Chamber and committees

What we are seeing in Scotland is a continued commitment to ensuring that the housing system meets everybody’s needs—our human right to adequate housing and security of tenure as well as affordability—

Will the member take an intervention?

I was about to talk about the extent of supply after initially talking about the nature of it.

The extent of supply is critical. That issue has been raised by a number of members, and it is worth recognising something about the track record in that area. The 2,500-plus affordable homes that were completed in the latest quarter to September 2022 brings to 9,449 the total number of homes completed in the 12 months prior to that. That is an increase of only 2 per cent on the previous year, but against the backdrop of extraordinary inflation pressures—which we all recognise—as well as the lack of comparable action that we have seen from the UK Government, I think that any increase during the past year is significant.

However, I am not for a moment going to wish away or pretend that we do not face continual, on-going challenges—nor would the cabinet secretary. Some members do not like it when Scottish ministers compare our track record to that of the UK Government, but let us just recognise that, in the four years leading up to 2021-22, Scotland saw not only a marginal improvement on what was happening in England but 59 per cent more affordable homes and more than nine times as many social rented homes delivered per head of population than were delivered in England. Scotland has a strong track record, but we also face challenges as we continue to deliver on that track record.

Members have debated the budget and have different interpretations of it. The cabinet secretary has laid out very clearly how we will continue to strain every sinew to fund the long-term commitment of £3.5 billion being made available for the affordable housing programme during this parliamentary session. I would take criticisms from Conservative members a little bit more seriously if even one Conservative member had argued that the UK Government should inflation-proof the Scottish Government’s block grant so that we are protected from the harm that has been done by the ideological experiment that was the mini-budget from the Truss-Kwarteng temporary Government. During the debate, I have been accused—I think by Mr Simpson—of being an ideologue. The most ideological actions that we have seen that have impacted on our ability to deliver affordable housing have come from the UK Government, not from this one.

I will finish by saying that this is about more than just supply. There are those ideologues who think that the free market will deliver everything. I do not believe that a deregulated free market will deliver housing as a human right for people; I think that we need the action of Government.

I know that I am limited in what I can say about recent legislation, and I regret that I cannot respond directly to the points that were made by some members who chose not to respect those limits, which we were warned about at the start of the debate. However, we are clear on the need to protect people from high rents and to ensure that people have security of tenure.

What we are seeing in Scotland—

—and that is what we will continue to do.

I am pleased that Mr Fraser is such a fan of the eurozone and of our European colleagues such as Germany, with a decades-long system of rent controls and a stronger and larger rented sector than we have in this country. Is that not evidence enough that we can do a great deal better than the deregulated free market approach that he advocates?

I thank Willie Rennie for that question, which raises a substantive issue. Mid-market rent homes are rented out as private residential tenancies. They do not fall within the social rented sector part of the legislation; they are private residential tenancies and, therefore, they are treated in that way.

It is really important to mention that, whether it is a social landlord or any other developer looking to provide new homes, the emergency legislation affects in-tenancy rent increases; it does not affect the rent setting for new homes. Given that the legislation can be in operation only for a further two six-month periods after the initial period, no developer that is looking to provide new homes should consider it a barrier to setting rents in the first instance for new homes. It is about the setting of rent increases within tenancies, which, in any case, can take place only once a year. It should have marginal to no impact on any developer that is looking to decide how much investment it puts into the provision of new homes.

Absolutely. Several members have asked about that. We remain absolutely committed to bringing forward the new deal for tenants proposals, which the Government has already consulted on.

I want to again place on record, as I did during the debates on the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill, my appreciation for the incredible hard work and energy that have been put into addressing the issue by officials in the Scottish Government, who had a great deal asked of them to deliver such groundbreaking emergency legislation and to continue to work on developing the longer-term legislation. I look forward to being able to introduce that legislation to Parliament and to its being scrutinised by members of all parties.

We will actively engage with the whole of the social rented sector—housing associations and local authorities—to monitor the implementation of rent rises and to understand the impact on tenants.

Mr Doris is right to say that the agreement that we have reached means that the average rent increases will be low. We are all aware of the distinct nature of the social housing sector and its hugely important value to communities across Scotland.

I thank Mark Griffin for his questions, which raise substantial issues that are of concern to us. We want to ensure that the tenant grant fund is achieving the greatest possible benefit for those who need it. We are actively engaging with local authorities around the guidance on how that can be delivered as effectively as possible. I hope that we can rely on the support of Labour to achieve that objective.

In relation to the longer-term reform, of course, we discussed some of that during the debates on the bill. I know that Labour understands that the emergency legislation needs to be justified in the context of the on-going economic circumstances of the cost of living crisis, and there is a requirement in the legislation for us to continue to assess and report on its necessity and proportionality. If we were not doing that, there would, understandably, be much more danger of the measures being challenged. For the time being, we are satisfied that they remain proportionate and necessary. We will have to keep that under review and that review is why we cannot give an absolute guarantee about what the subsequent decisions will be at later six-month periods. However, the legislation includes a mechanism to reform the adjudication methodology so that we can have a bridge into the longer-term work that will be taken forward later in this parliamentary session.

Even before we had the final debates in Parliament on the legislation, we had begun an active engagement with COSLA, as well as with social housing providers in the housing association field, through the task and finish group that I mentioned in the statement. Many of the issues that those providers raised were also raised by parliamentarians from across all the political parties in Parliament.

We all understand that the social rented sector does not exist to make profit; it reinvests rental income for the benefit of tenants and the wider community. Affordability is built into the way in which it operates, and it sets rents in a different way from the private rented sector. Representatives of the social rented sector wanted us to understand that, and we wanted to assure them that we do so, we take it seriously and we want to work with them not just on protecting tenants in the here and now but on investing for the future in adequate supply and, of course, the transition to net zero, all of which requires them to be able to manage and plan for their investments. I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement with the sector. I hope that members across the chamber will be reassured by that.