Chamber and committees

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 am sorry: I meant Charlotte McHaffie. The timing is still to be confirmed, but it is important that we learn the lessons. Covid was a challenge that we did not expect at the time, obviously, and we had to deal with it. We need to consider the issue, Mr Coffey, because it is an important part of the refreshed look at the bill. At that time, when the emergency legislation was brought in, we knew that there were lessons to learn. I will bring Charlotte in on that point.

I will bring in Charlotte McHaffie in a second.

I think that the tribunals service allows both tenants and landlords to have representation, which can come from a friend, a family member or someone from the third sector. I am aware of cases in which the likes of Shelter have taken part. Charlotte might want to touch on that.

This might relate to the discussion about tenants’ rights and whether they are aware of what is available to them. That goes back to what Ms Roddick asked about whether we should ensure that tenants are aware of their rights. Charlotte may want to touch on that. She can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that they have the ability to do that. We will consider how to support tenants who go to the tribunal so that they are aware of that right, but I think that that right is available.

From my experience as a councillor I say that support tends primarily to come from Shelter or other third sector organisations. A case would have to be incredibly complex to go to court. I found in almost all circumstances that Shelter had the expertise to help people.

On the point about reasonableness, the landlord would have to say what the grounds or reasons were for saying no. There is a balance, and that will be fleshed out in the detailed regulations. You are right that it is about striking that balance, but the landlord would have to give reasonable grounds for saying no.

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.

When I spoke to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee about homelessness prevention, we touched on the fact that we contacted local authorities to ask about costs and they gave their best estimates at that time. Colleagues and local authorities have had detailed discussions about what implementation will look like and when the measures will be phased in. That is the important part. The focus of that is not to have additional resource implications for local authorities—I think that Ms Gosal mentioned that. Our discussions with local authorities include asking what additional resources would be required, including for data collection, and discussions are on-going. The financial memorandum provides an estimate, and an updated memorandum will be provided at the end of stage 2.

It is safe to say that discussions are on-going. We have to ensure that the resource is in place around homelessness prevention measures and gathering data on rent controls, because we cannot put any additional pressures on local authorities. As I said, there are on-going discussions, and at stage 2 there will be an updated financial memorandum to reflect that. I do not know whether any colleagues want to mention anything in relation to resource discussions.

I will try to be brief, convener. There are a couple of points. One is that funding was announced last week, from which Edinburgh will benefit significantly. We have been working with the City of Edinburgh Council on its practices around void properties in terms of what it needs to do. The council thinks that it is making progress, so we have tried to help it. In addition, there is an upcoming round table with utility companies—housing conveners raised the issue of utility companies with us in a meeting—and local authorities on how we can improve the practice in that regard. Utility companies need to be doing more and working more quickly in that regard. That work is already under way. The housing investment task force is also looking at different funding models around accommodation and so on.

I am happy to pick that up in the discussions that we have planned. If there is anything that you think we could consider as an amendment to the bill, I am happy to discuss that, but other things are already going on to provide support on void properties. As you recognise, the issue is incredibly important in Edinburgh specifically, and I am happy to take that offline with you.

I think that you are right, Mr Briggs, looking at the matter legally. The point that you make will be looked at sympathetically, and there have already been broader discussions about the process for adaptations and succession, as Charlotte McHaffie mentioned.