Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and I pay tribute to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for bringing it to the chamber.

The importance and complexity of the issue have been reflected in the debate. There have been some very thoughtful contributions, but we are still only scratching the surface of the issue. The truth is that it is not possible to do full justice to the topic in one debate and I have no doubt that we will return to it on a number of occasions during this parliamentary session. Nevertheless, one thing is clear: the retrofitting of Scotland’s 2.5 million homes will be an essential step on the journey to net zero by 2045. As we know, 13 per cent of Scotland’s total greenhouse gas emissions and 30 per cent of Scotland’s energy consumption are accounted for by Scotland’s households and, as we saw in the climate change plan update, emissions for homes and non-domestic buildings in Scotland must fall by 68 per cent by 2030 to meet the target.

The heat in buildings strategy provides much-needed clarity on where the targets can be achieved, but more details and information are required in other areas. For example, a workforce in excess of 16,000 will be required to support retrofitting by 2030. Although a workforce assessment project is due to be published this year, we know that training a workforce of that size will be a significant challenge. Years of underinvestment in many areas in which there are skills shortages have already resulted in serious problems. That was debated in the chamber only last week.

We know that the worldwide labour market continues to undergo unprecedented changes. There is a shortage of skills in many areas. We also know that skills shortages will inevitably lead to certain parts of the country—rural and island communities, for example—having much more to deal with in the process.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has warned that training will be required to ensure that retrofitting will take place and that accreditation has been available in Scotland only since October, which means that many companies are already well behind. Concerns have also been raised about the requirement for staff to reach Scottish vocational qualification level 6. Staff and companies will need to participate, and many rural companies have already decided not to go for the retrofitting market but have instead returned to fitting standard renovations.

The success of the heat in buildings strategy hinges on the ability of individuals to have their problems solved, but further clarity is still required. Home owners accept retrofitting, but it is not cost neutral. Regardless of the issues, there is an expectation that £33 billion in cost will need to be covered, but the Government has committed only £1.8 billion so far, so there is a massive gap.

Many members made strong speeches and I will reflect on them.

The LGHP Committee convener talked about the planning process and identified that, in many places, it might be an area of conflict. She was right to identify that planning could be a problem for the retrofit process.

My colleague Miles Briggs spoke about challenges and ambitions. There is nothing wrong with our ambition, but the challenge is in trying to meet it and to ensure that tenants and householders can achieve it. Energy bills are increasing and fuel poverty is already with us. That needs to be addressed.

Mark Griffin spoke about the cost of hitting the targets. It is important that there is money up front because if we do not have that, the targets will never be achieved. He also talked about how low-income households are at risk of being unable to afford to address the challenges. District heating systems have had a mixed response.

Liam McArthur talked about funding—£12,000 per household on average—and also said that in, rural and island communities, the cost could be much higher. We have to identify the capacity needed to deliver and ensure that we have it.

Liam Kerr spoke about off-grid homes. Fuel poverty exists now. Electricity and heat pumps might not be the best way forward. Off-grid homes are a major concern and must be considered to ensure the sustainability of forward plans.

I thank all the organisations and individuals that gave us briefings on the topic. Retrofitting Scotland’s homes will be a key element of reducing Scotland’s carbon emissions. It will require a joint effort between local and central Government, so there will have to be a meeting of minds to ensure that local and central Government come up with the goods. Home owners and landlords will require it. As we heard, there are still a number of issues to overcome to achieve that.

Conservative members will continue to push the Government to show the momentum that is required to ensure that the issues are addressed. We do not want to miss the opportunities or the targets, but it is misleading to say that we can achieve everything in the timescales that we have because that is not the case. The money needs to be available and we need to ensure that we do not leave people behind. Communities and constituents deserve the support and, if we are to achieve the targets, we have to ensure that a mechanism is in place.

The Conservatives will continue to support measures, but will also ask questions, continue to ensure that they are answered and ensure that individuals and communities are given opportunities.

Clackmannanshire, in my region, has been the beneficiary of additional funding through the Scottish attainment challenge. Although Clackmannanshire will receive £1.3 million in additional attainment funds next year, the funding will be cut to less than £500,000 pounds by 2025-26. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the most effective way of improving the prospects of children in Clackmannanshire is to strip more than £800,000 of attainment funding from their schools?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the efforts being made to close the poverty-related attainment gap. (S6O-00576)

I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Today we have heard many contributions about the importance of protecting and enhancing tenants’ rights, and I welcome the fact that we have had time to debate that.

All too often, the rented sector and tenants themselves have become forgotten elements of the wider debate around housing. Now, there is certainty and opportunity. Over the past two years, the pandemic has shone a light on many of the challenges faced by tenants the length and breadth of the country. In response, the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 included measures to protect tenants in both the social and private rented sectors from evictions. That was very much welcomed, and the period went from three to six months. Similarly, the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020 dealt with students stuck in rental contracts during the Covid pandemic, and they were protected. Measures such as those are entirely justified, and Conservative members did not hesitate to support them.

It is right, however, that the conversation should now shift and that we are talking about supporting tenants in the long term while we look towards Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic. There is much in the rented sector strategy that we can welcome, including measures to prevent illegal evictions and evictions during the winter months.

Although those protections are there, evictions involve what happens to tenants themselves. There is a gap in the rental market, and it has been proposed that new tenancies provide financial guarantees to cover the cost of deposits, for instance. It is perhaps disappointing that such a scheme is not included in the proposals that we are debating today.

It is clear that the main issue faced by tenants is spiralling rents. Some of the largest increases have been in Fife and the Forth valley, in my region, where rents for two-bedroom properties have increased by 5 per cent in the past year, and by more than 30 per cent since 2010. In Fife, rents for three-bedroom properties have increased by 40 per cent, and rents for four-bedroom properties have increased by 72 per cent since 2010 and by 16.5 per cent in the past year alone. Such statistics make it clear that increasing rents will be among the main challenges faced by tenants. We look forward to that being addressed.

Although conversations about increasing tenants’ rights are very important, there needs to be a plan to discuss increasing housing. Tenants indeed have the right to protections. However, while we talk about the proposals that will come into effect towards the end of 2025, we should not suppose that they offer a one-stop solution to ensure that rents will be managed. We considered what is happening in the rental market and we discussed some examples from different parts of the country and around the world. In Sweden, rent controls have ensured that there is a second, sub-let property market, and there have been waiting lists there of more than a decade. In an attempt to fix one problem on the rental market, we should not inadvertently create another. It is vitally important that we manage the situation. Experience tells us that we should not try to push through such proposals without considering the potential pitfalls.

There have been some very good contributions from across the chamber. I will talk about some of them.

My colleague Miles Briggs spoke about the need to increase the supply of homes and rental properties, rent controls and rent pressure zones. What can happen with them has to be examined in the process, because there will be different market levels and rents.

Willie Rennie talked about increasing the supply of affordable housing and the key to that being ensuring that the supply is the priority. I believe that that is the case.

Finlay Carson talked about the complexities of the issue. We acknowledge that massive complexities are involved. Rented properties need responsible tenants. There are many responsible tenants and there are many responsible landlords. Finlay Carson also talked about pet-friendly rentals, which have been brought to the fore during the pandemic. They have a part to play in the sector to deal with social isolation and loneliness.

Jeremy Balfour talked about the difficulties that the market faces and short-term assessments that should not be short sighted. We must ensure that we do not fall into that trap and that we understand the needs of the workforce and how sustainable it should and can be.

The Conservatives welcome the efforts to enhance and protect tenants’ rights, and we have set out an appropriate timescale for doing that. There will be opportunities for people to contribute during the process. The key focus for the Government needs to be on investment in the housing sector more generally. The bigger problem that renters will face will be the lack of rental properties and maintaining sustainable investment. That is what the Government should address to ensure that change takes place.

It is appropriate that tenants’ needs are looked at. We will continue to call for that to ensure that there is a balance, an opportunity and a structure that supports and enhances the sector. I look forward to the debate and discussion that will take place.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I very much concur with what the member has said. There is no doubt that there is frustration from many members across the chamber that time constraints sometimes do not allow us to get through the questions that are set by the Parliament on working days. I believe that there is an opportunity for us to take more urgent and topical questions during the week.

The importance of local bus services, which can be a lifeline for rural communities, cannot be overestimated. Mark Ruskell’s motion acknowledges that rural communities are especially vulnerable to the loss of routes.

The X53, which covers the wee county of Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Kinross, was the catalyst for this debate. At its most recent full council meeting, Stirling Council proposed an action plan to protect bus services, and I suggest that Clackmannanshire Council do something similar.

The debilitating effect of the Covid-19 pandemic, including the impact of previous lockdowns and controls on numbers of customers, has led to less use of buses and other businesses. We have already heard about initiatives to ensure that people get free bus travel, but a bus is required before that can be taken up. If the X53 service goes, individuals will be left with no bus to use.

We are dealing with management decisions. It is management who decide which routes are lesser used or more susceptible to change. It is essential that bus operators work to meet the requirements of all the communities in which they operate. This is the second time that we have had difficulties with the X53 bus route, which is mentioned in the motion. There was talk of its removal 18 months ago. It was reinstated then, but it looks as though the route will be removed this time.

Many individuals have told me about serious difficulties, especially for those who are disabled, elderly or young. One resident told me about the effect of changes to bus services for someone who, like her, is disabled and single. She currently uses the X53 to get to Stirling, so she might no longer be able to get to her employment. Although she used a car in the past, she can no longer do so following cancer surgery. The bus service is her lifeline to employment. The anxiety of ensuring that she can keep her employment without the support of a bus service is also very difficult. Another resident who does not drive moved to Muckhart specifically because they knew they could catch the bus that goes from Alloa to Stirling. If that service is removed, there will be no link between Kinross and Stirling.

Many people have described First Bus’s planned removal of that route as callous. It will cause difficulties not only in the local area but across the central belt. If the X53 is removed from 10 January, some pupils may not be able to get to school. That will have a major impact. There will also be no service from Muckhart to Dollar, Stirling and Kinross. New housing development is taking place in Muckhart and there are other developments across the region. Such housing normally attracts young families who are interested in living in the community, but that may wane if people cannot get to work or school.

In a debate that I called for, we talked about Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and decided that a task force should be set up to look at vital services. In a debate in the previous session, I was fully supportive when we talked about dealing with cuts to bus services. Back then, I asserted the vital importance of ensuring greater urgency on the issue.

We have already heard that the pandemic has had a devastating effect on many routes in the region, so it is particularly important that we focus on the task force that was set up and its urgent recommendations. I hope that the minister will touch on that point, because, last year, the Scottish Parliament backed plans for local authorities to run their own services. At that time, I certainly believed that we needed greater protection for under-threat services in order to help local people.

My colleague Liz Smith has done a huge amount of work in supporting buses across Mid Scotland and Fife. At the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—there was an emphasis on the issue.

It is vital that FirstBus reconsiders its decision on the X53. I encourage Stirling and Clackmannanshire councils to use the powers that they have to protect the service for the future.

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to improve the support that is available for people who are affected by strokes. (S6O-00519)

A vision report on stroke is one thing, but delivery of real change on the ground is quite another. What additional funding will be attached to the progressive stroke service? Who will be held accountable for its delivery? Will the minister put in place a reporting framework to ensure that the necessary improvements take place?

I welcome the fact that a survivors forum will be established early next year. What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the forum’s views and opinions will be acted on, along with any recommendations for improvement? Will the Deputy First Minister provide any further information on when the forum will be launched?