Chamber and committees

My second question is probably directed at Councillor Lobban again, since he represents such a large area. On the money that is raised in a particular locality, could councils decide to retain the money in that locality or spread it across the whole local authority area?

Thanks, convener. I am interested in the debate about a flat fee versus a percentage. Are there any concerns about what would essentially be tax avoidance with a percentage fee? For example, a large hotel chain, in the breakdown of its pricing, could charge a huge proportion for access to a spa or gym and a bigger proportion for breakfast or other facilities. Is there potential for a percentage fee to be used as a mechanism for tax avoidance?

Thanks for that.

I had a question about the interaction between VAT and tourist levies, but I think that it has been covered in previous answers.

It is good to hear that the Government is doing some thinking. I submitted written questions about what the Government was doing with the estimated £20 million in additional funding that Crown Estate Scotland expects to raise from increased fees from finfish tenants. It seems to have no plans. That is an example of a pot of funding that could aid rural house building.

Our amendment also calls for a council tax surcharge escalator on long-term empty homes. We estimate that giving councils the powers to increase council tax for each year that a home is empty could raise up to £30 million. Better still, it could be a catalyst to help owners of empty homes—of which there are around 28,000—to bring those properties back to the market so that they are lived in as homes and are valued again. As the plan says, it is better to use the stock that we have. I endorse the points that have been made by Conservative members about the need to introduce compulsory sale—and compulsory rental—orders to get those empty homes back into use.

The Government’s recent consultation backed increasing the council tax on empty homes, and a stepped approach. Again, that is another revenue stream that the Government could have put to good use, but it seems to be dragging its heels on that, whereas urgency is key.

Although we welcome the Government’s backing for our call to give councils the powers to apply a surcharge on second homes, had those powers been introduced when the First Minister came out in support of those proposals, councils could have raised £35 million this financial year.

I return to the minister’s initial intervention. A package that abolished small business rate relief for short-term lets and included powers for surcharges on empty homes and second homes could have raised £85 million per year. That is a substantial sum of money that could have gone towards addressing the housing market failure that affects rural areas.

The depopulation of rural areas should not be seen as the status quo, and economic prosperity should be at the front and centre of ensuring that rural communities can survive and thrive.

Today has been a missed opportunity—and worse—for us. The long-awaited “Rural & Islands Housing Action Plan” is desperately short on action.

I move amendment S6M-11027.2, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:

“notes the publication of the Rural and Islands Housing Action Plan, which aims to support the Scottish Government’s ambition to deliver 110,000 affordable homes, of which 10% will be in rural and island areas; believes that an interim target should be set for 5,500 houses to be completed in rural areas by 2026; is concerned that, without sufficient economic support from the Scottish Government, the strategy will not provide the infrastructure needed to allow local authorities, registered social landlords, community organisations and Scottish Government agencies to successfully attract people to, and retain people in, these communities; considers that the depopulation of rural areas should not be seen as the status quo, and notes the Scottish Labour Party’s commitment to put economic prosperity at the front and centre of ensuring that Gaelic-speaking communities can survive and thrive; notes that this rural housing crisis is, in some part, due to local people being priced out of the area by the acquisition of second homes; calls on the Scottish Government to take further action to ensure that houses in rural areas are affordable and good quality, and that existing homes are a vital part of the housing stock; agrees that the Scottish Government should give local authorities powers to introduce an escalating council tax surcharge on empty homes in the next Budget, to be launched in 2024-25, as was supported by the responses to the Scottish Government’s recent consultation on Council Tax for Second and Empty Homes, and calls on the Scottish Government to take decisive action to tackle fuel poverty and damp, poor quality housing in rural areas, to improve transport infrastructure, and to support the economic lifeblood of small rural communities by delivering skilled workforces, supporting small businesses and ensuring a just transition that delivers community energy benefits.”

I would absolutely support more capital spending on housing, and I will come on to talk about some of the policies that we have been suggesting in the chamber for years that the SNP Government is dragging its heels on.

The reason why I talked about the numbers and about the Government’s risk register’s warning that there is a high risk that those targets might be missed is because the Government’s house-building programme is now defined by decline, with starts and approvals in 2023 being at their lowest point since 2015.

We need a renewed commitment that those homes will be delivered. Rural communities need to know that the Government is focused on securing homes for them. Labour’s amendment calls for the Government to cement its ambition and to set an interim target of 5,500 rural homes to be delivered by 2026. It is just not credible to say that it will do it by 2032—when it might be long out of office. That is just kicking the can down the road.

Regardless, the Government proposes to undercut rural communities, which could in itself accelerate the depopulation that the action plan is meant to tackle. As Rachael Hamilton and Finlay Carson pointed out, rural, remote and island communities comprise 17 per cent of Scotland’s population. In 2021-22, a sixth—that is, 16 per cent—of the affordable homes that the Government supported were built in rural communities. Given that the Government said that it has delivered 10,000 rural homes since 2016, why will it take almost a decade to deliver almost the same number? To judge from the minister’s contribution, it seems that the 10 per cent target is just a figure plucked out of the air so that the Government can say, “We hit our target” when, in fact, it has performed better than that in 2021-22 and in the past seven years. It seems that it is just an easy target to hit—paying lip service to our rural communities rather than delivering the real ambition that they deserve and need.

More can be done to raise funds directly for rural housing and give those communities a chance to grow and succeed. I recently met Salmon Scotland, not to talk about salmon but to hear about how badly wrong the basics of the housing market are. The lack of affordable housing is stopping the Highlands and Islands from becoming a northern economic powerhouse. Workers are unable to live near their work and their families, which causes depopulation.

If ever we needed an example of how bad something is for business, jobs, growth and the economy, it is the housing crisis that we are experiencing in rural Scotland.

Before I begin, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I ceased to be a landlord this summer.

Today’s debate is as much about housing as it is about the future prosperity and existence of rural communities. Although the debate is welcome, the fact that it has taken the SNP Government 16 years to produce a rural housing action plan speaks for itself. People in rural communities have waited for far too long for workable solutions to the Government’s housing crisis, and yet the Government’s motion offers little that is new. We cannot support a motion that does not face up to reality or an action plan that is short on action. It is a missed opportunity.

It is no overstatement to say that housing is a lifeline to rural communities. The shortage of rural, remote and island housing is having a devastating impact on local economies. Just like the ferries fiascos and creaking transport infrastructure, the housing shortage is both a symptom and a cause of depopulation. It is driving people away from their local areas, their families, their support networks and the jobs that they want to do.

I appreciate what the minister had to say in his opening speech, but I want to ask him whether the Government will admit that, as the Scottish Empty Homes Partnership has put it, we have a rural housing emergency. I ask that because there seems to be little urgency to address rural Scotland’s needs or the package of policies and funding that is fundamentally needed to stem the decline.

The rural housing strategy is built on a crumbling foundation. It is tacked to housing targets that the Government’s own risk register warns might be at a high risk of being missed altogether.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent meetings it has had with neonatologists from NHS Lanarkshire. (S6O-02644)

If the Government is relying on clinical advice that is now five years out of date to downgrade University hospital Wishaw’s neonatal unit, it is absolutely shocking that the minister has not taken the time to meet the experts who run that unit. Will the minister commit to meeting the award-winning experts from NHS Lanarkshire neonatal unit before progressing with the plans to downgrade that absolutely crucial life-saving unit?

I want to ask a general question on the development of the proposed legislation. Do you feel that there has been adequate consultation and engagement on the bill? Have you been able to influence the bill up to this point?