Chamber and committees

I thank the Labour Party for bringing this debate to the Parliament today. I always welcome the opportunity to debate housing policy, and, given the housing crisis that we face in Scotland, it is clear that we need action from the UK and Scottish Governments to support home owners and people who seek the dream of home ownership.

Like other countries around the world, the UK faces a profound economic challenge as a result of President Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the recovery from the Covid pandemic. That seems to have been overlooked in the Labour motion and in the minister’s speech, which is disappointing.

The fact is that this SNP Government has failed to address Scotland’s housing crisis, which has made it harder for people to get on to the property ladder. The Scottish Government’s most recent housing statistics reveal that housing completions across all tenures in Scotland are still below pre-Covid levels. We are not building the homes that Scotland needs. We should all be concerned about that.

At the same time, SNP and Green ministers have closed off two crucial support schemes for first-time buyers by scrapping help to buy and the first home fund. First-time buyers in England can still access support and shared ownership to help them on to the property ladder. That is important.

I am sorry, but I do not have time. I have only a few seconds left.

That is why members on the Conservative benches think that it is time to take forward new schemes to provide the support that our tenants of socially rented properties need. For too long, such tenants have been neglected.

The 2022 act will also mean that there are fewer privately rented properties. Here, in the capital, that will be a total disaster. All parties in this Parliament who supported the rent controls legislation should take responsibility for that.

Scottish Conservatives have a robust plan to support our first-time buyers. It is time that the SNP, the Greens and the Labour Party matched that ambition.

I move amendment S6M-06898.1, to leave out from “following” to end and insert:

“due to Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic; welcomes the billions of pounds in cost of living support packages announced by the UK Government to support the most vulnerable households during this difficult period; recognises that Scottish Government decisions have contributed to the cost of living crisis by failing to address the housing crisis that exists in Scotland; condemns the Scottish Government for scrapping the Help to Buy scheme that helped prospective homeowners to get on the property ladder, and calls on the Scottish Government to reintroduce a Help to Buy scheme and develop a Rent to Buy scheme.”

When it comes to appalling housing standards, the cabinet secretary should start looking in the mirror because, here in the capital, we have a record number of children living in temporary accommodation. That is on her watch, and she should hang her head in shame for that alone.

Let me tell the cabinet secretary what the UK Government is doing. We have provided £1.5 billion in additional money for public services. We have protected the triple lock and we are increasing benefits in line with inflation. We are raising the national living wage to £10.42 per hour and capping energy bills until 2024. That is a record to be proud of. The cabinet secretary should start thinking about her own responsibilities.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Both witnesses have mentioned that they expect additional information to be provided in guidance. I have said that we need a review mechanism within NPF4 to ensure that land is forthcoming. Is such a mechanism available? You have pointed towards what our committee could look at, but should the guidance include that?

I might sound like a broken record on this, but as an Edinburgh MSP, I am concerned about the emphasis just on brownfield development, which is unlikely to be forthcoming here in the capital. There are very viable businesses currently on such sites and they have had no communication or real conversation on what the future looks like for them with NPF4.

What issues still need to be addressed around that pipeline of land in order to meet all the commitments that are in NPF4, especially in the context of the housing crisis?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for joining us. I have some specific questions about land supply. Will NPF4, as it stands, bring forward the future development sites that we need to meet our housing to 2040 target?

My questions follow on from Paul McLennan’s. It is quite clear from what we have heard that the devil is going to be in the detail, with regards to the guidance, especially transitional guidance.

What are your views on NPF4 and transitioning the planning system between how it stands now and how it potentially will stand, in relation to current planning applications in the system? What will that look like with regards to the housing crisis? It is a missed opportunity not to have that in NPF4. What could be lost in translation between now and NPF4 coming in?

In England, the strategic housing land availability assessment is used to look at the availability of land for housing over 15 years. I do not see what that looks like in NPF4. In my area, in Edinburgh, it is based on brownfield sites, 90 per cent of which have businesses currently on them, and those businesses have no idea where they will be moved to. Would it have been useful to have a longer-term vision—covering 15 years at least—relating to where homes might be built?

Thank you.