Seòmar agus comataidhean

On whether that would fit in the bill, the issue is slightly more complex than that. If we are talking about seasonal agricultural workers, an aspect of that is where responsibility sits. I will touch on that in a second. Mairi Gougeon and I will be meeting Richard Leonard very soon to discuss seasonal agricultural workers, and others have raised the issue, too.

More broadly, the issue is to do with identifying key workers. I have visited various places where accommodation is an issue, particularly during the summer tourism season. Should that be a matter for local authorities to address when they look at their key worker strategies? I am encouraging local authorities to look at that and take a strategic approach. That is one way to look at the issue. It comes back to the accommodation issue, although that is not so much about seasonal workers as it is about construction workers. As I said, Mairi Gougeon and I have a meeting coming up with Richard Leonard about seasonal and agricultural workers in particular.

On key workers and on seasonal workers more broadly, we would encourage local authorities to look strategically at what they need to do, to discuss that and to come forward with any proposals. We have had a number of round-table events with accommodation providers, including hoteliers, and other organisations to talk about what we need to do. The issue needs to be discussed. Some reports on accommodation came out, I think, last week. We cannot have people staying in accommodation such as the examples that are raised in those reports.

We have touched on that. One of the key points was to provide flexibility around the individual circumstances of each of the local authorities, which is important. With regard to looking at possible amendments or changes to the bill, that has given us the flexibility at this stage to discuss with local authorities what is required.

That comes back to the balance around protection. The whole purpose of rent controls is to ensure that we protect people who need those controls in place, while not deterring investment. It is about trying to strike a balance in that regard, and reflecting the impacts on individual local authorities, or wider regional impacts, at that particular time. That was an important reason. I am happy to come back at stage 2 to discuss any amendments to the bill. It is about giving more flexibility to ensure that rent controls do not try to provide a one-size-fits-all answer.

I know what Mr Griffin is trying to get at, and I can totally understand his position. He has probably had feedback from investors on that issue. We need to recognise that and to provide, through the bill’s principles, a framework that encourages investment. When we are considering amendments, we will have to take cognisance of that. I am happy to discuss the issue in more detail with Mr Griffin, who, I am sure, will have had feedback from the sector. That is an area in which we must try to strike a balance.

That is still under consideration. Yvette Sheppard might have something to add in relation to the discussions that she has had.

I cannot go into the specifics of MMR. A key thing to mention on exemptions is that the bill gives us the power to specify types of properties, or other circumstances, for which rent increases would not apply. When we discuss some of the amendments at stage 2, those details will become clear. We have demonstrated the value of the ability of MMR properties to bring in additional capital. As is mentioned in the programme for government, the £100 million that we will commit will bring in additional capital of about £500 million, based on some existing investments.

In discussions with the housing investment task force and with colleagues in the housing sector there was recognition of the importance of MMR—you have probably heard the SFHA talking about it. We are listening to what the SFHA and a range of other stakeholders are saying.

Mr Griffin will also know that the all-tenures approach is key. It is not just social housing; we need a mix of MMR and other types of housing in different parts of Scotland. MMR is easier to offer in some parts of Scotland than in others. Private investment also comes in. I have visited a number of developments—as, I am sure, committee members have—where there is a mix of social housing, MMR housing and private development. I want to see that flexibility in the Scottish housing market, because that is an example of how we can look at projects that may not be viable on their own, but with a mix of MMR, private development and social housing they work. It is about trying to achieve a balance with that. As we lodge amendments to the bill, there will be recognition of the evidence that has been taken, and we are listening to all stakeholders. Again, it is about striking the right balance. I am happy to discuss the specifics of MMR in more detail once they are available.

I will talk about the specifics of the bill. It is important to recognise the private rented sector—I will touch on MMR and BTR in a wee second.

First, the private rented sector is important. We have had discussions with the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council and it is fair to say both councils know that they need to work more closely with the PRS in a strategic approach. I would like and would encourage deeper discussions on the role of the PRS in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other parts of Scotland and for that to be part of local housing strategies, and we have written to local authorities about that.

The second consideration is how we ensure that the sector grows, and that needs to be recognised in the bill. The bill tries to strike a balance between what is proposed for rent control and the need to bring in investment. Investment might look like a landlord who currently owns one property buying another; or someone who owns five or 10 properties looking at doubling up. I have said to the SAL that I want to see people coming back into the sector. The latest data shows that numbers have slightly increased. Anecdotally, having spoken to the councils in Edinburgh and Glasgow, I know that they have found that landlords who own single properties are selling up but they are selling those properties to landlords who have a bigger portfolio, such as five, 10 or 15 properties. The number of landlords is probably decreasing and the number of properties in the sector is slightly increasing. At the moment, there is a slight lag, but that is the data that is coming through on that. That is recognised.

There are a couple of other things. If a local authority says that it has a requirement for rent controls and comes to ministers, there is also the opportunity to review the matter then. If there is a change in circumstance, for example, rent controls can be revoked. It is not that they are in place for five years and cannot move. There is an opportunity to discuss them and to have flexibility.

One question is whether we can give that clarity through rent controls. If they are a local authority’s responsibility, there is flexibility to change them if circumstances change. However, we have to balance how we get into MMR and BTR.

Obviously, we recognise that MMR—housing associations—is an important part of the sector. In Glasgow, for example, because the council is a non-stockholding authority, RSLs have a really important part in how MMR stock is developed. Again, we have listened to what Glasgow City Council is saying and we will consider that. It is the same with Edinburgh. There are a number of housing models, not just RSLs. The question is how they deliver.

There is that wider discussion. Local housing allowance obviously has a part to play in the matter. There have been discussions with the UK Government previously and there are discussions now about what the role of LHA is. That is an important part of the matter.

We are trying to encourage BTR. We have churn in properties in Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is turning round. We also need to recognise not just the role of BTR in housing—it is important because it increases supply—but its role in bringing investment into Scotland and in construction jobs, as well as the gross value added that it brings into Scotland.

We have picked up on the importance of those things in the discussions about BTR and MMR that we have had with stakeholders and with individual landlords through the Scottish Association of Landlords, for example. On the other hand, we have to make sure that rent controls are there to protect people who need them. The challenge for me with the bill is in striking the right balance. I think that we are moving in the right direction, and I appreciate the point that you make about it being a framework bill.

I am happy to come back to the convener to discuss amendments and any changes in detail when those come through, but it is important to get the right balance. It is a tough ask in a complex market. It is not that one size fits all, but that is what we hope to achieve. I am happy to come back to the committee at the appropriate stage to discuss those matters.

One of the key things that I mentioned at the start of the bill process was about making sure that we give investors that clarity, which, from speaking to them, I know that they want. It is long-term patient capital, which no one tends to invest in, so they want clarity over a certain period of time. That is the message that has come through in the discussions that I have had.

The two-pronged approach is about setting up the housing investment task force, on which there are members of the investment community that are part of those discussions, and about trying to give clarity through the rent controls.

A key aspect that the housing investment task force is looking at is barriers to investment. It is not just looking at rent controls but at a much broader range of measures, such as the use of guarantees. The housing investment task force will produce a report with recommendations, so that work is being driven by the task force itself.

We talked about the MMR commitment following last week’s programme for government, which kind of came out of discussions with the housing investment task force. We are looking at different ways and different models to deal with that, which we hope will come out in the short term through the task force’s recommendations. However, we need to give clarity on rent controls—there is no doubt about that.

You are right; inflation-linked increases is one of the issues that is being considered. I previously mentioned the discussions that we are having with Living Rent, investors and so on, about trying to strike that balance. It is a tough ask, but I still think that we can achieve that balance with what is being considered, to make sure that we have protection for tenants but can also encourage investment.

I cannot go into detail, because we are still considering and discussing the matter, and we have meetings planned with stakeholders on that. However, one of the key things is trying to strike that balance, which I mentioned at the start. It is also about trying to provide flexibility.

As I said, it is about giving clarity to investors—as Ms Gosal mentioned—and about making sure that we protect people where they need to be protected, which is where the local approach with regard to data and getting local authorities’ and local residents’ views can come in. That is incredibly important in trying to get that balance.

The rent increases are not the same across Scotland, as we know. It involves a much broader discussion about supply and demand and about how we encourage more house building in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I regularly have discussions with the councils in Edinburgh and Glasgow about what we can do to encourage that. The rent controls in the bill are part of it, but there are much broader discussions going on about how we bring strategic sites forward. One of the housing investment task force’s key areas of work is on how we bring strategic sites forward at a quicker pace. That requires a mix of investment, local government funding and Government funding, and there is the question of the role of the SNIB and the SFT.

It is a much broader discussion, but what we are looking at is all about trying to strike a balance. Hopefully, when the amendments are lodged, we will demonstrate that.

I mentioned Edinburgh and Glasgow because when we look at rent increases we see that they are areas that have been under pressure. I think that that is down to supply and demand, and to much broader measures. I talked about how we might bring forward strategic sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We have had discussions in Edinburgh and Glasgow on that; for example, I asked the Edinburgh city region body to produce a report on the eight strategic sites there and to say what is required to bring them forward and the time for that, because the quicker we can increase supply, the better. That is basic economics around supply and demand. Glasgow is similar—a broader approach will be taken through looking at the city region.

When you look at rent increases in different parts of Scotland, you sometimes see rent increases that are quite low. I have visited parts of Scotland—for example, Inverclyde—that have that opposite problem. Therefore, the local approach is really important. I am not saying that the controls need to be in Edinburgh and Glasgow—that is not a Government target. I gave those as examples because they are the areas where large rent increases have been identified.

Obviously, we would consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the local authorities on what that looks like, and we would look at the data behind that to be sure about what is taken forward. The process has to be done in consultation with local authorities and based on the data. As I have mentioned, we need to do a little more on the data and to work with local authorities on that. For example, I talked about the size of the PRS in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I would like to see closer collaboration between local authorities, the PRS and the Government on what the sector looks like, its opportunity to grow and its role in tackling homelessness. How do we incentivise people to come back into the PRS? That is a much broader approach.

There is also a need to consult the local community on what rent controls actually look like. However, we need to have flexibility in the system, based on what is required in Edinburgh and in Glasgow. A rent control area will be set out for a period of time, but if we find that the data changes over the period, the rent controls might not stay in place. If there are changes in the economy, we will have the flexibility to remove the rent controls at those times.

I gave Edinburgh and Glasgow as examples because those are the areas where the largest rent increases have been.

The prisons inspectorate would look at the SHORE standards with regard to specific points around the prisons.

We are in discussions with the Scottish Housing Regulator about what that scrutiny looks like, and building on that is one of the key things. You are right that there is no point in just saying that we are trying to get improvement. How do we evaluate that? How do we monitor that? That is the important part. For example, we talked with the Prison Service about remand prisoners. What does it need to do when prisoners are released early? What do we do about that? Again, some of that is about what the prisons inspectorate does and how we work with the housing regulator. We are in discussion with them about what happens at that particular moment. I will maybe ask Catriona MacKean or Matt Howarth to comment on that particular point. We are engaging with the housing regulator to ask how we evaluate and monitor that.

Again, some of the key things will be about getting figures from the local authorities and engaging with them on a local basis about how important that is. We are in discussion with the housing regulator to make sure that the standards that we expect—and how we measure and evaluate them—will be part of the discussions going forward.

I do not know whether Catriona MacKean or Matt Howarth have anything to add on that.