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.

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 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.

I am grateful to members who contributed to the debate on the group. I am sorry that, as it seems, we are not in a position to change the bill to achieve what I am looking for.

I will respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been raised. The spending that is set out in the Scottish Government’s fiscal budget each year is, of course, not the only thing that will contribute to the spending and investment that are necessary to make the transition to net zero and align Scotland’s path with the carbon budget. Many other sources of funding and investment, including the private sector and the UK Government, are critical. However, that situation is not unique to climate; it applies in pretty much every other policy area. If the Government sets an objective in the field of health, for example, its achievement will be partly dependent on health spending and the investment that the Government makes through its budget for the NHS and the necessary services, but it will also be set by a host of other factors that affect public health, from individual behaviour through to the behaviour of corporations, given the goods and products that they sell, and other changes that are happening in our economy. Poverty and inequality will impact directly on health.

That does not mean that we should not set long-term objectives for health in Government policy, and it does not mean that we do not need to scrutinise whether each year’s budget contributes what is necessary to help to keep us on track on Government policies. In that sense, climate is not different from other areas in which we expect to scrutinise the Government’s budget and its ability to deliver on Government policies.

I will press amendment 14 to a vote, simply in order to register the concerns that I have raised. I hope that, in time, the Government will accept the need to close the missing area of scrutiny to fill in what Graeme Roy described as the missing jigsaw piece and to ensure that budgets are subject to independent scrutiny with a climate lens.

I press amendment 14.

First, I pay genuine tribute to Monica Lennon for making the choice to open her speech by recognising what we mean when we use jargon phrases such as “the climate emergency”. This is here and now, and it is life and death. Monica Lennon was quite right to remind us of that.

Throughout this afternoon’s proceedings, I have been struck by—and a bit upset by—the extraordinary gulf between the atmosphere in the chamber today and the atmosphere when we debated the Scottish Parliament’s first climate change bill 15 years ago. Back then, there was a huge demonstration outside the building, showing the anger and urgency, but also the optimism and determination of a host of civil society organisations, which came together in Scotland as a climate movement that was more powerful than any political party or the Government at that time. That is what forced every political party in the Parliament into what I described earlier: a race to lodge more ambitious, more constructive and bolder amendments to strengthen the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill during its passage, which is why we ended up with ambitious climate targets—well, those original climate targets felt ambitious at the time.

The atmosphere in the chamber today—when, for the most part, we have been simply nodding through technical amendments to a piece of framework legislation—tells us something about how we really feel about the bill. I think that we are a bit embarrassed by it, and I think that we should be a bit embarrassed by the need for it.

The first two climate change acts were statements of bold ambition, but the bill is an admission of failure. We need to own up to that and own it collectively, because that failure is largely a result of political choices that have been made. Even 15 years ago, when we were debating the first bold set of targets and racing for amendments to strengthen the bill, the Government was equally happy to celebrate a road-building programme; there was legislation to block or unravel road-pricing legislation that had been set in the first session of the Scottish Parliament; and a host of other policy choices were not being made in a way that was consistent with the bold ambition on climate targets.

Shifting from one legislative framework to another, what do we have in the bill? There are the multiyear carbon budgets, which is fine. I accept that the intention behind annual targets and achieving annual accountability to make it more likely that the Government would stick to a plan did not work—so, multiyear budgets? Fine. The bill includes accountability. It is not perfect, particularly in relation to the budget issues that I raised earlier.

However, the problem is not what is in the bill but what is missing at the moment, and that is the context of urgent policy action. I do not expect a full climate change plan right now, but I expect urgency. However, the assessment of the A96 is stalled and sitting on ministers’ desks unpublished; the energy strategy and just transition plan are stalled, too; there is a 20 per cent car kilometre reduction target, but nothing is happening on that; progress on rail fares and nature restoration is in reverse; and, this week, we find out that the Government is confirming significant job cuts in the heat in buildings programme—yet, without that programme, there is no credible climate change plan, and there cannot be one.

The cabinet secretary—I said “minister” earlier—makes an interesting point, which I reflected on when we debated the first climate legislation. At stage 3 then, we had a competition for the most ambitious amendments that people could make. Every single political party sought to make that bill stronger. There are climate deniers here, but they know that they are not allowed to say so openly, because those opinions are not given the space that they are given in other countries. That every party sought to make the bill stronger did not help us, though—did it? That fact did not keep us on track with the ambition that was set. Would the cabinet secretary like to reflect on why that did not happen?

At stage 2, I lodged an amendment on the emissions impact of major capital projects. I explored a number of ways in which that issue could be fitted into the new legislative framework, and whether it should align with the carbon budget report, the climate action plan and various other points in the cycle.

I think that it was understood and accepted that there needs to be some way of ensuring that the Government reports on an assessment of the impact of major capital projects—on some of which the Greens will disagree with others in the chamber. There will be major capital projects that others make the case are compatible with our climate ambitions but which Greens would criticise. We can have that debate in an informed way only if those projects are properly and rigorously assessed and we have the information available to us in order to make those judgments.

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.