³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

There is recognition of that. I touched on the data point earlier. The new deal for tenants touched on data.

I will touch on the specifics, but the relationship between local authorities, the Government and the PRS is important. How do we strengthen that? How do we ensure that there is a closer relationship at the local housing strategy level, investment level and planning level? What does that look like? That gives you the overarching relationship that I would like to develop, because it is important. I have discussed that with local authorities and the Scottish Association of Landlords. We have a meeting at which we will discuss that in a wee bit more detail, which is important.

There is already work under way on data, because we will need it to determine rent controls for local areas in the future. If we do not have data, we will make assumptions based on data that might not be accurate. The key thing is how we develop the data that is needed. We are discussing that in detail with local authorities.

Yvette might want to touch on that in more detail, but I have that discussion with councillor colleagues and officials. That is a key part. Yvette might want to add something else on the logistics of how it works, but there are continuing discussions.

I think that Yvette Sheppard touched on that. That is one of the key things in our discussions with local authorities and, for example, the Scottish Association of Landlords, because they have data on what that looks like. It is really important that we have that data, both on a local basis, because that will determine the size of the sector in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other local authorities, and nationally, because that will inform how we develop the PRS sector and the role that it plays in Scotland. There is a need for that. I hope to discuss that with local authorities and the SAL when we have a discussion relatively shortly.

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-tenure 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.

There are a number of things there. One concerns getting the balance right between protecting rents and the need for investment, as we need investment in various sectors. It comes down to supply and demand. We will move on to discuss rent controls, but we need to strike the right balance to encourage investment while protecting rents and keeping them at a reasonable level. We will touch more on the nuanced aspects of rent controls, but it is important to encourage investment. More broadly, when it comes to getting a more balanced rent control system in place, although we have had temporary measures, we now need to move on to a set of measures that encourage more balanced rent increases, as well as encouraging investment.

This is not covered in the bill itself, but I will mention a piece of work that we undertook with Ken Gibb, who was looking into affordability. The report on that—which I have referenced before—has just been submitted, and we are considering what it says. It will be taken into account in the broader discussions around rent controls. As I say, it comes down to supply and demand, and we need to increase the supply of housing—that is incredibly important. The bill covers rent controls, and it also considers how we can encourage investment. If we can encourage investment and keep rent controls at a certain rate, we will be able to build houses at a quicker rate as part of the all-tenure approach. That is the important aspect for me.

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.

There are a number of issues there, one of which relates to the general principle of improving tenants’ rights, which I touched on. That is one of the key issues. Awareness raising is important, and we have spoken to tenants groups about that.

The bill sets out information that landlords must include in advertisements for rental properties. One of the measures in the bill proposes to modify the existing duty on landlords to provide specified information to the tenant at that time. Both those aspects are required.

There is a need for general awareness raising, and we are talking to tenants groups about that. I regularly meet tenants groups, both locally and nationally. That issue has been raised not only in relation to rent controls but in the much broader context of renters’ rights and what we can do to support renters to make them aware of those rights. As you rightly recognised, not everybody who is a tenant is aware of their rights. We need to continue to work with tenants on that.

It is about that balance and what it looks like. There is a duty for both landlords and the Government to do that. We need to make sure that we are picking up the issue of tenants’ rights and raising awareness of them, and that duty also lies with the landlord.

Again, there is a whole discussion and debate about getting people into the sector and the regulation for single-property landlords, for example. It is about trying to strike that balance. The balance might move slightly, but I am confident that what is proposed in the bill is what we set out as our initial position.

We will continue to discuss that with other stakeholders and consider the committee’s feedback and what the bill would look like before it becomes law.