Chamber and committees

I would like to support the Labour amendment, if I understand its meaning correctly. When Mr Griffin says that the framework needs to be brought forward in the year 2 bill, is he referring—I hope that he is—to the need to generate the data that is required to understand the matter and to design a proper system? We will not be able to implement the rent control system in year 2, but we will put in place the framework for collection of data. If that is what he means, I very much welcome his position and would like to support his amendment.

As I have said, it is clear that one of the fatal flaws in that system has been placing the onus—the whole responsibility—on local government to generate the data and produce an evidence base to show that rent pressure zones are necessary. That is why I believe that an effective national system of rent controls is needed.

When it comes to the fixation on market values and on the operation of a free market, it is abundantly clear that such an approach to housing has failed far too many people. In any case, housing is not just a market commodity; it is a human right. There is a moral case for fair rent, which I believe is equal to the moral case for fair wages. These days, few people would question the need for a minimum wage and for the state to intervene in what would otherwise be an extremely exploitative free market. The case that we need to make is every bit as clear.

I am delighted to be able to do so, Presiding Officer. I have taken part in housing debates in the chamber over many years, and during those debates, I have often taken the opportunity to reflect on my own experience of renting a home.

I have known good landlords who act responsibly, but I have also known high rents and poor maintenance. I have been harassed out of a flat by an abusive landlord, and I can still remember the shock, when I could eventually afford to buy a home, of learning just how much more I had been paying to rent a room and kitchen than it cost to have a mortgage on an entire two-bedroom flat. I know very well, from personal experience, that Scotland’s tenants need a new deal. I am delighted that I now have the opportunity to propose action to Parliament.

The 700,000 people who rent privately need a new deal to give them the freedom to turn a house into a home, to better protect them from eviction, to challenge excessive rents and to assure them that authorities will take action if their landlord steps over the line.

More than 1 million people who rent from a council, a housing association or a co-operative need a new deal to continue to improve access to housing and to drive up standards, as we tackle the twin challenges of fuel poverty and climate change.

Together, all the people who rent need a new deal that helps them be better informed, more meaningfully engaged and better able to exercise their rights—a new deal that centres firmly on housing as a human right. That is why the draft new deal for tenants that we announced yesterday is a new deal for all tenants. It is also why “Housing to 2040”, which was published earlier this year, pledged to develop a whole rented sector strategy. The draft new deal for tenants also incorporates all the ambitions for the rented sector that were set out in the shared policy programme between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Greens.

For work of that scale of ambition, we need to hear from many perspectives. Over the past few months, I have met senior councillors and staff, tenants unions, landlords, housing associations, campaigners and letting agents. However, above all, the Government needs to hear more from tenants. That is why we are working with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, whose expertise has been very helpful in enabling us to engage with private rented sector tenants.

I have already committed to establishing a tenant participation panel for the private rented sector—it will be the first of its kind—to ensure that tenants’ voices are front and centre. I am also seeking views on how we can support the development of tenants unions and other ways of engaging with tenants. Early in the new year, we will launch a new publicity campaign to make sure that tenants know their rights.

I believe that a whole sector approach is required so that all tenants can expect value for money and good housing standards. Housing systems are integrated, and neighbourhoods and even buildings are mixed—each sector can learn from the other. However, I recognise that, for private renters in particular, there is a power imbalance where tenants are less able to exercise their rights and continue to have less secure tenancies than those in the social sector. Therefore, many of the specific policy proposals that I am seeking views on in the consultation relate to private renting.

That is why I have set out proposals for the introduction of a new housing bill in the second year of this parliamentary session and a new regulator for the private rented sector to enforce standards. We will also work towards a national system of rent controls for the private rented sector by beginning to put in place the evidence framework that is needed.

However, I know that there is more to be done for social tenants, too, so we are also consulting on a number of things to support them. They include creating a new housing standard, regulating to set minimum standards for energy efficiency and zero emissions heating for all homes, and exploring what further action we can take to ensure that rents in the social rented sector are affordable.

I think that I heard the request from Pam Duncan-Glancy first.

I thank all members who have contributed to a constructive debate. It is clear that there are some issues of substance that we will disagree on. Some are calling on us not to do certain things; others say that we are not going nearly fast enough. We will have those debates and perhaps disagreements—that is all legitimate.

I want to pull out one point that has come across from right across the spectrum. The importance of home has been recognised in speeches from all parties. We have learned more about that and maybe understood that at a deeper level in these days of Covid, in which more people have had to work from home or have been isolated and cooped up together. The necessity of making the right to adequate housing a real, delivered human right in our society and of recognising that not everybody’s right to adequate housing is being met is really important, as is recognising the meaning and importance of home.

Residential properties are not principally speculative investments or substitute pensions; they are principally homes. That is what they are for, and that must be our priority. I hope that, whatever differences we might have on points of detail and individual policies, we will all continue to stick to that principle and work towards the realisation of adequate housing being a human right that has to be met everywhere.

In the time available, I want to run through some of the contributions and, in particular, I want to talk about all the amendments that we will vote on.

Miles Briggs opened for the Conservative Party. Obviously, we disagree on some fundamentals, but we have some important points of agreement. Not least, we thank the organisations that sent briefings. Many of them have worked with me to help to shape our thinking ahead of the publication of the strategy. The Conservatives have expressed support for measures to support those who are experiencing or are at risk of domestic abuse as well as for action on illegal evictions. I think that I heard support for action on winter evictions, as well. If there is any common ground that we have there, I will certainly look forward to working together on that.

However, I do not agree with the Conservative amendment, the budget analysis in it, or the focus, for example, on the rural housing fund. That fund is not, by a long way, the only way in which social housing is provided in rural and islands areas. In fact, during the previous parliamentary session, more than 6,000 social homes were provided in rural and islands areas. The amendment would also delete a lot of the ambition in the Government’s motion, so we will not support it.

It is very clear that rent pressure zones have not been used anywhere by any local authority. One of the issues is that the burden of responsibility is on local authorities to come forward with evidence. I hope that, even if the Conservatives do not ultimately support the proposals on rent controls, they will support the action that we need to take to gather the evidence and data that are required to design a good system.

In that case, I once again thank everyone who has contributed to our thinking in developing the strategy and who has contributed to the debate. It is clear that Scotland is on a journey to a much fairer position for tenants in the private and social rented sectors, as well as in the more niche, unconventional areas of rented accommodation. I invite the Parliament to share my ambition for a new deal for tenants in Scotland to make that fairer Scotland possible, and to support the Government motion as well as the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments.

The Scottish Government is clear, across the whole heat in buildings strategy, that a huge scale of investment is needed. That is why we will create a green heat finance task force to look at the wide range of options for increasing that investment. We are committed to supporting local communities and local authorities that want to maximise the deployment of heat networks, and we will work collaboratively with local government and across the political spectrum to ensure that that happens.

As set out in the heat in buildings strategy, we will invest £400 million over this session to support the development of heat networks and low-carbon heat infrastructure at scale in Scotland. We will also launch a heat network pre-capital support unit in 2022, which will help to nurture opportunities for new networks and to expand existing ones. In addition, the Scottish Government’s community and renewable energy scheme—CARES—utilises the Local Energy Scotland network of regionally based development officers to provide advice and financial support to local communities that are looking to decarbonise their energy consumption.

Presiding Officer, I wish to raise a point of order regarding exchanges at the end of yesterday’s debate on backing the north-east economy. It is undeniable that feelings were running high in that debate, and I was, of course, frustrated when Douglas Lumsden misquoted my comments about party-political support for the development of new fossil fuel extraction. I acknowledge that I do not know whether he had, in fact, ever bothered to check what I had actually said or whether he merely accepted at face value a false media report and repeated it without knowing.

Of course, I accept that matters of accuracy are not something that you are able to rule on, Presiding Officer. You and previous Presiding Officers have frequently been annoyed by accuracy matters being raised in that way, so I could and should have found a different way to challenge the inaccuracy and to ask Mr Lumsden to correct the record.

However, it is very clear that what followed was far more serious than a slightly annoying use of a point of order. In relation to a physical attack that took place against his local office, and speaking in direct reference to me, Mr Lumsden stated:

“I am not telling the police how to do their job, but perhaps they should consider that a member of this Parliament instigated that attack.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2021; c 63.]

Presiding Officer, in both his words and his body language, he made it perfectly clear that I was the member he was referring to. Let me be equally clear. This allegation of instigating an attack on his office is utterly baseless and deeply offensive. I consider it to be clearly defamatory, and, if it had been made anywhere else but in the chamber of Parliament, I would be taking legal advice.

Conduct in the chamber is regulated by the code of conduct and by your own role as Presiding Officer. We surely cannot permit a situation in which a member is able to level a completely spurious allegation of serious criminal conduct against another member without consequences. To do so would signal to all members that such disgraceful behaviour is acceptable. So, I ask you, what are the consequences for Mr Lumsden’s shocking abuse of his position in Parliament and how can all members be assured that they will be protected from such behaviour in the future?