Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have had to strike that balance throughout the process, from our framing the emergency legislation in the first place to considering its operation and, now, moving out of the relatively straightforward protection of a rent cap.

We have engaged with both tenant and landlord organisations and with stakeholder groups in the sector. We went through a process. It was not a full public consultation because, in order to make use of the most appropriate and up-to-date data, the process had to take place relatively soon before the end of the rent cap. It had to be close enough to that to ensure that we did not end up seeing a gap between the rent cap and the adjudication changes. We floated a lower cap of 10 per cent and an upper cap of 15 per cent. It is probably understandable and predictable that the responses to that were slightly polarised between those who represent different interest groups. However, fair arguments were made from all perspectives, and the fact that we have proposed a taper that moves to an upper threshold of 12 per cent demonstrates that we have taken account of the arguments and perspectives that a range of stakeholders shared during the process.

As we go through this year and the committee engages with the proposed housing bill, we will want to explore the issues around data collection in that context. As things stand—that is, as things stood under rent adjudication prior to the temporary emergency legislation—we do not have granular, detailed data on the rents that are actually being paid; we have information far more prominently about rents that are being advertised. That said, rent officers take into account a wide range of factors in determining what they are going to consider to be open-market rent, including the quality and quantity of housing stock, some locational issues such as proximity to shops, banks, leisure facilities and other local amenities and services, and economic factors such as local employment and unemployment rates.

A range of factors is taken into account in making that calculation. The rent officers base their valuations on confirmed lettings information, wherever possible using additional data sources to support them through the valuation process. The process of calculating open-market rent has been embedded for a number of years. Experience and skills, and knowledge of local rental market conditions, have been built up, and we will continue to rely on that process.

My only additional point is to reassure tenants who wish to bring a request for rent adjudication in those circumstances. They do not need to be able to make their own calculation of what open-market rent is; they can bring a request for adjudication, and the process will kick in and make that calculation. People do not need to have access to information that is not available to them in order to make a request for adjudication.

Absolutely—we will. The point that Mr Coffey raises is relevant to the operation of the emergency protections, but actually goes back a bit before that. If we think back 10 or 15 years, evictions from the private rented sector were one of the leading sources of new homelessness referrals. That has been reducing, so there is evidence that the gradual changes in regulation that were brought in prior to the emergency legislation over a longer period have supported improvements in those statistics and show that evictions in the private rented sector have not been as predominant a source of new homelessness as they were previously. The protections that were part of the emergency legislation have supported, and have been consistent with, that trend. We are obviously keen to ensure that that progress is not reversed.

Earlier, I made a point—to Mark Griffin, if I remember rightly—about the pre-existing package of protections. No-fault evictions have not been permitted for quite some time, and the grounds for eviction are clearly and explicitly laid out. A more recent change was introduced through the coronavirus legislation, in that the pre-action protocols that social landlords previously had to undertake before seeking an eviction have now been extended to the private rented sector.

We believe that a viable and vibrant private rented sector works at its best when landlords and tenants have a shared interest in securing, sustaining and maintaining tenancies and in avoiding breakdowns. Most landlords do not want to go through a constant cycle of losing good tenants who pay their rent, and most tenants want to be good tenants who are able to pay their rent and have somewhere that they can afford to live with some security. That is what we should be aiming for.

The requirement for pre-action protocols simply embeds the good practice that responsible landlords will, in many cases, already have been using, with landlords seeking ways to sustain a tenancy as a first resort and pursuing eviction only as a last resort, when it cannot be avoided. Sadly, in some cases, eviction will be a necessary step, but I hope that the pre-action protocols ensure that eviction is seen as a last resort rather than a first resort. The evidence shows that those protocols have been effective. We should return to the pre-existing strong package of protections, and we should continue our efforts to drive up standards in the private rented sector by supporting the actions of responsible landlords who have used good practice in the past and by encouraging others to raise their standards.

Yes. The Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 gave us the power to introduce such changes. It specified that changes could be introduced for a period of one year and that there could be subsequent decisions to extend the provisions by further periods of one year. That option will be available, but we will not make that decision automatically. We will continue to closely assess the circumstances.

In essence, we must demonstrate that any such measure is proportionate and necessary. That means that we must constantly look at the circumstances and the context in which measures are taken forward. We will look at how the measures are operating, at how the adjudication process is being used and its impact, at the economic circumstances and, of course, at any changes in the patterns of evictions and homelessness.

Those are the existing targets under the act. The 2035 target is for what happens beyond that.

As we set out in the consultation, the three proposed targets were based on not only the information from the first assessment report, which looked at where heat network zones will be, but a range of scenarios about the viability of heat networks—a high or low scenario might mean more or fewer heat networks respectively in those areas that have been found to be suitable—and assumptions about a connection rate of 50 per cent.

As we go forward, we will have to address some of the issues around demand assurance so that those developing and investing in heat networks have confidence that there will be consumers connecting to them. However, we made that connection rate assumption for the short period ahead, before the demand assurance measures are in place.

Therefore, from those three factors, we derived proposals for targets of 6TWh and 7TWh and the other stretch target of 12.5TWh. Although a case can be made for any of those targets, it was felt pretty clearly that the target of 7TWh was stretching in terms of achieving significant growth in the sector but also achievable.

It will depend on the specific settings in each area. That is why LHEES are being taken forward at the local level.

If the committee has not had the chance to learn about the heat network in Shetland, for example, I think that that would be instructive. It has been in operation for 25 years, and the company is now looking to expand and extend it, including to potential customers who are not right in the town centre.

There are some energy losses that come from extensive heat networks, but the experience of Denmark is that you can have them over a very wide area, and they do not just have value in the inner core of a city, so we would like to ensure that as many parts of Scotland as can benefit from heat networks do so.

Of course, in less densely populated areas, other approaches to decarbonisation—including individual heat pumps and other technologies—will be, and already are, extremely successful.

That question is probably best directed at colleagues who work on the waste side. There are many reasons why there is an environmental desire to move away from burning our waste—to put it simply—even with modern technology. As Monica Lennon’s question hinted at, it requires a continual feed of waste material going in, and it is not consistent with a circular economy approach.

The approach with regard to heat networks is that, where an existing facility has waste heat that is going into the air and is not benefiting anyone, we might as well plug that into a heat network and get some value and use out of it.

Well, the proposals that we are about to consult on on heat in buildings set out how the heat standard will work, and they recognise that fossil fuel systems for emergency back-up might continue to be necessary. It is probably more likely that those would be portable systems, rather than an installed gas boiler.

We have an opportunity to ensure that the vast majority of the heat that is consumed comes from sustainable sources and is non-polluting. We also have an opportunity to ensure that we achieve that in a way that is consistent with affordability, tackling fuel poverty and other objectives.

The act set the initial targets. The new target that we are setting is for 2035. We do not have annual targets in between those.