Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

The Prime Minister spoke about being honest with the public, then proceeded to knock down straw men in his hunger to generate a climate culture war. As I was listening to that speech, I lost count of the number of entirely non-existent policies that he reeled off before saying, “I have scrapped it.” What he scrapped was any shred of credibility that he had on climate. Not only did he betray our future and break his own manifesto pledges, he debased the office that he holds.

There are some on the right who are sincere in their belief that free-market economics can solve this crisis, even though it has been the cause of it. I profoundly disagree with them, but at least they acknowledge the reality of the climate emergency and they want to respond to it, even if they are misguided in how they should do that. The Prime Minister could have listened to the likes Alok Sharma, for example, who is a Conservative colleague who chaired COP26 and said that he was

“Concerned about fracturing of UK political consensus on climate action ... Chopping and changing policies creates uncertainty for businesses and the public ... Ultimately this makes it more difficult to attract investment and pushes up costs for consumers”.

Instead of working with that sort of agenda, Rishi Sunak’s cheerleaders are the likes of Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg. And, as Christine Grahame reminded us, the notorious climate denier Donald Trump has also weighed in to support the Prime Minister. That is no surprise from a Government whose political motivation is made explicit when it denounces anyone who is seeking credible climate policy as eco zealots or extremists—language that has been repeated by the Conservatives here, in the chamber, today—and seeks ever more draconian laws to arrest campaigners.

That was as cynical an act of political vandalism as I have seen, not just to our green ambitions but also to this Parliament’s ability to legislate.

The direct harm that the change of policy has done will be bad enough, but there is also a huge missed opportunity in the positive steps that could have been taken instead. Let us take the heat in buildings agenda. We can do important things with the powers that we have, which is why we will have a new build heat standard from next April, well ahead of the rest of the UK, which will ensure that new buildings will have a climate-friendly heating system from the outset. We want all homes to reach good levels of energy efficiency, and we know that private tenants need that improvement urgently. Ben Macpherson was right to mention that different challenges exist in relation to our historic tenement stock—I declare an interest as a resident of one—and the heat in buildings consultation will give us more to say on that point.

That is why we are making good progress towards improving energy standards in new homes, towards a Passivhaus equivalent—with the support of Alex Rowley, who spoke very well and challenged us constructively, not opportunistically—and it is why we have the most generous grants and loans for heating and energy efficiency works in the UK, including rural uplifts, which Mr Lumsden seemed unaware of when he spoke.

When we have the levers, we match ambition with action. However, we do not have control over the capacity of the grid to match the increasing electrification of heat and transport, which is controlled at a UK level. We do not control the difference in the unit prices of gas and electricity, which the UK Government has repeatedly promised to put right but has failed to deliver—that is perhaps the biggest step that could make the heat transition more affordable for people, and it would go some way to addressing the concerns about a just transition, which Kate Forbes raised.

We do not have levers over the regulation of products and installers, which is used as one of the main routes to heat transition in other European countries and is needed to give that clear signal to industry to guide investment. Mr Whittle and various other Conservatives said that we needed to create markets and certainty; well, the UK Government’s announcements undermine and cloud the clarity and certainty that the Scottish Government is trying to provide.

Do I have time for one more, Presiding Officer?

Christine Grahame has made some very important points. We are seeing some willingness in the financial services sector to innovate—to develop green mortgages and a range of other products under that umbrella term.

Does the member agree, however, that the measures that the UK Government has announced will again undermine investment by and the willingness of industry to innovate and put on the market financial products that will enable people to make those investments?

In seeking to extend part 1 of the act, I will continue to ensure that the provisions do not remain in force for longer than is necessary in connection with the cost crisis, and I will keep under review the on-going necessity and proportionality of the measures.

I was about to come on to precisely that point. In proposing the extension, we have, of course, taken into account what is happening in the wider housing market. At present, the number of registered landlords has remained stable. Some data sources show that rents for newly advertised properties in some parts of Scotland are rising significantly. Such rates mirror those in comparable cities in the rest of the UK—not just London, which, of course, has a very overheated property market and where there has been a 13.5 per cent increase, but Southampton, where there has been a 10.7 per cent increase, and Manchester, where there has been a 13 per cent increase.

While tenants in the rest of the UK have faced a double hit of, at times, double-digit rent rises within tenancies as well as between tenancies, tenants in Scotland have faced only the latter. It was not possible to address the intertenancy rent increases using the emergency legislation. However, those increases reinforce the need for an effective national system of long-term rent control in Scotland. A thriving, well-regulated private rented sector is good for tenants as well as landlords, and well-regulated markets can, and do, attract investment to support good-quality affordable homes. We see that in other countries where rent control is part of the operation of the private rented sector.

I might have misheard Miles Briggs, but I think that he said that the measures were introduced as part of the coronavirus emergency legislation. However, what we are talking about today comes under the auspices of the cost of living emergency legislation. We introduced the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 to support tenants at a time of unprecedented financial pressure. We acted to stabilise housing costs, to help people to stay in their homes and to reduce the impact of eviction. Since its introduction in October last year, the act has provided important additional protection for tenants.

In June, we published a statement of reasons for the second proposed extension of the emergency act. That statement set out the intention for the measures in the act to be extended for a further, and final, six-month period, which will run to the end of March 2024. Last week, I had the opportunity to provide further information on the matter to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

Although some economic indicators have changed for the better, the statement of reasons provides updated data and economic analysis that show that the challenging economic position has not yet changed fundamentally and that many households on low and modest incomes continue to feel the strain of cost of living pressures. For that reason, I am seeking to extend part 1 of the emergency act, in its current form, until 31 March 2024 at the latest.

I recognise that some landlords are impacted by rising costs, which is why there continues to be a safeguard in place that allows landlords to apply for approval of an increase of up to 6 per cent in specific circumstances. In response to Mr Briggs, it is worth highlighting that that applies to the private rented sector. A voluntary agreement was reached with the social rented sector that provides an alternative way forward.

I will continue to advise the Parliament through regular reporting. The next report is due on 14 October.

It is possible that that is an example of developers simply getting used to these technologies for the first time. I think that, as they become more familiar, basic design issues will become more familiar to developers, whether they are in the social housing sector or elsewhere.

I am not aware of having seen developments where heat pumps have been placed on balconies. I do not know whether any colleagues are able to comment on that. I have seen a number of developments where heat pumps have been retrofitted on the roofs of tower blocks, and new-build properties are now much more likely to have spaces for heat pumps, water storage and so on and to accommodate them within the design of the building from the outset. Those things are becoming pretty familiar and routine exercises for developers.