Chamber and committees

I am pleased to hear that there is ambition for the level of support that needs to be available. I am sure that that is intended as an endorsement of the fact that the Scottish Government is providing more support on this agenda than the United Kingdom Government is on its equivalent.

We have a huge challenge, particularly in remote and rural areas, in tenement stock—as I mentioned to Pauline McNeill—and in older and historic buildings. All that will be considered in detail as we consult on the detail of the regulations, which will include measures relating to how we define the cost effectiveness of the measures that will be required.

I have had the opportunity to meet Lord Haughey and discuss the issues with him. I know that he has strong views on the matter. However, the experience that we have and the comparable data that we have from countries that already have a long history of using heat pumps and heat networks show that they will be effective in Scotland.

As Pauline McNeill has pointed out, there are additional challenges in relation to flats and tenements, which make up about 40 per cent of Scotland’s homes, so it is clearly important that we make progress in that part of the domestic sector to meet our statutory climate change targets. It is a complex area, which is why we have established a tenements short-life working group to provide recommendations to the Scottish Government on regulating those homes. That group will provide its recommendations by the end of the year and we will respond by setting out our proposed approach as part of the forthcoming consultations.

It might well be that heat networks play a significant role in tenements and flats, compared with heat pumps at an individual level.

Yes, indeed.

Of course, there are many areas where heat pumps are already being deployed and where, combined with good levels of energy efficiency, the overall cost is coming down and will continue to come down. However, we have consistently called on the UK Government to take urgent action, using its reserved powers, to rebalance energy prices, so that the running costs of zero emission heating systems are comparable to, or more favourable than, fossil fuel incumbents.

We are again calling on the UK Government to take full account of the needs of Scottish consumers, particularly those who are suffering most from the impact of soaring energy bills when they proceed with rebalancing the costs of energy bills.

To clarify, our heat in buildings strategy proposes that homes that are purchased from 2025 will need to reach a minimum energy efficiency standard that is equivalent to EPC band C, with all homes to achieve that standard by the backstop date of 2033.

A cashback grant of up to £13,500 is available to households for energy efficiency measures and zero emissions heating systems through our Home Energy Scotland loan and cashback scheme. We have committed to replacing the cashback element with a standalone grant during 2022-23, and we have doubled the budget to £42 million.

“Heat in Buildings Strategy—Achieving Net Zero Emissions in Scotland’s Buildings” identifies priority technologies that are available for deployment in the near term. Those that are relevant to homes that currently use gas boilers are—first of all, of course—energy efficiency improvements; individual heat pumps in certain buildings that currently use mains gas, namely those where assessment indicates short-term cost effectiveness and those in areas that are least likely to convert to hydrogen in the future; and heat networks in areas that are deemed to be suitable for them. Those are regarded as no-regrets and low-regrets options as, across all plausible pathways to net zero, they are likely to be the most cost effective zero-emissions options in the buildings that are identified.

As we set out in the “Heat in Buildings Strategy”, £33 billion is the estimated total gross capital cost of converting our building stock to zero emissions heat. That estimate is purely indicative and is based on a single technology pathway, with cost assumptions derived from the best available evidence, including research published by the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee. The Scottish Government continues to keep cost estimates under review, incorporating new evidence as it becomes available.

Mr Whittle is quite right to point out that not only the scale of installations that we need to see in the coming years but the acceleration toward much more rapid installation will be significant challenges. The work that we are doing on supply chains is critical, both in terms of the supply of the kit to be installed and in terms of the skills that are required to do that.

However, we see the situation very much as an opportunity, and not just as a challenge. We estimate that an additional 16,400 jobs can be supported across the economy by the end of this decade as a result of the investment in the deployment of zero emissions heat, and it is by giving that strong signal of our intention to regulate that we will give confidence to those who are investing in the manufacturing, skills and capacity to do the installation work.

I do not have that particular statistic in front of me, but I am happy to have colleagues write to the member to set that out.

I am aware that social housing tends to have a higher energy efficiency performance than the private rented sector, so we should congratulate the social housing sector on that. I also thank the social housing sector for the contribution that it has made to the Government’s work on the ZEST report, the response to which was published recently and seems to have been very warmly received by the sector.

I am happy to do so, but, like Mr Greene, Mr Mountain is perhaps conflating the measures that were necessary on an emergency basis during the pandemic with the separate question of which of the changes that were introduced in the emergency legislation have proved to be of on-going worth and should be made permanent.

Particularly in relation to housing policy, the Scottish Government has repeatedly said that we want to close the gap in outcomes between the social and private rented sectors. We believe that making permanent the measures that were brought in through emergency legislation is an appropriate decision to bring to Parliament. Those measures had already proved their worth for many years in the social rented sector and, in the past couple of years, have proved their worth in the private rented sector.

I want to begin on a note of common ground. Monica Lennon in particular wanted to thank everyone who had campaigned on the issue, raised awareness of it, and raised challenge politically. I think that that has brought about the political context that has allowed the Government to commit to reintroducing an effective national system of rent controls. Even just a few years ago, that might have been thought to be politically unachievable. It is thanks to the hard work of many campaigners throughout the country that that possibility has become a reality, now that I have the opportunity to implement that policy.

Mercedes Villalba is, of course, absolutely right to highlight a critically important issue in relation to the current cost of living crisis. I know that the issue has provoked a great deal of interest from those who oppose outright the Government’s ambitious and radical programme to introduce rent controls and from those who will confidently say that we are not doing enough, or not doing it fast enough. The issue is of interest to both sets of people, and I hope that the Presiding Officer will understand that I want to respond in some detail.

I strongly refute the idea that we are doing nothing now. The bill contains measures that will make a difference to tenants. We have taken other measures outside legislation that will make a difference to tenants, and we are doing much more. Indeed, the level of rents was a major concern for me long before we encountered the current period of extreme financial pressure that the country is now living through. That is why I have been making the case for an effective system of rent controls for over a decade now, and that is why the Bute house agreement specifically sets out that we will deliver a new deal for tenants, including implementing rent controls, during this parliamentary session.

Much of what we have heard amounts to arguments in favour of that policy, but it does not show how amendment 72 can be workable.

We are now working at pace to go through the necessary process to ensure that we make good on our commitment in ways that provide robust and lasting benefits.

The intention behind Mercedes Villalba’s amendments 72 and 73 is to prevent a private landlord from serving notice to increase rent for an assured tenancy or a private residential tenancy from the day of the bill receiving royal assent until the end of December 2024. The effect of that would be a default, national freeze on private landlords being able to increase rents for a period of around 30 months.

I know that there will be people who think that that provides the solution that tenants need now but unfortunately, in reality, it would not. I have listened carefully to Ms Villalba’s arguments and I share her sense of urgency—as should we all—but I have to be honest with members and the public that any attempt to use the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill to achieve a quick-fix solution would fail and would do more harm than good.

The proposal would constitute the imposition of sweeping rent control with very little notice given to landlords and tenants, and no opportunity to weigh up evidence on the impact and proportionality of the measures. Why is such consultation with stakeholders important? First, there are practical benefits to consultation: it will help us to understand the pattern and root causes of the rent rises, develop workable solutions that will address the problem effectively and assess the impact of those proposals on landlords and tenants.