Chamber and committees

No—there is not a jot of evidence that that is the consequence of the temporary rent freeze. Mr Briggs knows very well that a temporary rent freeze was not capable of disincentivising any investment, because it was about only existing tenancies, not new build.

The Tory motion is clearly a demand for housing policy that goes back to putting landlord wealth ahead of the human right to housing. In itself, the SNP amendment is fine, and, if it passes, I will vote for the amended motion. However, given that it pre-empts the Green amendment, we will not be supporting it.

When it comes to proposed amendments, it is important to acknowledge that, even in an area where rental conditions have been assessed and there is the maximum possible evidence of extreme rent levels—even in those circumstances—the strongest action that could be taken would still mean above-inflation rent rises continuing in perpetuity. That means people’s rent rising faster than their food prices, faster than their energy prices and faster than their transport costs. That will not achieve affordability. Even in a future inflation crisis, with a similar inflation spike to what we have seen in recent years, it would not be possible to impose a rent freeze under the new proposals.

Of course supply is an important part of the picture. However, the issue is about not only numbers but the type and price of housing that is built. For example, we are seeing build-to-rent housing that costs £1,200, £1,400 or £1,500 a month. That is not the kind of housing that Scotland needs. We need to understand the distinction, which is why I hope that the Government will change its position from treating mid-market rent and build-to-rent housing as though they are the same—they are not.

Let us provide an incentive for developing—and protecting—mid-market rent and genuinely affordable homes, not an incentive for the people who want to build homes that are used merely for price gouging.

I am happy to close for the Greens.

I am pleased that Bob Doris finished by recognising some of the wider context of the bill. Up until Mr Doris spoke, relatively few members had spoken about the wider context of the bill, such as the homelessness prevention duties. In addition to those that Bob Doris mentioned, there are measures to address issues around joint tenancies and the way in which they end. Those issues have been raised repeatedly with me, and there is frustration that we do not yet have legislation that can address them. The bill is also about bringing older tenancies up to date, and about some of the—in a sense—softer tenants’ rights that are about making a house a home. Such things really matter.

Some members—perhaps those who brought the debate—are clearly motivated principally by an ideological hostility to rent controls, and by an ideological desire always to put the profits of owners and investors ahead of the human right to decent housing.

It is not specified.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will give way in a moment.

I hope that the Labour members who spoke will work with the bill. The opening speaker seemed to suggest that there were changes that he would like to see to the bill that would address some of the issues that he is concerned about. I would like to see those amendments, too. I would like to see constructive changes being brought to the bill, but we need to get past stage 1. We need to support the bill and let it go forward so that we can debate any amendments.

Having been criticised by Labour in the past for, first of all, rejecting a rent freeze that was clearly unlawful; then, imposing a rent freeze, but doing it too slowly; then, doing it too quickly; then, ending it too soon; and, then, its not lasting long enough, I do hope that Labour achieves a coherent position on rent controls, and one that we can work with.

The cabinet secretary says that the measures will make rents more affordable. Will she explain how rent will be made more affordable by amendments that require the maximum action that could ever be taken in a rent control area to keep rents rising faster than other prices and inflation?

Big differences of priority—that sounds like extraordinary complacency at a time of incredible danger for the world. The re-election of Trump is particularly dangerous for climate policy, as he has peddled climate conspiracy theories for many years.

Such threats exist in Scotland, too. The First Minister’s Government is on the verge of making a decision on a new fossil fuel power station at Peterhead. Last week, researchers at Carbon Tracker revealed that the emissions from the power station could be five times worse than the companies that would profit from it have admitted. The First Minister has the power to demand a new environmental impact assessment to ensure that those companies come clean about the pollution that their scheme would cause. Will he do so, and does he accept that, until he does, ministers could be breaking the law if they sign off that reckless fossil fuel development?

I was about to come to the specific framing of the new amendment and the changes that have been made since stage 2, but I will address those points now.

I worked with the Government and listened to its response to the arguments that I put at stage 2. It suggested a form of words for amendment 13, which, as Mr Lumsden will see, includes placing in brackets the words

“as defined in the plan”

in reference to the impact of major capital projects. Therefore, it is the plan itself that will define what is considered to be a major capital project, and it will be for the Government to make that assessment. The plan must be presented to Parliament, so Parliament will scrutinise the judgments that the Government made in reaching that definition.

We have a clear example of the gap in the information. A climate compatibility assessment has been conducted of a major transport project that the Government continues to promote and which Greens continue to criticise—the dualling of the A96. That assessment is with ministers and has not been published. How on earth are we to be able to make informed judgments about future capital projects and their compatibility with climate plans in the absence of such assessments?

I am grateful that the Government has seen fit to support an amendment to fill that gap in the information, and I hope that amendment 13 will have the support of the chamber.

I move amendment 13.

I would urge local authorities to do so, but we are passing legislation in the Parliament, and I am suggesting that we consider our responsibilities as a Parliament in the decisions that we make.

We do not scrutinise and pass or reject local government budgets—it is for councils to do that. Our job is to scrutinise and pass or reject the Scottish Government’s budget, and that task will be better informed if we require the Scottish Government to have independent scrutiny brought to bear by a body with the appropriate fiscal expertise. In that respect, I have in mind the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and I think that what I am suggesting is very much in line with the evidence that the SFC itself gave at stage 1.

I look forward to hearing what the Government has to say. I do not expect that it will support my proposal at present, but I hope that it recognises that, as Graeme Roy said, a

“piece of the jigsaw ... has been missing.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 10 September 2024; c 12.]

If what I am proposing is not the solution, I would be interested to know from the Government what it thinks that the solution is.

I move amendment 14.

Yes.