The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14859, in the name of Margaret Burgess, on an ambitious house building programme for Scotland. I call the minister, Margaret Burgess, to speak to and move the motion as soon as she is ready. I look forward to hearing what you have to say at your earliest convenience, minister.
14:43
The Scottish Government is clear in its recognition of the critical role that housing plays in promoting social justice, strengthening communities and tackling inequalities. Our approach to tackling the full range of housing issues is both inclusive and comprehensive. We value the views of our partners and communities, as our integrated and collaborative approach to developing a joint delivery plan for housing has demonstrated. We know the issues and we are working in partnership to deliver the solutions. If we were not constrained by the 26 per cent cut in our capital budget that has been imposed by Westminster, we would be making even faster progress. However, even with those constraints, Scottish Government investment of £1.7 billion in affordable housing over the current session of Parliament means that we have made huge progress.
The Government has delivered 19 per cent more social rented homes over the past seven years than the previous Administration did over a similar period. We have delivered 34,633 social houses over the past seven years, whereas the Labour/Liberal Administration delivered 28,988 houses. To date, we have helped to fund the delivery of 5,666 completed council houses, which contrasts with the delivery of only six under the previous Labour/Liberal Administration.
The latest published statistics showed that we were 93 per cent of the way towards our overall target and 96 per cent of the way towards our 20,000 social rented homes target.
The minister mentioned the Government’s social rented homes target. However, in her manifesto, which includes a picture of a certain Alex Neil and—some members may remember him—Alex Salmond, the target was for 30,000 social rented houses.
The member is like a broken gramophone record—he raises that issue all the time. Since 2011, we have made it very clear that our target was for 30,000 affordable houses. [Interruption.]
Let the minister be heard, please.
I am delighted to tell the chamber today that the Scottish Government has now not only met but exceeded its target to deliver 30,000 affordable homes. That includes our 20,000 social rented homes target, which includes 5,000 council houses. Therefore, all our targets have been met.
The information is based on our live administrative data as of the end of October. Formal confirmation of our meeting the targets and by how much they have been exceeded will follow in the regular quarterly publications of official statistics. I am sure that everyone in the chamber will agree that that is excellent news.
The minister is clearly very pleased that she has met the target, but has she met housing need?
I certainly think that we have met housing need better than the previous Administration did. It built fewer houses with rising budgets, while we have met the target on falling budgets. That was a challenge, but housing is a challenge and we do not deny that.
The 30,000 target is not the full extent of this Government’s ambition for housing. Our ambition is much greater than that, as it always is for our country. If this Scottish Government is returned in May 2016, one of our key commitments would be to increase the supply of affordable homes still further. As announced by the First Minister in May 2015, we would deliver 50,000 affordable homes over the next five years. That announcement has been warmly welcomed by the sector’s representative bodies.
Will the minister give way?
I want to make progress—I want members to hear about our ambitious housing programme.
That is a 67 per cent planned increase in affordable housing supply and, within that, we plan to maintain our existing commitment to social housing with 70 per cent of the new target being for social rent.
Our undertaking is bold, credible and backed up with the provision of more than £3 billion of funds. It would not only deliver more affordable homes but support, on average, about 20,000 jobs a year and generate more than £10 billion-worth of activity during the next session of Parliament.
Housing is fundamental to tackling inequalities and this Government is determined to ensure that we deliver the high-quality, affordable homes that people and communities need. In the past seven years, we have maintained our support for social rented provision by registered social landlords, with more than 25,000 RSL new-build affordable completions delivered.
We will continue to work jointly with the sector to maintain its strong contribution to meeting our ambitious new target. By continuing to work with our local authority partners, we will build on our commitment to council house building. We have protected the investment in our housing stock by legislating to end right to buy. That will prevent the loss of up to 15,500 homes over a 10-year period, helping to safeguard the supply of social rented homes for generations to come. That is an important policy point for this Government, because we want to protect our social housing stock for the future.
Housing options and choices are critical. We fund a range of housing to offer that choice—for both those who want to rent and those who want to own their own home. Just recently, we announced a £10 million increase in budget for the open market shared equity scheme, bringing our funding for the scheme this year to £80 million. We also make sure that the scheme gives priority to social renters, disabled people, members of the armed forces and veterans who have left the armed forces within the past two years.
Other routes to home ownership have been provided through our funding for the help-to-buy scheme. We want to create the right conditions for the private sector to thrive, and that scheme has supported it.
When will the successor to the help-to-buy scheme become operational?
I will answer that shortly.
We have announced continuing support for a more targeted affordable help-to-buy scheme and we are working with the industry to develop that approach. The announcement was made some time ago. Taken together, our investment in the help-to-buy scheme of £0.5 billion over six years will help around 14,000 households. We know from sales forms that buyers between the ages of 18 and 34 have accounted for 70 to 75 per cent of all sales across the different low-cost home ownership and help-to-buy schemes that we support.
The private rented sector plays a much bigger role in the housing market than ever before, but there are issues that need to be addressed to protect tenants in that sector. That is why—
Will the minister give way?
Not at the moment. I ask the member to let me continue, as I want to make progress.
That is why we are taking through the Parliament the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill, which will bring security, stability and predictability for 700,000 tenants in Scotland while providing appropriate safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. That landmark housing reform will introduce a modern tenancy for tenants and rent increases only once a year while removing the no-fault ground and giving landlords safeguards to enable them to get their home back.
The bill provides for a more professionally managed and better-regulated sector that provides good-quality homes and is attractive to those who want to live, work and invest in the sector. It will also introduce a discretionary power to allow local authorities to introduce rent controls in areas where there are excessive increases in rents and the local authority is concerned about the impact of that on housing in communities in their area.
We are fully aware of the different needs of individuals and we recognise them in funding housing for a variety of needs informed by local authorities’ local housing strategies. We are also responsive to different geographies from large-scale regeneration to the town centre first principle and the need to address more remote, smaller-scale, rural housing needs. In September, in our programme for government, we committed to a new rural housing fund that will launch next year.
The minister will be aware of the concerns in the islands that I represent about the fact that standard assessment procedure provisions do not allow mains electricity as a primary fuel source. As a result, high-specification renewables devices that are costly to operate are being attached to properties. As somebody in the industry in Orkney explained it to me, the current system is forcing the fuel poverty legacy to be designed into every home. Will the minister undertake to speak to her colleague the Minister for Transport and Islands to ensure that that is reflected and addressed in the islands bill?
We have already had numbers of conversations with the island communities and the Minister for Transport and Islands about how we address fuel poverty and the need for energy-efficient homes in those areas. That is why we have a rural fuel poverty initiative, and the rural housing fund that will be launched will take such issues into account. We recognise that there are differences in rural and island communities.
We are working collaboratively across the private and public sectors to stimulate a major pipeline of new housing supply across all rented tenures, including by making best use of our United Kingdom financial transactions resource. We are leading the way in the groundbreaking use of that type of funding, which must be paid back to Her Majesty’s Treasury. The Scottish Government’s approach to innovative financing is leaving no stone unturned in exploring new and better ways of attracting funding into the affordable housing sector.
We are approaching 4,000 new affordable home approvals through a range of innovative financing mechanisms, with hundreds more in the pipeline. We are the first—and remain the only—national Government in the UK and public sector body in Scotland to invest in charitable bonds. By 2016, we will have invested £37 million in those bonds, creating loan finance to fund affordable housing in Scotland and generating charitable donations of £1.4 million for regeneration charities and around £7 million for social housing. That could support the delivery of up to 600 new affordable homes.
The recently announced LAR—or local affordable rented—Housing Trust is a pioneering affordable housing model that will deliver up to 1,000 homes for mid-market rent. The trust is supported by a £55 million loan from the Scottish Government and is expected to attract matching private investment. Moreover, the national housing trust initiative, which was the first guarantee-based scheme for housing in the UK, has seen the completion of more than 1,000 homes and is on track to deliver more than 2,000 homes for mid-market rent across the country.
We are also supporting pension funds to invest in affordable housing. The Falkirk local government pension scheme fund has agreed a £30 million investment to deliver around 300 affordable homes, and the Scottish Government’s support for that trailblazer project is an initial investment of over £6 million towards 126 social homes in Falkirk and Clackmannanshire. If other pension funds can be attracted to invest, the investment fund has the potential to expand and deliver more than 1,000 homes. We continue to outperform other parts of the UK with 79 new-build social sector completions per 100,000 population compared to 52 in England and Wales.
However, although new housing supply is one aspect of what is important, we need to ensure that existing homes are of good quality and that people can afford to heat them. Since 2009, we have allocated over £0.5 billion to fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes, and that commitment is now paying dividends, with over a third of all Scottish dwellings now having a good energy efficiency rating of B and C. That is an increase of 56 per cent since 2010.
Access to good housing has the ability to create the right environment to allow our citizens to fulfil their potential with regard to their health, education and social interactions in their communities, and good housing goes right to the heart of the fairer and stronger Scotland that this Government is working to deliver. The Scottish Government’s ambitions for affordable housing are clear. We have demonstrated that we can deliver on our commitments and, working together with our partners, we will meet the new 50,000 affordable homes target that this Government has set for housing in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that housing helps promote social justice, strengthens communities and tackles inequality as well as being good for the economy; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to providing access to good quality housing and recognises that it is a high priority for the current administration; commends the Scottish Government for being on course to exceed its five-year target of delivering 30,000 affordable homes by March 2016, including 20,000 social rented homes; acknowledges this achievement being made despite the drastic reduction in capital budgets as a result of the UK Government’s spending cuts; further recognises that the Scottish Government started a new generation of council house building, has abolished the right to buy and is leading the way in the UK in financial innovation for housing; notes that Scotland continues to outperform other parts of the UK in housing completions, and welcomes the Scottish Government’s future ambition to build a further 50,000 affordable homes for people across Scotland.
14:57
I begin with a plea to the Government. I welcome the fact that it has scheduled this debate on the important issue of housing, but will it finally recognise that the housing situation that Scotland currently finds itself in the midst of is a crisis?
It would appear not. In September, Labour called a debate on housing to allow the Parliament to recognise this very predicament, and we remain bitterly disappointed that the Government will not recognise that we have a housing crisis in this country. Instead, we have a self-congratulatory motion in which the Scottish Government praises itself for making a commitment that in itself falls far short of the demands in the housing sector. It also claims to be leading innovation in housing policy, but that does not stand up to scrutiny when we make a proper comparison with what is happening elsewhere in Britain.
As I made clear in the debate in September, it was and remains Labour’s position that every person and family in Scotland should have access to a safe, affordable home. It is a stepping stone to social and economic equality for all. Put simply, it is imperative that housing construction targets are raised to accommodate the growing need for reasonably priced homes in Scotland. In 2014, 15,000 new homes were built, and although there is no question but that that will contribute to reducing overcrowding, improving energy efficiency and supporting communities, the number is nowhere near enough. As I said in September, we must accept that house-building numbers in Scotland have fallen far too short for some time. That is why we are now in a crisis.
Will the member take an intervention?
If Mike MacKenzie wants to confirm that that is the case, I would be happy to take an intervention.
Does the member agree that if it is the case that there is a housing crisis, the blame for that rests squarely on the shoulders of one Gordon Brown, who promised to end boom and bust and ended up breaking the system?
That is number 3 on the grievance list, I think. I am surprised that Mike MacKenzie went so far down to find his target, but we will have to accept that Gordon Brown is Mike MacKenzie’s grievance point for the afternoon.
In fact, the 2014 level of construction figure is the lowest since 1947, at a time when more than 150,000 families in Scotland are waiting for a home to live in. I congratulate the Scottish Government on achieving its downgraded commitment on the building of affordable homes, but it might not notice my making that clear, as it will be too busy patting itself on the back.
Will the member give way?
I will make some progress, if the member does not mind.
It is an unavoidable truth that we need more affordable homes than the Scottish Government has built and many more than it is now committing to. We needed them yesterday. We must act swiftly and effectively, as the stakes are simply too high not to do so.
Supporting housing construction is supporting the Scottish economy. In 2014, £730 million was invested in land and building for homes. That was at a time when house building was at its lowest, but it still translated into £1.9 billion in increased economic output and £203 million in increased resident expenditure, according to Homes for Scotland. The direct economic benefit of housing construction is obvious and can be massive in scale. At the same time, 27,000 homes in Scotland sit empty with no long-term occupants.
Unfortunately, far too much of the affordable housing that exists is more likely to be of poor quality. Around half of those accommodations fall below minimum quality standards. We cannot ignore either the fact that 29,000 families in Scotland are currently assessed as being homeless and that around half of those households are led by a person who is under the age of 30.
The problems associated with homelessness go far beyond people not finding a place to rest their head at night. Often those without a home find themselves mentally and physically ill, and with serious damage to their self-confidence and dignity. That can be especially damaging for women who make homeless applications, who are younger overall than their male counterparts.
We must continue to look for solutions to end that growing problem. Increased investment in preventing homelessness and in the quality of accommodation is only the first step. A comprehensive, multilateral approach is needed to ensure that the basic right to a home is protected for everyone in Scotland who needs that help.
Many of those who seek shelter turn to temporary housing. Although that solution is effective in the short term, it is simply not sustainable in the long term. Such accommodation is more costly and is not conducive to good health in tenants. Children in such unfit conditions are far more likely to develop problems such as chronic coughing and asthma as a result of the quality of such accommodation.
Since 2008, temporary housing applications for households without dependent children have risen in volume by 26 per cent. Local authorities are unable to keep up with the demand, as more than 10,000 households with 4,000 children now seek such accommodation.
Fuel poverty is another issue that we must tackle as winter quickly approaches. An estimated 39 per cent of households in Scotland—or 940,000—are fuel poor, and 10 per cent are extremely fuel poor. The youngest and oldest among us routinely battle hypothermia as a result of being unable to adequately heat their domicile. Energy-efficient homes are simply vital to the wellbeing of the public and communities at large.
I do not think that anybody is really arguing with the member’s description of the need, but does he have any solutions? Would he like to switch money out of the health budget or the transport budget, perhaps, into housing?
That intervention shows the lack of depth of understanding of the problem. The issues are health issues, which spending on housing will improve.
If we want to find more money for housing, we will find it. Labour will bring forward its proposals on that. However, to resort to the tired old arguments—[Interruption.] The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights is laughing, because he thinks this is funny. The reality is that the Scottish Government is making a commitment to build 10,000 fewer homes than people say we need, yet John Mason wants to argue about whether we would transfer money from health or transport into the housing budget. We will find the money, because we want to build the houses. That is the priority.
The new homes that are being built need good insulation, energy-efficient systems and effective heating measures, to name but a few suggestions, but we must also work to ensure that existing homes are fitted out to make heating them successfully affordable and environmentally friendly. As a party, we believe that access to low-cost energy is vital, and it is past time that we had effective policies enacted on that principle.
The social benefits of housing construction go further than getting people off the streets and into safe homes. Homes for Scotland has estimated that more than 135,000 trees and shrubs were planted or retained during housing projects in 2014, with 77 per cent of the construction waste being recycled. Many house builders have taken commendable steps to limit their carbon output and are keeping energy standards at the forefront of their plans. Previously developed brownfield land that is deemed suitable for housing is routinely used to minimise environmental impact and promote sustainable developments.
House builders want to build homes in the right places and more should be done to help them to do so, because housing construction is good for not only the people who will occupy the new homes but the community in general. Special attention must be paid to the elderly and disabled among us, as well as to those who live in rural areas. More than 100,000 houses are currently provided for the elderly and people with physical disabilities. Those homes are constructed differently to suit the needs of disabled people and to ensure that they can live in their home for as long as possible.
Official reports have suggested that the number of older households will increase by 50 per cent in the next two decades and that the number of households that are led by a person over 80 will double. That is an issue that will only increase in severity in the coming years, so fixing the problem now is of high importance.
We must continue to fight for the housing rights of all Scotland’s citizens, including those who live in rural areas. Houses in rural areas are significantly less energy efficient than houses in the rest of Scotland, and that is to the detriment of those who live in those homes and the surrounding areas. The number of rural households that are in fuel poverty is more than double the proportion in the rest of the country. As well as being embarrassing for our Government, that is heart-breaking for the families living in those areas who cannot maintain a warm, safe dwelling.
The evidence is before us that it pays to invest in housing. The home-building industry alone supports more than 63,000 jobs. Some estimates say that 4.1 jobs are supported for every single home that is built. Increasing the supply of homes to pre-recession levels alone would create 39,000 new jobs for Scotland. The people of Scotland deserve affordable, warm and accessible homes, and they deserve them now.
Labour calls for more action than the Scottish Government plans to take. We want it to act more swiftly and broadly, and to right the wrongs that we have created to bring Scotland home. I urge Parliament to reject the complacency of the Scottish Government and to support Labour’s amendment.
I move amendment S4M-14859.3, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“believes that each and every Scot deserves a warm and secure place to call home; recognises the work of the independent Commission on Housing and Wellbeing, which concluded that ‘there is very clearly a homes crisis’ in Scotland, with 150,000 households on waiting lists, over 10,000 households in temporary accommodation, an estimated 940,000 households in fuel poverty and nearly half of all housing falling short of official standards; further recognises the particular housing difficulties faced by people living in Scotland’s rural areas; believes that there is a need to increase the availability of accessible housing for disabled people, and believes that Scotland’s ambition must be to deliver a radical programme of housebuilding as called for by Shelter Scotland, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Chartered Institute of Housing and others to build enough affordable and social rent homes to meet Scotland’s needs.”
15:08
I will begin where the previous speaker left off. There is complacency written right through the Scottish Government’s motion. It says at the outset
“That the Parliament recognises that housing helps promote social justice, strengthens communities and tackles inequality as well as being good for the economy”.
Those truths cannot be denied, and no one will try to remove that statement from the motion.
However, other clauses in the motion are recognisable because we have heard them so often before. The first is that we apparently welcome
“the Scottish Government’s commitment to providing access to good quality housing”
and recognise
“that it is a high priority for the current administration”.
Let us look at the Government’s record and use the motion as its agenda.
It has been said already but I say again that the Government’s claim to have achieved its objective of building 30,000 affordable homes is a misrepresentation of the truth.
The manifesto commitment was to build 30,000 socially rented homes, but an early action of the Scottish Government was to revise that to 30,000 affordable homes, of which 20,000 would be socially rented, which is a much easier target to achieve. That means that if the Government achieves the objective that it describes in the motion, it will have missed its manifesto target by a full third.
Let us remember that that is not the only sleight of hand. In one year, early in the administration, the Government shrewdly switched from counting starts to counting completions. That means that when the Government counts its total at the end of this five-year period, it will count houses that were built over a longer period. There is a great deal of sleight of hand going on.
The motion goes on to call on us to acknowledge the
“achievement being made despite the drastic reduction in capital budgets as a result of the UK Government’s spending cuts”.
The Government’s next approach is always to blame the UK Government. The problem is that in successive budgets the Scottish Government singled out the housing budget for disproportionate cuts. If that is a demonstration of how the Government treats a priority, I do not know how the Government defines “priority”.
The fact is that this Government has been doing all that it can to encourage house building without taking responsibility for it. For example, it slashed the housing association grant, which meant a vast reduction in the number of houses being built by housing associations. To prevent the number from dropping and to keep building, our housing associations borrowed up to their limits and stretched their assets.
What did the Government do in relation to local authorities? It found ways to encourage councils to build houses, but almost invariably councils were left to borrow the money that was needed to meet the Government’s targets. The great claims that have been made about the number of council houses that have been built under this Government might be accurate in terms of the numbers, but to suggest that the Government is paying for those council houses is to misrepresent the truth.
Will Mr Johnstone give way?
Indeed, why not?
I do not think that the Government has ever said that it is paying for every single council house that is being built. However, this Government’s policy has given councils the ability to build again. The Conservatives’ previous, stupid right-to-buy policy denied councils that ability and decimated social housing in this country.
Ah, right to buy—one of those little totems that this Government waves occasionally. The truth is that right to buy had withered on the vine and very few people were using it. Of those who were using it, as many as 70 per cent had been tenants since before the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, so if they were not allowed to buy their properties, they would simply have remained tenants. I doubt whether more than a handful of homes have been freed up for the social rented sector as a result of this Government ending the right to buy, which was simply a distraction to prevent us from noticing that the Government was failing to build homes.
Will the member give way?
I will continue and try to get through my speech. Perhaps the member will attract the Presiding Officer’s eye and be allowed to speak during the debate.
What we need to do today is to think about how we get more homes available in Scotland. That means being innovative about how we take forward investment. This Government has tried to focus on key areas. Indeed, if members read the right publications, they will discover that the Government has great respect for the potential for developing the private rented sector. That makes me wonder why it has introduced the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill. It seems that in many areas the bill will have a negative effect, taking confidence away from people who want to invest in the private rented sector and discouraging them from investing their money here in Scotland.
The Government has fallen into the habit of claiming credit for things that are not its responsibility. For example, the money that is used for the help-to-buy scheme and other schemes is allocated to Scotland by the Westminster Government’s Treasury; it has not been secured through careful negotiation with private investors. The minister stands up and claims credit for the schemes simply because the Scottish Government is required to administer them in the Scottish context, but that is dishonest in the extreme.
The truth is that, as it stands, the kind of legislation being proposed by the Scottish Government is going to drive outside investment away from Scotland. As a result, we will find ourselves with compounded problems as time goes on. If home seekers are going to meet their housing needs and their aspirations for their tenure of choice—statistics show that home ownership remains by far the preferred option—the Scottish Government can and should play a role in that. The problem is that we have heard all the excuses but have seen very little sign of any action.
I move amendment S4M-14859.2, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“considers that the housing market must be seen in the round rather than with a particular focus on specific sectors; recognises that housebuilding in Scotland has fallen considerably with only a modest level of recovery evident; notes that the Scottish Government has missed its aim to deliver 6,000 socially-rented homes in each year of the current parliamentary session; recalls that the right to buy scheme created a revolutionary change in homeownership in Scotland, making owner-occupation affordable for nearly half a million people; notes with concern that a number of measures in the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill will have a negative effect on the housing market, and acknowledges that ambitious rhetoric will have to be matched by deliverable outcomes.”
15:15
Since we previously discussed the housing shortcomings in Scotland, we have heard the Scottish Government pledge—we have heard it again today—to deliver 50,000 new homes in the next session of Parliament. We have also heard that the current goal of 30,000 is near to being reached. However, for the purposes of clarity, honesty and transparency, I point out that going from 30,000 to 20,000 social rented homes has left a third of the commitment to be bought with a mortgage rather than being provided by the Government.
Since we previously talked about our housing, we have heard that the current affordable housing need goal for Scotland is only half of what is really needed. The report by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland and Shelter Scotland makes that point, but the Scottish National Party’s pledge is still for only half of what is needed.
The well-received report by the commission on housing and wellbeing estimated that the total number of new homes required each year is 23,000. I will give some facts. The previous Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition Government delivered 23,757 homes each year on average; the SNP Government’s record is 17,691, which is almost 40 per cent less on average year on year. I therefore hardly think that it is appropriate to characterise the Government’s performance as ambitious.
The member said that the previous Administration delivered more than 23,000 homes each year, but were all of them subsidised by that Administration?
That was the number of houses delivered year on year, but the current Scottish Government’s reign has delivered about 40 per cent less year on year.
Will the member take an intervention?
I want to make progress as I have only a few minutes.
In its report “A blueprint for Scotland’s future”, the commission on housing and wellbeing stated that it
“quickly came to the conclusion that there is very clearly a homes crisis. The numbers speak for themselves: there are about 150,000 households on waiting lists, 940,000 in fuel poverty ... 29,000 people are homeless.”
It is safe to say that the Scottish Government’s housing goals have little regard for the current mounting housing crisis.
Meanwhile, when the Scottish Government got financial transaction consequentials from the UK Government in the 2013 budget, the finance secretary called it “funny money”. However, within weeks, his ministers were donning high-vis jackets to show how the money was helping people on to the housing ladder.
Back in 2014, we suggested to Mr Swinney that he should use some of the money to build homes for rent, partly to offset the move away from the SNP’s 2011 manifesto commitment to providing 30,000 social rented homes in favour of homes to buy. I note that the finance secretary was positive about that suggestion and that we have started to see some of its fruits. Last week, I got confirmation from Margaret Burgess that the so-called funny money is underpinning the Local Affordable Rented Housing Trust this year. That is good, practical action that the Scottish Government has shown that it can take when it takes a break from complaining about the constitution.
What I and millions of others in Scotland expect to see is how the Scottish Government will act to increase the supply of houses across all tenancies. It is necessary to see the issue as a chain of events. Because we have limited supply and very high demand, the private rented sector is increasing; it represents 13 per cent of the entire housing market and has more than doubled in size in 10 years. Although there is no question but that the private sector is good for the economy, we want people who move into the private sector to have had a choice. No one should be forced to spend more than they can afford just to cover their rent, but almost half of all households renting in Scotland in 2013-14 received financial support to pay their rent.
The warnings are clear—unless we increase supply to match demand, the result will only be more and more people without a home. We have heard some back benchers asking where the money would come from; they just have to look at the facts. Last year, the housing budget in Scotland was underspent by £51 million. In fact, the Scottish Government underspent by £347 million, according to Audit Scotland. That is money gone to waste.
With the rate of construction of affordable housing still 40 per cent lower than it was before 2008, people are running out of options. We need a Scottish Government that will do what it says it will do and do it promptly. We need a Scottish Government that will not leave 5,000 children homeless at Christmas time.
I move amendment S4M-14859.1, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“notes that the SNP pledged in its 2011 election manifesto to ‘build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year’, which would be a total of 30,000 over the course of the current parliamentary session; is deeply disappointed that it is set to build only 20,000 socially-rented homes by March 2016; regrets that the Scottish Ministers have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that their decision to switch to a less ambitious policy of 30,000 affordable homes has had a negative impact on the ability of thousands of families to obtain permanent, safe and warm accommodation at a time when approximately 29,000 people across Scotland are homeless and 150,000 households are on council housing waiting lists, and believes that this significant policy change, and the resultant social housing shortfall, fails to help address the housing crisis in Scotland and raises serious doubts about the Scottish Government’s commitment to its future housing promises.”
15:20
I am afraid that I have had to rethink the opening of my speech in light of how the debate has gone. This was an opportunity for us to come together with ideas and work together in partnership across Scotland to deal with the great challenge of housing. Instead, we have had “SNP bad” rhetoric all over the chamber, which is somewhat disappointing because, although we have some challenges, which the minister acknowledged, we can do much in partnership to tackle the issue.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment—sorry. In the last debate on housing, in September, the minister said:
“The availability of suitable good-quality housing and housing services also makes a vital contribution to the success of the integration of healthcare and social care. We are working closely with the housing sector to deliver appropriate housing support and services.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2015; c 28.]
That lies at the heart of what we are talking about this afternoon. It is not just about the bricks and mortar of a building; it is about having a home.
Earlier this year, I watched a television programme about world poverty in which Professor Rosling spoke about poverty in the developing world. He used the comparators of families from Malawi to Cambodia to what I think he called dollar street, which is where most of the people in the chamber would find themselves living. What was key to all of that was that a home—a place to live—is an innate human necessity and an innate human right. That is as key to us here in the UK as it is to people in the rest of the world.
I have great concerns about the growing inequality in our country, and the recent figures from the Trussell Trust on food bank use highlight that inequality. However, the Scottish Government continues to lead the way on innovation in the housing sector. Its contribution to new housing supply through innovative financing approaches is substantial and growing. As has been said, 3,000 new affordable homes have been approved and around £400 million of housing investment has been unlocked by the Government. Those approaches have seen the development of products for mid-market rent and shared equity and the growth of home ownership in this country, which should be recognised.
In 2009, Shelter Scotland invited us as politicians, along with homeless children, to design and draw our ideal home. That was quite a humbling exercise for us all to do, and seeing some of the children’s drawings was very moving. When we discussed housing in September, the minister said that
“everyone in Scotland should have access to a warm, safe, secure and affordable home.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2015; c 25.]
The Government strategy document “Homes Fit for the 21st Century” lays out that aim in detail.
The links between good housing, wellbeing, social cohesiveness and social justice are established and I am sure that they are acknowledged by members across the chamber. That is why I welcome the fact that housing—particularly social housing—remains one of the Government’s highest priorities, as is demonstrated by the £1.7 billion investment in affordable housing over this parliamentary session.
It has to be welcomed that today we have reached the target of 30,000 affordable homes in this parliamentary session and that that will be exceeded. We welcome the First Minister’s commitment to building 50,000 affordable homes over the new parliamentary session.
Will the member at least acknowledge that the manifesto commitment on which she stood has not been met?
I acknowledge that 30,000 affordable homes have been delivered to the people of Scotland. Every single person who has been able to take advantage of one of those new homes will have welcomed that and would acknowledge that the Government is doing everything that it possibly can to tackle the problem.
The abolition of the right to buy has been key to that approach, and I take issue with what Alex Johnstone said in that respect. Abolishing the policy has significantly improved the availability of housing stock, and homes will be protected by remaining in the social rented sector in the future, which is to be welcomed.
Good housing invigorates and empowers communities and allows them to flourish. Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to have a safe place to live, to have food and clothing and to take part in the things that they enjoy. That is key.
Before I became an MSP, I was a councillor in North Lanarkshire, and I challenge Labour’s suggestion that the problem arose as soon as the SNP took office. Labour has had control of North Lanarkshire Council—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am in my last minute—I am sorry.
As a former councillor, I know—and Michael McMahon will know as an MSP—that there are houses available in North Lanarkshire. However, the failure to look after communities and the failure of the regeneration policies of Labour councils have left some communities languishing.
We must work in partnership with our councils to improve the existing stock and make it more appealing to people, and to help to solve the crisis. I am glad that the SNP is keeping 15,500 houses in the sector because of the abolition of the right to buy.
You should draw to a close, please.
I am sure that the Government will continue to make progress in this challenging area.
15:27
Like other members in the chamber, I always welcome a debate on housing, but the Government has got the tone of the debate wrong, with a self-congratulatory motion that commends the Government on its work.
The tone of that wording does not reflect the scale of the crisis that we face in Scotland. I challenge the minister to recognise that it is all very well for us, in the comfort zone of the debating chamber, to have a debate about homelessness. I noticed that she did not use the word “homeless”. For me, the crisis that faces our country is that nearly 40,000 people in Scotland have applied for housing because they are homeless. That is the challenge that the Government must face up to.
If we want the partnership approach to which Clare Adamson rightly referred, let us have a debate about how the Government will address the challenges of homelessness. The fact is that 150,000 people are waiting for the home that they dreamed of when they submitted their application for housing. Many of the cases that I deal with—as I am sure is the case with other members for various constituencies and regions—involve people who want to be rehoused but are not given the opportunity. Those are the types of challenges that the Government must face up to.
I will be constructive in saying that I agree with Shelter, which advises us that we should look at how to use our empty homes more. That is another challenge that the Government needs to face up to, given the numbers to which Shelter refers. We as a Parliament cannot simply say, “Let’s just leave that to local authorities, as the housing authorities, to take care of.” We must show leadership.
I do not disagree with what the member said about empty homes. The Scottish Government is funding the Shelter project through to 2019 to help to tackle that issue. We all have concerns about it and we will look at ideas from any member on how we might better deal with empty homes. We are putting money into that.
The empty homes challenge was not invented a couple of weeks or years ago; it has been facing the housing industry for many years. Community-based housing associations, which I will come on to, have played a crucial role in that regard.
A number of people have commented on the issue. One is George Clarke, the United Kingdom Government’s empty homes adviser, who said:
“With thousands of empty homes across Scotland, it’s a disgrace that so many families are going without something as fundamental as a home of their own.”
George Clarke and others are to be commended for the work that is going on across the UK. That initiative is showing leadership, but the Scottish Government also has to show leadership.
In previous housing debates, I have said that the Government could do much more in partnership with our community-based housing associations. For many years—at least since I have been an elected member, which is nearly 22 years—those housing associations have been leading the way on regenerating communities throughout Scotland and have been doing so in a sustainable manner. The houses that they have built are still there to tell the tale. Rather than cutting the grants that are available to those housing associations, the Scottish Government should invest in those community-based models.
I welcomed the apology that Bob Doris gave on that issue during our previous debate on housing, when he confirmed that the Government should not have cut the grants that are available to those housing associations. That is because they are the very organisations that are leading the way on tackling homelessness, dealing with the challenges with empty homes and ensuring that people have a good and safe home to live in. We should encourage those organisations and the good work that they are doing rather than cut the grants that are available to them.
Another challenge that faces politicians is the obsession with targets. Every single party in the Parliament faces that challenge. We think, “Here’s a box I can tick; I have met the number that is required.” The people who were involved with building the famous Red Road flats faced the same challenge. In considering where to locate 4,700 people from the slums of Glasgow and other parts of Glasgow, they decided to build the Red Road flats, because that ticked a box and ensured that the required number of homes were built. However, we did not ensure that the homes were homes for the future or that they would meet the existing and future housing need.
Will the member give way?
Give me a second.
It is simply not good enough to say, “We’ve ticked the box and met the numbers, so let’s move on.” In the future, we will find ourselves in a very similar position unless we ensure that the investment takes place effectively.
I give way to Kevin Stewart.
Briefly, please, Mr Stewart.
I do not disagree with Mr Martin’s points about some of the housing decisions in the past, which were truly awful. He says that the approach should not be just about ticking boxes and targets. Why then did Mr McMahon call for greater targets for house building? Does Mr Martin agree or disagree with Mr McMahon?
Mr Martin, I will give you a bit of time back for that.
If the Scottish Government is going to set targets, it should first ensure that it will meet the targets. It should also ensure that any investment that takes place is sustainable. There is no point in setting a target if we do not ensure that what is built is sustainable and that it deals with the demand that is out there.
So you disagree with Mr McMahon.
I do not disagree with Michael McMahon and, actually, I do not disagree with any of the targets that have been set. My point is that we set the targets without thinking about how we ensure that they are delivered or whether the investment is good value and is future proofed. That is what housing associations and Shelter have been asking us to do—they have been asking us to meet the housing need and ensure that the houses will meet the needs of the people who have to be placed in them.
Those are the challenges that face us and the ones that we should be dealing with. We have had a number of similar debates in which the Government has not brought forward the challenges that it should be facing up to. I call on the Government to do that in the future, and I ask members to support the amendment in Michael McMahon’s name.
15:34
I am very proud of the Scottish Government’s record on housing. As we have heard, we are on target to deliver our manifesto commitment of building 30,000 affordable homes during this parliamentary session.
Will the member give way?
Before I take the predictable interventions, I will say that I do not care what kind of affordable houses we build. [Interruption.]
Mr Hume.
The important thing is to build affordable housing, and that is what we have done.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
That is a very impressive achievement against the background of a 26 per cent cut to our capital budget. There is a world of difference between the pre-credit crunch era and the post-credit crunch era.
Will the member give way?
I am not even through my first minute, so I am impressed that so many members want to intervene. I must be in the right territory.
I think that that was a no, Mr Hume.
We have also shown the political courage necessary to bring the right to buy to an end—something that the Labour Party failed to do for many years.
Those are two very significant achievements. They signal a fresh approach to housing, and a fresh approach was needed. We were unable to meet the overall established need for housing in the boom years before 2007, so a fresh approach that recognised the post-credit crunch reality was a matter of urgent necessity.
As I listen to the arguments of the Opposition parties on housing, I am forced to wonder whether they have any understanding of the subject. They have attempted to describe the problem, but not one of them has presented any credible solutions.
Mike MacKenzie has been going on about the manifesto commitment to build 30,000 affordable homes. I will repeat that the manifesto commitment was for 30,000 socially rented homes, but only two thirds of that has been delivered.
I will give Jim Hume my answer again, in case he did not hear it the first time: I do not care—
Oh!
Order, please.
—what sort of affordable homes they are, and neither do the people who move into them.
Housing debates always seem to dwell only on social housing, as if the public sector could ever solve the housing problem on its own. Opposition parties have criticised us because we are building shared equity housing—I am very surprised to hear that criticism from Tory members. The criticism ignores the vital part that the private sector plays in helping to solve the housing problem and the necessity of getting young people on the first rung of the housing ladder. That is the problem with Opposition parties: they are always prepared to throw the baby out with the ideological bath water.
Of course there is a housing challenge, but it is nothing compared to the crisis that we see south of the border.
There is a crisis in England but not here?
Order.
The stark fact is that there is an established need for 35,000 new houses per annum across all tenures.
I did not mean to intervene from a sedentary position, Presiding Officer.
Is Mike MacKenzie genuinely saying that there is a housing crisis but that he does not accept that there is a housing crisis in Scotland?
I am saying that the problem in England is worse than the problem in Scotland, thanks to the good works and actions of the Scottish Government.
The stark fact is that, pre-credit crunch, at the height of the boom, we were building only 25,000 new houses a year in Scotland. After the credit crunch, we have only just now worked our way back to building 15,000 new houses a year. Of course there is a challenge, so I am pleased that the First Minister has leaked part our manifesto well ahead of next year’s election and given a commitment to build 50,000 new affordable homes over the next parliamentary session.
Will the member give way?
No. I have heard enough from Alex Johnstone this afternoon.
That commitment demonstrates that, even as we brace ourselves for continuing austerity and significant on-going cuts to our budget, housing is at the very top of our agenda. It also demonstrates an understanding that decent housing underpins the social fabric of our country, that it represents a vital part of our economy, and that there are few better investments than housing for economic multipliers and the creation of jobs. On that point, I am grateful to Homes for Scotland and its analysis, which suggests that 4.1 jobs are created or saved for every house that is built. I suggest the figure is even higher in rural areas, where economies of scale are not so easily found. That why I am glad of the Government’s recent announcement of a rural housing fund, which recognises the significant part that housing plays in the sustainability of rural communities.
I also pay tribute to the Government’s quest to find innovative financial models for new methods for funding housing, recognising that the banks are still not lending and that new housing, whether for sale or for rent, represents a good and secure long-term investment.
The delivery of housing requires an efficient and effective planning system. The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 was conceived and delivered in times that are different from those that we now face. Incremental improvement has not been sufficient to deliver the necessary change in planning culture. That is why I am delighted that the First Minister has announced a root-and-branch review of the planning system.
You must close.
We will not deliver an adequate supply of housing unless we have a comprehensive approach that seeks to work with public and private sector partners. I am delighted that the Scottish Government is taking that approach, and I am confident that it will deliver the new target of 50,000 homes in the next parliamentary session.
Before we move on, I remind members that if they do not wish to take an intervention, the courteous response is just to say, “No thank you.”
15:42
I also find myself about to deliver a speech that is different from the one that I intended to deliver because of the strangeness of the debate.
It is particularly galling, especially for folks who are watching the debate at home, that the Opposition is very good at pointing out problems but never, ever offers any solutions or says what it would do differently or how it would fund that different policy. It is always the great escape away from facing up to the fact that we have restricted budgets.
Will the member give way?
I will give Mr Hume the opportunity to come back on something that I want to say later.
We got what we expected in the Tories’ attack on the demise of the right to buy. However, that policy that has allowed councils across this land to build new council houses, which our folks greatly needed. I have to say, however, that in some local authorities, including my own in Aberdeen, that seems to have stalled.
I come to Mr Hume now. We heard the usual bleating from him, but he offered no alternatives. He seemed to attack the private rented sector today. Although I am not a huge fan of the private rented sector, I ask him whether that was a real attack.
No, not at all. I just recognised that things have changed.
I want to address the member’s point that no ideas have come up. Audit Scotland reported that, last year, £51 million of the housing budget in Scotland was not spent. If that money had been spent, surely it would have gone a long towards addressing homelessness in Scotland.
I am glad that Mr Hume did not attack the private rented sector.
I looked at Mr Hume’s entry in the register of members’ interests during the debate—I did not hear any declaration about this—and I noted that he seems to have seven properties: five in Edinburgh, one in Fife and one in East Lothian, one of which I assume he lives in. It would be interesting to know whether he rents out the others and if his attack on the private rented sector was an attack on himself as a landlord.
Mr Hume well knows that the £51 million will have been subsumed into this year’s budget and will be invested in the priorities of the Scottish Government.
Let me turn to some of the things that I wanted to mention in the debate. Aberdeen has high-cost housing—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Mr Stewart, I have a point of order.
A point of order?
It is not ideal in the middle of a speech. Ken Macintosh has a point of order.
Mr Hume can defend himself—far be it from me to do so—but I ask the Presiding Officer whether it is in order for a colleague to question the integrity of another when he made no reference whatsoever to the private rented sector or his own interests in it.
There are members across the chamber—certainly, there are many members of the Scottish National Party—who own properties and rent them out. I do not think that making accusations against Mr Hume helps Mr Stewart’s argument or the debate in the chamber. I ask the Presiding Officer to look into whether that is treating members with respect.
That is not a point of order, Mr Macintosh. You have made your point. What he raises in his speech is up to Mr Stewart.
I will follow on from that, because Mr Hume mentioned the private rented sector in his speech; what he did not do is declare his own interest. That is public knowledge, because it is in his entry in the register of members’ interests. I was just raising what is there.
Mr Stewart, could I hurry you along? There is not a lot of time left in the debate.
Aberdeen has high-cost housing and high demand, a council house building programme that has stalled and regeneration opportunities such as Broadford Works that private entities have not brought forward. There is a real problem for my city.
I am glad that Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council have put housing at the heart of their city deal bid. I fully support that. We also have to look at other aspects to back up that house building, including investment in water and sewerage.
Manchester is an extremely interesting case. I paid a visit to Manchester recently with colleagues from the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to hear about the greater Manchester pension fund. I pay tribute to Councillor Kieran Quinn, the chair of that pension fund, and Peter Morris, the executive director, for their enthusiasm, proactivity and vision for investing in housing. The greater Manchester pension fund has provided the capital to fund developments, while Manchester City Council and the Homes and Communities Agency south of the border have provided five sites. Of the 500 homes being built, half are being built for sale and half for market rent, with a mix that was determined by commercial factors. I understand that Falkirk Council will make use of its pension fund to do likewise and will invest in housing in Scotland. I hope that other pension funds follow suit.
That action demonstrates an approach that involves not only pointing out problems but offering solutions. That is what we should be doing more of here, instead of abdicating our responsibilities. Whether we are in government, in opposition or on the back benches, we must point out how we would resource the things that we want to see. That approach has been sadly lacking today. I hope that, in future, some of the Opposition parties take a different approach. We must not only point out problems; we must find solutions.
I allowed Mr Stewart a bit more time because of the interruption, but I am afraid that I must now ask members to stick to six minutes.
15:49
I want to give an Edinburgh perspective on the debate; I do not want to get too involved in the statistical battle.
Alex Johnstone made some interesting points, which are reflected in a report that was published by the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee in the first few months of this session.
I also make the point that we must be careful not to compare apples with pears. The figures for the previous Administration were for social rented housing, and the figures for this Administration are for social rented housing plus other forms of affordable housing. I looked at the five years when I was Minister for Health and Community Care and then minister with responsibility for housing and saw that, basically, the social rented figures for those five years are broadly comparable to those in the current five-year period. The conclusion that I draw from that is that neither Government has built enough social rented houses, so let us concentrate on need. That is the right starting point for this debate.
The commission on housing and wellbeing, Shelter, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing all say that we need 12,000 affordable houses a year, and Shelter says that at least three quarters of them should be socially rented.
The City of Edinburgh Council has also done its assessment of need, in partnership with others. It has said that 16,000 houses are needed in the next 10 years. The percentage of social rented housing is particularly important for Edinburgh because it has by far the longest housing waiting list in Scotland. I saw a graph today—Edinburgh was way above the second council on it. That is reflected in the fact that in Edinburgh there are routinely 200 applicants for a council or housing association house. That happens every day of the week.
I recently met a housing association chief executive who emphasised the centrality of housing association grant—HAG—levels for the number of socially rented houses that his housing association could build. He gave the example that with the current HAG level for each house of £58,000—which is actually an increase; it had plummeted to £36,000 three or four years ago—he can have a 50-50 mix of social rented and other forms of affordable housing. There is a recommendation from a high-level committee to the Scottish Government that the HAG level should be raised to £70,000. That chief executive said that if that were to happen he could build 70 per cent socially rented houses and 30 per cent other affordable houses.
Will Malcolm Chisholm take an intervention?
If I have time at the end I will take an intervention, but I have a lot to get through. I like taking interventions, but I have three other points that I want to make—four actually, because the first one is that the other big problem in Edinburgh is sites: many landowners are sitting on land and waiting for an increase in value. In fact, there is in Edinburgh land that is just sitting there with housing planning permission for 9,000 homes, but it is frozen. The City of Edinburgh Council has an important role to play, which I think should include compulsory purchase orders.
I have three other local issues that I want to raise in my remaining three minutes. First, if members have been down Leith Walk recently, they will have seen lots of new houses—all student accommodation. We had an interesting discussion at Leith central community council on Monday about that. The City of Edinburgh Council currently has revised student housing guidance out for consultation, so obviously it is not final. I will read one sentence from it:
“Balanced sustainable communities require the dominant residential component to be permanent and not transient.”
I am certainly not against student accommodation, but I think that too much of it can destabilise the mix. Some people at the community council took an even stronger view than that. It is important that Edinburgh is trying to say that we need to restrict the percentage of such accommodation. Some rulings from the reporters unit recently have overruled the council and said that it has to take very high percentages of student housing.
Secondly, we need land to be available for big housing developments. Sometimes we have applications for small housing developments in inappropriate places that are not going to do anything to meet the housing needs of Edinburgh. There are two classic examples in my constituency at the moment. One is an application to destroy a restaurant at Canonmills and build a very small number of houses on the site. The other is to build at the foot of Trinity Road an even smaller number of large houses, which are going to tower over one of the most beautiful conservation areas in Edinburgh. The local council has rejected both applications, and hundreds of local people have opposed the developments. It is in the hands of the reporters unit, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights will not want to get involved, but I draw it to his attention that there will be uproar in my constituency if the reporters unit goes against the democratic decision of the council and the wishes of hundreds of local people. The issue highlights a democratic deficit in the planning system.
Finally, I welcome the place standard that is being worked on by NHS Health Scotland. It talks about the importance of social capital, which I suppose could be said to be social networks and people doing things for each other—a sense of community.
The community of the year is in my constituency. It is called Lorne. There are tenants there who are fighting for their homes because the landlord, which is a charitable trust, wants them to move so that it can sell off the houses. They have held a magnificent campaign. I am due tomorrow to ask a parliamentary question about the situation . However, as it is question 9 on the Business Bulletin we may not get to it, so I will make my point now. The Lorne community association is looking for alternative solutions, whether that means the properties being sold to a housing association or to a co-operative. They do not want their community to be destroyed. All my question asks is what support the Government will give. The minimum support would be verbal support, with the Government saying, “We’re on your side”. However, if more support could be given to that community, it would be greatly appreciated.
Is it too late to take Mike MacKenzie’s intervention, Presiding Officer? I have already had six minutes.
It would need to be very brief.
He is declining to make the intervention now, and I have made all my points. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
15:55
I, too, welcome the First Minister’s announcement last month that, if it is re-elected, the SNP Government will build another 50,000 affordable homes. However, members from across the chamber have argued that the target is not ambitious enough. That view deserves a hearing.
The target that has been set is not a limit on the Scottish Government’s ambition, but we must be cognisant of the fact that nothing takes place within a vacuum. We cannot get away from the fact that Westminster has cut Scotland’s capital budget by 26 per cent in real terms between 2010 and 2016. We all know that more houses need to be built and that these are challenging times, and the minister has also stated on the record that her officials are working tirelessly on innovative ways to use reducing finances in order to ensure that they can be stretched further. However, I will focus on another facet of the debate.
In June this year, the Scottish Government published its joint housing delivery plan, which takes as its starting point the Government’s housing and regeneration outcomes and the strategy document “Homes Fit for the 21st Century”. I will focus on two of the actions that came out of that delivery plan: place making and sustainability. On place making, the plan acknowledges that although people want to influence what happens in their neighbourhood, that regeneration and new housing can often appear to happen despite a community’s wishes and concerns.
As Homes for Scotland has outlined, of particular concern at the moment is the fact that local development plans continue to identify land that is unlikely to deliver much-needed new homes because either there is no market demand in an area or it is not economically viable. A striking example of that is in St John’s Town of Dalry, in Dumfries and Galloway, where the local housing partnership developed brand new two-bedroom and three-bedroom family houses for shared equity, half of which are still sitting empty because there is simply no demand for family homes that are so far from jobs.
Although I have no doubt that the root-and-branch review of the current planning system will create a more effective system that recognises and reflects the importance of local housing delivery and acts as an enabler at that level, efforts to make the existing system function better are to be welcomed. I am pleased, therefore, that the plan outlines clear actions to do just that. Developing a clear understanding of meaningful community engagement in the development and planning process will allow truly community-led regeneration and new communities to flourish.
It is important to say that that will hinge on improved capacity building across all sectors of the community through support from community anchor organisations and other local agencies. To that end, Dumfries & Galloway Small Communities Housing Trust is working with its Highlands and Islands equivalent and with Rural Housing Scotland to create a new community housing alliance. The principal aim of the Dumfries & Galloway Small Communities Housing Trust is to work with small rural communities to identify and address local housing needs as part of wider rural regeneration. Building on that, the purpose of the alliance would be to encourage and provide practical assistance to community groups who want to improve and increase delivery of local housing across Scotland. That is much needed and I am encouraged that the wheels are in motion to start building capacity in that area.
Housing will be central to Scotland’s efforts to combat fuel poverty and to achieve the ambitious goals that are set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Fuel poverty is prevalent in all parts of Scotland, but the availability of mains gas and standard tariffs varies, meaning that many rural areas—including mine—are unable to use those fuel sources, which leads to significantly higher heating costs. Fuel poverty in Dumfries and Galloway currently sits at 45 per cent—higher than the Scottish national average. Part of the plan that I have mentioned focuses on developing a specific set of actions that will be relevant to rural and remote off-gas properties, and on feeding those actions in to the development of fuel-poverty policy and new energy efficiency programmes.
A pioneering local example is the Dormont Park development just outside the small village of Dalton in Dumfries and Galloway. The development was designed and specified to the exacting pioneering PassiveHaus standards by White Hill Design Studio, which is a local architecture practice that specialises in sustainability and low-energy design. I very much encourage such developments. The development was funded by a Scottish Government pilot project that has come to an end.
Although it is vital to focus on building as many affordable homes as we can, that must coincide with a focus on developing robust long-term plans to tackle the different fuel poverty and energy efficiency issues in off-gas and rural areas, as well as looking at how the housing sector engages with communities to build places where people want to live. Only then can we describe the programme as truly ambitious.
16:00
As a councillor here in Edinburgh prior to coming to Holyrood, and during my term as MSP, a historical difficulty has shown itself regularly throughout my time as an elected member: the supply of social affordable and rented accommodation.
As a child, my family moved to the Clermiston area of the city. As far as I remember, every house there was council owned. Now, thanks to the right to buy, virtually every house in that area is privately owned. I have to admit that my parents took advantage of the scheme as my father realised that the deal that was being offered was too good to ignore. Now, of course, there is a lack of social and affordable housing in Edinburgh and elsewhere as a result of that scheme. A situation that many members may recognise from their areas showed itself back in 2008 or 2009—just after what we now call the boom years—when 1,000 applications where made for a council flat in the ward that I represented on the City of Edinburgh Council.
I commend the Scottish Government for ending the right to buy and for being on target to produce 30,000 affordable homes, including 20,000 social rented homes, by 2016. That has been achieved in the face of the slash-and-burn economic policies of the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition, of the Tories now on their own, and prior to that, of the Blair-Brown Labour Party. It is no wonder that most people believe that this SNP Government has acted in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Government plans to build another 50,000 affordable homes. I wholly support that highly commendable goal, but I add a note of caution. At the present time, my constituency is faced with the possibility of being overrun by housing developments without having the infrastructure to cope. The area from Newbridge to Maybury and South Gyle and north to Barnton and Cammo is one of the biggest traffic blocks in Scotland. St John’s Road and Queensferry Road are among the worst-polluted roads in the UK. There is nothing in the second attempt at the local development plan, which should have been passed months ago by the council, that could mitigate traffic congestion along the two most important western road approaches to the city centre of Edinburgh.
However, because the city council planning committee has failed to provide a precise local development plan for consideration, areas such as Maybury and Cammo could be opened up for development, should the reporter agree to that. Housing developments should be sustainable and should create good, safe communities, but I and many others fail to see how those two areas can be made so without traffic infrastructure being put in place. I also say that the community of East Craigs would be incredibly badly affected if the infrastructure of Maybury and Cammo were to be not upgraded to a proper level to allow the areas to be developed.
I totally agree with much of what Malcolm Chisholm said, particularly about land banking—there are serious pressures in Edinburgh. The problem in Edinburgh is extremely difficult. We desperately need housing, but the local planning authority is not—in my opinion and that of others—addressing the basics. Before I go any further, I say that the Edinburgh tram line makes no difference to traffic volumes going into the city along the Queensferry Road and Corstorphine Road corridors.
It is my hope that ministers in the Scottish Government can discuss the strategic growth of our capital city with council officials and elected representatives in order for sustainable housing developments to take place. My fear, should a way not be found to do that, is that development will be unsustainable and Edinburgh will find itself in the position where, unless people are incredibly wealthy or already have access to property, they will not be able to live here. Edinburgh’s economy is such that we need more people to live in the city.
I am delighted that, in my constituency, the 21st century homes initiative has been moving forward in Muirhouse and Pennywell, with more than 700 new homes in the pipeline. According to a report by the City of Edinburgh Council’s health, social care and housing committee of 10 November, about 30 households are taking advantage of the help-to-buy scheme. Elsewhere in the city, we have seen either plans for developments or actual developments at Gracemount, Craigmillar, Leith and Sighthill.
Since the financial crash of 2008, things have not been easy for private or publicly backed housing development. I became very aware of that when I was a director of the City of Edinburgh Council’s arm’s-length development company, EDI Group Ltd. I joined the board in pretty desperate financial times. Although the financial markets have stabilised, the fact that budgets for the Scottish Parliament and local authorities have been diminishing in real terms still makes life difficult. Nevertheless, we require housing, and I commend the Scottish Government for its various initiatives and models for achieving capital investment.
We need not just housing but proper strategic planning and infrastructure in order to build safe sustainable communities, and to ensure that our capital city remains viable in the future.
I call Hanzala Malik, to be followed by John Mason. There is now a little bit of time available for interventions.
16:06
Thank you and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to know that I may have extra time. That is rare for me because I am usually at the end.
It is a pleasure to talk about the ambitious home building programme for Scotland. Housing is one of the most important of the issues that bring constituents to my office. Poor-quality housing, overcrowding and a general lack of affordable housing are common problems for the people of Glasgow and across Scotland.
Margaret Burgess’s motion is an interesting one. The Scottish Government is patting itself on the back for exceeding its five-year target to deliver 30,000 affordable homes by March 2016—we should remember that the target is for affordable homes and not for social homes. It is good to try to meet targets, but it is more important to meet the needs of ordinary people. That the target falls short of the mark is proved by the fact that 150,000 households are still on waiting lists and more than 10,000 households are in temporary accommodation. I am sorry to say that the rate of house building is just not good enough.
Several colleagues have quoted the report by three of Scotland’s leading housing organisations that analyses housing need as being at least 12,000 affordable homes a year for the next five years. That is double the current target. Homes for Scotland has said that housing production is 40 per cent lower than it was in 2007, despite the fact that we have a record population and a growing number of households. That is a better reflection of what my constituents tell me every week than the Scottish Government’s self-congratulation.
Let us look closely at the affordable housing need and the type of tenancies that are provided. To make the figures look good, the Government has allowed house developers and housing associations to build pigeon lofts with very small rooms as homes. A debate on that issue was brought to the chamber by Alex Johnstone MSP, who asked the Government to introduce minimum room sizes for new-build housing. I joined in the debate, asking for larger homes that reflect the current needs of real families, but of course that would not look good for the number of houses that we build. There is perhaps a bit of camouflaging.
The right to buy has been abolished in Scotland to ensure that the stock of social rented housing is maintained, but why is the Scottish Government not doing more to increase that type of housing? Shelter Scotland wants an affordable housing programme with at least three quarters of homes being provided through social rents. Once we have sorted out our housing shortage and the people of Scotland are in houses that meet their needs, we can focus on home ownership.
With nearly half of all homes falling short of official standards, we need to improve the existing housing stock and make more land available for building on. I would very much like the Scottish Government to use the tools at its disposal to unlock brownfield sites, to build infrastructure and to encourage investment by, for example, supporting good financial schemes such as the housing association resource for investment scheme, which is a special purpose vehicle that has been set up to allow housing organisations to pool their resources in order to access larger-scale yet affordable finance.
Many members, particularly from the SNP, have suggested that we have given no examples of how to move forward. I have certainly given a couple, and I am sure that there are many more. Of course, this is not all about money; the Government needs to listen to the call by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations for practical support to be given to the sector in order to deal with the challenges of procurement law.
I repeat that it is now time to meet housing needs, not targets. We need to get out of our seats and do something. I agree with my colleagues that we need to work together on issues; indeed, Clare Adamson spoke very passionately about working on ideas together. The fact is that the Labour Party consistently comes up with ideas, but, unfortunately, they fall on deaf ears.
Once again, I ask the minister to get to grips with this issue. She needs to stop worrying about convincing us that small homes are meeting people’s needs today, because I can assure her that they are not. Constituents of mine cannot get a house because their families are too large. The homes, affordable or otherwise, are simply not available, so I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the minister’s thesis that the Government is meeting its targets. The minister will have met her targets when people have the houses that they need. I am sorry, but until then, I will continue to say that she has not, and she needs to try harder.
16:13
As in all debates, we need to strike a balance between the good things that have been achieved, and the challenges that we face and the needs that we have to meet. The idea that we can paint housing and house building as totally good or totally bad news is far too simplistic.
Clearly, the advantages of good housing will be accepted by almost everyone in the chamber. People get somewhere warm, dry and safe to live in; if their homes are well insulated, they can afford to heat them; young people have the room to study and therefore will benefit educationally; and building and maintenance jobs are available. As a result, the fact that 30,000 affordable homes are going to be achieved is something well worth celebrating.
Abolishing the right to buy has also been an achievement. Council and housing association houses, especially in the more attractive areas, had been drifting away for years, reducing the chances of needy individuals and families getting a suitable property. When I talk about “a suitable property”, I am thinking not just about the physical properties—for example, whether it is the right size or whether, if we are talking about old folk, there are any stairs. Healthy communities need a mixture of housing to allow people to stay in close proximity to their families. Many constituents come to me about housing. Although the type of house or flat that they need might certainly be available, parents, say, are desperate to stay near the grandparents so that their kids can get support; someone might need to care for a disabled relative in the area; or a child with particular needs might be very settled in a particular school, and they will not want to move school every time the family needs to move house.
Does it not concern John Mason that housing associations provided those very homes that his constituents are applying for in the east end of Glasgow, which we have shared responsibility for for many years, but the cutting of the housing association grant has meant that that development almost came to a standstill?
I will go on to some of my local developments, but there is certainly a considerable amount of development by Parkhead Housing Association and Shettleston Housing Association in my constituency and the Commonwealth games village.
One of the advantages of cutting the HAG rate, which I think was temporary, was that some housing associations were sitting on unring-fenced—or whatever the term is—reserves and the effect of the lower HAG rate for a time was to bring some of that money back into the housing equation. For example, Parkhead Housing Association bought houses off the shelf in the Belvidere village without any grant because it had that money sitting there.
Another area of need that the housing system can struggle with is where a father needs a spare room or rooms in order to have his kids stay at weekends, for example, or where families want to foster or adopt and they need extra rooms. There can be informal arrangements in which a single mother needs help and friends need a spare room to take her kids for a few days. I am not suggesting that every household requires an extra room just in case they need it, but I argue that such social and community factors are not always well catered for in our housing provision and housing allocation policies.
Looking forward, we need more housing. Everyone accepts that, and I very much welcome the SNP commitment to 50,000 affordable homes in the next five years if we are re-elected.
Maintaining and improving existing housing is linked to new housing. If we maintain and improve the existing housing better, it is clear that we will not need as many new houses. In Glasgow and elsewhere, many home owners are not investing in their properties as they need to. That may be because they just ignore the problems, but more often than not it is because they struggle to afford the work that is needed. If we as a society can look after our existing housing stock better, that in turn will take some of the pressure off the need for new housing.
We cannot just leave owner-occupiers to their own devices. Many older folk with low incomes cannot maintain their properties, and we as a society have a responsibility to help. Some owner-occupiers were misled by the Conservatives. The Conservatives celebrate the right to buy in their amendment, but they failed to spell out to people who had never owned a property that heavy maintenance costs go along ownership.
I have wondered about introducing a member’s bill if I was re-elected that would look at having more good-quality factors with sinking funds in shared properties such as tenements. In that way, perhaps more essential maintenance work and improvements such as insulation would be carried out.
As we focus on the genuine challenges, let us not forget the good things that are happening. Members will not be surprised to hear me mention the local Commonwealth games village once again, with its 700 homes—300 were for sale and 400 were for social rent. However, the games and the village were never meant to be ends in themselves. Therefore, I find it very encouraging that Link Housing Association, which I used to work for, plans to build 550 units, 300 of which will be affordable and 250 of which will be owner-occupied, very close by, where the Dalmarnock power station used to be. That is very much thanks to the Clyde Gateway urban regeneration company, which has worked to decontaminate that land. That money has gone into housing, although I suspect that we would not normally call that money part of the housing budget.
We have had some very useful briefings for the debate, including from the likes of Shelter and the SFHA. I also thank Glasgow City Council for specific numbers that it gave me on housing developments in my constituency. For example, 459 houses are currently under construction around Baillieston and another 168 have recently been completed. Another 1,041 are going through the planning process or have the potential to do so. So there is a fair bit of good news around, as well.
Another challenge is whether to invest in mainstream housing or specialist provision, such as sheltered or very sheltered housing or housing for disabled people. The Finance Committee previously looked at that.
Finally, we should mention refugees at this time. In the short term, we can understand the argument against bringing in an additional family from overseas if there is only one empty house in a village and two local families need it. However, that is very much a narrow, short-term argument. There are many reasons for welcoming refugees, which include our humanitarian need to help them, the fact that Scots have been helped in the past when they went overseas, and the fact that our economy benefits in the long term from doing so. Scotland and the UK are rich countries on the world stage, and I do not see any conflict between providing housing for our own people and doing so for refugees and asylum seekers.
16:19
Housing is, of course, of great importance to people right across the country, and that is reflected in the case load that many of us have. After all, our home is where we spend much of our lives—it is where we sleep, study, eat and relax. Securing a home that is suitable to one’s needs and those of one’s family at an affordable rent or price is paramount in all of our lives.
To facilitate that, it is essential to provide a variety of housing types while making conditions right to ensure a continued housing supply to meet the ever-increasing demand and to replace substandard stock. Government must have a role in planning, funding, encouraging and constructing house building projects, particularly in areas where demand outstrips supply. To meet that challenge, the SNP Government is investing more than £1.7 billion in affordable housing over the current parliamentary session. Along with the rest of my colleagues, I am delighted that we have now exceeded our target to deliver 30,000 affordable homes. As the minister told us, that figure includes 5,000 council houses. That is a somewhat marked improvement on the six council houses that the previous Labour-Liberal Administration managed to build over a full four-year term in power, which is an issue that members of those parties understandably remain uber-sensitive and embarrassed about.
As we have heard, the SNP Government has also abolished the right to buy to ensure that we maintain high-quality local authority housing stock for future generations. Despite Labour members’ rhetoric in this chamber regarding council housing, in Wales—the only place where Labour remains in government—a meagre 20 council houses have been built in the past eight years and the right to buy remains sacrosanct.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that Scotland spends 85 per cent more per head on social housing than England and Wales do. Of course, given the cuts of more than a quarter to this Parliament’s capital budget, we are limited in the amount of building that we can fund directly. It is for that reason that innovative models of delivery such as the national housing trust are so integral to meeting housing demand. Working with 16 separate developers, local authorities and lending institutions, the Scottish Government has delivered 1,350 homes across 10 council areas. In the process, it has supported 1,750 jobs in the construction industry.
Housing not only serves a purpose in itself; as colleagues have mentioned, it is a vital part of our economy that employs tens of thousands of people in design, supply, construction, logistics and maintenance. In North Ayrshire, the building developer Lovell is trialling a new state-of-the-art method of measuring the economic impact of an affordable housing project on the local community, which will show just how much investment a housing project brings to an area by tracking where the money is spent and respent in the wider economy.
I am pleased that, as well as using the innovative national housing trust model, the SNP Government is exploring the use of charitable bonds to fund the construction of affordable homes. As the minister said, those bonds have now raised some £37 million, which could allow housing associations to build up to 600 homes across Scotland.
Of course, making use of existing stock that lies empty also makes sense, and Paul Martin talked about that at some length. The Shelter-run Scottish empty homes partnership works with councils to help bring empty private sector homes back into use. Since 2010, the partnership has brought more than 900 homes back into use and encouraged 17 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities to appoint dedicated empty homes officers. In June, the minister announced a £4 million fund to help bring even more empty homes and high street units back to life. That fund will result in an additional 478 homes being brought back into use across 17 different projects.
The creation and execution of an affordable, effective and workable housing policy is complex, yet although there are challenges to be met, as we have heard in great detail, it is evident that the SNP Government is delivering on its key commitments and providing safe, warm and affordable homes.
Labour’s contribution to today’s debate—excluding Malcolm Chisholm’s speech—reminds me of a line from the 1991 PM Dawn song “Set Adrift on Memory Bliss”:
“Reality used to be a friend of mine”.
Michael McMahon actually blushed when John Mason asked how Labour would pay for its uncosted, woolly proposals. The intellectually lazy argument that we should just build more houses fails to recognise the relentless assault on Scotland’s budget and harks back to the days when Labour in Glasgow built housing schemes without shops, community centres or even pavements, as I can attest as someone who was once a councillor in Pollok.
One also wonders where housing fits in with the decision that was taken at Labour’s conference, which has committed Labour to establishing a debt disposal department, whose sole responsibility will be to use the Scottish Parliament’s new borrowing powers to raise the funds, not to build new houses or invest in infrastructure but to buy back the £28 billion of private finance initiative debt that Labour itself ran up.
Labour’s position reminds me that, after her recent visit to meet her colleagues in Wales, Kezia Dugdale talked about Welsh education minister Huw Lewis’s approach to policy making:
“I said to him, ‘where are you finding the money from for these other big commitments?’ and he said they would worry about that later.”
Just like her colleagues in Wales, Kezia Dugdale and her party have no credibility when it comes to tackling housing or other big issues in Scotland. Only the SNP has shown in government that we have the imagination, creativity, vision and ability to meet Scotland’s housing needs. We will continue to do so in the years ahead.
I urge members to support the motion.
16:25
What I heard this afternoon in the open debate was SNP members again pointing the finger at Westminster and accusing it of making cuts to the budget. Same old, same old; I have had about nine years of that here.
What the Scottish Government continually avoids mentioning is the money that it has but is not spending. There was a £51 million housing underspend in 2014-15, with another £7 million in 2013-14. Indeed, last year the total underspend was £347 million. If that money had been used, would 5,000 children still be homeless this Christmas? If the Scottish Government had been honest with people in Scotland in 2011, would 10,000 more families have got off waiting lists and been housed?
I suggest that Jim Hume talks to his good friend Sir Danny Alexander, who of course was the person responsible for 26 per cent cuts in capital spending. Even Sir Danny will admit and explain to the member that the £51 million was not unspent, lost to the housing budget or replaced by other money; it has been spent on housing.
The minister goes on about a 26 per cent cut over a period, but I remember fighting a draft budget in Scotland when the Scottish Government wanted a 55 per cent cut. The cut was reduced to 41 per cent after the Lib Dems made the issue one of their priorities for supporting the budget.
I heard from members that the current level of affordable house building is still 40 per cent less than it was before 2008. Nevertheless, I want to be positive—as ever—and to make the point that we are seeing a shift in the quality of housing and not an exclusive focus on quantity, which is important. The minister pointed out that quality standards are being reinforced, which I welcome.
However, I am yet to receive a satisfactory answer from the Government to my question about the discrepancy between the success rates reported by social landlords to the Scottish Housing Regulator and the findings of the Scottish house condition survey. The Scottish Housing Regulator reports a 95 per cent success rate in registered social landlords meeting the Scottish housing quality standard, whereas the Scottish house condition survey reports that 43 per cent of social housing is failing to meet the quality standard.
In her response to me, the minister said that the discrepancy can be attributed to different methodologies in the two reports, but I do not quite buy that a 52 per cent discrepancy rate is simply the result of different methodologies or timing. Given that 39 per cent of households in Scotland—some 940,000 households, or almost a million, including around half of all rural households—are experiencing fuel poverty, it is extremely necessary that we tackle the problem.
Almost half of all households who rent in Scotland receive financial assistance to pay the rent, and for 39 per cent of households more than a third of household income goes on fuel. It is no surprise that people are fast becoming exasperated with timid performance on housing. WWF Scotland provided a context for thinking about our current housing conditions when it said:
“over 85% of homes standing today will still be lived in by 2050.”
I note that in June the Government committed to making improving the energy efficiency of Scotland’s buildings a national infrastructure priority. I support that, of course, but given the Government’s record on the emissions target—it has missed the target for the fourth time in a row—its promise is less than credible.
The Scottish Lib Dems have a strong record of delivering housing in Scotland, and we want to see a Scotland where homelessness is a thing of the past. [Interruption.]
Order.
We want to see a Scotland where we are able to use innovative and bold solutions to deliver the right, sustainable, long-term solutions. We know that 27,000 homes are sitting empty across Scotland. What are we doing to use those to regenerate communities and boost the wellbeing of our economy? It is time to shift away from silo thinking when discussing housing.
I agree with other members that housing is of course the starting point for a healthy and stable life. However, the fact is that the Scottish Government was not totally truthful to the population when it announced an ambitious house building programme in 2011, because it has delivered less than that. The Government announced an ambitious house building programme today, but I am very wary of its reneging on its goals again and leaving 150,000 families on waiting lists even longer. I urge everybody to support my amendment.
16:30
There has been a fairly high degree of disagreement across the chamber over the course of the afternoon, but let me start with what I think is one area of agreement: all parties and all independent members believe that housing is a critical and vital issue. I think that it is beyond dispute that we face severe challenges across the housing sector. Families across Scotland are feeling that, and the sector and stakeholders feel it, too. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to describe the situation as a housing crisis.
Members have already quoted some of the figures, but they are worth repeating. According to the commission on housing and wellbeing, 150,000 households are currently waiting for social housing; 60,000 households are classed as overcrowded; and half of housing falls short of official quality standards. I can be objective enough to accept that that is not all down entirely to the fault of the current Scottish Government or, indeed, the previous Scottish Government or the UK Government before the first Scottish Executive. There are complex reasons for the challenges that we face, and complex solutions will be required in the short, medium and long term if we are to make a dent in the challenges, but particularly if we aim to solve the crisis. That will require a huge number of solutions.
Does the member think that the UK’s cut of 26 per cent in capital allocation to the Scottish Government has helped or hindered its ability to deal with housing problems in Scotland?
I do not accept for a moment the SNP’s arguments on the budget, which I will return to in just a moment. I will just finish off the consensus part. Mr Gibson obviously does not like consensus and wants to move on to bare-knuckle debate, and I am happy to do that too.
If we are going to solve the housing crisis in the long term, it will require an all-tenure approach, as stakeholders have pointed out. We all need to focus carefully on that point.
I think that it was courageous of the Scottish Government to bring forward this debate on housing, because the issue has been the Government’s Achilles’ heel over the past three or four years. It is not a comfortable area for the Government, and I think that there are aspects of it for which the Government is culpable.
The first one is this: the SNP made a manifesto commitment, and every SNP member here—and those SNP members who are not here—stood behind that manifesto commitment. We have heard it read out word for word. The manifesto commitment on page 17 of the 2011 SNP manifesto states:
“Overall, our aim is to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year.”
There is a clear commitment in black and white to 30,000 such houses, but the Government has not achieved and will not achieve that in the timeframe. It looks like the Government will get more than 20,000 built—maybe it has done so—but it is not going to get 30,000, which was the manifesto commitment. It does the Government’s party and, indeed, this chamber no good at all to pretend that the commitment does not exist. The Government will fall short by 10,000: a third of the entire commitment.
To come back to Mr Gibson’s point, we cannot blame Westminster for that failure. Housing is a devolved issue, so it is entirely a failure of the Scottish Government. When the manifesto commitment was made in 2011, the Government knew exactly how much money it had for each of the following four years. The Government made the commitment almost a year after the emergency budget and a good six or seven months after the full spending review, so that commitment was made knowing exactly what funding would be available.
The only difference since then is that funding has increased, so the failure is the Scottish Government’s. It is a bit disappointing that, first, the SNP back benchers will not even acknowledge that there has been a failure and, secondly, they do not seem to want to know why that failure happened. Perhaps Mr Neil in his closing speech can tell us why the Government fell 10,000 short. If it cannot deliver on the smaller numbers, how seriously should we take its current pledge of a larger number of 50,000 new affordable homes?
We have heard again from the Scottish Government that its priority is to deal with housing. Mike MacKenzie says that there are few better investments—there are economic multipliers and there are jobs; it ticks just about every box. However, that is the same Mike MacKenzie who, along with every other SNP member in this chamber, voted in successive budgets to make disproportionate cuts to housing.
We accept that there was an overall real-terms budget cut and an overall real-terms capital budget cut, but the political choice of the SNP—of this Government—was to put the lion’s share of those capital cuts on to housing, not on to any other part of capital. The Government concentrated its cuts specifically on housing. That is one of the reasons why we voted against the budget in 2012, 2013 and 2014—we had an almost 40 per cent drop in the affordable housing budget over a four-year period.
Since then, of course, the budget has been increased, so the 2015-16 budget is back up and is close to the level of where it was, as funds have been added back in. However, the SNP members should acknowledge that all of them stood behind drastic budget cuts concentrated on housing. I do not remember a single SNP member, in any of those debates, raising a question about increasing the housing budget.
As regards what the Government can do, it cannot entirely control the private sector, and two thirds of the house builds are built by the private sector and not through Government funding. As regards some of the areas that the Government can influence and control, help to buy is a particularly good example. It was an innovative initiative, described initially by the Scottish Government as “funny money” but then, when the money was put to use, suddenly it was an innovative and wonderful way to deliver houses—as if we did not notice the metamorphosis.
The question I put to Margaret Burgess—and this is where I was disappointed—was simply this: when is the successor scheme to help to buy going to be operational? She said that she was going to answer the question shortly and quite simply did not. I hope that Alex Neil will be able to answer that question in his summing-up because the help to buy scheme has been closed to new entrants since 26 May, there was an announcement in September that something would be done at some point, and we are now into mid to late November and we do not know—almost six months after the scheme shut—when the successor scheme is going to be operational.
I ask simply: how are we going to get investor confidence if we have that stop-start mechanism? It is not the first time that such a thing has happened. Perhaps in closing the minister can tell us when the successor scheme to help to buy will be operational, as it has been south of the border from day 1 and continues to be.
16:38
As many members in the chamber will recognise, I am an optimist and I continue to live in hope despite many years in this Parliament, so when I heard that the Scottish Government had lodged a motion on housing, I looked forward to the debate with anticipation. When I read the wording of the motion, I was slightly disappointed. I was trying to work out why this was the ambitious house building programme referred to in the debate title when it seemed to be a rehash of much of the material that we have heard over many years in the Parliament.
Of course, what I discovered today when I saw the SNP press release is the real reason for this debate—apparently we are going to celebrate the Scottish Government meeting its housing target of 6,000 affordable homes per year. If I may say so—and as has emerged in the debate—there are at least two very good reasons why that is not a cause for celebration.
The first reason is that that was not the SNP promise. As Jim Hume and other members have mentioned, the SNP’s 2011 manifesto specifically states on page 17:
“Overall, our aim is to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year.”
It refers not to affordable homes but to socially rented homes, and there is a crucial difference, despite the fact that Mike MacKenzie does not seem to recognise it. A mid-market or affordable home in a place such as Aberdeen is not the same as socially rented accommodation. If, after all these years of listening to the people who come to his surgery, Mike MacKenzie thinks that there is a similarity, he is sadly mistaken. The distinction matters very much to people who are waiting to afford a home.
Secondly, and far more importantly, even a Government target for 6,000 affordable homes is not the same as meeting housing need. In fact, it is not even close. According to Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the SFHA, 6,000 affordable homes would make up just half of what is needed. The minister is effectively asking us to celebrate the fact that her policy will not deliver for half the people in Scotland who need a decent, warm, secure home.
The word “ambitious” features in the title of the Government’s housing motion, but the debate has not been ambitious. In fact, we have heard from members in the chamber words such as “self-congratulatory” and “complacent”, and the debate has been a pat on the back from one SNP member to another.
The Government’s housing policy does not even address existing need, let alone paint a picture of the kind of Scotland that we can aspire to.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a second.
The only ambitious part of the motion is the last line, which refers to
“a further 50,000 affordable homes.”
As the minister and other members will know, Shelter, CIH and SFHA recently published an independent assessment of housing need in which they identify that we need 12,000 affordable homes each year over five years. My mathematics makes that 60,000 homes, rather than 50,000, over five years. I do not see how setting a target that fails to meet Scotland’s needs by 10,000 homes is ambitious.
My question is on that point. Would 60,000 homes fully meet housing need in Scotland?
The point is that we should set our ambitions and targets at need, not below what we already recognise as need. At the very least, 60,000 should be a baseline for what we want. We should not aspire to a target such as 50,000 but set a baseline from which to go forward.
We have heard a number of thoughtful contributions to the debate—from John Mason, Joan McAlpine, Malcolm Chisholm, Clare Adamson and other members. However, a number of members, including Clare Adamson and John Mason, have questioned the situation, suggesting that the Government acknowledges the challenge that it faces and that there is no disagreement in the chamber on housing need.
The point is that there is disagreement in the chamber. The minister will not recognise that we are facing a housing crisis. I have challenged the minister and the cabinet secretary to recognise that and to use the word “crisis”, or even just to recognise that others consistently use the word to describe the situation that Scotland is experiencing at present, but they both refuse to do so.
I noticed that Mike MacKenzie, when he was challenged, also refused to acknowledge the crisis. He is willing to throw brickbats across the border as usual and say that there is a housing crisis in England, but he refuses to recognise that the same situation exists in Scotland. Does he not recognise that that view is blinkered?
I am sure that Mr Macintosh will agree with me that there is a similar but deeper and more urgent problem south of the border. That is beyond argument.
Well, we are getting close. The problem here is “similar”, apparently, but is it a crisis? Yet again I did not hear that word from Mr MacKenzie.
I am not trying to say that the Labour Party was perfect in power, and Michael McMahon was not saying that either, despite accusations to the contrary. We are not trying to downplay the effects of the recession, but we point out that the SNP has been in power for eight years and that housing is entirely devolved.
The SNP Government has made decisions when in power specifically to cut housing. The accusation is often made that Labour has not followed up its actions at budget time, but on housing we very much did so. I was the Opposition spokesperson responding to John Swinney when he made the cuts. In 2012 and 2013, Labour specifically identified the housing budget, along with the college budget—those were the two big cuts—and named the funds that we would put there instead. We specifically identified those areas and said, “This is the wrong thing to do.” We put our money where our mouth is, but the SNP will not take responsibility for its actions.
Alex Johnstone pointed out that the SNP has not only cut the overall housing budget but specifically cut the housing association grant. The effect is that, as well as private rents going up, social rents have gone up. Housing association rents have gone up because the SNP cut the HAG levels. It had to unpick some of that and try to restore the grant, but there has been a direct effect. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
Fundamentally, this crisis is about a lack of supply. Philip Hogg from Homes for Scotland has made the point that most people in this country still aspire to owning their own home. The average house price in Scotland is now about five times the average income, so that is out of reach for many people, and particularly for families who are starting out in life. They cannot afford a home of their own. Therefore, young adults are ending up staying at home with their parents and overcrowding is on the increase—according to Shelter, 75,000 people are living in overcrowded accommodation. Further, 150,000 people are waiting for a housing association or council property that simply is not there.
Another result is that people are being forced into the private rented sector, which has doubled in the past 10 years alone and trebled since devolution began. For some, the private rented sector may be a life-saver and the solution, but for others the lack of regulation means that they never feel secure in their home. Of course, it also means a huge extra cost, because the average rent in the private rented sector is 86 per cent more than that in social rented accommodation. Hotspots such as Aberdeen and Edinburgh are rapidly becoming unaffordable. About 312,000 households are privately renting in Scotland. The majority of them are young working adults, but there are about 80,000 families with children. That in itself might not cause worry, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has pointed out that
“The number of households in poverty in the private rented sector ... has doubled in the last decade”.
Again this afternoon, we have heard constant accusations from SNP members that Labour identifies the problems but does not propose solutions. However, we constantly propose solutions. Last year, we proposed the solution of intervening to control rapidly rising rents, but the SNP—rather than align with us, recognise the problem and introduce a living rent to match our commitment to a living wage—preferred to vote with the Conservatives and reject our proposals.
The problem is not limited to the private rented sector; it is across the board. The commission on housing and wellbeing, which was set up by Shelter, pointed out that we need to take a number of steps because poor housing affects the health, education, employability and life chances of people across Scotland. We need to build more homes of all tenures, but we particularly need to build social rented homes. Let us not celebrate building half the houses that we need and let us not set a new target that continues to fall short of Scotland’s needs; instead, let us be truly ambitious and actually build the homes that we want and give people the warm, decent and secure homes that they deserve.
16:48
It is a great pity that Malcolm Chisholm is not still Labour’s shadow spokesman on housing, because he was the only member of the Labour Party who made any sense and, unlike his colleagues, he showed an understanding and deep knowledge of the housing sector.
Earlier today, I attended the housing joint delivery group with organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter, Homes for Scotland, the Existing Homes Alliance, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, tenants groups, the Scottish Association of Landlords and others. They were all extremely complimentary about the Scottish Government’s housing policy; indeed, one member who has been involved in housing for the past 30 years said that he had never seen a Government so committed to housing and in particular to the building of a significant number of new houses.
Let me give the facts, because it is clear to me from the speeches of the spokespeople on the Tory benches to my left, the Tory benches to my right and the Tory bench behind them that they do not know or understand some of the basics about housing.
Let me start with the record. Between 2000 and 2006-07, the Labour-Liberal coalition Administration completed 28,988 social houses. During a comparable period, we have built 34,500. As has already been stated, the coalition built a total of six council houses; we have built a total of nearly 5,400 council houses. The completions that the coalition made from 2000 to 2007 totalled 9,000. Since we came to Government, ours have totalled 15,300.
If members look at the expenditure, they will see that our expenditure is 50 per cent higher than that of the previous Administration. I do not take it seriously when members in the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party who supported that previous Administration try to lecture us about housing.
Will the member give way?
I will later.
I certainly do not take seriously the Tories, the Liberals or Alistair Darling’s party, since they are the ones who have cut the budget for housing that is available to the Scottish Government, through the massive cuts to our budget.
Will the member give way?
I will later.
The right to buy destroyed the social housing sector in Scotland. During its period in office, the Lib-Lab coalition sold off thousands of houses and did nothing to put an end to right to buy. Now the Labour Party and the Liberals sanctimoniously tell us that we have not got it right, when in fact this Government has ended right to buy, which has been called for for many years—indeed, ever since this Parliament was set up. We have done what the Labour Party and the Liberals utterly failed to do.
When Alex Johnstone refers to council housing, he does not seem to realise that we subsidise council housing to the tune of £46,000 on average per unit. Without that subsidy, the councils could not build the 5,500 council houses that they have already built.
Councils have been forced further into debt in order for that to be achieved. [Interruption.]
Order!
The cabinet secretary knew what the budget was before he set the previous target. He missed that target, by our definition, and he has now set a target for 50,000 in the next parliamentary session, should his party be elected. How many of those 50,000 houses will be for social rent and, secondly, how many of them are conditional on George Osborne giving him the money?
If interventions are going to be that long, I will not be able to take many.
Under every Administration since the first world war, council housing has been funded through the Public Works Loans Board, very often without any subsidy to councils. We provided a subsidy that Alex Johnstone clearly did not know about, which is why we have 5,500 council houses being built. Under every one of the other three parties we had no new council houses in the past 20 years.
I appreciate Paul Martin’s seriousness on empty homes. However, at a conference on empty homes yesterday, George Clarke, who is an expert in the policy area, praised the Scottish Government for its initiative on empty homes. That is another first: until we came to power, there had been no initiative on empty homes whatsoever. We are putting in substantial money. For example, we have the town centre empty homes fund, which has been extremely successful. Paul Martin did not mention that—I do not know whether he knows about the fund—but it has been very successful.
We are not only funding Shelter to help put in place strategies with local authorities, but putting real money into converting empty properties to be used as housing in town centres.
Does the minister agree with John Mason’s statement that the housing association grant reduction was a good thing because it forced the housing associations to use their reserves?
John Mason’s point was that, at one point in the past few years, the housing associations had collective reserves of well over £300 million so it was perfectly reasonable that at least some of those reserves—not all of them—were put to use to help to fund new projects. John Mason quoted one of the projects that did not require any Scottish Government subsidy whatsoever. That is perfectly reasonable and the housing associations thought that it was perfectly reasonable.
I will put Gavin Brown out of his misery. We can confirm that the successor programme to help to buy will run operationally for three years from April 2016 until 2019, and will have total funding of £195 million. We intend that that fund will help people who are on the lower income scale to get on the housing ladder and to fulfil their ambition to buy a home for themselves. That is a real success story and, if I may say so, the evidence shows that, the first iteration of the help-to-buy programme in Scotland was more successful than the programme south of the border.
I thank the minister for giving way and for that news. Does that mean that help to buy was closed for business from 26 May this year and that it will not reopen until April next year? In effect, it will have been closed for about 11 months.
No; it is not closed for business. We have a dedicated scheme for small builders, the total for which is about £30 million. That has been extremely active and taken up and is particularly aimed at helping small companies in the sector. If Opposition members read the facts about the housing policy that we are implementing, they would not need to ask such questions.
Looking forward, no Government has ever gone as far as this Government in committing ourselves to build 50,000 houses during the next five years. Let me make two points in response to some of the nonsense that I have heard from Opposition parties. First, we deliberately set the target for completions because that is a far tougher target than starts or approvals. By definition, we have to complete the house, which takes longer than starting the housing, laying a foundation or getting approval. We set ourselves a tougher target, not an easier one.
Secondly, members have referred to “the Shelter report” but there have been two reports. The first report, by Robert Black, said that we needed a total of 23,000 new houses a year across all tenures, including owner occupied, and that, out of that, we needed 10,000 new houses a year. The second report, which was prepared by the CIH and supported by Shelter, raised that figure to 12,000. We have said that we are absolutely committed to the figure of 50,000. Depending on the nature of the settlement that we get, we will try to stretch the money further and go further, but if our budget is ripped apart in the way that it has been in recent years, that will be very difficult indeed to do. I am sure that John Swinney will be able to enlighten us about the precise numbers on 16 December.
Let us look forward. I think that Malcolm Chisholm said absolutely the right thing in his speech. One point on which everybody is united is the future demand for housing, and three major factors will influence that demand. One factor is the population rising to record levels because so many people want to come and live in an SNP-run Scotland; the second is the backlog in council house waiting lists; and the third is the on-going trend of lower occupation per house.
We accept that there is a need to work across every tenure, type of house, size of house and location. That is what we are doing, and that is why our housing record is easily the best since the Parliament was established.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Business Motions