Chamber and committees

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have decided to allow the use of direct-emissions heating in emergencies. That kind of emergency back-up might involve the option to use bioenergy, whether in solid or liquid form. Fundamentally, though, bioenergy systems produce direct emissions, which is the position that we need to move away from.

Alternative options are available for new builds. For example, when looking at the regulations on the existing housing stock, we need to take account of what is technically feasible and what the exemptions and allowances might be. That is a matter for future consideration.

The Climate Change Committee has acknowledged that bioenergy might have a limited role to play, but that it needs to be used where it has the potential to maximise emissions reduction and where there is no alternative zero-emissions technology. We think that that is far less likely in relation to new builds, where there are other options for installation instead of bioenergy systems being put in as a primary heating source from the outset.

In line with the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation that bioenergy systems be used where no alternative is available, we do not believe that installing such systems as primary heating systems for new builds is appropriate.

Antonia Georgieva wants to come in again.

I am sure that I can expect a parliamentary question on that issue.

We were clear when we debated the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill and took it through the Parliament that, in cases of severe rent arrears, a tenant does not simply need to be stuck in one place, accruing ever more debt. That was one reason why severe rent arrears were included as a ground for pursuing eviction.

The issue is, of course, extremely serious. Some of the longer-term work that we are doing, including the homelessness prevention duties in the new housing bill, will be relevant.

I should, though, point out some of the information that has already been published on referrals with regard to people becoming homeless and the tenure that they previously had. A significant reduction in respect of the private rented sector has been showing up in the statistics over the period; in fact, I think that the figure has come down to pre-pandemic levels.

Adam Krawczyk might have found the graph that I have just been frantically searching for. Adam—is there anything you can say about the figures that you have in front of you?

Obviously, we stay in touch with the tribunal on the impacts with regard to the design and, now, implementation of the legislation, and we will continue to be in close contact on the implications of any further changes. What is worth reflecting on, though, is that even once the 2022 act comes to an end and ceases to apply, tenants will have the high levels of protection that they had before it. Indeed, the UK Government itself is now starting to introduce some aspects of that protection; I welcome its change of position in that respect. The end of the emergency legislation will not mean the end of tenant protection—not by a long way; tenants will return to the high level of legal rights and protection that existed prior to it.

We continue to keep a close eye on the issue. We are aware of anecdotal evidence that landlords have been talking about it. Some cite the temporary cost of living measures in the 2022 act as one factor; I have heard from a number of landlords for whom changes in UK tax policy have been a bigger motivation in their decisions about whether to consider leaving the sector.

On the actual evidence, though, the number of properties registered for private rent in Scotland under the registration scheme has not changed significantly. We are conscious that there is likely to be a bit of a time lag in the collection of the data, but at the moment the figures do not show a significant reduction in the number of properties available.

As I said, we will continue to keep under review the proportionality and necessity of the measures. The next report that I mentioned is due by mid-October; it will inform the committee’s consideration of our proposals at that stage. As was set out in the statement of reasons that we published in June, we believe that the evidence is sufficient to justify continuation of the rent cap. Any subsequent variation in the level of the cap would be likely to be covered in the report in October.

The cost crisis is continuing to have an impact, and we need to recognise that that continued impact is being felt by tenants as well as by landlords. It has always been part of the design of the legislation to recognise the protection that tenants need, but it also recognises that safeguards for landlords are needed and that there must be a proper balance between those needs.

The fact is that the economic circumstances have not fundamentally changed. The cost crisis has not fundamentally gone away and, even if the hopeful projections around reduced inflation come to pass in the months ahead, people are still living with the increased costs that they have been landed with. That applies to tenants as well as to landlords and does not change the fundamental calculation that we have made about the balance between protection of rents and the safeguards for landlords that we have proposed.

That question is hugely important, and Ivan McKee is right to point to that power in the legislation. It allows an adjustment to be made to the rent adjudication process, the idea of which is to prevent an immediate cliff edge when the temporary emergency legislation is switched off. We are still at the point of exploring the options to make the most effective use of that power. I am afraid that I am not able to publish detailed proposals on that, but we can expect them to come forward in time for expiry of the rent cap.

I turn to Yvette Sheppard. Are we able to say anything more at this point on the expected timescale? I know that dialogue has taken place on the subject with stakeholders, too.

I come back to the difference between the longer-term development of housing policy and legislation, the new housing bill and the homelessness prevention duties and the good level of dialogue that we are having with the sector in the broadest terms as we take forward that work and, in this instance, the specific tests that we have to go through that were required under the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 to justify the necessity and proportionality of not only continuing but, in this case, extending the provisions. Under the legislation, we remain under the duty to keep that test of proportionality and necessity under on-going review and to expire provisions that we can no longer justify in those terms. The extension to next March at the latest does not remove the requirement on us to continue to carry out that on-going review.

I had a meeting with Graeme Dey the other week and we talked about the connections between the Scottish Government’s approach to what we are trying to achieve in energy terms, the impact on skills and the potential role that the college sector can play. There are a great many colleges around the country, and one of the first that I visited in this role was in Dumfries, in the south of Scotland. It was investing in additional capacity because it knew that that demand was coming and that those skills would be needed. I challenge the idea that it is only happening in the central belt or in big cities—it is happening around the country.

Inevitably, a great many of these decisions about the capacity for training and skills around the country will be determined by the industry’s demand for such skills. That is why, as I said earlier, the Government’s approach to regulating—which is to create demand in the first place—is absolutely central to giving industry the confidence to invest. If it knows what skills will be required and what demand will be generated, it will ensure that those skills are invested in and supplied and that we have that wider supply chain capacity. The one thing that we could do to imperil investment in skills or the wider supply chain is to say, “Actually, we’re going to take a step back and delay or water down the regulations.” The regulations are a necessary part of setting the conditions for the investment that we need.