Chamber and committees

The cost of living crisis is, of course, also a cost of doing business and cost of construction crisis. We know that, not just in Scotland but across Europe, the cost of delivering new buildings of any kind, including housing, has increased dramatically. The situation has been exacerbated in the UK as a result of some of the skills impacts of Brexit, and I know that we will continue to debate those issues long and hard.

I emphasise that the Scottish Government believes that the regulations that we will consult on later this year will set a long-term direction of travel and give the industry confidence that Scotland is serious about the heat in buildings transformation. We should see this as an opportunity for investment. Trying to muddle through, year to year, would be the wrong way to go. We need to give the construction sector the confidence that Scotland is serious about having a highly energy efficient, zero-carbon approach to our buildings. That will drive investment in skills and capacity. I hope that we will have the support of Conservative colleagues when we consult on the regulations.

Unlike the position 10 or 20 years ago, when the construction industry was telling us that we should not gold plate the building regulations, it is now saying that change is coming. The industry sees that a net zero future provides it and its members with an opportunity, so we need to work constructively with it.

In what was a lively debate this afternoon, there were a number of calls for more constructive politics in the Parliament. I am therefore delighted that this short statement will give members the chance to welcome yet another example of the Government putting constructive politics into practice.

One of the critical areas in which Scotland needs to make more progress to reduce carbon emissions and to cut the cost of living is in improving the energy performance of our homes and buildings, cutting their overall energy use and ending our reliance on fossil fuel, which exposes everyone to volatile prices. That is why the Bute house agreement and the shared policy programme agreed between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party in August 2021 include commitments to decarbonise the heat that we use in new buildings from 2024 through the new-build heat standard, which we consulted on in 2021 and 2022. In announcing the latest changes to energy standards within the building regulations last June, I said that we need to raise standards and deliver the action and innovation that are needed to meet our objectives for a net zero Scotland.

The Bute house agreement also promises explicit support for Passivhaus and similar standards. As many members will know, Passivhaus is an example of a published design and construction standard that is proven to deliver buildings with very good energy and environmental performance.

Scotland should have been building highly energy-efficient homes for decades and, if we had done what some other northern European nations have done, our retrofit challenges now would be far more manageable. We have made progress, and we have good energy standards for new homes, but there is more that can be done and, in particular, lessons that can be applied from established standards such as Passivhaus.

In May last year, Alex Rowley lodged a proposal for a bill to set new minimum environmental design standards for all new-build housing to meet a Scottish equivalent of the Passivhaus standard. That proposal was welcome and was well aligned with the ambition that was set out in the Bute house agreement.

I met Mr Rowley in May and in November last year to discuss his proposal. On both occasions, it was clear that there was a shared ambition and recognition of the benefits that can be delivered from further review of our new-build energy standards. That means better energy and environmental standards for new homes and increased assurance that the design and construction of new buildings will deliver in practice the intended performance. We also discussed the Government’s wider work on improving standards, including the most recent changes, which will apply from next month.

On 15 December last year, I wrote to Alex Rowley and to Parliament in response to his final bill proposal. I am pleased to confirm to Parliament that we will bring forward changes to building standards that will deliver a further step change in the energy performance of new buildings. As is required under rules 9.14.13 and 9.14.13A of standing orders, I confirm that the Scottish Government will make subordinate legislation within two years to introduce new minimum environmental design standards for all new-build housing to meet a Scottish equivalent of the Passivhaus standard, in order to improve energy efficiency and thermal performance. Our subordinate legislation will give effect to Mr Rowley’s final proposal for a domestic building environmental standards (Scotland) bill.

Committing to a timetable for a further review enables us to set out the ambition in more detail in the spring and to continue to engage with the construction sector, which will build on initial discussions that started last year. Our initial work will determine how such a standard should be defined and delivered through the building standards system. It will draw from the experience of the Scottish construction sector to set out a challenging standard that is deliverable in practice at a national level.

I welcome the initial positive response from house builders to my recent announcement and their willingness to work with us. Over the coming months, we will welcome input from all corners of industry to assist in shaping proposals that can be further developed and put out to consultation next year.

I offer again my thanks for the work that Mr Rowley and his team undertook over the past year, which resulted in his final proposal and a greater awareness of the opportunities that such standards can deliver. I am sure that that will be valuable work that helps with development of the review, and I welcome the continued involvement of Mr Rowley and his team in shaping the work.

As I noted in my letter, I look forward to continuing our programme of action to deliver improved energy and environmental standards across our new building stock and in particular to helping to deliver our vision to make all homes in Scotland warmer, greener and cheaper to run.

I once again thank Alex Rowley. He talks about the constructive dialogue that there has been, and I once again put on record my thanks to him and his colleagues for taking that approach to this issue. I also thank the stakeholders who have contributed to his work and to the consultation that he has taken forward, the Passivhaus Trust and many others.

Alex Rowley is right to say that verification and ensuring compliance with new standards is an important aspect of improving energy performance through building standards. That has always been the case. As we have seen an incremental improvement in building standards over the years, we have needed to ensure that there is also an improvement in verification and in compliance. I think that we now have a strong approach to a compliance plan. As we continue to develop the work of defining the new standard, that will be accompanied by work to ensure that there is no gap between what we are setting out on paper and what we are able to deliver in practice. The issue of verification is hugely important.

Once again, I look forward to continuing to have good dialogue with Alex Rowley and other colleagues across the chamber to ensure that that happens.

I take the point, but, as Liam McArthur mentioned, the Passivhaus standard is essentially owned and defined by an external body—it is not something that Government defines. As the Scottish Government is responsible for building standards, it is important for us to set our own definition.

Liam McArthur and other members who represent remote rural and island communities, which can face different climatic conditions or have housing stocks with different natures, will recognise that a new standard perhaps needs to be defined to take into account the particular circumstances in Scotland or in particular places within Scotland. Therefore, once again, I offer to Liam McArthur and other members the opportunity to engage with the Scottish Government as we take forward that work.

Our approach will involve working in a consultative way to develop and define the Passivhaus standard. We will listen to the industry and to views from members across the chamber. That will ensure not only that we define the standard in the best way, but, as I said earlier, that we close any gaps relating to compliance and that the intention on paper is achieved in practice. Passivhaus standards, as well as other aspects of the heat in buildings agenda, provide huge potential to cut not only emissions but people’s cost of living. Frankly, there is no path to Scotland achieving our wider climate change targets without success on the heat in buildings agenda.

We have regular engagement with the independent Scottish Housing Regulator on how it contributes to supporting the delivery of our national outcomes.

We very much value the diversity of the housing association sector in Scotland. One of the key strengths of community housing associations is their unique position in delivering local, democratically accountable housing and services. We want a Scotland in which everyone can play a full part in society, with empowered communities that are able to shape their individual and collective futures. Community housing associations have been doing that for decades in many parts of Scotland and will continue to do so.

I thank Paul Sweeney for his very sincere concern about the issue, and I am sure that I or the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government will be happy to engage with him on it.

The Scottish Housing Regulator is of course an independent regulator of social landlords, and its statutory objective is to protect the interests of service users and tenants. It uses its powers to monitor, assess, report and intervene, where appropriate.

I am aware of the situation in relation to Reidvale. The management committee has commissioned options on its future and has agreed to a recommendation to seek expressions of interest from organisations that wish to become a transfer partner. However, it is important to recognise that the proposed transfer will not proceed unless it is supported by tenants in an independent ballot. Therefore, the community has the final say.

Again, I look forward to further opportunities to engage with Mr Sweeney on the issue.

If the member wants to write to me or the cabinet secretary about any specific local instance, I am sure that we can look into the details of that situation and get back to him.

However, it is clear that the licensing scheme is intended to address the very real consequences of an unregulated market, which have involved issues ranging from antisocial behaviour to a lack of safety, for either the community or people who use short-term lets. Responsible operators have absolutely nothing to worry about, because they are already managing to achieve high standards. We should all want to raise the sector up to those standards as we continue to work with local authorities around their wider powers on planning.

Again, if the member is unhappy, I would urge him to write to me or the cabinet secretary about the specific local situation.

The licensing scheme seeks to ensure that short-term lets are safe and well managed. We do not believe that there will be adverse consequences. We are working with local authorities to resolve any implementation concerns that have been raised since the scheme went live in October.

On 7 December, we announced plans to extend the transition period that existing hosts have to apply for a licence by six months, in recognition of the economic circumstances of the cost crisis. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government is therefore considering the timing of the review and will update Parliament in due course.

As the measures were being developed, there was significant debate across the Parliament and a growing understanding that those are separate provisions. The licensing scheme is principally about safety and standards, whereas control areas, which are local authority planning powers, have more to do with provision and ensuring that properties are not lost as homes due to being siphoned off by people running, in effect, hotel businesses. It is understandable that the schemes operate separately and are used for different purposes. I am sure that all local authorities seek to strike the right balance in how they use the powers in future.