Chamber and committees

Good morning, panel, and thank you for joining us.

I have a question about the Scottish Government’s consultation, which took place before the pandemic. In your experience, what change has there been in European tourism since things have returned to normal? What impact could that have on the bill as it stands?

That was helpful.

You will be aware of the Scottish Government’s recent legislation on short-term lets, which have been a huge part of the offering to tourists in the capital. Are you aware of any other countries where unintended consequences have arisen from two different pieces of legislation being brought in at a similar time, one of which limits the accommodation provided to tourists while the other looks to tax them? What impact, negative or positive, do you think that such an approach has had?

Okay. Thank you.

Will the minister take an intervention?

One of the key points of the plan is to review the bureaucracy that is holding back potential changes to policies. Is the Government willing to take that forward above and beyond the plan?

Like other members, I welcome the opportunity to debate housing in Government time. I thank the many organisations that have provided useful briefings ahead of today’s debate.

The debate is the first opportunity for the Parliament to look at the details of the Scottish Government’s “Rural & Islands Housing Action Plan”. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the plan is ambitious enough to meet the housing needs of our rural and island communities now and in the future. I do not think that it is. Many of today’s contributions have pointed towards that, with members notably saying that it undercuts rural Scotland’s entitlement to 17 per cent of homes, which should have been on the face of the plan. The Government needs to reflect on that. As the briefing from Scottish Land & Estates makes clear, the Scottish Government’s rural and islands housing plan is

“not ambitious or radical enough to deliver the step change that is needed to meet rural housing needs.”

In addition, the Scottish Government needs to consider the impact of other policy areas on housing supply. The minister touched on policy interventions in his speech. If we are to develop long-term solutions, the Scottish Government needs to focus on the causes of the housing crisis and to avoid exacerbating it by just tinkering around with its symptoms. Recent and proposed legislation continue to undermine confidence in housing providers, which is helping to reduce the supply that is available—the opposite of what ministers want. We have seen that happen due to rent freeze and short-term let policies.

Rural and island developments are full of challenges. The primary challenge is viability, which usually involves the cost of infrastructure due to lower levels of existing connectivity and services in many areas. Whether community led or, as we have heard, landowner led, the principal challenges remain the same, as do the objectives in relation to prioritising where housing needs to be located in our local and rural communities.

As the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has stated in its briefing,

“It is highly unlikely that we (as a country) will deliver 110,000 affordable homes in our remote, rural and island communities if the Affordable Housing Supply Programme ... fails to deliver”

on its target for 2032. Crucially, as things stand, the Government is not on track to achieve its target on the supply of affordable housing; indeed, delivery is slowing down. The most recent quarterly statistics show huge drops in the number of approvals and starts under the affordable housing supply programme. The Scottish Government has no target for completions for this parliamentary session, either. It is disappointing, but it is clearly not on track to meet its housing to 2040 policy.

The time that it takes for developers to be granted permission is also problematic, and there is little in the plan to suggest how priorities will change around that, which, again, is a missed opportunity. I hope that the minister will reflect on that beyond the debate, because looking at the bureaucracy in our planning system should be a priority. It needs to be reviewed, and we need to see how we can cut down times. NPF4 was another missed opportunity to do that.

Jamie Halcro Johnston and Kenny Gibson made important points about the low take-up of Government schemes, which we have seen over the past 16 years of this Government. That must be prioritised. For example, in April, ministers announced £25 million to help to boost the number of key workers’ homes and tenancies in rural areas. The Government does not know how many people that money has supported, but it is clear that, when announcements about such schemes are made, we need to see—not just for a press release but on the ground—how they are taken up and delivered. That is critically important.

On the point that I made about council planning departments across the country, the average processing time for local housing applications is 14 weeks, according to Homes for Scotland. That is 16 per cent longer than the 12-week statutory framework, and it compares with an average time of nine weeks pre-Covid for getting approval to build.

The fact is that the SME builders that will be tasked with delivering most of the individual builds and small-scale developments are also in a difficult position. The Government does not know how many SME homebuilders there are in the country. It is clear that we must see what support can be given to them, because we have seen a decrease in the number of SME homebuilders that are active in our rural and island communities. There were 782 in 2007, with the latest figure, from 2017-18, showing that that number had gone down to 465. That means that 40 per cent of those SMEs had disappeared during that period, while we do not know what that figure looks like today. We must begin with those who will do the work to bring empty homes back into use or to build new homes and must look at how SMEs will be able to deliver that.

An important issue that was raised during the debate by Emma Harper has also been brought to our attention by the Marie Curie charity: we must ensure that we have homes in place to meet the needs of an ageing population. According to MND Scotland, 23 per cent of the local authorities that responded to an inquiry have not actually developed a definition of an accessible home. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has said that the new Scottish accessible homes standard will provide that clarity, but that should have been part of this housing plan.

Rachael Hamilton outlined Scottish Conservatives’ proposals and ideas and I hope that the minister will look at those, because we want to see a step change for rural and island communities. We want to see the establishment of a Scottish housing delivery agency, the implementation of a rural homes just transition package and permitted development for rural homes that will not only provide those homes but will support the businesses that provide for and sustain our communities. We also support the introduction of compulsory sale orders.

This week could see the first instance of a Scottish council declaring a housing emergency, with the City of Edinburgh Council debating a call for that at its full council meeting on Thursday. This Government has been in office for 16 years and the housing crisis is deepening. This plan misses the opportunity to focus on the real-world solutions that would help to realise the potential of our rural and island communities.

I support the amendment in Rachael Hamilton’s name.

This week, I met campaigners to discuss the impact of lockdowns on families of people who live in care homes. After a long campaign, it was welcome that the Scottish Government announced that it would implement Anne’s law. However, there are concerns that that has still not happened and that the issue currently sits in the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. Campaigners want the implementation of Anne’s law to be decoupled from the bill. Will the First Minister agree to meet the campaigners? Will ministers look urgently at decoupling the implementation of Anne’s law from the bill and delivering it now?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for joining us. The bill provides for a percentage to be used, which would be for councils to decide, and it places no restrictions on what that may be. What are your views on that approach? What are the pros and cons of using a percentage rather than a flat rate? What challenges will businesses face if the levy is set at different levels in different parts of the country?

My next question is about flexibilities in the bill. We touched on that when we talked about the potential for a levy to be applied only at certain times of the year. Hogmanay was highlighted, and I imagine that the Edinburgh festival is a time that the City of Edinburgh Council would look at. Would such flexibility be appropriate and useful?

Also, what are your views on local and national exemptions for people who are staying in hotels in order to work in an area, people who are providing care to a loved one and people who are visiting their children in hospital or a family member in prison? Should exemptions for such people, which are not currently in the bill, be taken forward?

Do you know about any exemptions that are in place in other systems and how they are administered? For example, the Edinburgh festivals provide a discount on some things for people who live in Edinburgh, with their council tax number being the key to unlock that. Are there ways of doing the administration to provide such exemptions? Would that solve the problem? If someone books something as a resident of Edinburgh—the City of Edinburgh Council being, probably, the keenest on the levy being introduced—could that enable a discount?