Chamber and committees

The strategy is a very broad, co-ordinated package of policies and support programmes, including £1.8 billion of investment, widening the scope of our capital and advice programmes and collaborating with a wide range of partners through the green heat finance task force. I am aware of the pressure of time—there is a great more detail in the strategy, and I encourage Bill Kidd, and all members, to work closely with us in the implementation of that strategy.

The member is quite right to point out the huge potential not only for connecting social housing developments to existing heat networks, but for investing further, including in publicly owned heat networks. When I launched the strategy, I visited one in West Dunbartonshire, where the local authority has taken the lead in developing that capacity. One of the roles of the new national energy agency with be to work with local government to build capacity, for which there is huge potential in the years ahead.

I am pleased to hear that there is ambition for the level of support that needs to be available. I am sure that that is intended as an endorsement of the fact that the Scottish Government is providing more support on this agenda than the United Kingdom Government is on its equivalent.

We have a huge challenge, particularly in remote and rural areas, in tenement stock—as I mentioned to Pauline McNeill—and in older and historic buildings. All that will be considered in detail as we consult on the detail of the regulations, which will include measures relating to how we define the cost effectiveness of the measures that will be required.

I have had the opportunity to meet Lord Haughey and discuss the issues with him. I know that he has strong views on the matter. However, the experience that we have and the comparable data that we have from countries that already have a long history of using heat pumps and heat networks show that they will be effective in Scotland.

As Pauline McNeill has pointed out, there are additional challenges in relation to flats and tenements, which make up about 40 per cent of Scotland’s homes, so it is clearly important that we make progress in that part of the domestic sector to meet our statutory climate change targets. It is a complex area, which is why we have established a tenements short-life working group to provide recommendations to the Scottish Government on regulating those homes. That group will provide its recommendations by the end of the year and we will respond by setting out our proposed approach as part of the forthcoming consultations.

It might well be that heat networks play a significant role in tenements and flats, compared with heat pumps at an individual level.

Yes, indeed.

Of course, there are many areas where heat pumps are already being deployed and where, combined with good levels of energy efficiency, the overall cost is coming down and will continue to come down. However, we have consistently called on the UK Government to take urgent action, using its reserved powers, to rebalance energy prices, so that the running costs of zero emission heating systems are comparable to, or more favourable than, fossil fuel incumbents.

We are again calling on the UK Government to take full account of the needs of Scottish consumers, particularly those who are suffering most from the impact of soaring energy bills when they proceed with rebalancing the costs of energy bills.

To clarify, our heat in buildings strategy proposes that homes that are purchased from 2025 will need to reach a minimum energy efficiency standard that is equivalent to EPC band C, with all homes to achieve that standard by the backstop date of 2033.

A cashback grant of up to £13,500 is available to households for energy efficiency measures and zero emissions heating systems through our Home Energy Scotland loan and cashback scheme. We have committed to replacing the cashback element with a standalone grant during 2022-23, and we have doubled the budget to £42 million.

Amendments 70 and 71, in the name of Mr Mountain, appear to have the same ultimate effect as amendments 66 to 68 in the previous group, by expiring part 4 of the bill in June 2024. Amendments 66 to 68 would have reinstated mandatory eviction grounds now; amendments 70 and 71 would do that too, but at a later date.

Therefore, the arguments that were made against amendments 66 to 68 also apply here. Part 4 of the bill ensures that tenants are not evicted unreasonably; it also ensures that all the circumstances of the case—those relating to the tenant and those relating to the landlord—can be considered by the tribunal in any eviction proceedings.

Part 4 of the bill also introduces the pre-action protocol as a permanent measure, which is intended to assist landlords and tenants. I am aware of Mr Mountain’s concerns regarding those provisions applying to existing tenancies. The provisions only change the law for future eviction proceedings. The Scottish Government considers that that is a proportionate approach that is designed to prevent the unreasonable eviction of tenants.

As well as seeking to remove that reasonableness test and the protocol, Mr Mountain has lodged amendment 69, which seeks to oblige the Scottish ministers to introduce primary legislation to reform the law on residential tenancies, but without specifying what aspects should be reformed. Creating a duty in primary legislation to enact future unspecified primary legislation is a very unusual approach, and it is not one that has normally been adopted by Parliament.

As was reaffirmed to Mr Mountain at stage 2, and as I said to him in a meeting this week, the Government has already committed to legislation to reform the law on residential tenancies, which will deliver a new deal for tenants. Mr Mountain’s amendment 69 is therefore completely unnecessary.

For that reason, I urge Mr Mountain not to press amendment 69 and not to move amendments 70 and 71 and, instead, to work with us as we move forward with our commitment to examine the current private rented tenancy regime over the course of this session of Parliament, building on the constructive discussions that we have had only this week.

I absolutely agree that we have the problem. What we do not have is the solution—amendment 72 is not the solution, for some of the reasons that I have set out and because of the unintended consequences that I am quite convinced Mercedes Villalba would not want to see happen.

Beyond the question of unintended consequences, given that rent control will engage the convention rights of both landlords and tenants, consultation is necessary to help us to develop proportionate rent control measures that will appropriately balance the interests of landlords and tenants.

As we have reiterated throughout the process, we have committed to implementing an effective national system of rent controls during this session of Parliament. We are doing the hard work to ensure that the model that we deliver is evidence based and robust against legal challenge. This is not scaremongering; it is simply recognising that the law is the law. Bearing in mind that a legal challenge could delay the implementation of the entire bill, we have to do the hard work that is necessary to ensure that the model is robust against legal challenge. I know that there will be people who are disappointed about that but, for those reasons, we cannot in good conscience support amendments 72 and 73.

As someone who has been making the case for reforms of the private rented sector for many years, and as someone who now has the opportunity to make progress that has been a long time coming, I welcome the fact that this agenda now has wide and growing support. What has happened to the Scottish Greens, incidentally, is that we have gained the ability, as part of the Bute house agreement and the programme for government, to put these radical measures into practice.

When the Labour Party was in government, it facilitated a massive unregulated explosion of the private rented sector, while many of us warned of the consequences. It is obviously welcome that the Labour Party now accepts that it got that wrong, but it needs to understand that a quick fix simply will not work, and that this Government—the first in decades with the determination to introduce effective rent controls—is doing the work that is necessary to fix the broken system.

Private tenants are facing extraordinary financial circumstances. Tenants should be aware of the rights that they have now to challenge unfair rent increases imposed on them by their landlord. There are strict processes set out in law that a landlord must follow if they want to increase rent. Rent adjudication rights have been in place in Scotland since 2017, meaning that a tenant can apply to have their increase adjudicated where they think that it is unfair, but those rights are not well used. To ensure that people are aware of those rights and make use of them, I have instructed officials to work with tenant representatives to take forward a further awareness-raising campaign on tenants’ rights, with the key aim of increasing the use of and access to rent adjudication. That is the process under which tenants already have the right to challenge rent rises imposed on them by their landlords. As part of that process, I will listen carefully to how we can build on the way in which rent adjudication works.

In summary, although I cannot support amendments 72 and 73, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that what this debate demonstrates is that we understand and share the sense of urgency and are taking the action that is needed. However, that action must be informed by evidence, so that it is robust, stands the test of time and actually works in practice, because that is what tenants need. I must therefore urge Mercedes Villalba not to press amendment 72 or move amendment 73. If she does, I urge members to reject those amendments.

I am happy to do so, but, like Mr Greene, Mr Mountain is perhaps conflating the measures that were necessary on an emergency basis during the pandemic with the separate question of which of the changes that were introduced in the emergency legislation have proved to be of on-going worth and should be made permanent.

Particularly in relation to housing policy, the Scottish Government has repeatedly said that we want to close the gap in outcomes between the social and private rented sectors. We believe that making permanent the measures that were brought in through emergency legislation is an appropriate decision to bring to Parliament. Those measures had already proved their worth for many years in the social rented sector and, in the past couple of years, have proved their worth in the private rented sector.

I want to begin on a note of common ground. Monica Lennon in particular wanted to thank everyone who had campaigned on the issue, raised awareness of it, and raised challenge politically. I think that that has brought about the political context that has allowed the Government to commit to reintroducing an effective national system of rent controls. Even just a few years ago, that might have been thought to be politically unachievable. It is thanks to the hard work of many campaigners throughout the country that that possibility has become a reality, now that I have the opportunity to implement that policy.

Mercedes Villalba is, of course, absolutely right to highlight a critically important issue in relation to the current cost of living crisis. I know that the issue has provoked a great deal of interest from those who oppose outright the Government’s ambitious and radical programme to introduce rent controls and from those who will confidently say that we are not doing enough, or not doing it fast enough. The issue is of interest to both sets of people, and I hope that the Presiding Officer will understand that I want to respond in some detail.

I strongly refute the idea that we are doing nothing now. The bill contains measures that will make a difference to tenants. We have taken other measures outside legislation that will make a difference to tenants, and we are doing much more. Indeed, the level of rents was a major concern for me long before we encountered the current period of extreme financial pressure that the country is now living through. That is why I have been making the case for an effective system of rent controls for over a decade now, and that is why the Bute house agreement specifically sets out that we will deliver a new deal for tenants, including implementing rent controls, during this parliamentary session.

Much of what we have heard amounts to arguments in favour of that policy, but it does not show how amendment 72 can be workable.

We are now working at pace to go through the necessary process to ensure that we make good on our commitment in ways that provide robust and lasting benefits.

The intention behind Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 72 and 73 is to prevent a private landlord from serving notice to increase rent for an assured tenancy or a private residential tenancy from the day of the bill receiving royal assent until the end of December 2024. The effect of that would be a default, national freeze on private landlords being able to increase rents for a period of around 30 months.

I know that there will be people who think that that provides the solution that tenants need now but unfortunately, in reality, it would not. I have listened carefully to Ms Villalba’s arguments and I share her sense of urgency—as should we all—but I have to be honest with members and the public that any attempt to use the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill to achieve a quick-fix solution would fail and would do more harm than good.

The proposal would constitute the imposition of sweeping rent control with very little notice given to landlords and tenants, and no opportunity to weigh up evidence on the impact and proportionality of the measures. Why is such consultation with stakeholders important? First, there are practical benefits to consultation: it will help us to understand the pattern and root causes of the rent rises, develop workable solutions that will address the problem effectively and assess the impact of those proposals on landlords and tenants.