Chamber and committees

Principally, we would be talking about heat pumps and connection to heat networks. There are other electrical systems, too; for example, some people might choose to use smart electric storage.

The regulations are technology neutral. We expect that heat pumps will play a substantial role in complying with the new-build heat standard as well as wider retrofit for the rest of the housing stock.

I would take some convincing that, for a new build, the only way to move away from fossil fuels would be to install, from the outset, a bioenergy system that itself produced direct carbon emissions. There would be other options for complying with the new-build heat standard. Installing a bioenergy system would not be consistent with the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation.

Yes. As I said earlier, last year’s updates to the regulations made improvements with regard to energy; this set is about the heating systems that will be installed. We are also working, in line with the commitment in the Bute house agreement, on developing a Passivhaus-equivalent standard for Scotland. That is supported by Labour colleagues such as Alex Rowley, who has done work in that area.

As I have said, some of the people to whom I have spoken who are the happiest with their energy bills are those living in Passivhaus-standard or near-Passivhaus-standard homes, because it is the energy that they are not using that is the most beneficial to them. If we can achieve something equivalent to that in Scotland, which I believe that we can—although I should say that a lot of homes will still need some kind of system; they will certainly need a heating system for hot water—people will still have something that reduces the draw on energy and therefore reduces their bills very substantially.

Again, the legislation is about a direction of travel and a transition with regard to heat that has many different aspects. The new-build heat standard is one aspect, and it will complement and be complemented by the work that we intend to take forward on a Passivhaus-equivalent standard for Scotland.

I will ask Antonia Georgieva to build on the comments that she made on SME support.

It is worth separating out the rent cap provisions from the eviction moratorium provisions. With the social housing sector—local authority and housing association housing—we reached a different approach on the rent cap. We agreed that approach, taking account of the sector’s concerns and its different nature, such as the way in which rental income is reinvested for public purposes, whether that is for services for tenants, retrofit to improve energy performance or investment in new build. We recognised a range of differences in the way that the private and the social rented sectors operate, and we found that the best solution was to work with the social rented sector to agree a voluntary limit on average rent rises across Scotland.

We removed social housing from the fixed absolute rent cap and agreed the voluntary approach. For an average size of property, that amounted to a close monetary equivalence between the increased rent cap after it raised from zero and the voluntary agreement that was reached with the social housing sector. My view is that that has achieved a level of stability for tenants in a way that has been agreed mutually with the sector.

Some of the sector’s concerns might be more focused on the eviction moratorium rather than on rent. We believe that, in the current climate, it remains important for people to have the additional time available to them if they are faced with the prospect of eviction. Safeguards remain for social landlords that need to evict someone—for example, that can happen in cases of severe or serious antisocial behaviour. For the most part, social landlords, whether they are local authorities or housing associations, have been very responsible landlords and have never wanted to move to eviction as their first recourse. They seek to achieve better outcomes for their tenants. They have had pre-eviction protocols in place for substantially longer than they have been a requirement in the private rented sector.

Therefore, I believe that we still have the right balance when it comes to protection for tenants who might face the prospect of eviction in some circumstances, and protection for landlords, whether in the social sector or the private sector, who, in rare circumstances, have a legitimate need to pursue an eviction order.

The programme for government includes a commitment to introduce the housing bill to deliver the new deal for tenants, which will include the introduction of long-term rent controls and other tenants’ rights, as well as new prevention of homelessness duties. I hope that members and stakeholders will take confidence from the inclusion of that commitment in the programme for government. The precise date of introduction of a new bill is always a slightly moveable feast, but we have the commitment to take that work forward and are continuing to work with a range of stakeholders to ensure that we shape that bill as effectively as possible.

I share the concern about the matter, although I am not sure that I would use the word “loophole”. The situation is a consequence of the fact that the emergency legislation could take only temporary steps and that it was not possible to use it for a fundamental restructuring of, or major surgery on, private residential tenancy. The current legislation gives the landlord the right to decide not to agree to continue an existing tenancy when one joint tenant leaves.

The intention, of course, behind designing the PRT in that way—this is going back a good number of years—was to avoid a situation in which others were made homeless because one person chose to leave a joint tenancy. I do not think that it was the wrong decision to take that approach, but we need to recognise that one of the consequences was that the emergency legislation was not able to address that particular circumstance. Once again, I come back to the point that it highlights the need for us to make good on the longer-term commitments, including the new housing legislation and the new deal for tenants. As part of our work on developing that, we are looking at joint tenancy issues, including the existing approach to ending joint tenancies.

We are confident that the skills base in Scotland and the supply chain are already growing and that, in terms of the Scottish Government’s commitment to take forward regulations—in this instance, on new build and, in the longer term, on the wider heating standard for Scotland’s existing housing stock—the regulations are necessary to give confidence to the industry that it is worth its while investing in those skills and in the wider supply chain capacity.

The one thing that we could do to guarantee that we would not see the growth in capacity that we need would be to decide not to take these steps or to delay or defer them until that capacity had grown to where it needs to be.

This is a long-term trend, and the commitment to decarbonising buildings right through to 2045 means that we will need continued growth in the sector over the long term.

Of course, this particular measure is not new to anyone. The first of the two consultations finished about two and a bit years ago, and there were indications of the direction of travel for a long time before that. I mentioned the Sullivan report, for example. The measure does not come as a surprise to the industry. Although it will apply to all buildings that get their building warrants from April next year, the phasing in means that there will be time for the industry to adjust. Developments that are being taken forward with existing building warrants that go through the process before April next year will continue to have that time to adjust. However, the number of developers that are already adopting the measure demonstrates an appetite to embrace the change, and I very much welcome that.

We are working very actively with industry to explore every option to increase capacity. For example, a recent development is the mobile heat pump training unit, which will enable those skills to be shared in places where there is not necessarily a college location or another place to site them and the mobile training unit will be of benefit.

I have visited both commercial and college sector training facilities that are gearing up and skilling up. The time that it takes to convert an existing gas engineer so that they have the skills to install heat pumps is relatively short. The conversion course takes a matter of weeks, rather than our having to train people up from scratch. The capacity is not non-existent at the moment. There is simply a need to transition the skill set from previous technologies—from what I call 20th century heating solutions—into those that will be dominant in the 21st century.

I do not know whether Gareth Fenney wants to say any more about the skills side.

First, that particular measure has to be seen in the context of the wider changes. Some of your witnesses in the earlier session talked about decarbonising and moving to electric sources and whether all that is happening at the same time as the installation of electric vehicle charging points and other changes that are going to be necessary if we are to reach our carbon emission targets. The way in which we produce, store and consume energy is changing, and inevitably that will have an impact on the grid.

The fact is that the decisions on such investment are made by Ofgem, which will look at the number of heat pumps, EV charging points and so on that will be required. As well as the direct numbers that it provides, however, it has also set out what is called an uncertainty mechanism, which allows developers to say, “We need more capacity here” and allows distribution network operators to be part of that process.

We believe that there will be enough capacity for the changes that we are bringing in. We also know that, in certain areas, retrofitting might be more problematic than new build—indeed, some witnesses acknowledged as much in the previous session—but we are already bringing together a wide range of organisations, including the DNOs in Scotland, in a working group that shares those perspectives. It will not only work out how we resolve some of the issues that exist within Scottish Government powers but set out how we can make the case for any changes that might be required at UK level. Claire Jones might be able to say more about some of the more technical aspects, but there is no getting away from the fact that reaching our net zero targets is not just about how we build things but about the redesign of our energy system more generally.

The other thing that I would connect to the work that we are doing here is demand reduction. The most effective way in which we can reduce the extra load on the grid is to build really energy-efficient homes and buildings in the first place. If we are going to electrify heat, everything that we do to reduce heat demand will also reduce electrical draw.

Absolutely. The increase in intra-tenancy rents is significant. It is significant both down south and here, partly because of economic circumstances and partly because of the unregulated nature of those rental increases. For me, that reinforces the need to continue to make progress on the development of the new housing bill and a rent control system for Scotland that will be fully effective, rather than our relying on emergency legislation that can protect only people in tenancies. The 2022 act, as emergency legislation, was only ever going to be able to do that. It was also only ever going to be temporary, as it has to be subject to the continual test of necessity and proportionality.

It is very clear that the affordability issues in the private rented sector more generally require longer-term reform, which the Scottish Government is committed to.