Chamber and committees

We have had to strike that balance throughout the process, from our framing the emergency legislation in the first place to considering its operation and, now, moving out of the relatively straightforward protection of a rent cap.

We have engaged with both tenant and landlord organisations and with stakeholder groups in the sector. We went through a process. It was not a full public consultation because, in order to make use of the most appropriate and up-to-date data, the process had to take place relatively soon before the end of the rent cap. It had to be close enough to that to ensure that we did not end up seeing a gap between the rent cap and the adjudication changes. We floated a lower cap of 10 per cent and an upper cap of 15 per cent. It is probably understandable and predictable that the responses to that were slightly polarised between those who represent different interest groups. However, fair arguments were made from all perspectives, and the fact that we have proposed a taper that moves to an upper threshold of 12 per cent demonstrates that we have taken account of the arguments and perspectives that a range of stakeholders shared during the process.

As we go through this year and the committee engages with the proposed housing bill, we will want to explore the issues around data collection in that context. As things stand—that is, as things stood under rent adjudication prior to the temporary emergency legislation—we do not have granular, detailed data on the rents that are actually being paid; we have information far more prominently about rents that are being advertised. That said, rent officers take into account a wide range of factors in determining what they are going to consider to be open-market rent, including the quality and quantity of housing stock, some locational issues such as proximity to shops, banks, leisure facilities and other local amenities and services, and economic factors such as local employment and unemployment rates.

A range of factors is taken into account in making that calculation. The rent officers base their valuations on confirmed lettings information, wherever possible using additional data sources to support them through the valuation process. The process of calculating open-market rent has been embedded for a number of years. Experience and skills, and knowledge of local rental market conditions, have been built up, and we will continue to rely on that process.

My only additional point is to reassure tenants who wish to bring a request for rent adjudication in those circumstances. They do not need to be able to make their own calculation of what open-market rent is; they can bring a request for adjudication, and the process will kick in and make that calculation. People do not need to have access to information that is not available to them in order to make a request for adjudication.

Absolutely—we will. The point that Mr Coffey raises is relevant to the operation of the emergency protections, but actually goes back a bit before that. If we think back 10 or 15 years, evictions from the private rented sector were one of the leading sources of new homelessness referrals. That has been reducing, so there is evidence that the gradual changes in regulation that were brought in prior to the emergency legislation over a longer period have supported improvements in those statistics and show that evictions in the private rented sector have not been as predominant a source of new homelessness as they were previously. The protections that were part of the emergency legislation have supported, and have been consistent with, that trend. We are obviously keen to ensure that that progress is not reversed.

Earlier, I made a point—to Mark Griffin, if I remember rightly—about the pre-existing package of protections. No-fault evictions have not been permitted for quite some time, and the grounds for eviction are clearly and explicitly laid out. A more recent change was introduced through the coronavirus legislation, in that the pre-action protocols that social landlords previously had to undertake before seeking an eviction have now been extended to the private rented sector.

We believe that a viable and vibrant private rented sector works at its best when landlords and tenants have a shared interest in securing, sustaining and maintaining tenancies and in avoiding breakdowns. Most landlords do not want to go through a constant cycle of losing good tenants who pay their rent, and most tenants want to be good tenants who are able to pay their rent and have somewhere that they can afford to live with some security. That is what we should be aiming for.

The requirement for pre-action protocols simply embeds the good practice that responsible landlords will, in many cases, already have been using, with landlords seeking ways to sustain a tenancy as a first resort and pursuing eviction only as a last resort, when it cannot be avoided. Sadly, in some cases, eviction will be a necessary step, but I hope that the pre-action protocols ensure that eviction is seen as a last resort rather than a first resort. The evidence shows that those protocols have been effective. We should return to the pre-existing strong package of protections, and we should continue our efforts to drive up standards in the private rented sector by supporting the actions of responsible landlords who have used good practice in the past and by encouraging others to raise their standards.

Yes. The Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 gave us the power to introduce such changes. It specified that changes could be introduced for a period of one year and that there could be subsequent decisions to extend the provisions by further periods of one year. That option will be available, but we will not make that decision automatically. We will continue to closely assess the circumstances.

In essence, we must demonstrate that any such measure is proportionate and necessary. That means that we must constantly look at the circumstances and the context in which measures are taken forward. We will look at how the measures are operating, at how the adjudication process is being used and its impact, at the economic circumstances and, of course, at any changes in the patterns of evictions and homelessness.

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.

Yes.

We are already seeing people transition across—there are many examples of that—and we should support them to do so. When it comes to the heat in buildings agenda, the gap in skills between people who install fossil fuel systems and those who will install, or are already installing, heat pumps is relatively small and that can be met easily, quickly and cheaply.

The opportunities across our economy are huge, and we have a great deal to build on, whether that is in decarbonising our homes, which I mentioned, in onshore and offshore wind or in green hydrogen. Several members have mentioned some of the issues around planning and consenting. A great deal of work is already being done on that, some of it under the auspices of the onshore wind sector deal, and there is a great deal more besides. I am sure that the minister with the relevant portfolio responsibilities will want to update colleagues on that as it continues to progress.

We need the UK Government to share that ambition as well. We have seen other Governments seek to rise to the challenges that exist in this area. I have mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act, as a result of which $369 billion is being provided in tax credits, subsidies and loans. Through its green deal industrial plan, the EU has pledged to mobilise at least €1 trillion of investment to build industrial capacity in green technologies and accelerate the transition to net zero. Scotland could and should be among the countries that are responding at that scale.

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

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—