per cent in Dundee, 14 per cent in Edinburgh and 16 per cent in Glasgow. It is just truly unaffordable for people who are working, never mind people who are on benefits. It should also be noted that social housing, the market value has gone up by 24 per cent and Edinburgh has by far the highest social rents in Scotland. It is unsustainable for anyone to be able to put up with those kinds of prices. The bill does not affect rent increases between tenancies, so how will this affect the cost of living for tenants who are moving between tenancies? It is going to be a disaster. People are going to be trying to find new properties and all of a sudden the rent is just far too high and it is going to hit vulnerable people in particular, especially those who are leaving domestic violence, new people moving to the city, young people and just people who have found that the situation they are in is too expensive and they are now trying to find somewhere cheaper but everywhere is bumped up their rent so there isn't anywhere affordable. The social housing list in Edinburgh is 24,000 people on the wait list for housing. Temporary accommodation is overstretched beyond all measure. Where are these people supposed to go? This loophole needs to be closed to make sure that no rents are increased so that new tenants don't have to suffer skyrocketing prices. Thanks very much for that. I'm going to move on and bring in other members. I just want to encourage other members that I haven't been able to I would go way over my allocated time if I tried to get to everybody so please do bring in those who haven't spoken yet and I'm going to bring in Willie Coffey. Thanks very much, convener, and good morning to everyone. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about the impact of the proposal in the private sector and perhaps invite Timothy to come in initially. Timothy, your submission to the committee warned us about the possibility that tenants might interpret the rent freeze as an instruction not to pay the rent at all. So I'd like to just explore that issue with you and be obliged if you would tell us what you think the impact will be for both tenants and private landlords and I'll invite some responses from other members of the panel too please. Thank you very much and just as an intruder, thank you for the opportunity for being here today and providing evidence and insight from Proctermark, a professional body representing letting agents. We've got over 500 members in Scotland. I think as an opening Proctermark and our members acknowledge the cost of living crisis, agents of businesses themselves, they've got costs overheads and have employees and employers. Whilst the programme for government, there are things in there, the tenant fund, extending the district housing payments, the warmer homes Scotland. We don't think that the focus on a rent freeze in particular is balanced and proportionate. It might bring significant peace of mind to tenants with an outgo into not rising alongside other costs during the cost of living crisis, however rent controls do not address the root cause of rising rents, which is a shortage of rental properties caused by a lack of housing supply. Fundamentally, from Proctermark's perspective, we think that this will further reduce supply, which in turn will increase rents further for the sector. There is also a potential impact on the quality of that property in terms of disincentives for landlords to invest in the upkeep and put money into that property. How can they stand out and market that property when rents are essentially caps? Further reducing supply could lead to an impact on the quality of property. The statement about the measure potentially being interpreted as an instruction not to pay rent at all is quite a big statement. Do you have any evidence to back that up, or do you have any forecasts around that? I will come to Rian and then a second, but I would be obliged if Timothy could share any information that you have that might give some credibility to that statement. It may be something that I can provide to the committee in more detail. I was going to point out some research that was looking at the impact of the eviction ban that was introduced during the pandemic. It is researched by Indigo House, the rent better research, and by SFHA, which is looking at sustaining tenancies. Both of those reports showed that the eviction ban did not lead to what people might expect in terms of the rise in rent arrears. In fact, rent arrears went down during that period, and that might be due to the other kinds of support that were in place at the time in terms of the £20 uplift to universal credit increase in discretionary housing payments. That is important because it lets us know that the best and most targeted way to support people to manage their rent is to increase their incomes for those at the very lowest end of the market. That is just a couple of bits of research. From the crisis perspective, we absolutely believe that there is no doubt that people in low-income households, people in poverty, are really struggling right now. JRF published some research last week, which showed that a quarter of renters surveyed regularly cut their spending on other essentials to afford their rent, and that rose up to a third for those who were on a low income. We all know that the cost of living crisis is an emergency at the moment, and for those in poverty, that is an emergency as acute as the pandemic. It calls for emergency measures that, at other times, would not be considered. We absolutely support the need to do something to support tenants through that crisis, but we need to be clear that those measures are temporary and that we need to really clear a way to transition out of them as well. There is something else in terms of the context here, which is that the homelessness system is bursting at the seams. It is pushed to breaking point at the moment, which I am sure is something that members will see in their constituencies all the time. To point to a couple of figures that show that starkly, in the five years leading up to 2020, applications for homelessness support were rising, increasing steadily. We saw a little dip during the pandemic, but we have seen those figures increase again. Arguably, the pandemic was an interruption of that long-term trend. We have now got 26,000 households in the homelessness system, and that figure is the highest that has been in two decades, the highest since records began. We have almost 14,000 households in temporary accommodation, including households with children, and people are spending longer and longer in temporary accommodation as well. I think that, although we think that it is necessary to tackle the cost of living crisis, in the context of the statistics that I just gave, the emergency legislation that we are discussing just now is more of a sticking plaster on a much bigger, longer-term problem. What we need to do is really prioritise what colleagues of mine have been saying around the supply and access to settled housing, investment in homelessness services, which is vitally important, but also bigger systems change. The systems change that I am talking about is the introduction of homelessness prevention duties. We have an opportunity to do that later this parliamentary year with the longer-term housing bill. The worry that my organisation has is that the emergency legislation is going to push the timescales on that housing bill. That is worrying, because if we do not get the opportunity to make the systems change, we need to shift the dial on those homelessness statistics. That is a very much for that response. Are there any other colleagues in the panel who want to answer that to offer an answer to that question? One line, I can't see. Is there anyone online that wants to answer that? No, but Timothy is like… Just pick it up on the comments there. It needs to be acknowledged throughout the pandemic and beyond letting agents and landlords work extremely hard to maintain tenancies and keep people in their homes. A letting agent in Glasgow who contacted me paused all rent increases during the pandemic, some landlords withdrew, all rent charges, others reduced amounts that were owed. They have capped rent increases at 5 per cent, which is a very reasonable response for two to three years' pause. Agents, as a whole, are not bartering rent prices or offer to the highest bidder. They are checking at length attendance affordability before the tenant commences and working with landlords and tenants and trying to be accommodating and finding solutions as best as possible. However, they have provided that support throughout the pandemic. Thank you for that, Timothy. Do you have time to move on to another question? What we need to do is we've both got John Kerr who would like to come in and John Blackwood, so I'll bring them both in and then we need to move on. John Kerr, would you like to come on in? I'd like to say a thank you for the opportunity to speak at the session this morning. First of all, I would like to fully understand the need in terms of council housing to be responsible with rent levels and to ensure that they are at the affordable level. What we would say is just to build on the comments that were made by Arden and Rhiannon in terms of the wider impact, but there is much to be laudied in terms of the legislation that's been introduced now. Particularly, it gives tenants in the social sector and in the private sector a bit of certainty going through the winter months. The moratorium on evictions is just to build on something Rhiannon said that is to be welcomed, particularly in a time where homelessness systems are very much stretched. Notwithstanding that and I think that the point that Arden made right at the beginning of the session was fully supportive of the legislation at the moment. The unintended consequences that Arden spoke about just based on some of that testimony so far. If the power was to be extended, a provision has been acted in terms of how the legislation is laid at the moment going forward in 2020-24. I think that that's when you see the unintended consequences. We'll be sort of spoken about here crucially about housing supply and housing supply is a key to get out of the housing crisis, particularly in terms of provision of additional social housing both in the local authority sector and the housing association sector. The unintended consequences that Arden spoke about on the slenders for RSLs that will be consequences in the local authorities are the borrowing requirements. There will be more pressures on housing revenue accounts and where that can be impacted negatively towards tenants is that councils begin to de-infest unwillingly, but just in terms of the economics and the provision of future housing. That's one of the unintended consequences as well, as well as achieving earth-shared ambitions and earth-shared aspirations about our current company stock and the journey to decarbonisation. More crucially is about putting energy efficiency measures, because that really does make a difference to tenants' pockets if you reduce the fuel bills, because you put in better, more cost-certain heating systems, but that requires borrowing. If HRAs are pressured further, that impacts the earth negatively. My fear is that if it's extended by the March 23 deadline, there are unintended consequences that will come into play, which would lead to a detriment to the very tenants' work that we're trying to help. I will be very brief, because I know that you are short for time. I just wanted to pick up on a point that Timothy was mentioning about how landlords and tenants have worked together in the past. Our biggest concern about this legislation was the lack of consultation from the Scottish Government with the sector prior to its introduction. I do appreciate its emergency legislation, and I was announced as such, but prior to the emergency legislation for the Covid-19 requirements, we were consulted on that. We worked very closely with both the Scottish Government and other organisations to ensure that the impact of that pandemic was mitigated as much as we possibly could. Landlords and tenants did work together, and indeed the Scottish Government did applaud landlords for doing that. We are possible that we reduce strengths, and we worked with tenants to make sure that they sustained their tenancies. The question from Willie was about what evidence do we have about rent ar rears and tenants willingly not paying their rent. We have evidence of that, of course, so that members can tell their own individual stories of that, but there are also stories published in the decisions of the first-tier tribunal to where eviction cases have gone through the tribunal process, and they have been fully written up. There are details there that are publicly available. The main thing that we want to go across is that, again, we are in an emergency, nobody denies that. The cost of living affects everyone, tenants particularly, but landlords too, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that their costs are going up as well. How can we together as a sector work together to sustain tenancies, keep landlords in the sector and encourage them, not discourage them, but encourage them to invest in the future? The submissions that you have received before the committee today from other organisations all allude to the same thing—the unintended consequences of this legislation and the impact that it will have on housing supply for the future. That is the bigger concern. This legislation is a sticking plaster. It is not a solution. What we need to do is get round the table and find a solution to creating affordable rents, cover-land-loss costs and return on investment, as well as provide to secure home for tenants to live in. Thank you very much for that, John. I am now going to bring in Paul McClellan with questions. I will ask now that we have all spoken and we have opened the subject to try to keep your comments brief so that we can get all the members in. We have quite a few questions, I think. Paul McClellan. Can I just refer members to my register of interests? I want an entity property to my in-laws in Dunbar. I am going to ask Caroline Anema and Rianan about this one. How should the emergency legislation deal with rent rises and purpose-built student accommodation, which is currently excluded from the private residential tenancy regime? Caroline Anema, who wants to come on in, and I will come across to Rianan. I believe that the legislation proposed is covering student accommodation, and we think that that is a really, really important thing to do because it is important to look through the sector as a whole and creating loopholes, whether that is around purpose-built student accommodation or short-term lets, etc. We will create more and more tiered systems that does not tackle overall. How do we provide affordable rents in Scotland? I was aware, obviously, that there was a demonstration two or three months ago, I think, by the NUS. Do you have any evidence of the rent rises in that particular sector? I know there were issues around about 30 per cent that were mentioned, particularly in the Edinburgh area. I do not know if you have any evidence to back that up at all. I am not just on me, however, but I can provide it afterwards. Thank you for that. Rianan just did the same question. Sorry, is that on? Yeah. Sorry. In terms of students' risk of homelessness, it tends to be other groups that are higher risk, although I did see that there was a representative from NUS who was speaking at the Children and Young People's Committee just last week talking about the risk to students and that there are students who are experiencing homelessness now. It is welcome that the bill also includes student accommodation, but it is not something that we have a huge amount of evidence on, so I can come back to the committee if that is useful afterwards. Yeah, that is great. I do not know if anybody else has got any common comment on that one. I want to come back in briefly. Apologies. I think that where we are seeing the impact is on in-between tenancy rent increases. A lot of students will be newcomers in the market, especially people arriving from overseas, and they are finding that in-between tenancy rent increases are really difficult to access. As well as when universities increase the population of students, that can be really difficult. That points to the problem of in-between tenancy rent increases and the need to really think through that. I will move on to the next question. I will probably come to this one first. Probably through Arran, John and Timothy. How can tenants and landlords best be informed about any changes to legislation to ensure that policy has maximum effect? Arran, I do not know if you want to come on that. I will ask John to come on that one as well. Arran, you first of all. Yeah, thanks. I think that the role of informing tenants and consulting tenants is really important elements of this. At this part of the year, housing associations would normally be going out to consult on this year's rent increases. One element of such a big political announcement is the impact that that has on the perception of that, on our ability to do that effectively. I think that there is a real chance that we see some confusion over the next couple of months. The legislation supporting text around the legislation says that there is nothing preventing housing associations, social landlords going out to consult on next year's rent rises at this point. With such a big political messaging that there is a rent freeze in place, there will be some backlash to that. We are working really closely with officials in the Scottish Government to try to manage some of that and get some clear, consistent communication and messaging out as best we can. It is tricky, because, as I said earlier, that consultation period is really important. John Overtie, yourself from a local authority point of view. Thanks for the question. Just to reiterate what I said, most local authorities, if they have not begun such a process, will begin it over the next month. We are working closely with the Scottish Government officials. The short-life working group has been established, and I think that that is key to get the proper and appropriate messaging out to tenants. Is that a fine balance on that in terms of the preconception that maybe some tenants would have about the rent freeze there? When we are looking to talk about rent increases and rent consultation options with tenants in terms of assessing what the tenant priorities are, and then going back to an earlier point that was made, is that tenants have, for the last number of years since it was introduced as the statutory element of tenants being involved in rent consultations. They have benefitted from that. It has allowed them to put forward their set of tenant priorities. I think that it was Aaron that mentioned that at that point, in terms of the housing associations, in terms of local authorities, we have also recognised that it is not always the lowest option that the tenants go for, in terms of improvements that could be made to their homes, in terms of investment in new homes, and that tenants are quite attuned. Tenants do have that sort of foresight, so it is important that we continue to speak to tenants and those rent consultations do take place, but in the midst of a degree of certainty going forward, we have to be smart with the communication so that there is not any mixed messages going forward. I think that there is a notice in the Scottish Government as well. Obviously, we have the minister after us, so I think that that is one question that I will certainly be asking because I think that there has to be that general message as well. Thank you for that. Timothy, probably from yourself, from a different prospect, obviously, from representing your members. How do you see that, just the same question again? Sure. Communication is key. I think that every agent worth their salt will be communicating with both laminals and tenants on a regular basis throughout tenancies and at the start of tenancies. Communication is key. Professional bodies, we have a role to play where we can disseminate information, as John Blackwood has alluded to, this is emergency legislation. If only there has been limited detail to date, but we have pushed through and forced to have meetings with Scottish Government officials, and they have told us as much information as they can, so professional bodies can play their role. I think that it is whether there is a role for local authorities and the Scottish Government through the register of landlords and the register of letting agents as well. I think that it is pulling on all of those leaders of us. I think that language is key, as a final point, probably back to Mr Coffrey's point around why language is important. It is not actually a phrase, because a phrase implies, do not pay your rent, it is a cap. Language to the sector, both landlords, tenants and agents, is important. John, I understand that you want to come in on this one as well. Yes, thank you. Just to reiterate, as with the pandemic, there were mechanisms to communicate with both landlords and tenants. We think that that is crucial. It is really important to get a clear message out to tenants and landlords as to what their rights and responsibilities are. We could use the landlord registration database to do that. That happened during the pandemic, and we would encourage ministers and, of course, local authorities to administer those databases to do that. There is a clear, easy way to communicate with tenants and landlords. There is a lot of confusion out there. Even from seeing the bill that is before us today, lots of landlords and tenants still do not quite know what that means to them. Effectively, rents can go up and evictions can take place, and that is confusing both landlords and tenants. Clear communication is important. John, thank you for that. I am going to come on to my final question. I am aware of the time, so I am going to ask people to be brief. It is quite an important question. Everybody is touching it just now, and it is how should the Scottish Government monitor the impact of rent freeze and what factors does it need to consider on whether to extend the freeze beyond the end of March 2023. We have all touched on how the development of longer-term legislation has changed. I am probably going to come to that one to run into yourself first of all. I will open it up beyond that, but if you can be brief if it is possible. Thank you. I think that there are a few things that we need to monitor in order to know what effect this is having. It is quite tricky to monitor that because I do not think that we have the data currently. One thing is data on rents for sitting tenants and not just the tenancies that are being advertised. As a minimum, we need to collect the property address, the actual rent costs, the number of rooms, whether it is furnished or unfurnished, the property condition and that kind of thing. There were plans, I think, to put that in place through the housing bill that was coming later this parliamentary year, which I hope is still coming. Alongside data on rents, we really do need to monitor the impact that this has on the supply and access to housing, particularly for those on the lowest incomes. Crisis shares some of the concerns around the knock-on impacts that this might have in terms of the market. That is because, from our perspective, when you see a reduction in supply of housing and private rented housing, those who are most likely to be squeezed out of the market are at the lowest end of the income distribution and those at the highest risk of homelessness. Crisis runs a help-to-rent scheme where we support people who are currently experiencing homelessness into the rented sector through deposit guarantee schemes and that sort of thing. There is a worry here that it becomes more difficult to support those people experiencing homelessness into tenancies. I would also argue that the best and most targeted way to help people at the lowest end of the market is through more targeted support, through discretionary housing payments, through the tenant grant fund. I think that there are ways that we could make that much more targeted at those who need it most. There are people who have already asked to come in, but if something has already been said in the interests of time, you do not need to come in. Arron, John Kerr, sorry about that. Time is an issue. Arron, come on. I will be as quick as I can on this. I think that this is fundamental because the bill will give powers to two ministers to extend the legislation. I think that we need to be really clear on what the criteria would be for extending any cap. We have been pressing officials and ministers on this. We would expect to see data on rent arrears, we would expect to see data on eviction and homelessness and all those sorts of things that might fall into that, as well as the wider what is the impact of the cost of living crisis having. It is really important that we also consider things such as the number of starts, the number of applications for affordable housing grant to monitor the wider impact on what is going on. The issues that Caroline Lethers has pointed to are market failure. There is a danger that that does not help to stop stressing that market failure. We need to be sure that we have the whole picture and the whole picture of evidence for the impact. Arron and John Kerr, just the one thing I would add in terms of the responsible nature of particularly social landlords, as I spoke earlier about the consultations that will be starting. Government will have a full stream of information about what the proposed rent increases if there are to be rent increases across social landlords. I think that that is a crucial bit of evidence prior to if the Government is going to make a decision whether it requires any additional intervention in the market after April 23 to see the responsibility of landlords in terms of keeping their rents as low as possible, while still sitting delivering high-quality services and still sitting delivering the investment in both new and existing stock. Thank you for that. Does anyone else want to come in on the question of what we need to monitor to understand the impact? Can I just see if there is anyone else that wants to come in before I bring you back in? Anybody else? Anyone online? John Blackwood and then Timothy and then Emma. I know that I know that she wants to come back in. John, Timothy and then Emma. I will bring you back in if it has not been covered. I think that one thing that would be what is monitoring is the market and the availability of new accommodation for rent. We could easily do that by monitoring the portals, for instance, that market property, seek evidence from tenants and landlords and letting agents, so that they can share their experiences as to how difficult it is to find accommodation and, indeed, from those who are supplying accommodation what they are experiencing. From my understanding, there is no monitoring of that data. I will keep it brief. The point about advertised rents versus actual rents achieved is important and crucial, whether there is intel that can be obtained from tribunal rulings relating to rent. I think that the final point is in the legislation. It says around three months' reporting from the Scottish Government and the Minister. It is just whether that or assumed that will be made public, that information in terms of decisions going forward. Great. Thanks very much. Emma. I think around the rent database to emphasise that we really, really need it and it can be accessed potentially as well through deposit schemes that have information around rents because deposits are linked to rent and or the landlord register. The other thing that would be important for us to monitor is a rent-to-income ratio, especially as we are not seeing income rise as well as rent-to-income-and-bills ratio. Great. Thanks very much for that. I think that I said that I would come back to you. Just that tiny addition was that we had 10 million committed to the tenant grant fund and that it is very unclear how that is currently being spent. We have heard that that eligibility for the tenant grant fund is going to be extended and it is not clear how. I think that we just need to monitor the spending of that very carefully. I think on that. There are over 1,000 refusals to that scheme to date, so I think that we need to understand why that was the case. Okay. Great. Thanks very much. Thanks Paul. I'm going to move on to Mark. Thanks Camila. I just draw members' attention to my register of interest as an owner of a private entity property in North Lanarkshire council area. Just to continue on from Paul McLennan's question, perhaps direct this to Aaron and John Blackwood. When we are looking at the review period and the option to extend the rent freeze or not, I just wonder whether you consider whether there should be a separation of social and private sector given the different legal regulatory environments that both sectors work in, whether that should be a separate review and decision of both sectors. Camila Arden, first. Yeah, thanks. I think they absolutely do need to be separate. I think, as I said at the start of my evidence, rents in the social and housing sector are around half of that in the private rented sector. I think that the key question for me is who benefits. I talked earlier about what some of the measures might be for measuring that. When social rents were cut by 1 per cent in England in 2015, the IFS carried out some work to look at who ultimately benefited from that change. The conclusion of the IFS was that there was little benefit to tenants and enormous benefit to the exchequer. We need to look at that decision in that context. It is important that the legislation gives mechanisms for varied caps across sectors that reflect the different economic circumstances that affect them. That said, we cannot take for granted that the action must be one that is taken to allow for social landlords to continue to provide services that support tenants. We recognise the pressures that face tenants, and it is really important that we are able to continue to fund those services. If we are not able to increase rent moderately into next year, there is a chance that some of the important services that will help tenants to the cost of living crisis are those that suffer. To add to that point, there will be a decoupling of the issues between social landlords and private landlords. Private landlords are affected in a very different way through the cost of living increase, not least because of rising interest rates and how that will affect their mortgages. There are different and very concerning issues for private individuals renting out property as opposed to housing associations and local authorities. Any further assessment would need to look at all those variances in the housing that is provided in the social sector and in the private rented sector. One more question on whether the freeze is extended beyond the 31st of March, directed probably towards Arn and John Kerr. You have talked about accepting the situation as in almost a caveated acceptance of a freeze up to the 31st of March, but a real dramatic impact on investment programmes if it were to be frozen beyond the 31st. Just to ask John Kerr and Arn whether you feel that any decision to extend beyond should be accompanied by financial assistance to the social sector to maintain the essential supply site programmes and also programmes to support tenants through the cost of living crisis. I'll be quite brief and just guess his answer to that question. I think that my caveat would be that if it were to be extended beyond the 31st of March, it's not just in year 1 that the impact is felt financially by the business, it's across the length of the business plan. Actually intervention and support from Scottish Government, while it would be welcome, would only mitigate that year by year, it doesn't save the impact over the course of the business plan. Even if that financial assistance were forthcoming, there is still an impact and still likely to be less delivery as a result of the 30 years of a housing association business. I think that we'll just come in quickly and build on what John Black would have said about the variances. We must remember the environment that private landlords are operating in, high cost to buy to let property through the additional surcharges that have increased, higher interest rates, high tax on rental or income, they can no longer offset interest mortgage costs, changes to the wear and tear allowance and the removal of the mandatory grounds for possession and the impending energy efficiency costs. All those things are playing into the cost factor for private landlords going forward. Good morning to the panel. Thank you for joining us this morning. We've heard, I think, everybody talk about unintended consequences to this bill, and I just wondered, given your expertise, if there is any international example which hasn't resulted in fewer private let's, a slump in building of affordable homes, increased in future rents and more homelessness. I'm not overly familiar with the academic literature on, well, not all of the academic literature on rent policy anyway, but I think that these are important issues to consider an important question to ask, maybe it's one that you can ask the minister later. From a crisis perspective, our policy on rents, particularly in the private sector, has always been that we should introduce a limit on annual rent increases linked to an inflation remeasure. Now, at a time when inflation is approaching 10%, it begs the question, is CPI or RPI the right measure to link rents to? I think we're more and more thinking that wage growth is a much more effective way to think about how this is actually affecting the people who live in those tendencies. Transitioning out of this emergency legislation, we're going to need some longer term policy. We've seen a commitment to introducing a national system of rent controls. We need to consider what that needs to look like and make sure that there's more permanent housing bill that is coming down the line to put in place that policy and do the proper consultation that needs to happen to ensure that. Thank you for that. I know that in Ireland, where they've put in place a similar scheme, we've seen a 30% increase in homelessness. I wonder if anyone else from the panel wants to come in on consequences in different countries that they are aware of? If I can be a bit not facetious, but I guess in the UK you had 70 years of rent controls and that was the 70 years when building supply was at its highest if I'm correct in my UK history. So I would say it is about sort of having a clear plan around supply, but rent controls are also a key plan of delivering affordable housing and so I think it is a bit sort of a false argument to oppose both. They should be working together in terms of how can we deliver affordable homes across Scotland. Thanks for that and Aaron would like to come in on this as well. I'm not aware of any academic evidence of that sort, but I think that we don't have to look far to England or Wales where there are systems of social rent controls in place. These are familiar across the UK, but they have impacts. Scotland traditionally, as Scottish Housing Association has been able to borrow at lower rates, as we've not had given the intervention in this area. If you look at the lending in Scotland, Scottish Housing Association is often lower than comparable organisations in England Wales and that means that we can set lower rents because the rate that we're paying for finance is lower. So the cost of government intervention is higher cost of borrowing and that ultimately means that we can build less. The answer is probably no and similar to the previous or Aaron Hill said not aware of anything. I suppose in a way is the elephant in the room, the rent pressure zones in Scotland that have been now paused through the legislation. Why haven't they been utilised? Local authorities were given the autonomy to run the tenant hardship fund through Covid, so they're on the ground knowing what's going on in their boroughs and areas, but no rent pressure zones are in play in Scotland. I just wanted to comment on the point about rent pressure zones in particular. I think that one of the main reasons that rent pressure zones were never introduced was because there's a lack of—like the level of data required to introduce one was very high and we don't have the data currently. Going back to Emma's point before, I think that the collection of data on rents is really crucial to inform all of us in terms of our policy decisions around this. I agree with that, but it also feels like the horse might have bolted in terms of what that provides us for people who are withdrawing private rented properties in the future. Yes, thank you. Adding to that point as well too, I think that there's always a danger of looking at international comparisons because we're never really looking at a like-for-like system. In those different countries we have different systems of taxation, different attitudes to living and housing condition and accommodation, and attitudes to home ownership as well too, so we have to take all of that into consideration. I think that those things we can learn, certainly from what we know from our research of it, is that any kind of rent control effectively increases rent. That might not be a bad thing. It's maybe what we need to be looking at in Scotland is creating some kind of rent stabilisation as opposed to control. There's many ways of actually dealing with rising costs, which are incurred by the landlord as well as the tenant, and also making sure that the rent return is sustainable in the long term for investors. It's always interesting to look at what happens in other parts of the country. Supply is really other parts of the world, sorry. Supply is really, really important. We must never lose sight of that. The unintended consequence is that we will drive investors out of Scotland and there will be fewer and fewer properties available to rent. That's what we need to avoid at all costs. Thank you for that. I wanted to move on to the issue with regard to exemptions that we've now seen within the bill. I wondered in terms of what seems to be quite a substantial set of exemptions, including substantial rent arrears being included as a factor. What the panel's view was on the potential impact of that as exemptions. I wanted to specifically ask with regard to the repossession of a property by a bank, for example, if that would result in that property being able to be sold but an actual individual not being able to. Whether or not the panel will have any views on that. There is evidence to suggest that landlords are struggling with mortgage repayments. I think that Citizens Advice Scotland released some data that said that visits to their advice page on mortgages had increased by 270 per cent in a year. That is worrying. Particularly if it's by to let mortgages, if repossessions are being sought by the lender, it puts the tenant at risk of homelessness potentially. It's worth exploring whether, in terms of that exemption, whether the tenant could stay in the property even if ownership changes hands. We've only seen the bill at five o'clock last night, so there hasn't been a huge amount of time to consider that in detail, but I know that it's something that others in the sector are exploring, including our friends at Shelter Scotland as well. On repossession, I think that we believe that it's really, really important to encourage the sale with a sitting tenant, and that already happens. For local authorities to have a first buy-back in order to increase local authority housing stock at different valuations. That requires more money from the Scottish Government to enable council housing to buy-back stock. John Blackwood, do you want to come in on that? Yes, thank you. I certainly welcome the exemptions that are in the bill. It's pleasing for me to see them in there in the sense that the Minister for Tenant Rights has taken on board some of the concerns that we expressed on behalf of landlords and letting agents to ensure that their interests would be represented in the bill. I thank the Minister for Tenant Rights for considering and putting in the bill interests of landlords and how their interests could be safeguarded in the long-term. I think that there are other issues that we need to have in there. For instance, notices that have already been issued prior to 6 September should be exempt. We should be honouring those notices so that the tribunal can take them into consideration and, as I said, they should be exempt from the current bill data. Overall, that is all about, as I say, encouraging investment, keeping landlords in the sector. I do not really see that the Government should be encouraging people to get into debt. We could have a situation here very, very soon where landlords cannot afford to pay their mortgages. Of course, it is not just about mortgage costs. The cost of living means labour, costs have gone up, parts have gone up, so maintenance of properties is much more expensive now than it ever was. That is important that landlords maintain their properties properly. Going forward, this is going to be more of a challenge. Some of those landlords could very soon find themselves in financial difficulty and they need to take action, ultimately, to sell that property in the exit of the sector. What we are seeing with the exemptions, whilst they are welcome, is that they do not go far enough to protect those landlords' interests. We could see a scenario here where a landlord could be in debt and they cannot do anything about it legally because of this bill for an excess of 12 months. That is unacceptable, so we need to be looking at the timescales as to how those exemptions will apply and how landlords are supported as a result of them. Just to build on what John has said, we welcome the exemptions as much as we can, but just to provide a bit of insight and data on some landlord notice requests. One of our large letting agencies in Scotland managed just over 3,000 tenancies across Scotland. In 2021, landlord notice requests 16 for arrears, but landlord selling 66 notices. In 2022, today, up to 22 September, 18 notice requests for arrears, 69 landlord selling, and landlord selling request is up from 33 in 2020. John has alluded to, and others, all roads lead back to supply and, of course, selling is one of the exemptions. I have time for a very short final question with regard to what is the 0 per cent cap initially being proposed. The Scottish Housing Federation of Housing Associations suggested that, on average, 3.2 per cent was likely to be the increase across your members. In the future, when this is lifted by government, what level of increase will you then expect for members to recoup what will be a significant hit on finances for providing day-to-day running of the organisation, repairs and also future 10-year plans around affordable housing developments? Aaron has specifically mentioned your organisation, so I am happy to start with you. I think that the 3.2 per cent figure was for last year's rent increases for 2021-22. As I said earlier, that was below inflation at the time, which was set significantly below inflation. I have not got a figure that I can easily point to, but we were talking to our members around rent increases in the four, five or six per cent region significantly below what was anticipated to be inflation of anywhere between 12 per cent and 18 per cent at that point. We are not looking at massive rent increases. I think that it is really important when we come back to how those rent increases are paid. Around 70 per cent of the rent bill in social housing is paid for by benefits. There is already significant targeted work for self-payers and for those who are in work or not in receipt of universal credit or housing benefit. Were we to be in a position where rents could increase from 1 April, it would be a moderate increase that would largely be paid for by the Treasury. There is something here about that investment from the UK Government into Scotland, into Scottish homes and Scottish communities. To forego a rent increase would mean Scotland losing out on investment from the Treasury. It is also an important point that the Treasury in its considerations at the moment around universal credit needs to make sure that benefits upgrading reflect the true cost of living here so that we do not end up with a squeeze on both sides. However, any rent increase that follows would be moderate. I think that what is really important for us is that we are working with ministers, we are working with officials at the moment to work out what the situation looks like post 1 March. The sector has an offer to make on the cost of living. It has an offer to make on lots of the action that we take with tenants and with communities, but it requires that moderate small rent rise to allow that to happen. Emma, you would like to come in? I just wanted to come in around the rent consultation that was mentioned by Erin. We see a lot of variation between housing associations and it would be very good to have a standard of best practice around that. In some of the biggest housing associations, where there are about 85,000 tenants, there are 1,343 tenants who responded to the consultation and only 738 tenants who said that they were in favour of a rent increase. If you look at 85,000 people versus 730 people saying that they are in favour of a rent increase, that shows very low participation rate. That is in one of the largest housing associations. There are other housing associations that do that much better. There are really interesting things around best practices around consultations that should be shared and, potentially, enforced a bit more. Before I hand back, it is worth putting on the record that last week we passed the tenants charter to look at how that could be improved. That will obviously bypass that for associations and councils. That work has also now been put to one side to give tenants that voice. Thanks, Miles. Now, I will move on to questions from Marie McNair. Thanks, convener, and good morning panel. It's great to see you this morning. Thanks for your time. I'm going to cover an eviction moratorium and I'll pose my first question to living rent in crisis. To what extent is the proposed eviction moratorium needed to protect tenants from the current cost crisis? I know that we've covered it slightly. The moratorium is needed just for the simple fact that people can't afford to eat and eat their homes, let alone pay rent as well. It's just not doable to do all of it. Having a rent moratorium just gives people that extra bit of security knowing that they're not going to lose their home. It's also the fact that, by giving that security, it will also help mental and physical health, not having to worry about it, maybe being able to spend a bit more on heating. I'm aware that that could potentially end up leading to rent areas. However, it's cold. People need to stay warm, they need to stay healthy, and they need to be secure. If the moratorium isn't put in place, then people are going to lose their homes. As has already been pointed out many times, there is no temporary accommodation and too many people are in homelessness already. The system can't take any more, so the moratorium is just really important. I couldn't put it better than Caroline has herself in terms of why this is important at this particular moment in time. We think that much longer-term support is needed and we need to change the system, how the system responds to people who are at risk of eviction and, importantly, at risk of homelessness, because those aren't the same thing—not everyone who faces eviction faces homelessness. We think that, rather than delaying the period in which a landlord is seeking to repossess a property, it is more important to introduce a stronger focus on the role of both social and private landlords in working with tenants to prevent homelessness through advice and support that is provided to tenants and landlords to prevent the situation from deteriorating towards eviction. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the prevention of homelessness duties is a real opportunity to do that. There is some really good work that has been carried out by SFHA on how landlords can do more to help to sustain tenancies. It's worth being aware that it's a relatively small proportion of evictions that, as a result of renteries—I'm talking about the social sector here in particular—there are a lot of other reasons why people lose their tenancies or abandon their tenancies around antisocial behaviour, relationship breakdown, and a lot of different things there. We shouldn't just be focusing on the financial situation in terms of what drives people to that position. I want to pick up on that point around sustaining tenancies. I totally agree. It's all in the set-up. Unlike other parts of the UK, the PRT, private residential tenants agreement, is a written tenancy. It's pretty robust. It sets out the rights and responsibilities. Any letting agent landlord-worth assault will do a check-in, check-out report, inventory. It will keep regular communications and check-ins with the tenants, keep all invoices, all written communication. It will do a welcome pack. Housekeeping advice and contact in emergency. There is a lot going on that already exists to sustain tenancies that agents and landlords are working hard to do. I think that it's really important that the two aspects of the bill work together, because, given the loophole around in-between tenancy increases, if we don't have protections against evictions, tenants will be evicted so landlords can increase the rent in between tenancies. The second thing we wanted to say is really around enforcement and avoiding that unlawful eviction, so abuse of a ground for eviction or illegal eviction and really enforcing that, so it's not attractive to do an illegal eviction. The last thing is this is very much about the enforcement, so the eviction orders. We see a lot of tenants feeling very stressed just by having a notice. During Covid times, one thing that happened was an increased notice period for eviction, and we think that that was incredibly helpful for tenants, because most tenants leave after being sort of noticed, not after receiving an eviction order. I'm just going to bring in John Kerr and then Aaron and then Timothy. Thank you. It's just to make a quick brief point and I agree with everyone that's been said in terms of the eviction auditorium, but I think it's crucial that with that there is direct assistance to tenants who are struggling both in terms of what's been mentioned before the tenant support grant but also what myself and Aaron specifically have mentioned in terms of what social landlords do at present in terms of direct financial assistance to tenants who are struggling. There is an allowance that that can still continue to ensure over the period of eviction auditorium that we're not just kicking the can down the road, so people are still racking up quite high levels of debt going forward. That's quite crucial as well that direct assistance is available. Thank you. Thanks John and Aaron. Yeah, I think I would agree with what John said there. I think that the general point around evictions auditoriums, it is of less concern than the action on rent, but that doesn't make it straightforward. During the pandemic housing associations committed not to evict anybody in rent areas who was engaging with their landlord, and the work that Rhiannon's pointed to around tenancy sustainment is really important, so we're working with our members to really drive good practice, share examples of what works in that space and have worked with crisis and others to create a toolkit to help them to do that, so the focus has to be on tenancy sustainment. There's a really small number of people who evicted for rent areas from housing association properties and it is absolutely always as a last resort, so that focus on tenancy sustainment is really important. The exemptions that were mentioned earlier are critical for community cohesion, so ensuring that personal safety when it comes to the things like domestic abuse and NASB are able to be guaranteed, that's really, really important and it's what we don't use sight of that within the bill. Thanks Aaron and Timothy, you wanted to come in. Yeah, thank you. Just to pick up again on the unlawful evictions point, well there's already large fines that can be issued, I think it's imprisonment for two years. Again with the PRT there's an easy read and supporting notes and of course the first tier tribunal access is free to use and I think the final point is around the monitoring. Well we are moving towards, since 1 October, the discretionary grounds are in play anyway, which I think were deemed an emergency measure but have come to the norm. Great, thanks for that point. Marie, I'll just go back to John Kerr. Obviously John, you're saying you're supportive of the eviction monitorium. Are there any circumstances where an eviction should be allowed and if so, why? John Kerr. Yeah, I think Aaron touched on it in terms of the exemptions, so the eviction is around about sick community cohesion and when there's a link up to a degree of safety in such terms, anti-social grounds, domestic abuse and those like, thankfully, are covered in such terms in the legislation that's going forward. I think that what we're talking about here is the financial element and I think at the moment in such terms of the pressures in the homelessness system that's already been mentioned, a pause in such terms of evictions until March 23 is to be welcomed, notwithstanding that those exemptions are in place, I think it's crucial that those can still take place to ensure safety of individuals going forward. Thank you. Thank you. One final question. I'll direct that to John Blackwood. What is the impact of eviction monitorium on landlord's likely to be? Have you any evidence from anywhere on eviction monitorium that would be addressed to the committee? Well, I think that, as my colleagues in the panel have emphasised, I think that it's important that we all try and work together to sustain tendencies and ultimately that's what a private landlord wants. They don't want to evict a tenant, so we really need to look at ways in which we can encourage landlords to work with their tenants and tenants with their landlords, as I say, to sustain the tenants' long term. We've got good examples of how that worked during the pandemic, so we were pleasantly surprised and encouraged the tenants being able to afford to pay their rent and landlords to be able to work with their tenants in order to make sure that those tendencies didn't break down. I think that that's really, really important. We have a role to play in organisations, as I'm sure everybody on the panel here has, to work together to help to sustain those tendencies. From a private landlord's point of view, what's important to remember is that they're not big corporate organisations, they're individuals with one or two properties, and the cost of living increase in them could actually make the difference between them wanting to continue to rent that property or effectively sell that property. We need to make sure that there's appropriate mitigations in place to support them. I think that the exemptions are welcome, and, as I've already said, we welcome them within the bill, but we need to look a bit more closely once we've had a bit more time to go through the bill as to the practical implications of that. How long, in essence, would it take a landlord, in extreme circumstances, to repossess that property if they needed to sell it? I'm afraid that that's what it could come through. With interest rates rising the way we expect them to be, lots of landlords might be in a position of saying, sorry, I just cannot afford to have this rental property anymore. We have to be prepared for that. I was asking what the impact on eviction moratorium would be for landlords. We want to maybe add a bit more on to that. It's about investor confidence that I mentioned earlier. Lots of landlords—they are investors, and I always say that landlords who invest obviously in property are reluctant investors, and we've just seen, as a result of interventions from the UK Government and their policy decisions over the past couple of weeks, how investors there have felt really nervous, and we're seeing that here in Scotland in the private rented sector. Over the last month, landlords have been literally running to the hills. Rather than putting my property back on the market for rent, I'm just going to put it on the market for sale now. We want to avoid that happening. We want to encourage them to stay. One of the biggest issues for landlords is if they are wondering whether they will ever be able to repossess the property. If my tenant doesn't pay rent, can I ever move back into the property? Will I be able to sell it? Those are big issues for investors, and we need to come some of these landlords. I would like to bring in Eleanor Wittam with questions. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the panel. A lot of my questions have already been asked, but I have one round about data, so we've already discussed the nature of the fact that we've got a lot of data gaps, and hopefully a housing bill will help us to sort that out, but particularly focused on social justice. We do know that individuals who are facing the worst brunt of the cost crisis tend to be women, people who have disabilities, people from black and minority ethnic communities. I wonder how we ensure that we collect the data that we need to understand how the intervention is—I hear people calling it a sticking plaster, and emergency situations are often only a sticking plaster that we can apply—but how do we make sure that those people who need it most benefit from the policy, considering that we do not generally collect disaggregated gendered data? We do not understand the intersectionality all the time and how policies are applied. It has also been mentioned with regards to the tenant grant fund and discretionary housing payments. How do we ensure that the Scottish welfare fund is applied effectively? Who collects this data, and how do we make sure that we get the intended outcome? I do not know if I can ask Rianon about that, or perhaps in Caroline from the perspective of tenants in your organisations. Those are really important questions to be asking. I am not sure that I have any solutions right now, but it is certainly something that I would be keen to come back to you on in terms of what kinds of data we need to collect to know which households in particular benefit and who is missing out. I do think that it goes back to that question of how we make sure that the targeted support available to increase people's incomes is going to those households that we know are at highest risk of poverty—the households that are at the front of the Scottish Government's tackling child poverty action plan. Those at-risk households need to be the ones that we are protecting the most. I will come back to you on that. For me, it would be communication. There is an overemphasis on everything being online and in English. Providing more information in other forms and providing it in different languages means that more people will be able to access the help that they need, specifically those groups. I also know that, in Edinburgh, and I am sure in other areas of the country, there are a lot of organisations and trusts and charities who specifically work with the demographics that you are talking about and who will be responding and helping out individuals from those communities. I would suggest contacting them and finding out who they are seeing and what the concerns are and what help has been asked for. I think that there is a lot of information out there. It is just speaking to the right people to get it. Thank you, and Aaron, you would like to come on in on this question too. I think that while we can always improve data across the board when it comes to Government, there is a role for the Scottish Housing Regulatory here in terms of the data that it captures. Housing associations have already undertaken an exercise to understand the protected characteristics within their organisation, which will help to inform policy in a way that hopefully addresses some of the issues that you have raised. When it comes to the red consultations, which I touched on, the point that you made earlier is that that can be better and that consultation can be wider. Within that, there is targeted outreach. Within rent consultations, within wider tenant engagement, there is targeted outreach for many organisations to communities and to groups with protected characteristics to help to identify where it can be taken. All of the rent decisions that are taken by housing associations are informed by a significant amount of data. SFH8 provides an affordability tool that plugs in lots of Government, DWP and other data to ensure that decisions are informed and are taken in a way that allows us to ameliorate some of the worst accesses of the challenges that we are facing. Thanks, Aaron. John Blackwood, you indicated that you wanted to come in. Yes, I think that we had some experience of this during the pandemic where landlords were saying that they were often the first people to hear of the tenants struggling to not just pay their rent but pay their bills and live. Those landlords were really unsure as to how to sign posts to their tenants and how to support their tenants. When they were approaching local advice agencies, for instance, to access different welfare funds, which we were telling them could be available to their tenants, they were saying that they weren't getting anywhere because they were being told that it had to be the tenant that approached them in the first instance. I think that there needs to be more joined up thinking about appropriate sign posting and supporting tenants through these difficult times. Landlords are key to that because they will be the person who has the good relationship with the tenant to be able to say, I know where you need to go. There is a requirement of the landlord to do that through the pre-action requirements when it comes to dealing with rent arrears, but there is still some lack of joined up thinking, I would say, as to how we can best support all parties to make sure that support is given to the tenants and, in particular, those in need at that time. Thank you very much for that. I hope that you were able to convey to us everything that you really wanted to convey. I now suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow for a change of witnesses. We are now joined for our second session on the emergency legislation on a rent freeze and moratorium on evictions by the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants Rights. I welcome Mr Harvey to the meeting. Mr Harvey is accompanied today by Scottish Government officials, Amanda Caligan, who is the head of private housing services, James Hamilton, who is a lawyer from the Scottish Government legal directorate, Adam Kravchik, who is the head of housing homelessness and regeneration analysis, and Shazia Razak, who is the strategic lead on university policy governance and equalities. Before I open up the session to questions from members, I invite Mr Harvey to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to colleagues across the committee. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to speak on the cost of living tenant protection Scotland bill, which we introduced to Parliament yesterday, and for the committee agreeing to take evidence at what I know is very short notice. My colleagues and I also listened to the first panel of witnesses, and I'm grateful to all those who contributed to the debate. As members are aware, the emergency bill aims to provide critical temporary protection for people who rent their homes. We know that tenants, on average, have lower household incomes, higher levels of poverty and are more vulnerable to economic shocks. 63 per cent of social rented households and 40 per cent of private rented households don't have enough savings to cover even a month of income at the poverty line. That's compared to 24 per cent of households buying with a mortgage and 9 per cent who own outright. So tenants are particularly exposed to the cost crisis. With that context in mind, the bill has three key aims. First, to protect tenants stabilising their household costs by freezing rent, then to reduce the impact of evictions and homelessness through a moratorium on evictions, and finally to avoid tenants being evicted from the private rented sector by a landlord wanting to raise rents between tenancies through the temporary measures and reduce unlawful evictions. The provisions are intended to be in place until 31 March, in the first instance, and Scottish ministers can, with approval by Parliament, extend for two further six-month periods, should circumstances and evidence show that to be necessary. Similar to the approach to the coronavirus emergency legislation, the on-going necessity and proportionality of the provisions will be reviewed and reported on. Regulation to suspend or expire any provision that is no longer appropriate must be brought forward. I know that time is limited. I want to give a very brief overview of the main provisions in the bill. The rent freeze, first of all, we intend to achieve that by setting a variable cap on the level of increases in rents initially set at 0 per cent until 31 March next year. It will operate separately for the social and private rented sectors and will apply to all rent increases and notices served on or after 6 September, the day of the programme for government announcement. To reflect the various circumstances that landlords might face, we have allowed for applications to increase rent for prescribed and legitimate costs associated with offering the property for rent when those costs have increased. Rises are restricted to a maximum of 3 per cent of rent, although ministers will have the power, subject again to parliamentary scrutiny, to propose a change to that percentage. Recognising that some of the most economically vulnerable people live in the social rented sector, we believe that it is an important signal of equal protection to cover both sectors. However, to reflect the critical differences in the nature and structure of the social rented sector, we are already working closely with the sector to consider what should happen after 31 March. On the moratorium on eviction, we intend to prevent the enforcement eviction action in the private and social rented sector and in college university halls of residence and purpose belt student accommodation. Those restrictions will apply to all eviction orders issued in proceedings raised after the moratorium comes into force. It will also apply to proceedings raised before the moratorium comes into force where the eviction notice was served on or after 6 September. The moratorium will not apply to eviction orders granted in proceedings before this legislation came into force. That will ensure that no one is evicted in a case started after or as a result of the programme for government announcement. Recognising again that the cost crisis is also impacting on some landlords, we have allowed for specific limited exemptions to deal with serious cases of antisocial or criminal behaviour, substantial levels of rent arrears or property being repossessed and sold by a mortgage lender. Convenant, we know that the majority of landlords are law abiding and responsible and are appalled and frustrated at those landlords who try to bypass the law to evict people unfairly. So to guard against this, the bill also makes important changes to the way in which civil damages can be awarded for unlawful evictions, making it easier for tenants to challenge them and less attractive for landlords to carry them out by substantially increasing the potential damages. Finally, the rent adjudication provisions in the bill look ahead to a time when hopefully we will be transitioning out of the emergency measures as the economic circumstances change and this part of the bill gives the power to adjust the adjudication process to avoid a clip edge effect and again that will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. So to summarise, convener, the legislation we're proposing will help keep people in their homes and help stabilise their housing costs during this extraordinary cost crisis. We believe the package of measures strikes the right balance between this aim and ensuring landlords can continue to offer properties for rent and manage tenancies sustainably. So I look forward to your questions and the discussion. Thank you very much for that opening statement and for outlying kind of high level of what the bill is intended to do. We had a very constructive session this morning and I think it was made even more so because of the advanced publishing of the bill so that people were participating were able to actually see what was contained. So I appreciate that that occurred. So it was quite a range of things that were covered. I think one of the things early on in the conversation came through from the social housing sector and so there's always that tension. I think that we have that conversation quite often here, the tension between the need for supply of housing, the retroverting piece and keeping tenancy affordable and I think one of the concerns that was raised by Aaron Hill in the previous session was the fact that suddenly Scotland has always enjoyed a good relationship with lenders in the social rented sector and that the lenders have been spooked by the announcement of this bill. Aaron talked about the need for certainty and sustainability going forward and he had also talked about the fact that you have already been working with him and I'd just be interested to hear about what you think about that concern and how we can ensure that the social housing sector has that stability so that it can meet that supply because additionally we heard from crisis that the homelessness issue is escalating and supply is part of the issue. Yes, first of all I was very pleased to see Aaron Hill acknowledge in I think one of his first answers that an emergency response is necessary and I think that that desire to protect tenants is shared between the Government and the sector itself. Social landlords are non-profit organisations that exist to provide affordable housing and we recognise that a huge amount is being asked of the sector generally in terms of provision of supply, in terms of maintenance and the retrofit agenda to address the net zero challenges that the whole Parliament has agreed are important. It is important to recognise that there are significant factors that operate differently in the social rented sector than the private rented sector. The existing requirements to consult with tenants on rent setting, the fact that rental income is reinvested in provision and in quality and of course not least the fact that a higher proportion of tenants in the social rented sector access benefits and so some of what would happen if there was a prolonged and extended rent freeze some of that would benefit not the tenants actually but the the UK treasury so we are conscious of all of these differences and more we're already working closely with the sector not only to reassure them but also to reassure their lenders that the government will take a proportionate and a responsible approach. SFHA and others have been invited to and agreed to participate in a short life task and finish working group that will look at these issues it's already begun meeting and those discussions have been very constructive. I know that there are some people in the social rented sector who have concerns but I've also spoken to many who actually see a positive opportunity to make sure that we're protecting tenants at what is a very very difficult time. No decision, as I said in Parliament last week, no decision has been made about what would happen to the cap after 31 March. We'll make that decision in a responsible way bearing in mind how the economic circumstances change over time but also the arguments and discussions that we take forward with the social rented sector. Thanks very much for that. I'd like to go into a little bit of detail around the rent freeze. One of the concerns that came up in the previous session was the fact that between tenancy increases, so the bill does not affect rent increases between tenancies and it'd be interesting to hear your thinking about that and the concern of how do we protect tenants who might be needing to move between tenancies and one situation that might take places for students but in other situations as well. Okay, so you're not thinking that it's still a bit the social rented sector, you? I'm talking in general, yeah. So the rent freeze measures do apply to end tenancy rent increases and the central reason for that is that that's the mechanism we already have in terms of challenging tenants' right to challenge unreasonable rent increases within the tenancy, the requirement for that to be only once a year in the private rented sector and with three months' notice. So it's very clear that we have the ability to intervene in a short period of time in response to the current emergency. There is, of course, the longer term argument, many questions of which were consulted on in the New Deal for Tenants consultation and which remain questions that we'll address in the longer term legislative work that the Government has in relation to the private rented sector. Okay, thanks for that. I'm going to move on to questions from Willie Coffey. Thanks very much, convener, and good morning, minister. You might have heard some of the contributions in the previous session suggesting that the proposal may in fact lead to a feeling that tenants don't have to pay their rent at all. It might give the green light to non-payment at all. I think that a couple of the contributors mentioned that, minister. Could I have your view on that and what the Scottish Government is thinking in that matter? Yes. In many ways, the suggestion is slightly akin to the idea that all landlords will take the most exploitative or opportunistic approach. I don't think that that's true. The majority of landlords will obey the law and not try to get around it. The majority of tenants will also meet their responsibilities. There's a concern that a minority might be tempted to stop paying their rent altogether even when they can afford it. That's one of the reasons why we thought long and hard about the exemptions from the eviction moratorium and decided on balance that there was a requirement to include severe rent arrears as an exempted grounds from the moratorium. In my view—we'll discuss that at length in the chamber this afternoon, of course—the kind of support that tenants with rent arrears need is different from the interventions in the rest of the system. They need direct support, as I think the witness from Crisis made this point this morning. They need direct support. Through the discretionary housing payments and the tenant grant fund, we have not only increased the amount of support that's available directly to tenants who are facing rent arrears, but also increased the flexibility in the way that it can be offered. We'll continue to look at how that might be developed further, but including that exemption from the moratorium, I think that we'll give some confidence to landlords that there won't be this incentive that, as I say, only a minority of people would ever be tempted to do that, but no incentive to simply stop paying rent altogether. I think that I remember hearing John Black would welcome that measure as well. Is the Government thinking about setting a level that would constitute substantial rent arrears? Is there some thinking in the bill that would give some comfort to private landlords should that situation arise? We're defining substantial rent arrears as up to or the equivalent of six months of rent in the private rented sector. We're using a specific figure that's at 2,250 in the social rented sector, which is roughly equivalent to six months average rent in the social rented sector. I was just saying that the average rent for PRS is not a specific figure, it's the six months, but it would be around 4,632. It's around six months of average PRS rent, so it's just to give you a ballpark. That's very helpful to clarify that point. It was really important at part of the previous discussion. My other question, if I may, was that previous contributors also said that, in circumstances where a landlord may find themselves going into debt as a result of the measures, they feel that they have no recourse to anything whatsoever to get themselves out of that debt. The question is posed about whether a landlord could sell their property under those circumstances or not. Could you clarify whether that is possible for a landlord who owns a property to sell that property during this period of the legislation? Yes, indeed. I think that it's important to acknowledge that landlords, particularly the private rented sector, are not all in the same kind of financial circumstances. Some are very large, very profitable, others, as John Blackwood was saying, are somewhere who's ended up for whatever reason, perhaps unintentionally, finding themselves letting out one or two properties. Some of them will be facing the cost of living crisis and worried about their own circumstances. We have included versions of the existing grounds for eviction, which had to do with the intention to sell or the intention to live in a property. However, the adapted version that we're including on a temporary basis in the emergency legislation is the intention to do that to address their own financial hardship, and we'll work with the tribunal on how that is implemented. Obviously, we don't want a landlord who would face the risk of severe debt or even homelessness themselves to be unable to take action. Those limited and prescribed forms of eviction grounds will be included, and you can see that in the text of the bill. That's really helpful, minister. Thank you very much. Thanks, Willie. Now, I'm going to move to questions from Paul McClellan. Yeah, thank you, convener. I'll obviously conscious of the time. I'll try and keep it to the one question. You've probably seen in the previous question, Minister, around about how should the Scottish Government monitor and impact the rent freeze and what factors does it need to consider on whether it extends the freeze beyond March 2023, and you've obviously touched on the longer-term legislative change. But it's really just on the fact how we're going to monitor this in the next six months, and I suppose that's something that really interests this committee, not only at the end of the six months but going through that six months as well. If you could discuss a little bit around how you see the Scottish Government doing that in the next six months. Yes, thank you. We've modelled some of the reporting requirements as well as the provisions on expiring or extending the provisions in the bill on a model that would be fairly familiar to those that followed the emergency coronavirus legislation. I think it's important to acknowledge, and this was discussed in the earlier panel as well, that we're doing this in a situation where we have not yet dealt with some of the longer-term work that needs to be done on data in the private rented sector in particular. Aaron Heller, I think, made the point that we have more data and the existence of the regulator collecting some of this data for the social rented sector. It's extremely useful. We don't have that in relation to the private rented sector, and that's one of the reasons why the Government has a long-term goal, not just of collecting more data and having the mechanisms and machinery in place to do that, but also of creating a regulator for the private rented sector. We will continue to monitor and report on the operation of the emergency legislation. I think that we're conscious that some of the data that's being collected in real-time is only going to come in as we're having to make decisions. We want to work very closely with stakeholders, including those in the private, social and student accommodation sectors, to make sure that our decisions are informed by their expertise. I suppose that it's supplementary. There's obviously the stakeholder. I hope that that would include the committee, because again, obviously it would be important for us not just to get to the end of the six months and then decide and discuss what our view is on that. I think it would be important for the committee to almost be kept. Probably something I would raise at the end of the discussions anyway, but from your point of view, I think it would really be useful and helpful if the committee could be kept up-to-date in regards to that as well, so we can discuss almost at that particular stage rather than at the end of the six months. That would be good to get that commitment from yourself if that was okay. I'm very happy to give that commitment. Obviously the bill specifies the reporting requirements on Government to Parliament, but we'd be very happy to have a discussion with the committee about what's the best way of making sure that the committee is involved in those discussions. Thank you very much, minister. I very much appreciate the elements in the bill that do have reporting requirements to Parliament. I'd like to bring in Mark Griffin. Thank you very much, minister. I have a question on the effective rent cap period. You said in your off-prem statement that the rent cap would apply to notices made on or after the sixth of the ninth this year. Does that mean that any notice given to a private tent before the sixth is still actionable and so can rent rises go ahead up until the fifth of December? What we've been most keen to avoid is rent increase notices being issued in response to the announcement of the rent freeze policy. That is what the First Minister committed to and what we have managed to achieve in this. Rent increase notices issued after that date will be covered by the rent cap. I don't think that it's possible to be more retrospective than that and go back in time to prevent rent increase notices that were issued in good faith in terms of the rules as they stood before that announcement was made. I recognise that there will be some people who will think that all those measures go far too far and are too interventionist. There will be others who think that they don't go far enough and that we should be able to do a lot more. We have the balance right in protecting tenants from rent increases that are prompted in response to the announcement but without doing what would be legally questionable and unfair in preventing the notices that were issued before that in good faith from having effect. Just to be clear, it's the Government's view that rent rises can legally go ahead up until 5 December. Rent increase notices that were issued before 6 September will not be covered by the cap. Just to talk about the other end of the freeze, is it the Government's understanding that a rent increase notification cannot be issued up to or including 31 March, meaning that any rent rise couldn't take effect until 1 July? The effective rent cap period would be 6 December to 1 July. Is my understanding correct on that? If the cap continues in place at 0 per cent until 31 March, which is our current intention, albeit that there is the power to remove those earlier or to extend it further, but if it remains 0 per cent until 31 March, a rent increase notice issued in that period would need to be consistent with that 0 per cent cap. Just for clarity, my understanding is that the effective rent cap period would be 6 December to 1 July, as long as no provisions were effectively repealed. I think that it's a matter of interpretation of what you mean by the rent increase notice, the rent freeze period. A rent increase notice under the previous legislation is the mechanism by which a landlord increases the rent. That action cannot take place inconsistent with the cap from 6 September onwards until or unless the cap is removed or changed. I'm just asking the questions purely on the basis of what a tenant would experience, what their practical experience would be better. I think that I've got clarity from the minister. It's worth adding that a large part of that is about the reassurance and stability that people need. From 6 September, as the First Minister said in announcing the programme for government, people can have confidence that they will not be issued with a rent increase notice that will go beyond the cap or, at least if they do, that means that their landlord will be acting unlawfully and there are provisions and measures that can give them redress in those circumstances. Okay, thank you. I'm now going to move to questions from Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Good morning to your officials as well. I wanted to ask a couple of short questions at the first with regards to legal competence. The minister, can you confirm if this legislation is ECHR article 1 compliant? Yes, the member is aware that the Government needs to satisfy ourselves on advice on that point and the Parliament indeed, the Presiding Officer, needs to be satisfied on that point of legal competence before a bill is introduced. Fab, thank you for that. Given the concerns that you have expressed previously about the unworkability of such a bill, do you expect a legal challenge to this bill? I haven't expressed concerns about the unworkability of this bill. I'm satisfied that this bill is compliant and consistent with devolved competence. The concerns that you expressed about Labour's proposals previously, what has changed in terms of what you have brought forward? As we discussed at some length in the chamber, what was proposed as a late amendment to coronavirus recovery and reform bill, whose purpose was to look at the coronavirus emergency legislation and decide which elements of it should be made permanent, a completely new provision was brought in there, which would have been amended to a near-blanket rent freeze for a period of two years. As I think we debated in the chamber, there was very little argument brought forward from the member behind that amendment to suggest that that was legally competent in terms of ECHR compliance. I think that approach would have been much more clearly subject to a legal challenge. I am confident that we are bringing forward a bill now, which not only responds to an emergency situation in an appropriate way, but also in a balanced way that reflects the interests and circumstances of both landlords and tenants. Thank you for that. I wanted to ask about the levels of rent. During the pandemic, many landlords did reduce rents to help sustain tenancies. In terms of the legislation, does that cover the rents that were reduced or contracted levels of rent? People who have currently seen a 20 per cent discount in rent, is it the contracted level that you expect to be covered or the reduced level? A rent increase notice needs to tell a tenant how much the landlord intends to change the rent from the current rent level. Rent increase notices during this period will have to be consistent with the cap as it stands at any particular time—0 per cent initially—with the potential to change it. There are, of course, some flexibilities built in, particularly where landlords are facing increased costs that are out with their control as a result of letting the property available for rent. Those increased costs will be within clearly defined limits, which are 50 per cent of the increased costs and a total of 3 per cent of existing rent. Rent increase notices have to be issued in that way in terms of their relationship to existing rent. Thank you for that. In terms of housing associations who are providing supported accommodation for vulnerable groups, what specifically will be within the bill for them? They have additional costs to support residents, which is often built into rent increases. Has there been a discussion with the sector around that and the additional costs that they will be facing? I mean, I would come back to the earlier points made about engagement with the social rented sector. The social rented sector not only operates in a different way than the private rented sector around reinvestment of rents, around the consultation mechanisms for rent setting and so on, but it also provides a wider range of services. All of these things, as well as the investment in supply and quality, need to be protected, and we will engage actively with the social rented sector well ahead of any decision. In fact, that active engagement is already under way, and we will make sure that we take account of all of those circumstances. Nobody—neither the Government nor tenants nor indeed the social rented sector itself—would want to endanger those services. In terms of exemptions, for clarity, substantial rent arrears, what that meant in law is something that we need more clarity on, specifically with regards to where ministers would see that sitting. Is it three months, which I think is what is outlined in the bill of non-payment of rent? What we have set in the bill is, as I said earlier to Willie Coffey, six months in relation to the private rented sector and a specific figure, which is roughly equivalent to six months of social rent in the social rented sector. Thank you for that, and that is helpful. Just finally, convener, I put this question to the earlier panel, because looking internationally around the world and where rent freezes or rent caps have been put in place, the unintended consequences, which the minister has said he is aware of, are quite severe from fewer private rents, from a slumping of the building and construction of affordable homes, increased rents when properties are coming to market and more homelessness if we look to Ireland at a 30 per cent increase in homelessness. Is the minister concerned at all about what that will potentially do to the housing sector in Scotland, which is already in a very vulnerable position? I think that we should all be concerned about the impact of housing policy and legislation on the housing sector, on the housing systems that exist within our society. We should be concerned about provision and about quality. We should also be concerned about the rights and the experience that people have as tenants. One of the goals longer term of the Government is to close the gap in outcomes between the social and private rented sectors, because we regard adequate housing as a human right, and that is the goal that we have. Over the long term in the past, there has been an increase in regulation in the private rented sector, and that has gone alongside a substantial increase in the size of the private rented sector. The member mentions some countries, but perhaps we can all choose the comparisons that we make selectively. There are other European countries with a higher level of regulation and, indeed, long-standing systems of rent controls, which have an even bigger private rented sector than Scotland. That can be done properly and responsibly to ensure that we raise standards and ensure that there is protection for tenants' rights, at the same time as making sure that our housing systems have adequate supply and good quality. Given your title, and it is a long title, net zero is one of the key projects that you have been working on that Parliament has been discussing. Most of the social housing sector is already warning that rewriting their 10-year plans will impact on investment in that area. Where do you think that that will now be impacted? If they cannot bring this income and plan that expenditure, that could be the first casualty of this, that these projects do not take place to retrofit, decarbonise and work towards net zero. I come back again to the point that I made earlier, that the intention of setting a zero per cent cap until the end of March does not, in fact, have a direct impact on rental income in the social rented sector, because they do not have constant in-year rent increases that tends to happen at the start of the financial year. We are working closely with the sector to understand all of the implications about the way they work, about the impact that any future decision on the rent cap would have on their business model, and working with them to give assurance and confidence to their lenders. The investment in probation of affordable social housing in repairs and maintenance and in net zero, as well as the other services that Miles Briggs rightly highlights in his earlier question, are all important points of common ground between Government, political parties and the social rented sector. In the interests of tenants as well, we need to recognise that the net zero investment is something that is absolutely in their interests. I have spoken to social rented tenants who are paying peanuts for their energy bills now after seeing not just energy efficiency but investment in zero emissions, heating systems, communal heating systems and so on. We want to see much more of that. The Scottish Government is already committing substantial investment to support that work in the social rented sector and working closely and collaboratively with social landlords, many of whom have been leaders in this field. We want that to continue and I am certain that it will. Thank you, convener. Most of my questions have been covered. I want to further explore the conversations that the minister has had with the social housing sector since the announcement, given the amounts of nature of the legislation. Do you have any further to add on that? Myself and the cabinet secretary have both had one-to-one conversations with a number of individual RSLs and social rented sector bodies. We have had two meetings now of the task and finish group, which began two weeks ago and had another meeting last week. As I said earlier, SFHA and others are involved in that. I think that making very valuable contributions, I am convinced that there is creativity to be brought to bear on this question around how we protect tenants in what Aaron Hill earlier acknowledged as an emergency situation that requires an emergency response. We also support the social rented sector to continue to deliver the high-quality and affordable housing that we know is so important in communities across Scotland. Thanks, Marie. I am going to move on to questions from Annie Wells. Just something that one of my colleagues brought up last week in the chamber, Jamie Greene spoke about housing associations. I have not been able to increase their rents, but maybe having to put a stop to maintenance our modernisation programmes. I was just wondering what conversations you have had regarding that because, like Jamie, my mum is a housing association tenant and she is worried about whether she will get a rewire and done and stuff like that. So how can we give people confidence that these things will still go ahead? Absolutely. In terms of giving confidence to individual tenants, there is a huge amount of work that the Government is already doing and more to come on communications with people about the cost of living crisis, about the support that is available and about the advice that they can take to minimise their own exposure to that crisis. In terms of the sector, I would come back to exactly the same points that I made to Miles Briggs about working closely with the sector ahead of any decision about the future of the cap. The initial six-month period to the end of March does not directly impact on social landlords' rental income. What it does is give a clear focus to make sure that we work with them to make a decision that is well informed by their perspective on the future operation of a cap and the future of how to support tenants as well, not just in terms of the investment in quality of properties in payers and maintenance and net zero but also in those wider services that social landlords provide. We are actively engaging with them and, as I said earlier, I think that there is real creativity being brought to bear. The rent pressure zones legislation, how successful has that been for councils? In my view, it has been exactly as successful as I thought it would be. I was welcomed at the time that something was being tried, but I was sceptical that rent pressure zones were going to be enough to solve the problem. The lack of data that local authorities have available to them, if they were to take forward rent pressure zones—as we know, none of them have done—the reason is that they do not have the data that can allow them to justify that and potentially be exposed to the threat of legal challenge if someone were to argue that that was a disproportionate interference in landlords' rights. We need, as we develop our longer-term proposals for reform of the rented sector and including the national system of rent controls, to make sure that we are also filling in those data gaps that exist. Rent pressure zones, if we had seen them put into practice, we might be in a very different position if we had seen them work. In my view, that bill was unlikely to be successful and that our PZs were unlikely to be put into practice and actually reduce anyone's rent. Indeed, that is what has come to pass. We now are in a situation where, as I said earlier, some landlords are being very responsible and trying to protect tenants from rent increases, whether in terms of the cost of living or indeed over the years of the pandemic, but others, as I am sure members from across the country are aware, are imposing eye-watering rent increases. I will be far from the only Glasgow MSP who has heard from tenants who are seeing 20, 30 or 40 per cent increases simply unmanagable, unaffordable and unsustainable and will not take place under this legislation. I welcome Eleanor Whitton with the questions. I will start with the question that I asked the first panel. I have always been keenly aware of the fact that we do not always have a gendered analysis and disaggregated data, specifically when it comes to issues around poverty, inequality and the housing sector in its totality. With regard to those who are in most extreme poverty, we know that it is disproportionately women, lone parents, people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and those who are disabled. The intention of the policy is to act swiftly to address people who are in that situation. How do we monitor going forward the policy intention and the policy outcome? I know that this is something that is not always captured and it is something that we see as a gap. With regard to the measures that are in place to support those policies, if we think about the extension to the tenant grant fund, how discretionary housing payments can be used and the Scottish welfare fund, which councils administer, how can we ensure that we collect the data around who is accessing that, how are the decisions made and what impact that has had? I think that these are very important and well put questions. There will be some information in the impact assessments that accompany the bill that gives some indication of the differential impact and the intersectional aspects of inequality in relation to those impact assessments that have just been published, so those will be available to you. I think that it would be wrong not to reflect, as I did earlier, that data in relation to the private rented sector is one of the areas where there is a lot more work to do. The social rented sector tends to be in a better position in terms of not only having requirements but it is structurally easier, I think in many cases, to collect this data because you have larger landlords that operate mostly in a close geographic area and are well regulated. The private rented sector is much more fragmented, many, many more separate individual landlords, so it is much harder to collect that data under the current framework, so that is something that we are looking to improve. In terms of the data around accessing the various support schemes and funds that the Government has put in place, I will certainly engage with my colleagues responsible for social security to make sure that we are joining the dots between the issues within their remit and the ways in which this bill and the reporting mechanisms within it are going to operate. I guess that my concern is that we do not always do the task and finish group, but sometimes it is about the task of the policy intention and then how it finishes and what impact it has had, so where we have an impact assessment that I will keenly look at that has been published. I guess that it is about at the other end of it, so let us say in six months' time, just double-checking that we have understood the consequences as they apply to those groups who are often at the sharpest impact of poverty and inequality. It is just to get an understanding that that is something that the Scottish Government will seek to report back on. Absolutely. We will be taking every effort that we can to do that, and I think that it is something that we could engage actively with the committee on. For example, if we approach the reporting stages on this bill, assuming that Parliament approves it, it might be that the committee would want to write to us ahead of time to flag up the specific questions that you would want us to be able to cover either in the reports that we publish or in the discussions that we have with the committee. Thanks very much for that minister. The final question that I have is roundabout an ask that Shelter and other organisations have where we will see the provisions within the bill that will allow for where landlords and specific financial difficulties the sale of property. How could the Scottish Government perhaps support landlords and indeed registered social landlords to be able to buy back if that is the situation so that we can protect tenants and situ? I think that that would be something that would also give a level of comfort to all involved. Certainly on the latter point, it is one that I recognise and it has been made as an argument by some people responding to the consultation on the new deal for tenants. I would have to say that it is something if we were to try to incorporate that into the emergency legislation, I think that we would have been here a lot longer and we wouldn't have the emergency legislation in place in time to protect people. I think that some of these arguments are going to have to be built into the review of the existing grounds for repossession under the permanent legislation and how we might look to alter that. It is a point that is well made and one that is certainly on our radar. Finally, just in terms of best practice, because we know that there are lots of local authorities and ourselves across the country that do engage actively and buy back to bolster the numbers of affordable homes, specifically where there are individual properties that formerly were social lets, an agreement that this already happens and it should be supported during the six months time would be helpful. We can certainly consider how we might put that on the agenda for the task and finish group and engage with the sector around that. I think that there are many instances where that does happen, many more, where it could happen if the right support was in place. It is probably never going to be a blanket solution for every circumstance, but it is certainly one that the member is quite right to raise to our attention. I will see if we can perhaps write to the committee again in the near future if we have managed to put that on the agenda for the task and finish group and see what the response is. Thanks, Elena. For those very useful questions, I will bring Miles back in for a short moment. Thank you, convener. It was just a little further to Elena Whitton's line of questioning with regards to 26,000 households that are currently in the homelessness system. Wondering in terms of the future housing bill when that is likely to come, what impact that will have, will that include prevention duties? We heard earlier in a previous panel that homelessness services are pushed to breaking point, so any unintended consequences that we might see will add further pressure, given what we already see with the record number of children in temporary accommodation. That would be unacceptable. Can the minister give an assurance when that housing bill will come and what will be included, which is not in this legislation? The housing bill was included in the programme for government announcement, and so we will be working at pace. I hope that the member will acknowledge that many of the same officials who have been working incredibly hard at an incredible pace to bring this emergency legislation forward are also the people whose job it is to support us in the development of the longer-term bill. I will not sit here and say that there is no possibility of an impact, but we will be working to work through that and understand the impact that not only developing but operating this emergency legislation will have on our longer-term work. However, the intentions of that longer-term work are absolutely unchanged, not only to develop the proposals under the new deal for tenants and measures such as the national system of rent controls, but also the wider approach to preventing homelessness, many of which I know the committee has discussed with the cabinet secretary. I am not sure if there is anything that you want to add on that, Mandy. Just the prevention duty work is continuing, and there were some analysis published last Thursday, so we can make that available. That would be helpful. If you can update the committee on any timescale going forward, I think that that would be helpful as well. We will certainly keep the committee informed on timescales. If the updated research has not been made available, we will make sure that it is. I thank everybody for the great questions, and it is very helpful to get a bigger picture of the work that you have been doing. Of course, no Government and Parliament are here together collaborating on shaping affairs of Scotland. Again, as I said at the beginning, I really appreciate the fact that the bill came out a bit earlier notice so that we could have constructive conversation. However, I will say that I am impressed at the work and the working at pace, and the fact that you pulled this all together in a matter of four weeks, with a priority and a high concern around getting it right. I think that this morning's conversation has been very useful, and it was very good to hear from stakeholders earlier as well. So thank you, Patrick, for being here along with your officials this morning, and I now suspend the meeting to allow our witnesses to leave the room. The final public item on our agenda today is to consider a negative instrument, council tax exemption dwelling Scotland amendment 2, order 2022. As this is a negative instrument, there is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on it. Do members have any comments on the instrument? No comments. Is the committee agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? We are agreed. We agreed at the start of the meeting to take the final two items on our agenda in private, so as we have no more public business today, I now close the public part of the meeting.