Chamber and committees

That was clearly caused by the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-budget, which wiped billions of pounds off the value of the economy. We must bear that in mind.

I move amendment S6M-07614.1, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert:

“urges the Scottish Ministers to remove local authorities’ liability for additional dwelling supplement when purchasing second hand and off-the-shelf homes, which risks councils’ ability to increase affordable stock; agrees that the UK Government’s disastrous mini-budget has vastly increased lending costs for owner occupiers, registered social landlords and investors in all housing tenures, exacerbating Scotland’s housing and cost of living crisis; believes that protections for tenants, and proposed changes to the Home Owners’ Support Fund Mortgage to Shared Equity scheme, which would reduce equity requirements and increase price thresholds to reflect true house values, are vital interventions to support people to stay in their homes during a cost of living crisis made worse by the UK Conservative administration; believes that urgent interventions are required to unlock the 67,152 empty and second homes across Scotland and return them to their primary purpose as residential dwellings; is disappointed that the Scottish Government missed its housebuilding target deadline by a year; is dismayed by the cuts to the housing budget in the Scottish Government’s proposed Budget 2023-24; notes with concern further declines in affordable housing approvals and starts in the year to September 2022, and calls on the Scottish Government to urgently prioritise the delivery of new homes, particularly for the social rent sector and in rural and remote areas.”

As I stated earlier, the causes of the lack of housing and homelessness crises have to be borne by both Governments. The disastrous mini-budget will have long-lasting effects on Scotland’s housing market in the social and private sectors and beyond, which is unforgivable. That failed economic experiment will be made worse by continued Government inaction here.

A couple of weeks ago in the debate on NPF4, the Scottish Government again dismissed concerns that tens of thousands of households are actively excluded from the all-tenure housing land calculations on the number of houses that need to be built, and in the autumn, it voted down Labour proposals to help those struggling with mortgages with a revamped scheme with lower equity requirements and an increased threshold that reflects current prices.

I am frustrated that neither the Conservative motion nor the Government amendment offers a direction of travel. They offer no policy proposals that could be implemented and would support change.

We have had contributions from back-bench members. My regional colleague Graham Simpson highlighted compulsory sales orders and my Labour colleague Foysol Choudhury suggested a course of action on dampness. Christine Grahame and Ariane Burgess talked about the reform to VAT that should be introduced by the UK Government. Paul McLennan talked about changes that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, of which we are both members, seeks on NPF4. However, there does not seem to be a direction of travel from the Conservatives or the Government to drive forward policy change.

That is why we see a clear and urgent need for a dedicated housing minister. This is nowhere near a criticism or a motion of no confidence, but the minister has parliamentary responsibilities, in the words of Robert Burns, “As lang’s my arm”. The cabinet secretary has an in-tray that includes local government and the devolution of a range of social security powers, and has no doubt had her time taken up by the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that there is a desire in the housing sector, among builders and the third sector, for a more focused Government housing policy, and they would like a dedicated housing minister to lead that.

I spoke in the previous debate about how grant guidance and rules require open-market acquisitions and therefore vacant possessions, which means that sellers are required to make tenants homeless. In the context of the debate, that also means that purchases with a tenant in situ are all but ruled out by the supply programme. Councils and registered social landlords are limited to properties where a tenant may have been made homeless or threatened with homelessness. I would like the Government to urgently consider that area to see whether changes could be made to protect tenants from homelessness while allowing social sector acquisitions. The cabinet secretary made an attempt to intervene on me during a previous debate on that. I am happy to take an intervention on social sector acquisitions from the private sector with a tenant in situ, if the Government wants to make any announcements.

There is a range of issues that I hope we can get our teeth into during a further housing debate—one that forms the start of a substantive discussion and debate on housing, rather than Labour making proposals that are either voted down or repackaged a couple of months later by the Government.

I thank members for their consideration and I ask them to support the amendment in my name.

I welcome measures to modernise the compulsory purchase process. With an awareness that councils do not have a lot of money to complete that process, will the Government introduce plans for compulsory sale orders, so that local authorities can expedite getting empty homes back into use without the capital requirements of a compulsory purchase order?

I would be happy to meet the Government again, particularly to talk about that issue.

The case remains that that requires for a home to be made vacant and, for that to be achieved, someone is likely to be made homeless.

I realise that I have fast run out of time. Fundamentally, councils need the funding to tackle the issue properly.

I move amendment S6M-07613.1, to insert at end:

“; notes that the continued lack of sufficient funds for local authorities granted by the Scottish Government is having a direct effect on the ability of councils to meaningfully tackle the housing emergency in Scotland; urges the Scottish Government to designate a single housing minister with overall and direct responsibility for tackling Scotland’s housing emergency and addressing the housing needs of people in Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to use all the policy levers at its disposal to tackle this crisis, including reversing the delay to its proposed Housing Bill, urgently extending and revamping the Home Owners' Support Fund Mortgage to Shared Equity scheme, and making changes to its affordable housing supply programme grant rules to facilitate the purchases of properties with tenants in-situ to expand stock and prevent further homelessness.”

That is clearly an area that needs sorted. The cabinet secretary will know from her time as a member on the Social Security Committee in the previous session of Parliament that the Labour Party is firmly committed to reform the position on no recourse to public funds, especially when it comes to wider social security. If that issue is a contributing factor, it needs to be dealt with urgently. However, it is clearly not the only factor and other people who are part of that increasing number are rough sleeping.

A third of people who are in temporary accommodation across this country are in this city and they stay in such accommodation for almost a year. Further afield, a number that is equivalent to the whole population of Stirling made a homelessness application last year, and the number of children who are included in those applications—about 13,000—is the same as the number of children in St Andrews. I note the figures on housing supply in the cabinet secretary’s amendment; I am sure that we will touch on that more in the next debate.

In short, I agree with my colleague Miles Briggs that the Government has taken its eye off the ball on housing. Last week’s response from the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights confirmed that the Government has run out of steam, with neither the will nor the skill to tackle the homelessness emergency. The ban through which the Government claims to deliver new homelessness duties, including on itself, was used to pass the rent freeze and evictions moratorium legislation, which further delayed the housing bill into the autumn.

Our amendment calls on the Government to get serious on homelessness by designating

“a single housing minister with overall and direct responsibility for tackling Scotland’s housing emergency and”

meeting people’s

“housing needs”.

That call is backed by the social sector, the house building industry and a wide range of those with an interest in the sector. The Government must reprioritise housing and homelessness because the current arrangements are not delivering.

Those prevention duties, which are needed now, must also apply to the Government, because it seems to be contributing to homelessness. This is a Government that thought that £2,500 was a reasonable level of arrears for which to evict someone, and that, four months ago, announced an extension to the eligibility for the tenant grant fund but refused to renew funding for it and updated the rules only two weeks ago. When the statistics show that 14 councils have spent upwards of their allocation and 19 have less than 10 per cent remaining, who then does that fund help to keep a roof over their heads?

Time and again, the Government has shown that it does not have the capacity for, and is not serious about, this emergency. It even seeks to delete the word “emergency” from today’s motion.

Another issue that I raised with the minister during the passage of the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill—we met and discussed it—was that of in situ purchases. I feel that that issue is urgent and that we need to see progress made on it. Landlords, their agencies and their representatives keep telling us that they are looking to sell up, so why are grant rules on the affordable housing supply programme not designed to acquire those tenancies and stock, which could help landlords seek an exit and keep people in a home, too?

In Wales, additional funding for allotments has been allocated, and you know why that is: the benefits that you stated are clear to see. Is the Government monitoring the impact that that additional funding is having in Wales, and is it considering following that path?

Thank you.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary says about the political and financial cost of meeting that ask. My question was more about the assessment of the quantum of the ask and whether that was reasonable.

Part 9 of the 2015 act placed new duties on local authorities. Will the minister set out what funding went alongside those new duties for councils to increase the provision of allotments and community growing spaces?