Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary is setting out the rationale with regard to investment and economic shocks. What consideration has been given to the overall economic effect that both the price cap and the exemptions may have? There is an overall effect in relation to price setting and the effect on supply and demand. Without going into a full economic thesis, I note that those go beyond simply investment and economic shocks, and there will be behavioural effects that may have unintended consequences. What consideration has been given to the broader pricing dynamic that the price cap will create?

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the intention behind the amendments goes beyond simply allowing correction for individual landlords? I agree with the broad principle of having a consistent approach to the rent cap in order to provide confidence to the sector, but there is a risk that it could act as a floor rather than a ceiling, and unless there is some adjustment mechanism, it will essentially incentivise all landlords to increase not up to, but at, the level of the cap. If we assume that the Bank of England achieves its inflation target, 1 per cent over that would, in essence, mean that rents would increase by 30 per cent more than inflation, unless an adjustment mechanism were provided. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that that is a risk and that some consideration needs to be given to the dynamics of how the cap would operate?

I accept the fundamental point that we need to ensure that people have an affordable home. However, would the member acknowledge, on the basis of what she has just said, that the housing supply is going down and the number of starts and completions has fallen to the lowest level since the global financial crash? We must, absolutely, seek to ensure that rent is affordable for people, but there is also an impact on the incentive to invest across all sectors, among not just private landlords but housing associations and others. We are in a dynamic situation, but, fundamentally, the housing emergency is being caused by the fact that the number of homes that are being built is decreasing.

Will the member give way on that point?

This is a frustrating issue. Mr Greer’s point makes an awful lot of sense. The Government’s position is that it cannot take a position because it has not had time to consider the amendments. However, those amendments, both in substance and, more importantly, in principle—Mr Greer’s point on that is really important—have been discussed for some time, because the bill has been in the public domain for that period. It is also the Government’s position that it cannot come to a position because it has not consulted with the review group, but it has not asked the review group, and, more than that, the minister has not met with the review group.

Does the minister not accept that the Government has not done the required preparatory work before coming here this morning to discuss the amendments? Based on what the minister has just said, the Government has set up a process that it has not even attempted to meet. Can he understand the frustration of members in hearing that?

Forgive me for intervening again, but you said that it is the group’s lack of consideration that prevents you from taking a position, but you have not asked the group to consider the amendments. Is that correct?

I am grateful to Mr Simpson for letting me intervene. Does he share my understanding of the standing orders that the member in charge, which in the case of a Government bill is the minister, has the ability to delay stage 2 in order to take further evidence? Given that we are talking about substantive matters and that the minister says that there is a lack of evidence, does Mr Simpson agree that the Government should think about whether it needs to do that? The Government says that a lack of consideration prevents it from reaching a conclusion at this point but, ultimately, stage 2 is about trying to reach a conclusion. Does he share my understanding of the standing orders?

Thank you. I will leave it there, convener.

Following on from what was just said, I would just add that we are not looking at the skills system with a blank sheet of paper, because there is an active proposal from the Government. Jack Norquoy said earlier that we need the system to be responsive, and it seems to me that we need industry and employers to be engaged up front. However, we are removing SAAB, which was one point at which we had industry engagement, and we also had the SDS board, which had industry membership on it.

Does the panel understand where the voice of industry sits in the Government’s proposals in the bill? What should be the parliamentarians’ response to the bill, based on that issue of the industry voice? Paul Sheerin, I will come to you first.

One of the things that I have said directly to the minister and to James Withers is that we are putting structure ahead of function and outcome. Is that a fair assessment?