Chamber and committees

A landlord has to give a full three months’ notice of a rent increase, and the rent must not have changed when that notice is issued. Tenants who wish to make a challenge can initiate that within the first 21 days of that period.

Rent service Scotland aims to respond to adjudication requests within 40 days. Obviously, there is a degree of independence from Government in the process, but we will continue to monitor the service’s ability to respond to requests in a timely manner. It is required to do so within 12 weeks, but it aims for 40 days. If we are able to maintain that level of service, the understandable concern that Mark Griffin raises is less likely to materialise.

The circumstances will be different between not only parts of the country geographically, but individual tenancies.

For example, we can think about a tenant who left a private rented home, for whatever reason, while the rent cap has been in place under the 2022 act. If there has been a turnover of tenancy, the new tenancy might well have been reset according to open-market rent and be at the upper end of that. In such a circumstance, there might be very little gap between the rent that is currently being paid and the open-market rent. However, there might be a very big gap for the same property with the same landlord, if there had not been a turnover of tenancy and that landlord, prior to the cost of living crisis, had done their best to keep rent rises low for a number of years, because they wanted to hang on to a good tenant and sustain the tenancy. The circumstances will be different.

In relation to the earlier questions about data, it is very clear that we do not have granular, detailed data about the level of rents that are being paid. We have much more information about the rents that are being advertised. That is a matter to keep under careful watch as the rent adjudication process resumes and Scotland moves out of the temporary rent cap measures. However, at the moment, we do not have the level of detail about the rents that are being paid, as opposed to the rents that are being advertised, which would give a definitive answer to the question.

A range of views are expressed on the potential impact of the temporary legislation on the wider PRS market. It is very clear that new rent increases, as advertised, have been rising in a worryingly strong way in many parts of the UK. A few days ago, the BBC ran a story that showed that Glasgow and Edinburgh are at the upper end of that. Glasgow was a fraction of a per cent above Bolton and Manchester; Edinburgh was a bit below Manchester and London.

If the temporary legislation is the factor that is driving the increase in new rents being set, I would expect to see a big gap between areas in Scotland and areas in the rest of the UK, but we do not see that. We do see a range of experiences in different parts of Scotland. Cities, as well as towns that are within commuting distance of cities, have been seeing big increases in advertised rents throughout the UK. That is a worry and we will have to consider it as we look at the permanent changes to legislation with the new housing bill.

I do not think that the situation could be used as a justification for not using the power to add an additional comparator as we return to the rent adjudication process. That additional comparator enables us to provide some protection against a cliff edge for tenants as we move out of the temporary legislation. The evidence from around the UK of rent rises for new tenancies reinforces the desire to ensure that that cliff edge is not experienced and that annual in-tenancy rent increases do not, suddenly, in a single step, return to that open-market condition.

In relation to the previous issue, I refer Mr Briggs to the business and regulatory impact assessment, which was published alongside the regulations, and looks at the number of properties that are likely to be affected. The assessment models some of the possible impacts and explores the level of rent that landlords would forgo and tenants would save.

I am sorry that the Scottish Association of Landlords has chosen to use such language. I do not believe that the Scottish Government uses “anti-landlord rhetoric”—I would not acknowlegde that. During the debates on the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill and in relation to the development of the consultation on the wider rented sector strategy, the new deal for tenants and the development of the new housing bill, we have said very clearly that we want a private rented sector that has high standards and that is part of a housing system in which all people have their human right to adequate housing realised, and that responsible landlords have nothing to fear from regulation. Our approach is about raising the standards in places where we do not see responsible practice taking place.

We are all conscious that, within the private rented sector, there is a range of practice, a range of affordability and a range of protection of and respect for tenants’ rights. We want to encourage the best, and we want to ensure that, where standards are not as they should be, they will be raised up.

Good, responsible landlords have nothing to fear from a proportionate approach to regulation. Across many other European countries, the provision of a decent level of regulation and protection for tenants is entirely consistent with a viable private rented sector, and I think that, in fact, that is the experience in Scotland, too. Over the decades, there have been gradual increases and improvements in regulation of the private rented sector and protection for tenants at the same time as a dramatic increase in the scale and size of the private rented sector. Indeed, even during the operation of the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 and the rent cap, the number of properties that are registered under the landlord register has gone up slightly.

I recognise that the Scottish Association of Landlords has conducted a survey of a small number of tenants, from which it appears to be extrapolating as though it proves something on the wider picture; I do not think that the data that we have demonstrates that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Further to that point of order, I trust—and I hope that we can all trust—that, in your consideration of these issues, you will give a high priority to the absolutely essential role that the right to peaceful protest plays in our democracy and in the life of our Parliament.

It comes down to the case that we are making for large-scale investment. I hope that we have common ground with Scottish Labour, which will press an incoming Government to bring the scale of investment that is required. However, we should also press that Government on restoring freedom of movement, because that, too, is a critical part of addressing the skills shortage in many parts of our economy.

There has been a little bit of fairly predictable knockabout stuff in today’s debate, as usual. Perhaps it is inevitable—we all do it sometimes. However, I will start by stepping out of character a little bit and agreeing with something that Fergus Ewing said—yes, it happens once in a while. Fergus Ewing was right when he said that those who simply make speeches saying how wonderful or awful the Scottish or UK Government is and that kind of simplistic knockabout stuff are not rising to the occasion. The debate was intended to set out the urgent need for a scale of investment, both state and private, that would rival the likes of the European green deal and the US Inflation Reduction Act 2020.

Some members did rise to the occasion and engaged with the deep question—not just about what is happening with Scottish Government or UK Government policy, but about the context of the UK economy. Could Scotland do it better? Will an incoming UK Government do it better? That is about the scale of the challenge and the investment that will be necessary if we are going to recognise that addressing climate change is not just a necessity—the greatest challenge of our age—but an enormous opportunity for Scotland. That is why it is one of the three defining missions of this Government.

The cabinet secretary highlighted some hugely positive developments, and I will do the same. In the 20 years that I have been an MSP, we have seen a revolution in renewable electricity. Twenty years ago, a little more than 300 sites were generating electricity from renewable sources in Scotland. That compares with 130,000 sites today. In the next 20 years, other areas, such as green hydrogen, have the potential to mirror that scale of growth. To deliver that, we need not just investment but the right environment for the relevant businesses to grow in the right way and respond to those challenges. That means clarity, stability and long-term horizons. That is at the heart of what I am seeking to do in my portfolio in heat and buildings, to support Scotland to transition away from a volatile fossil fuel market to a clean energy future.

At the end of last year, we consulted on a proposed legal backstop for decarbonising our homes and buildings, which sent a clear signal of intent that all homes and buildings will use clean heating by 2045. The response to that has been positive. The chief executive of the UK Climate Change Committee called it a template that could be followed by other parts of the UK. The Aldersgate Group, whose members include National Grid, Scottish Power and Lloyds Bank, welcomed the clarity that our proposals provide and the potential benefits to the economy of upgrading our housing stock. That contrasts clearly with the damaging signals that the UK Government has sent out.

There is, of course, far more to do. We need to continue to grow our skills, our capacity and our supply chain. We are already making changes to improve the application process, which Willie Rennie referred to, and there will be further developments on that later this year. Our proposed heat in buildings bill will also further increase the investment that has been happening, which has led, for example, to the employment of 1,800 people in a heat pump factory in Scotland, as a result of a choice by a global business to base that part of its operation here.

Across Scotland, a great many businesses, new and old, are seizing the positive opportunities that come from manufacturing the products that will be needed, skilling up their workforce and investing for the future. The bill will create—

I support the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary and send that clear signal not only to the current UK Government—

Douglas Lumsden knows—or at least he should do—that Greens, like the whole Scottish Government, are extremely enthusiastic about the potential for green hydrogen. On nuclear, is he aware of reports just this week of yet more cost overrun and delay on the Hinkley development that the UK Government is proposing? That development, however expensive it ends up being to build, will rely on an incredibly expensive price for the electricity that it will produce. It is slow and costly, and it locks in high energy prices.

—at the tail end of its term, but to those who are incoming as well.