Chamber and committees

The other issue that I want to cover relates to the regulations that the Government intends to lay. We heard from the previous panel and SLARC that they had hoped that those regulations would be in place for 1 April 2024. I understand why that was not possible, for the reasons that you have given. The witnesses on the earlier panel also said that SLARC set the benchmark for its data at 80 per cent of the level in the 2022 annual survey of hours and earnings because that had the latest available figures. Will the regulations that you lay reflect the latest ONS data or will they fall back on the 2022 figures that were available to SLARC at the time? It has expressed a preference that that be updated to whatever the latest verified data is.

Good morning. I have a question about the methodology that was used for the recommendation on remuneration. You have linked that salary recommendation to the 2022 Office for National Statistics data. I appreciate that, during the course of your work, you expected the Government to lay regulations in April of this year, but the Government has said that it will not implement the recommendation until 1 April 2025. Given that unexpected time lag, do you intend to provide an updated recommendation, which would perhaps not be limited to a strict financial number, but which might reference the most recent Office for National Statistics publication?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have previously touched on the impact on industrial relations in the local government workforce. COSLA has said:

“the timing of the response and related messaging has contributed to conflation between the SLARC recommendations and on-going pay negotiations for our workforce”.

What is your response to that? Have negotiations over local government staff pay been made any more difficult because this discussion has been going on at the same time?

Yes, absolutely, and I have called on previous UK Governments of different colours to do that. There is clearly an imbalance in the VAT structure, in that improvements are not covered by VAT, but new-build customers can request changes and adaptations to avoid that VAT bill further down the line, after they have taken ownership. I am more than happy to work on that on a cross-party basis, because it will be critical when it comes to retrofitting the many houses that we need to bring up to standard in order to meet our obligations on net zero, climate change and fuel poverty. I am more than happy to work with Mr Macpherson and others to continue lobbying for that.

That process will be crucial, particularly with regard to our older homes, which are all uniquely built. Many of them have also been uniquely modified over the years and are used in different ways by their occupants, so a simple one-size-fits-all solution is not possible.

The tenement maintenance working group has shown that, as well as the complication around technical solutions, the law on tenement maintenance adds an extra layer of complexity to the process of retrofit. Therefore, it is reassuring to know that industry experts are engaged in addressing those thorny issues. I was pleased to read the report, “Meeting Scotland’s Retrofit Challenge: solutions from the industry”, following the retrofit round-table meeting in May 2023. That group’s report and recommendations form a vital first step towards retrofitting our homes quickly and effectively.

I also note the recommendations of the tenement maintenance working group, which include establishing compulsory owners associations for tenements that would have a legal personality and the ability to enter into contracts in their own name. However, legislating for that initiative raises some questions around the interaction of a potential new law with existing tenement title conditions, and there are possible concerns around compliance with the property rights of flat owners under article 1 of the European convention on human rights.

The work of the Scottish Law Commission on mandatory owners associations for tenements in Scotland is therefore invaluable for us, particularly as it should, I hope, inform the Government’s thinking—whichever Government comes to office in 2026, it is crucial that it leans heavily on the work that is being done by the Law Commission.

Lowering emissions from Scotland’s housing stock is essential in reducing fuel poverty. If we are to get to net zero, 2.25 million homes in Scotland, including almost 900,000 tenements, need to be retrofitted.

I am grateful for the hard work of all the organisations that have been mentioned in the debate. With 48 per cent of our buildings in critical disrepair and spiralling fuel costs for residents—

I start by congratulating my Central Scotland regional colleague Graham Simpson on securing this evening’s debate. It is an important issue that we have not covered regularly enough, and I am glad that we are getting the chance to discuss it in Parliament.

Buildings are one of the highest carbon emitters in Scotland, behind only industry and transport. One in five of Scotland’s homes is traditionally built, and heat leaks out of those tenements’ historic windows and walls. In the UK, the new Labour Government has pledged an extra £6.6 billion over the next parliamentary session towards its warm home plans. I hope that the Scottish Government can work with colleagues in the UK Government to make that plan a reality in homes across Scotland, too.

Although we have discussed the issue before, and we have known for a long time that we have to bring our homes up to standard, we still have not worked out the nuts and bolts of how we will do that and, crucially, how we will finance it. Retrofitting homes in Scotland remains complicated and, crucially, too expensive for lots of homeowners who are now struggling with mortgage payments.

I am, Presiding Officer. Retrofitting is a critical element of lifting Scotland out of the housing emergency and alleviating fuel poverty.

I want to come back to MMR. It is good to hear that the Government recognises the importance of mid-market rent properties, which make up a crucial part of the affordable housing supply programme. We have heard evidence from witnesses who are concerned that any legislative application of rent control to the MMR sector could impact on supply, which neither of us would want. Given the commitments that have been made in the programme for government and today, has the Government given any consideration to exempting mid-market rent properties from the rent control proposals?

I think that most people would accept that the rent control elements are the flagship part of the bill. Given that this is our last evidence session, and that we will be producing a stage 1 report, with recommendations, in the dark, without any knowledge of what the final proposals for the flagship element of this housing bill will be, has the Government given any consideration to withdrawing the bill and committing to reconsulting on whatever the final proposals are? Will it give the committee the chance to consult on that and to make substantive recommendations and conclusions in a relevant stage 1 report? We are otherwise going to be debating in the dark.

I want to ask about the provision on rent increases between tenancies. Does the Government have any concerns about whether that might inhibit investment in improving property standards? I am thinking in particular of net zero and the need to improve energy efficiency. Is there any way to enable landlords who make significant investment in improving their property to be able to have a rent that reflects the increased standard of their property?

Diamond and Company has published research showing that there are potentially up to 5,500 high-rise buildings in need of remediation. Given that we have remediated only one building in Scotland since Grenfell, seven years ago, has the Government had a chance to analyse the 5,500 figure? Is it setting a target for remediation completion?