Rent control: the Senate grants a two-year reprieve, a real policy has yet to be built

On Wednesday 21 October, the Senate voted by a very large majority to extend rent control for two years. Without this bill, the scheme would have ended on 24 November. The ball is now in the court of the National Assembly, which has one month to decide.

The facts

According to Public Sénat, the bill was adopted by 325 votes to 17. It extends the experiment created by the 2018 Elan law, already renewed in 2022, but within its current scope: no new municipality will be able to join the scheme. According to the Journal de l'économie, rent control covers about 70 municipalities across nine areas, including Paris, Plaine Commune, Est Ensemble, Lille, Lyon-Villeurbanne, Bordeaux, Montpellier, Grenoble and the Basque Country. Nice, Toulouse and Strasbourg, which had applied, will have to wait.

The text voted by the senators differs significantly from the one adopted by the deputies. As Public Sénat reports, the upper house rejected the permanent status sought by the Assembly and removed the 20% cap on rent supplements. On the other hand, it set a single one-year deadline to challenge an excessive rent or an abusive supplement, strengthened the monitoring of rents through landlords' tax declarations, and allowed local authorities that so wish to leave the scheme before it ends.

The stakes are far from marginal. According to Localtis, the news outlet of the Banque des Territoires, 1.2 million of the 7.7 million private-sector tenants live in a rent-controlled area.

The positions at stake

The debate was fuelled by a report from the Cour des comptes published on 14 October. According to Localtis, the Court considers the methodological foundations of the scheme to be fragile: the three criteria used to set reference rents would explain on average only 48% of the observed differences in rent. It also notes a bias against small dwellings, a poorly defined regime for rent supplements and appeal procedures that are too complex for tenants. It proposes two options: extend the scheme while reforming it in depth, or return to controlling rent increases during the lease and when a property is re-let.

On the right, mistrust remains real, without going as far as rejection. LR senator Laurent Somon believes, according to Public Sénat, that there are two years left to obtain factual criteria. His colleague Max Brisson called for a message of trust towards landlords. The argument deserves to be heard: without private landlords, the rental supply would shrink. The Housing Minister, Vincent Jeanbrun, accepted the extension only for the municipalities already covered, according to the Journal de l'économie, while remaining personally opposed to the scheme and calling for a more robust evaluation. The same outlet states that the Rassemblement national was the only group to vote against.

On the left, relief prevails, but it is measured.

There is a need for sanctions, Ian Brossat, communist senator, quoted by Public Sénat

The Paris parliamentarian sees the compromise as a way to avoid the worst, while deeming it minimalist. Socialist senator Viviane Artigalas would have preferred a three-year extension. Socialist deputy Iñaki Echaniz, author of the original bill, said he would defend the Senate's version in the Assembly.

Analysis

The criticisms of the Cour des comptes must be taken seriously. A scheme affecting more than a million households must rest on reliable data and clear rules. But these criticisms concern the method, not the principle. The studies cited by Localtis all point in the same direction, to varying degrees: a moderation of 2 to 4% over two and a half years according to researchers, about 5% in Paris between 2019 and 2025 according to the Atelier parisien d'urbanisme, and no significant effect elsewhere according to the Clameur observatory. For a studio flat in Paris, a gap of a few points represents tens of euros a month, taken from the tightest budgets.

The Gaullist tradition has never confused economic freedom with the absence of rules. Housing is not a good like any other: it determines access to work, to education, to family life. When rents in large cities push nurses, teachers or students towards ever more distant suburbs, it is national cohesion that weakens. The State is fulfilling its role when it sets limits.

The Senate's choice nevertheless has an obvious limitation. Freezing the map for two years means denying the mayors of Nice, Toulouse or Strasbourg a tool they are asking for, even though the free administration of local authorities is a value the upper house readily defends. And extending without reforming means postponing until after the presidential election a decision everyone knows is inevitable.

Finally, rent control without enforcement remains a fragile promise. The one-year deadline to challenge an abusive rent is real progress. But as long as the burden of proof and of taking action rests on tenants who are often poorly informed, the rule will remain unevenly applied.

Conclusion

The Assembly is very likely to adopt the Senate's text without amendment to avoid a legal vacuum on 24 November. That would be wise. But these two years of reprieve must not be wasted. The government could start now on the reform called for by the Cour des comptes: making the data reliable, clarifying rent supplements, giving prefectures real powers to impose sanctions. The question facing parliamentarians is simple: do they merely want to extend an experiment, or finally build a lasting policy for affordable housing?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.