Seòmar agus comataidhean

I touched on that in my opening remarks—there are a number of key aspects, and I will try to keep my comments to a minimum.

One aim is to encourage growth in the sector, which is incredibly important. The sector plays an important part in the all-tenures approach that I have taken, and which has been discussed by stakeholders in previous sessions. It is about getting the balance right between the rent controls, which we have touched on and will go on to discuss, and the investment opportunities. That is one of the first aspects.

Another key aim is to ensure that we have the best-quality homes in the private rented sector and a flexible system for both tenants and landlords. That is a difficult balance to strike, but I think that the bill achieves it with what is being proposed.

Another key area is to look at how we tackle not just child poverty but fuel poverty and homelessness.

There are other aspects; for example, we need to move towards net zero, so how do we help landlords to do so? That is not part of the bill, but it is part of the on-going discussion with landlords.

Another aim is to ensure that tenants and landlords understand their rights. Again, that is about trying to strike the right balance, and I think that the bill does that.

That is a very quick run-through but, with the measures that are being proposed, we have tried to get the balance and flexibility right all the way through the bill.

There are two ways to look at that. First, there would have to be data to back that up.

Secondly, it is the right of the minister to look at that and say whether they would impose rent controls in an area. If a local authority says that it wants to look at rent controls, the minister at the time can say that they do not agree with that, so the rent controls would not just come in. There is flexibility for the Government and the minister to look at that and say that they do not think that there is a case for rent controls at that particular time. The key thing is that it has to be backed up by data. There would be discussions—it is not something that would happen overnight. It would have to go out for broader consultation. The key thing is that the minister would have the right to say whether rent controls could be brought in, depending on the local circumstances at that particular time. A local authority might want to do it, but the minister might not agree and would have to give reasons for that. The ability to look at that goes both ways.

The answer to the question of whether we will withdraw the bill is no, for a number of reasons.

I will go into more of the detail.

We need clarity for tenants about what the rent increases will look like. Ms Gosal mentioned investment opportunities, and investors also need clarity.

In terms of where we are now, it is a framework bill to give flexibility, including in relation to what is required in local areas. What the rent control formula will be is also an important part of it.

Another key thing is discussions with stakeholders. I appreciate Mr Griffin’s point about the committee, and I am happy to come back to the committee when the amendments are lodged. Discussions with stakeholders in order to get the balance right is an important part of the rent controls, if they are proposed.

Coming back to the point about areas, if a local authority proposes and would like to go down the route of rent controls, it has to go out to consultation and consult the people who live in the area, which is incredibly important. The principle of rent controls is there, but the rent control measures that are proposed in Edinburgh will be different from those in Glasgow and in other parts of Scotland. Consultation is built into the bill. If a rent control is to be introduced, it is all about trying to strike the right balance.

I take the point that Mark Griffin made about the committee, but we need to move on in relation to giving that clarity to tenants and investors and trying to strike that balance. It is also about giving that certainty in relation to keeping people in the private rented sector.

When we talk about investors, we might be talking about landlords who have one, two, three, four or five properties. It is important that we recognise that the PRS is an important part of it, but so are the investment sector, the MMR sector and tenants.

I appreciate the point that Mark Griffin made. I am happy to come back to the committee when the amendments are lodged so that I can be held to account; that is what I am here for.

It is about giving us that flexibility. It is all about trying to get that balance and move us on at a time when we need a little more certainty.

It is key that the regulations need to be reviewed on a regular basis and that they do not need to be in place longer than is required. The bill is trying to give that flexibility. It is not saying that the period is definitely five years—it gives that flexibility.

There might be circumstances—for example, in a freeport—that impact on the housing market. I visited Shetland and Orkney and talked to people about the impact of renewables development. It is great to have economic development, but if there is an influx of construction workers or longer-term workers for a period of time, it distorts the market to a certain point. We need to try to tackle that when we are talking about the need for temporary accommodation. We are having discussions with local authorities about that issue; we are having a round-table meeting on it. However, if we or the local authorities do not get that right, there will be an impact on rent. It is down to supply and demand. If 2,000 or 3,000 construction workers move into an area and there is a lack of accommodation, that will impact on the rental market. There is a broader strategic discussion that we need to have, but rent controls should not be in place any longer than they need to be and they should be reviewed on a regular basis.

As Yvette Sheppard said, we are speaking to rural local authorities about that now and trying to look at any issues that might come up further down the line.

No—I am just suggesting that as an example, but I am speaking more broadly. I am talking about how a market might be distorted for a period of time, so we would need to make sure that we are developing housing as the workers come in over that period of time. I am saying that, if we do not get that balance, that might distort the housing market, although I am not suggesting that that would be the case or that local authorities would need to go down that route. However, we need to be aware of local circumstances and how the market might change.

We talked to Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council, which had seen rents go up by large amounts because there was not enough accommodation. Strategically, we need to get ahead of that to make sure that there is enough temporary accommodation and we need to work with local authorities. As I said, the freeport in Highland will have an estimated 25,000 jobs, so we need to be developing housing to make sure that it is meeting the demand, because it is about supply and demand. We are in discussions with Highland Council and other local authorities and house builders. You will know that we had a meeting last year where we got house builders around the table with the freeport developers and said, “Okay, how do we develop this?” That is an example of how a market might be distorted. I am not saying that there would need to be rent controls or anything like that. That decision would depend on local circumstances and would have to be backed up by data.

That issue has been raised. I know that you have an interest in housing in rural areas, which is incredibly important. That is part of the discussions that we are having with local authorities. It is not just the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council; we are having discussions with Highland Council and other local authorities. When I go to any local authority, I speak about the PRS. The bill is always raised in relation to that.

It comes back to local circumstances. The issue has not been raised hugely in rural communities. It is more about supply and demand in the PRS. I am happy to discuss that, because you are closer to the issues on rural housing and have more regular discussions on that. It is more about what the role of the PRS is, and it is different in rural communities. Sometimes it plays a larger role, so we need to take account of the local circumstances.

I will bring in Yvette Sheppard, who has had discussions with rural authorities about this. It has not been hugely raised, but it is an issue that we need to be aware of. It is about local flexibility.

I think that that problem is much broader than the private rented sector. The Construction Industry Training Board published a study six to nine months ago that broke Scotland down into 10 areas and identified the resources in those areas, including the workforce, operating companies and colleges. I continue to meet Graeme Dey to discuss how we fund colleges and construction courses. I have had further discussions with the CIH about how we professionalise the construction sector and ensure that those in it are as qualified as possible, and I asked the trade body to produce a paper on that, which we have recently received. We are working with the body on how we expand qualifications and are looking at what else needs to be done in the sector to ensure that it has enough qualified people and that it attracts them because, traditionally, the housing sector has not done that, but there are great opportunities for people.

As we know, there have been issues because of Brexit, which has reduced the size of the workforce. We need to ensure that we try to get people into the construction sector. The issue of visas for the sector has been raised with the UK Government. It is not just affecting housing. If we look at the growth in renewables, for example, having spoken to colleagues in that sector, I know that there is a real demand for construction work for that. We are looking at a number of solutions to try to ensure that the sector is up to the level that it needs to be at with recruitment and for future training. I think that the average age for people who are working in the construction sector is 60, or near enough. We cannot go on like that; if we look at the demographics, we see that we will run out of people. It is a challenge, but we are approaching it in different ways.

I think that we are looking at the first quarter of next year—that is the task force’s target. I am happy to write to the committee on that point. However, the minutes are online, so they can be looked at.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that your report is due out at the end of October.

I would think that it would be around that time, or not too far off. Again, I am happy to come back to the committee when the amendments are lodged to have that discussion and take that further.