Chamber and committees

This week, it has been suggested that care home visiting should be stopped. I support—[Inaudible.]—for the mental wellbeing of residents; that is common sense. What does the First Minister have to say to anxious families about that? Can she guarantee to them that safe visiting will continue?

The cabinet secretary has committed to the reform of qualifications in the future. In particular, she said that she will develop a shared purpose and principles for Scotland’s assessment and qualification system from November until February. What public engagement—particularly teacher engagement—has taken place to develop that shared purpose now?

I would not get your hopes up, Presiding Officer.

The minister just mentioned furlough. For how long should the scheme be in place, because workers are struggling? Should there be a furlough scheme every time there is a new wave of the virus? What plans does he have to support workers who are really struggling?

Carers and vulnerable people who are listening to the minister will be severely disappointed by his partisan tone this afternoon. Carers in my constituency are telling me directly that they are at breaking point. They tell me that, right now, vulnerable people are going without visits, without medication, without food and without showering. That is not a situation that we should have in a modern Scotland. What practical steps will the minister take today to deal with this crisis, which we are facing right now? No partisan politics; just practical steps.

I have been in too many shoddy, damp, mouldy, poorly insulated and cold but far too expensive properties that could never be classed as a place to call home. A building that makes people ill is no place to live. It should be a human right to have a warm and affordable home; I am sure that all members across the parties agree with that objective. The questions are how we get there and how we do so quickly, because the crisis has gone on for far too long.

All housing organisations speak with unity in pointing to the need for an increased affordable housing supply. We simply do not have enough affordable or social rented homes, so we need to build far more. At the election, the Liberal Democrats offered a commitment to deliver 40,000 homes for social rent in the next five years. That was an important part of our plan to build more homes that people can afford, with an initial programme to build 60,000 homes.

We want to return to a housing market that re-establishes social renting as a valid long-term option for people. However, Shelter has today expressed concern that the Scottish Government’s commitment to deliver 110,000 affordable homes over the next decade has been downgraded to an “ambition”. It would be helpful to have clarity from the minister on whether it is only an ambition, rather than an election promise and commitment. My amendment is aimed at strengthening the Government’s motion so that we can have confidence that the housing supply is a top priority for the Government.

I am interested in what works, and less interested in slogans. The Liberal Democrats are interested in rent controls, but we are cautious about how effective they would be. We want to support the motion, the consultation that was launched last week and the future consultation on rent controls that the minister has set out today, but we need to work on the detail. That is incredibly important.

Despite what I said about there being an awful lot of poor-quality rented homes, the private rented sector provides a lot of good homes for good tenants, with good landlords. We have a duty to get it right and to ensure that any future rent controls create the right incentives for the sector.

We have seen in evidence from other countries that have rent controls that the benefits of such controls are often not clear. Controls seem to have an effect on investment in the private rented sector and on the types of properties in which it will invest. There is also potentially a question about their effect, regarding whether they control rent or the cap becomes a minimum as well as a maximum increase.

We Liberal Democrats want to see the detailed proposals and the evidence to back them up. We are open to considering what works. As I said, it is important that we ensure that we have a high-quality private rented sector, which is why we need to treat the issues with care. We will not support the Conservative amendment, because it rules out rent controls. We think that it is important to explore rent controls, along with the evidence. However, on the basis of what Mark Griffin said, we will support the Labour amendment, which will allow for further evidence to be gathered.

It is important that we invest in the housing sector in Scotland, because far too many homes are shoddy and poorly insulated. That is why the consultation paper and the “Housing to 2040” strategy document are incredibly important. We need to get this right, because too many homes are at stake.

I move amendment S6M-02625.3, to insert at end:

“; urges the Scottish Government to also address the issues around the availability of private rented properties; considers that it should increase its ambitions for the building of more homes for social rent, and believes that increasing the supply of affordable rented housing is necessary to give people security, stabilise the housing market and support progress towards the human right of an adequate home for all.”

This has been quite a good debate. I have enjoyed many of the contributions, which have been quite enlightening. However, I wonder what has happened to Finlay Carson, because he went all cuddly this afternoon about cats and dogs. That is not the character that I am used to. Perhaps, because the Lib Dems are sitting on this side of the chamber now, Finlay Carson has gone all soft, or perhaps he has had too much of the sherry in advance of Christmas. Nevertheless, his was a good contribution, because it got across how much people care about cats and dogs, especially when they are going through periods of self-isolation. Things like that are incredibly important.

That relates to Audrey Nicoll’s comments on health and wellbeing. I am particularly passionate about the need for improved mental health support. It is incredibly important that we take into account the impact of poor housing on people’s mental health.

Emma Roddick’s contribution was particularly powerful. She talked, from personal experience and with quite a lot of knowledge, about the interoperability of different parts of the housing sector. She talked about holiday lets, short-term lets, second homes and absent landlords, and the impact that that has on people, particularly in the remote and rural communities that Ms Roddick represents. I was full of admiration when she spoke directly to the Scottish Government about the need to improve supply. Supply is at the heart of the Liberal Democrats’ amendment, which I hope the Government is able to support, because, if it does, we will be able to support the motion.

It has been a good debate, because we got into some of the complex issues that are at its heart. I was interested in the comments on evictions. We want, of course, to minimise evictions as much as we can. However, it was interesting to read the briefings from Shelter and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which address evictions from slightly different perspectives. Obviously, the SFHA is keen to keep the tool of evictions as a last resort, in order to address the issue of people who simply refuse to pay their rent, even though they can afford to do so. The SFHA tries to keep evictions to a minimum.

On the other hand, Shelter says that there are still far too many evictions in the social rented sector. It is also concerned about illegal evictions in the private rented sector. However, even Shelter admits that we need to keep the tool of evictions as a last resort. It focuses on the need for best practice to avoid people getting into a situation in which they are not paying their rent. Nevertheless, Shelter regards evictions as an important tool that landlords should have available to them. I would be keen to hear the minister explain how that all fits together, and how we can spread best practice without denying the tools of control, so that those who are supposed to pay rent, and can afford to do so, pay the rent that is due.

We have dealt with short-term lets in recent legislation. Some issues, such as licensing, need to be finally resolved, but we have dealt with an important part of the housing market that is contributing to major problems in coastal and remote communities. Second homes, however, are another issue in such areas, including in North East Fife and many constituencies across the country. There are parts of my constituency where the combination of short-term lets and second homes accounts for something like 80 per cent of the community.

How on earth are we supposed to keep a thriving community together, with local shops, a school, public services and buses, if we do not make efforts to deal with second homes? I was interested in the plan set out in the housing to 2040 strategy, which includes a reference to more powers for local authorities. However, it is scant on details and I would be interested to hear from the minister what more will be proposed and how quickly. The situation is urgent and coastal, remote and rural communities need it to be addressed.

I thank the minister for her detailed work. The big question is whether it is enough to meet the enormous challenge that has built up, with Scotland having the highest drug death rate in Europe.

As I am sure that the minister knows, there has been a significant increase in the number of deaths of homeless people in which drug misuse was a major factor. What has she learned from those deaths? What plan does she have for improving stabilisation services?

The cabinet secretary protested a little too much in response to Martin Whitfield’s question. The truth is that today’s statement is just as uninspiring as the education recovery plan was earlier this year. Not much is new. What will schools get from today’s statement? A new sub-group, a consultation and the threat of a discussion with Education Scotland. Does the education secretary really believe that that will be enough to tackle the widest and worst poverty-related attainment gap on record?

The First Minister knows that there is a glaring inconsistency between household gatherings and event gatherings, as Katy Clark has just pointed out. She would like to go further if money is available, especially now that the UK Government has indicated that there will be funds. Will she return to the chamber tomorrow to give us greater certainty for businesses and jobs? Events will be cancelled because of the guidance announced today. We will need the guidance to be updated very quickly to avoid that.

Is this not part of a pattern? We have hundreds of millions of pounds of potential exposure. The 2,000 jobs that were promised are nowhere to be seen, and there is no indication that they are coming any time soon. If we add that to the catastrophic position of Burntisland Fabrications, is it not the case that the Government has a shocking track record on industrial intervention?