Chamber and committees

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?

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

One of my questions has already been answered. I do not think that anyone on the panel disagrees that there should be a flat rate fee, not a percentage, if the levy goes ahead, and that it should be a national scheme.

I want to ask about flexibilities in the bill, levies being charged at certain times of the year, and those being reduced or removed at other times. What are the panel’s views on that and any other local exemptions or discounts that you would like?

Thank you.

That is helpful.

On the administration of exemptions, as an Edinburgh MSP, my focus is on people who come to Edinburgh to work in the city, to visit a child who is in the sick kids hospital, to provide care for a family member—we know the difficulties with getting people to provide personal care in Scotland—or to visit a family member in prison. What potential do you see for such people to be exempt and for a system to be put in place for that? For example, if it were me, could I book accommodation and provide my City of Edinburgh council tax number as proof that I am an Edinburgh resident? Should we look at that, and could it be taken forward?

I, too, thank Collette Stevenson for securing the debate. Challenge poverty week was launched in 2013 by the Poverty Alliance with the aim of highlighting the injustice of poverty in Scotland and with a desire to find solutions based on compassion and collective action. I congratulate all those who helped to organise, and took part in, this year’s challenge poverty week, with more than 400 events taking place between 2 and 8 October.

Challenge poverty week is important. It is important that we recognise that the Poverty Alliance has been pushing the Parliament on such issues, and its strong advocacy has helped to make the Government and the Parliament act in many areas. That is why there is continued strong cross-party consensus on the objectives of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. That legislation, which was passed unanimously by the Parliament, sets a target to substantially reduce child poverty rates in Scotland, and, collectively, we must continue to focus on delivering the outcomes that are set out in the 2017 act.

In the time that I have today, I want to concentrate on three key sections of our society that need more focused and targeted support. Poverty levels among Scotland’s ethnic minority communities remain disproportionately higher than those among the general population. It is estimated that the poverty rate stands at 48 per cent among mixed, black and other ethnic minority groups and at 49 per cent among Asian ethnic minority groups in our society. Clearly, specific factors are having a negative impact on the minority ethnic groups that experience higher levels of poverty. We need more focused action on removing the barriers that exist for those groups that are furthest removed from accessing welfare and support. In the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, we have heard that a key factor continues to be language barriers.

There are also higher poverty rates among lone-parent families—92 per cent of which involve single women—with a single source of income. Almost 40 per cent of children in relative poverty in Scotland live in a lone-parent family, so it stands to reason that we need to look at what targeted support can be provided to them. When we consider future increases in targeted support such as the child payment, I hope that the Parliament and the Government will consider how targeted support could be provided to those specific groups. In many previous committee sessions, those asks have been made, and there is the opportunity for us to look at that.

Collette Stevenson mentioned unpaid carers, and I hope that that group will be given more targeted support in the future. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has listened to some of the concerns that I and others have outlined. In relation to people undertaking a caring role, once the person who is being cared for dies, the guillotine comes down on payments, which has an impact on many people, so I welcome the fact that the Government has committed to extending the carer support payment for a further six months after a person who is being cared for dies.

There is a lot more that we could do. For example, I hope that we can have a conversation about the additional support that people might need in order to get them back into the workplace or society.

I welcome challenge poverty week 2023. Above all, I hope that this year, once again, presents the opportunity for us all to rededicate ourselves to delivering the policy outcomes to which we are all committed and to working as a Parliament and with the Government to lift people out of poverty.

Good morning, colleagues. For me especially, and probably for Alex Cole-Hamilton as well—as Edinburgh MSPs—when we had in Edinburgh the ship that housed Ukrainian refugees, we warmly welcomed them. As a society—especially in our schools—Edinburgh stepped up. During that period, I felt that it was key for our Parliament to establish something to discuss their concerns and issues. We did not have that. We could invite people into the Parliament for meetings, but formal arrangements for working with that community needed to be improved.

As Colin Beattie has outlined, for most of us, our support for Ukraine needs to be fully taken forward, and the group gives the Parliament an opportunity to do just that. I hope that the committee will consider our application so that we can build that formal opportunity for the Parliament to take forward long-lasting relationships with Ukraine.