Chamber and committees

I acknowledge that the capital budget has been cut, but I fail to understand why that capital cut has been multiplied six times and then handed to the housing budget. It is reasonable to ask from where money should be reallocated to fund priorities, but I do not understand why the Government is asking Opposition members how to fund its promises. It was the Government’s promise—[Interruption.] It was the Government’s promise to deliver 110,000 houses, and it is a bit rich to ask Opposition members how to find the money to fund them. [Interruption.]

We absolutely support them, and we will publish our spending plans when it comes to the next manifesto, but surely Mr Doris—[Interruption.] Surely Mr Doris understands that his party is in government and that it is the Opposition’s job to hold the Government to account for its promise to the people of Scotland to build 110,000 houses.

I say again that it is the Opposition’s job to scrutinise the Government’s promises to the people of Scotland. The Government promised to deliver 110,000 houses and is now absolutely reneging on that commitment. Shelter Scotland, Homes for Scotland and a range of other organisations are clear on what the impact of that will be. In the first months of this year—in the weeks leading up to the budget—two of the builders that were creating the social homes that we desperately need have gone bust.

We have a housing minister who is apparently in listening mode but who is failing to listen to public opinion. Today, YouGov research has shown that 80 per cent of people think that we are in a housing crisis. We have the Scottish Housing Regulator projecting that about 4,500 fewer affordable homes will be built in the next five years. There is confirmation that the number of homes that have started to be built has fallen by a quarter and that council starts have fallen by a half. Homes for Scotland has revealed that a quarter of all people in Scotland—sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, family and friends of everyone in the chamber—have some form of unmet housing need.

This is a Government and a budget that are planning for decline and retrenchment. This is a Government turning its back when the need is great. It is a Government pulling the rug from under the housing sector—from council, private and social landlords. The Government is forcing a downturn that will have dire economic and social consequences. For all Mr Greer’s interventions, and even though it is a key plank of the Bute house agreement to hit the 110,000-home target, the Greens seem to ignore the reality and even fail to acknowledge that there is a housing emergency out there.

We have to acknowledge that private housing and affordable housing are interlinked. Every private home that is built generates £30,000 in economic contributions towards building more social homes, alongside the Government grant. The decisions that have been made in the budget will further deter investment in homes across all tenures and suck life out of the housing market.

First-time buyers, children who are in temporary accommodation, workers who should be building the homes that we need, and our friends and family who are in overcrowded accommodation, who are unable to get out of private lets and who are stuck on waiting lists—every single one of them has been failed and given up on by the Scottish National Party budget. In a general election year in which housing will be front and centre, that is a grave miscalculation by a Government that is devoid of an economic strategy, is actively planning to send the housing emergency spiralling and has clearly lost its way.

The finance secretary says that this is a values-led budget, but those values now include increasing homelessness. Those are not my words but the absolutely damning verdict of Shelter Scotland.

As you will know, we have heard a range of views in our evidence sessions. Some witnesses have raised concerns about the bill’s broad scope and how it could impact the speed and cost of assessment and remediation, while other witnesses have said that the bill does not go far enough and that they want the bill to cover all fire safety aspects of buildings, rather than just cladding. What is the minister’s—and the Government’s—thinking with regard to the balance of those arguments? Is there any potential for prioritisation based on the risk of multiple fire safety issues?

Why was there no public consultation when it came to developing the proposals in the bill?

I appreciate the need for urgency. Was anything picked up in the committee’s evidence sessions after the bill was introduced that might have been gathered through the public consultation that you are now reflecting on?

As we are talking about the developer remediation contract discussions—I also brought this up when the officials were here—how much further down the line are you with discussions with developers, particularly in relation to the Government’s thinking about how it will treat small and medium-sized enterprise builders, in line with what the UK Government is doing down south?

Good morning. We have heard from witnesses concerns that certain key terms in the bill are not as clearly defined as they could be. People have talked about the meaning of “development”, “premises” and “risk to human life”. We heard contrasting evidence during the previous evidence session. Do witnesses have any concerns about the terms that are used in the bill? Do those definitions need further clarity in the bill?

Thank you for that clarity. We have also previously spoken about another issue relating to the presentation of figures. The Government says that, since 2013-14, local authority finance has increased by 2.6 per cent. That is an entirely accurate presentation of the figures. Local authorities’ contention is that, between 2013-14 and now, they do far more, which is obvious when we look at social care contributions, the provision of 1,140 hours for ELC, free school meals and so on. They do a whole range of things over and above what they did in 2013-14. How can the committee get to an analysis of the baseline of local government funding, stripping out those extra commitments, to gain an understanding and appreciation of what has happened to core local government budgets during the period?

Last week, the director of finance at Glasgow City Council gave an example of someone working 20 hours a week for £20,000 who then starts to work 40 hours a week for £40,000. Although that represents an increase in pay, it does not take into account the huge increase in the hours that are being worked. What is your take on that? How do we analyse core Government funding without the extra things that local government is doing to address significant national priorities, which we agree with? How do we get to a deeper understanding and analysis of what has happened to local government finance?