Chamber and committees

We have a full programme of work to be enacted well before the end of 2025. I commend Pauline McNeill for her work on the issue in the previous parliamentary session and I hope that she will work constructively with the Government to take forward our new deal for tenants under the rented sector strategy.

Some work under the strategy will be implemented earlier. Aspects including the models of rent control need proper work to examine the range of options that exist, including those that were included in Pauline McNeill’s member’s bill. However, there are other options and models that we need to examine to get the system right.

In Scotland, we have already gone through a process of designing and adopting a system of rent controls that did not work. Rent pressure zones have never been used and have not changed anyone’s rent. Let us not get it wrong; let us spend the time to consult openly and get the model right. I hope that we will be able to work constructively with colleagues across the—

No one who had already been offered an LPG system or an equivalent system has had the offer withdrawn. In fact, all those that were in the pipeline had commitments made, and those commitments were honoured.

Now, particularly as the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—is taking place in Glasgow, we should all be conscious that simply continuing with some of the most polluting heating systems that are available to us is really not an option if we want to support householders in all parts of the country to reduce their emissions.

We continue to provide a wide range of interventions for those who might previously have been offered LPG systems, and we are committed to continuing to review and improve the offer that is available.

Yes—I can hear you fine. Can you hear me?

It is still a relatively new experience for me to end such a debate with all my notes about members’ speeches that I would like to respond to as well as a speech that has been written for me. I will not have time for both—I will have to let someone down. I give my apologies to members whom I do not mention and to the officials if I do not use all the words that they have provided for me.

Obviously, it is always important at any time, and more so as we face recovery from a historic pandemic, that Opposition MSPs—in fact, all MSPs—urge the Government to go further and faster and to be bolder. That is absolutely as it should be. I was really heartened by the number of speeches that showed that, although we may have our differences, many members do not want us to be distracted by those differences and do not want them to prevent us from working together where we can, being bold and taking a transformational approach to the agenda.

On Mr Rowley’s closing speech for Labour in particular, I hope and believe that every member, regardless of their political party, wants us to go further and faster on the issues that he mentioned, including properly valuing the historically undervalued care work in our society that is so critical to us. He welcomes the work that has been done on that and I welcome the passion that he and other colleagues bring to the topic. That work is best advanced by making credible, workable and costed proposals for achieving it, and I hope that the Labour Party will do that rather than making an uncosted £1.8 billion proposal in an amendment in a debate. However, we will be able to do work on the matter if we choose to work together.

Mr Johnson knows that when we say “costed” we mean where the money is coming from, not just where it is going. We will aim to work together. We have a budget and a national care service bill ahead of us and those are places where we will continue to make progress.

I emphasise the scale of opportunity that there is to make change, whether on financial security for low-income households or through the actions that the Government is taking on public transport costs, which several members mentioned, school meals, school uniforms, rent and housing affordability. Christine Grahame mentioned some of the work that has been done throughout the Parliament’s existence on taking a universalist approach on issues such as social care and higher education. Those are all measures that will help to address affordability and financial security, but there is much more that we need to do.

Christine Grahame went on to challenge us all. In questioning what we mean by wellbeing, she challenged us all to be ambitious, take the approach that the post-war generation took and take the opportunity to move beyond what she described as today’s unsustainable, consumerist, growth-for-growth’s-sake economy. That is the scale of ambition that we should have and should capture as we seek to build a wellbeing economy.

Pam Duncan-Glancy, in an excellent speech, talked about harnessing the innovation that has been necessary due to Covid and described us as having an unprecedented moment of opportunity. I agree and hope that we can all seek to capture that spirit while acknowledging our other differences on many issues.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s description of marginalisation and inequality as a form of lockdown was important. It recognises the reality that the freedoms that were restricted as a result of Covid were not equally shared in the first place. If we want to overcome that, we need to do what the Government wants to do as its second core objective of Covid recovery, which is to make the wellbeing of children and young people the priority.

A number of members mentioned fair work and good green jobs. There will be a great deal more work to do on that. As members know, the Covid recovery strategy is not a stand-alone document. It will connect with many others, including the national strategy for economic transformation.

I reassure my colleague Ross Greer that we do not seek a return to the old normal. He is right to question whether recovery is always the right word. Perhaps it is not. The national strategy for economic transformation will be focused on just that: transformation. He is right that the review of the national performance framework is another opportunity to address that.

Aspects of that work will, I hope, cut across the political spectrum. For example, Liz Smith was right to raise issues in relation to the retail and hospitality sectors. A retail strategy is coming and is due quite soon, and I hope that members across the spectrum will engage with that. However, we must recognise that retail and hospitality have suffered from deep, long-standing problems of poverty wages, insecure incomes and low rates of unionisation. Those are the conditions that lead people to have precarious lives, just as precarious housing does. The actions that the Government wants to take on tenants’ rights, and the rented sector strategy that will be coming soon, will aim to address precarious living.

I thank members who have engaged with the debate in an attempt to capture the shared moment of opportunity, challenging the Government to go further and faster and be bolder. Members should keep doing that. I do not have to urge them; I know that all members will. However, the Covid recovery strategy sets out a clear, ambitious vision for Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic. We will focus on the people who have been affected most over the past 18 or so months, increasing financial security for low-income households, enhancing the wellbeing of children and young people and creating good, green jobs and fair work.

I hope that all members across the spectrum share those three goals and want to help the Government to go further and faster. Central to the recovery from the pandemic is our Government’s focus on achieving those three goals. That is the future that Scotland needs and deserves, and I believe that, together, we can and will ensure that Scotland can achieve it.

Mr Kerr knows that I and members from a number of parties across the chamber have been pushing for action on this not for years but for decades. I hope that he is not suggesting that we should not have consulted on the draft strategy that was produced earlier this year. I hope that he recognises the value of consultation. The final version of the strategy is stronger and richer for having had constructive input from many stakeholders. I hope that Mr Kerr will welcome that.

The total cost of investment between now and our target date of 2045 is immense. I made that clear in my statement. The commitment that the Scottish Government makes during this session of Parliament will not be the end of the story. This is a multi-decade programme that we must all commit to. As my statement said, costs will be met not only from public funding but from a wide range of sources. I hope that Mr Kerr will engage constructively with our proposal for a finance task force to look at those challenges.

Colleagues who are responsible for other portfolios will address some of the issues affecting schools, colleges and universities. Those are important points. Many private sector companies and contractors that install conventional heating systems see big opportunities if we can give them the right support to access the work and take on more people to do the incredible job of addressing the climate change emergency, and if we make sure that all communities across Scotland can do so affordably.

I will of course be very happy to have a discussion with Alasdair Allan about that. I am aware that PAS 2035 introduces a new retrofit co-ordinator role to ensure compliance with standards and to co-ordinate work so that the intended outcomes are achieved.

That includes provision for improvements in indoor air quality and is particularly true when the energy efficiency improvements are detrimental to natural air flow, in which case the co-ordinator may insist on additional measures to address that.

However, we understand that the retrofit co-ordinator ultimately decides on the course of action alongside the designer. We are in continual discussions with the British Standards Institution to ensure that Scottish stakeholders’ views are factored into the development of those standards. I would be happy to meet Alasdair Allan and the provider that he mentions to look into those issues.

I have laid out in detail how we support that work. I see the scepticism on Mr Simpson’s face; I ask him to acknowledge that decisions need to be made at every level of Government, including in relation to regulating prices. The Scottish Government cannot do that; the UK Government can and must change the pricing structure so that it is more affordable for people to operate low-carbon heating systems.

As I said to Labour colleagues earlier, if Mr Simpson wants to come forward with a proposal for a £33 billion tax increase and persuade us to do that so that the public sector funds all that work, he is welcome to write to me about that.

We are currently considering a wide range of information and evidence on rent controls and other issues that will be part of our new deal for tenants. That will include examining international comparisons with Sweden and other countries, which will help to inform our thinking as we progress policy development in that important area of work.

The member is probably aware that that issue was debated long and hard across a range of political parties during the previous session of Parliament as we developed the emergency legislation and that a wide range of views were expressed about the prioritisation of support. The tenant hardship loan fund has only recently been replaced with a grant fund, and I hope that the member will be willing to let that system be operational before she judges whether it is a success. [Patrick Harvie has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] Many voices—mine and others, including from the Labour Party—quite rightly criticised the idea that loans alone would meet the needs of tenants. That is why a grant fund has been agreed and put in place by the Scottish Government.