Official Report 1166KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15401, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, on Scotland’s housing emergency. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Meghan Gallacher to speak to and move the motion.
15:59
The Housing (Scotland) Bill was a golden opportunity to address Scotland’s housing emergency, yet the bill that the Government introduced does not even mention the building of homes. There is a severe lack of spades in the ground at a time when communities right across the country are in desperate need of new housing developments.
The Scottish National Party promised that it would deliver 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, but it is miles off meeting its target. Its anti-house-building agenda has undoubtedly caused the market to stagnate. The SNP has exacerbated the problem through rent controls and by cutting £200 million from the housing budget. It is no wonder that half of Scotland’s population now lives in a local authority area that has declared a housing emergency, including the Minister for Housing’s backyard.
We are in the midst of a deepening housing crisis. More than 15,000 children are homeless; the number of applications from households that are assessed as homeless is at its highest level since 2012; hundreds of thousands of people are stranded on local authority waiting lists; and more than 10,000 children are in temporary accommodation.
The solution to the housing emergency is to build more mixed-tenure homes, but we have a bill that is fundamentally flawed. Parliament is due to debate the bill at stage 1 by the end of November, but given the serious concerns that stakeholders and developers have raised, we are calling for the bill to be rewritten. We do not take that decision lightly, as there are sections of the bill that we support in principle—those around homelessness prevention and the duty to act. However, given the issues that I have just outlined and the number of people, especially children, who are without a safe and secure home, why did the SNP not introduce a stand-alone bill on homelessness? That would have shown that the SNP is serious about ending homelessness for good, instead of attaching the issue to other housing-related matters.
The main reason for my party’s opposition to the bill relates to rent controls. Studies going back decades, from those on New York in the 1980s to more recent ones on Berlin, show that rent controls have serious unintended consequences with reduced supply and increased costs. Rent controls in Scotland have been described as “ruinous” and likely to damage a part of our economy that has suffered at the hands of the Government’s meddling in recent years. They will do much more harm than good.
Recent figures show that around 70 private housing providers are leaving the property market every single month, according to data from the Scottish Landlord Register. That is no coincidence—it is a direct consequence of the SNP’s policy on rent controls.
The member makes a point about property owners selling their property. However, surely that will not destroy the housing stock; it will simply transfer it to different ownership, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It is perhaps about people who own multiple homes simply redistributing that property in a way that might be more efficient for future occupation.
What we need is mixed-tenure housing to fix the housing emergency that we are currently in, and rent controls will not fix the situation.
Rent controls will result in a shrinkage of available property and a lack of coherence between the supply of and the demand for rental properties. Homes for Scotland has warned that the SNP’s proposed changes to housing legislation will increase the cost of a new home by £30,000 through changes to rent controls. That is an eye-watering amount that will only make it harder for first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder. It makes no sense whatsoever to prevent people—especially young people—from becoming proud home owners.
Regretfully, that will not be the only problem, should the bill continue through stage 1. We have already seen the loss of potential investment in the build-to-rent sector. Hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of potential development has not proceeded due to uncertainty around the Scottish Government’s lack of strategy. The result is that investors will take their money elsewhere, which means less growth in our economy. With the lack of council housing, there is a dependence on the private sector to provide more homes and affordable housing. We simply cannot afford for more private housing providers to leave the market.
I will be fair to the minister. He inherited this disastrous bill and the ideas behind it from a former Green minister. However, he must have known that whatever he would inherit would be economically incoherent.
Despite a year of consultations and significant engagement with the housing industry—particularly the much-referenced housing investment task force—the Government has continued to ignore practical suggestions such as the creation of a balanced framework to protect tenants while offering greater predictability for investors. When we combine that with a lack of common sense and the Government’s obsession with ideologically driven policies, we can see that the bill was always a recipe for disaster.
We have heard a lot of outrage directed at the bill recently from the Greens, no less, who have a question to the First Minister tomorrow on the topic. That is why I cannot understand why they will not support our motion at decision time. Both we and they disagree with the Scottish Government’s approach and how it has taken forward its policy on rent controls, albeit for different reasons. Surely there is common ground to send the Government back to the drawing board to listen to the housing sector and stakeholders and bring back a bill that will not harm the housing sector but will tackle the housing emergency.
The SNP may wish to swing a wrecking ball at the private sector, but in doing so, it is harming our economy and preventing young people from climbing the housing ladder. That is why the bill should be demolished, with rent controls reduced to the pile of rubble that they deserve to be.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government should redraft the Housing (Scotland) Bill, as it fails to address the key factors that created the housing emergency.
16:06
This is a good opportunity to give another further update on the Housing (Scotland) Bill in the chamber, because although addressing the housing emergency is not confined to measures in primary legislation, they are an important part of that work. Dealing with the housing emergency obviously extends to much more than just legislation.
The Government declared a housing emergency to move past the debating of definitions and move on to focused actions. Since that declaration, we have worked with local authorities to boost the supply of affordable housing. We have worked closely with those who received the biggest share of the additional £40 million that was committed to the affordable housing supply programme to bring into use or acquire existing properties that can be delivered this year. We will utilise this year’s almost £600 million budget by progressing affordable housing approvals and site starts, and we have published a dedicated delivery plan so that planning plays its full part in addressing the housing emergency.
Having listened to representations, we have responded by confirming the rent cap that will underpin our approach to rent control under the Housing (Scotland) Bill, bringing certainty to that sector.
Introduced in March, the bill proposes a reform package to help ensure that people have a safe, secure and affordable place to live. The bill will help to end homelessness and strengthen tenants’ rights. It will also address long-term factors, helping Scotland to address the housing emergency.
Does the cabinet secretary understand that the policies that her Government is trying to push through the Parliament have stalled roughly £3.2 billion-worth of housing developments in Scotland? How does she reconcile that with the housing emergency that we are trying to tackle?
As a minority Government, we cannot push a bill through Parliament. Stages 2 and 3 of the bill are coming up, and we look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues across the chamber on the changes that they wish to see. That is the productive way to deal with the bill, rather than calling for it to be scrapped.
Our homelessness prevention measures will shift the focus away from crisis intervention and towards prevention. We need to avoid households going through the trauma of homelessness in the first place. Rented sector reforms will make renting a home more affordable for private tenants through stabilising rent levels in rent control areas. We know that a good-quality, affordable and well-regulated housing system can help tackle poverty, including for families with children.
The cabinet secretary says that the measures will make rents more affordable. Will she explain how rent will be made more affordable by amendments that require the maximum action that could ever be taken in a rent control area to keep rents rising faster than other prices and inflation?
That aspect of rent controls is one of the areas where Patrick Harvie and I fundamentally disagree. Although the Government’s continuing priority is to eradicate child poverty—and rent controls are one aspect of that—we need to provide certainty to private investors to ensure that we have investment in the capital city and across the country. There needs to be a balance that achieves appropriate protections for the property rights of landlords and support for investment, but we must also always ensure that we protect tenants.
However, let us be very clear that we continue to listen. That is why, in the minister’s very recent statement, we said that we will move forward with consultation on exemptions to rent controls, whether those relate to issues such as those that have been raised with us about the build-to-rent market or those in relation to mid-market rent. That is a conscious attempt by the Government to continue to listen and to ensure that we strike the right balance.
I point to what is in the motion, which will also be read into support by the Parliament for the Conservatives’ motion. The motion talks about redrafting the bill, and there is talk in the press about scrapping the bill. That means scrapping prevention from homelessness, which does not help us to tackle the housing emergency. It means scrapping protection from overly high rents, which also does not help with the housing emergency, nor does it help those in poverty who are in difficulty in the private rented sector. The Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the bill at stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3, and to lodge amendments. The Government is keen to continue the dialogue, but we will not sway from our determination to move forward, tackle the housing emergency, have rent controls, protect those in poverty, provide certainty for private investors and, most importantly, introduce the prevention duties that are in the bill. The Tories want to scrap the bill, and that will in no way, shape or form tackle the housing emergency; it will make it worse.
I move amendment S6M-15401.3, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“welcomes the Scottish Government’s Housing (Scotland) Bill, which delivers a package of support for tenants across Scotland, including rent controls and homelessness prevention duties.”
16:12
We are quite often suspected by the public—and often by each other—of making capital from issues that affect people’s lives. Last year, there were 40,000 homeless cases across Scotland. Those of us in the Parliament have been accused of standing in the chamber, wringing our hands and doing not much about it. We are accused of repeating the same numbers at each other: 10,000 children are homeless, there are 110 deaths in our streets, one in four face a form of housing need, and there is 20 per cent less money available for affordable homes. Those accusations have been made because we are not elected to make sympathetic speeches. Our job is to pass the laws of this country in order to stop those everyday tragedies.
We have the power, motivation and means to give families the safe, warm and secure homes that they need, to prevent the harm that is being caused to them while they are homeless. When we talk about becoming MSPs to change the world, we do not mean that we will make grand, sweeping statements or gestures; we mean that we will make sure that no one is using shower or toilet water to cook their meals on our watch.
When the Government talked about introducing a housing bill, we were engaged, positive and keen to get going, because things are horrendous and we believe that we can help. However, I am not sure what has happened between the ambition and the development of the legislation, because the bill was—and is—a mess. Yes, it talks about rent controls, and we support regulation, but the gap between the legislation and the ability to deliver is a chasm. Yes, the bill talks about homelessness prevention, but cash-strapped public services have no confidence in delivering on such lofty ideals.
The widest chasm is the total lack of any mention of the number 1 issue that we face, which is that we do not have enough homes. The bill provides a golden opportunity to put solving the housing emergency at the front and centre of the Parliament’s and the Government’s mission. Instead of talking endlessly, we could do what needs to be done and get on with building houses and helping people. It seems to be a radical suggestion, but it should not be. We should be driving up the supply of homes, getting the ones that are already there back into use and getting families into them. We can—absolutely—fix this. We have the power to do it. We have a housing bill waiting and ready—
Will the member take an intervention?
As long as it is brief, because I am really restricted on time.
The best way to deliver more affordable homes is through the budget. If we present a budget that has funding for more affordable homes, will Labour vote for it?
I hope that that is in the budget. For the past six months, the cabinet secretary and the minister have talked about me, as a Labour spokesperson, lobbying an incoming Government to provide additional funds. The UK Government has delivered. The Scottish Government talked about housing being its number 1 priority before it got extra money. Now that the extra money has come, it does not seem to be quite as high a priority as it once was.
We find ourselves in a situation that is not entirely surprising. Scotland is being run by a Government of wasted opportunity. We have a national care service bill that fails to deliver care, a land reform bill that does not reform land ownership, and a human rights bill that has disappeared and does not exist any more. Now, we have a housing bill that will not build a single house. The Scottish Government seems to have forgotten what it is here for, but Scottish Labour has not.
I move amendment S6M-15401.2, to insert at end:
“; calls on the Scottish Government to recognise the housing emergency in the redrafted legislation, and further calls on it to include the requirement for the Scottish Ministers to produce a strategy for the increased supply of houses in Scotland, and to report annually on its progress.”
16:16
Scottish Greens believe that access to safe, warm and affordable housing is a fundamental human right that is essential to our health, happiness and ability to fulfil our potential as human beings. That is why the new deal for tenants was a key priority for us in this parliamentary session, and it is why, under the Bute house agreement, Patrick Harvie introduced the Housing (Scotland) Bill earlier this year.
That basic, fundamental right—a place to call home—is far from being realised by far too many Scots. The briefings that we have received for today’s debate paint a stark picture of a 143 per cent increase in the number of children stuck in temporary accommodation in 10 years, with more than 10,000 children without a permanent home; gender inequality baked into the system, leaving women exposed to additional and avoidable harm; and minoritised ethnic communities spending, on average, longer stuck in temporary accommodation. Scotland also has the UK’s largest disparity between renting and owning, with homeowners paying over 30 per cent less a year than renters.
To focus on that last point, we must use the legislation to strengthen tenants’ rights, making housing more affordable for them. That is why rent controls in the private rented sector are vital and must deliver genuine affordability, not just predictability or stabilisation. Rent stabilisation will not protect tenants if it locks them into ever-increasing costs.
Rent controls are normal. Across Europe, they are used to prioritise tenant security, although the mechanisms vary considerably. Rent regulations in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and elsewhere ensure that increases reflect the quality of housing, the environmental considerations and local affordability standards. They prioritise security of tenure, preventing market volatility from dictating excessive rent rises.
Elsewhere, rent freezes and rent reductions are used to tackle unaffordable rents. The recent Scottish Government rent control proposal, which is set at the consumer prices index plus 1 per cent, up to a maximum of 6 per cent, will not enable those mechanisms in Scotland. It will not adequately tackle the unaffordable housing costs in our country. It shows limited ambition, favouring landlord protections and certainty over those of tenants. It is also misaligned with the urgency of Scotland’s housing emergency.
The policy’s gradualism contradicts the stated ambition of eradicating poverty, particularly child poverty. Rising housing costs are one of the main factors exacerbating poverty, and, without stricter controls, we risk failing to alleviate that burden. Housing costs are, of course, closely linked to broader economic contexts such as interest rates and broader inflationary trends that drive demand. Effective tenant protections would address those broader pressures by insulating tenants from market fluctuations instead of placing the burden on them to absorb costs.
International practices highlight that capping rent independently of inflation rates and wage growth considerations through rent controls allows tenants more stability for financial planning and more security. The goal of rent controls is genuine affordability, not simply predictability. Our vision for rent controls includes the ability to reduce rents, not just to limit future increases. It includes the possibility of freezing rents, as we did earlier in this parliamentary session through emergency legislation to support tenants during the cost of living crisis.
We believe that rent controls must be attached to the property, not the lease, so that the cost is never a barrier to tenants who are leaving a home and so that new tenants are not hit by sharp increases. The costs must also be linked to quality in order to drive improvements in our housing stock. Therefore, we must not water down the Housing (Scotland) Bill and lock in above-inflation rent rises. I urge colleagues across the chamber to support the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S6M-15401.1, to leave out from “redraft” to end and insert:
“not amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill to weaken the proposed system of rent controls, which must be able to keep rent increases below inflation if they are to improve affordability and allow for rent freezes during a housing emergency.”
16:20
We see the toll on people who are homeless or desperate for a new house. They live with it all day, every day, all night and all year round. They are drained, anxious and unwell. They are arguing in the family and they are desperate for a change. We members do not know what that is like, because we are living in a different world from the one that they are living in.
That needs to come home in the priorities of this Government, because the Government knows that it has made a mistake. It has made a mistake over a number of years, and that is why it is changing its policy now. We might debate whether the policy changes are right, but the fact that the Government is changing policy now is an indication that it had got it wrong. In many local authorities, including the housing minister’s, there is a stark housing emergency. It is stark across the country, and, as we have talked about, 10,000 children are in temporary accommodation, so their lives are in limbo.
When it was clear that a housing crisis was coming, what was most depressing was that the Government cut the affordable housing supply programme by a large degree. The Government says that it was somebody else’s fault, but its budget decisions led to that situation and made the emergency even worse.
To give the Government credit, I think that it is taking steps in the right direction. The changes to the planning system that were announced yesterday were an improvement, because they will remove the infrastructure levy, increase the capacity and expertise in planning departments, and create a best practice hub in the centre. Those measures might lead to some pragmatic improvements. I still have concerns about access to land supply in areas that are viable, however, and I hope that the minister will look at that issue.
The changes that were announced yesterday were a step in the right direction. I remain sceptical about rent control as a whole, but the previous week’s rent control decisions on CPI plus 1 per cent and, crucially, excluding mid-market rent and build to rent were a good signal to investors that they should look to invest in the sector. It is about restoring confidence in the industry, because its confidence was at rock bottom.
I attended the Homes for Scotland conference just a few weeks ago, and the house builders were desperate to build new homes. We cannot do it without those people. We might not like them, but we cannot do it without them, because they build houses. We are not going to do it all through the Government, councils or housing associations; we need the builders to make it work. Therefore, we need to build confidence in those people, and the steps that the Government has taken are a move in the right direction.
I urge the minister to consider the language around energy performance, which we have discussed previously. Specifically, the use of the term “Passivhaus” strikes fear into the hearts of some people, who believe that a specific standard is being required when, in fact, we should be aiming for a high energy efficiency standard overall. We need houses to be built at volume and quickly, to a really good standard, but specifying “Passivhaus” would be a mistake.
It is not specified.
It has been specified as “Passivhaus”. It is in the language, so we need to have clarity about exactly what the Government means. We should be aiming for a high efficiency standard rather than a specific technique or specification.
Do we redraft the bill? Do we start again? We have the amendment process coming, and we will support the Conservative motion and the Labour amendment today. I believe that we should be getting the Government to go further than it has gone just now, to make sure that we end the housing emergency, because I have had enough of it.
We move to the open debate.
16:25
Presiding Officer,
“Edinburgh is at the epicentre of the housing and homelessness crisis”.—[Official Report, 23 April 2023; c 29.]
I spoke those words during my time as shadow housing spokesperson for the Conservatives. We know that support services for vulnerable groups are at breaking point, and the number of people who are experiencing homelessness in the capital is at a record level.
When John Swinney became First Minister, he stated that he wanted to be honest about where the Scottish Government was going wrong. In relation to the housing emergency, I think that we can sum that up in two words: rent controls. All parties across the Parliament have welcomed the fact that the Scottish Government has declared a housing emergency, but we must be honest—and the Scottish Government must be honest—that the bill will not solve those problems. The homelessness crisis that people in Scotland face, especially here in the capital, is only getting worse, and they are living with the consequences of decisions that have been taken by SNP and Green ministers.
The prevention duties that ministers have pointed to already exist and are being ignored, so we need to see ministers focus on the homelessness crisis now, which means fixing our broken system. Today, local authority homelessness services across the country are in systemic failure, and that is nowhere more pronounced than it is here in Edinburgh. Around 700 households in Edinburgh are currently facing the prospect of not knowing where they will be living come Christmas day, due to the council’s proposal to end the use of temporary accommodation that is not compliant with houses in multiple occupation requirements. It is an incredibly serious situation and it needs an immediate solution. I hope that—
Will the member take an intervention?
If I can get some time back.
You can get most of it back.
Ministers had a meeting with the council on the issue today, and we have offered to have another meeting at ministerial level on Friday. Ministers and officials will be working on it tonight and tomorrow, so we are absolutely engaged at both ministerial and official level.
That is welcome, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will update MSPs from across the parties very soon on that. We know that there is concern about a loss of bed space and the fact that the council is now routinely struggling to find accommodation. That has seen not only other councils across Scotland but councils in England being asked to take individual families during the housing emergency.
There should be no prospect of suspending those protections—they need to remain in place for households, including the 25 families with children that are affected. Instead, I hope that ministers will urgently look at what support they can provide the City of Edinburgh Council. We need to see action, because ministers cannot sit idly by while hundreds of households do not know where they will be come 1 December. If we do not see action from the Government and the council, it will completely undermine any remaining pretence that Scotland is leading the world on housing rights and tackling homelessness, as the cabinet secretary said earlier.
In its briefing, Crisis says that
“The Scottish Government should set out a clear vision of what homelessness prevention will look like in practice”
and put in place measures that will get us there.
Local authorities are at breaking point, and the prevention duties that will be introduced, which we all agree should be put in place, will add to the burden that local authorities face. Therefore, we need ministers to urgently outline to Parliament what will change across all Government portfolios and what fresh leadership will be brought to the housing emergency.
For some time, charities and experts in the homelessness sector have warned ministers that the bill will not fix the housing emergency, but all the energy of the Scottish Government and its officials is going into it. The Scottish Government should pause and redraft the bill as a homelessness emergency bill, so that we can focus on what we agree on and get the emergency action that we need across our country.
We need a bespoke approach for Edinburgh and the crisis that my constituents in the capital face. We are not seeing that, and ministers saying that they are having meetings on meetings on meetings is an example of the failure to address the housing emergency and the homelessness crisis. The Scottish Conservatives call on ministers to redraft the housing bill, because it fails to address the factors that are creating the housing emergency. I support the motion in Meghan Gallacher’s name.
16:30
When the Housing (Scotland) Bill was introduced, I was a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. We took evidence on parts 1 to 4 of the bill, with only the section on rent controls creating much discussion.
It is important to understand the current housing situation across Scotland and all the key factors that are impacting on the Edinburgh housing situation, especially in relation to the 5,000 families who are currently homeless.
In 2022-23, the total supply of new housing reached the highest annual level since the financial crash of 2008-09. There are now 624,000 social homes in Scotland, which, at 23 per cent of all homes, is the highest proportion in the UK. A National Records of Scotland report that was published in June highlights that, across Scotland, there are 2.7 million homes and 2.5 million households. To be clear, that means that 186,000 homes are lying empty. Since 2007, the Scottish Government has supported the building of 133,000 affordable and social homes. Across all tenures and sectors, 293,000 homes have been built, which is a 12 per cent increase compared with a population increase of only 7 per cent.
I will set out the key factors that are impacting on the Edinburgh emergency housing situation, despite 33,500 homes being built in the city across all sectors since 2007. The capital’s population has increased by 15 per cent since 2007, while short-term let businesses have removed more than 8,000 properties to serve the ever-growing tourist market. The previous Tory Government policies pushed up construction inflation and reduced workforces through Brexit, forcing house building to construct less for more. The cost of living crisis pushed more families out of home ownership due to high mortgage rates, adding to the 7,000 private homes lying empty in the city. In the past year, there has been a 14 per cent increase in the rents for two-bedroom properties in the private rented sector, taking monthly payments to £1,000, compared with £400 for social rent. The situation is also not helped by the previous Conservative Government’s freezing of local housing allowance rates for a number of years, and they look likely to be frozen again by Labour next year.
The number of students is yet another factor, and that number has increased in recent years. Students now make up 20 per cent of the Edinburgh population, and there are now 50 per cent more students than school pupils in the city. Although there has been some building of purpose-built student accommodation in the city, it is only enough to guarantee a student’s first-year accommodation place, in most cases. After that, they join the general population looking for a home.
To tackle those increasing demands on the social rented sector, the City of Edinburgh Council has a stock of 20,000 homes, with a further 20,000 homes in the housing association sector. However, the council, which is a Labour-Conservative administration, has 1,200 empty council homes. The average time that a void council home is not available for rent in Edinburgh is 555 days, and the associated loss of rent is estimated at £1.7 million over a nine-month period.
Edinburgh is a challenging case in relation to housing, due to the many moving factors that impact on the availability of homes.
In addition to record house building, the Scottish Government has put in place policies that address some of the issues that I have raised, including funding the Scottish Empty Homes Partnership, the second home double council tax charge, short-term letting licences and rent control areas.
We need to get the balance right in the bill between protecting tenants in private lets and encouraging developers to build homes in the private rented sector.
You need to conclude.
I also welcome the commitment to build a further 110,000 affordable social rented homes.
16:34
Colleagues might be slightly surprised to see me, after 17 and a half years, stand up to make a contribution for the first time in a housing debate. I have left the precocious policy interventions and half-pursued master plans to others throughout that period.
I say to the Scottish Greens that, frankly, fervour over pragmatism leads to a housing emergency. Is it not a tragedy that we are sitting here in a Parliament that is 25 years old, with housing policy wholly devolved to us, discussing today what is in fact an absolute shambles and a housing crisis across Scotland? Perhaps if I, and more parliamentary colleagues than have decided that they are interested in the subject this afternoon, had engaged on the issue in a more pragmatic and collective way, we would have made some progress.
Time and again, in health debates that I have participated in, I have heard the argument put that there is a demographic trend in Scotland that has led to an ageing population and a crisis in healthcare. That ageing demographic is also one of the uncontrollable factors that has led to housing stock not coming on to the market. That is for perfectly good and valid reasons—people have lived longer and they have lived in those houses longer.
There is also the fact that, in my lifetime, a fundamental change has occurred in the way in which people operate socially. There are far more single-occupancy homes than there were historically, and far more people are in further education than there ever were when I started out—it has gone from one in seven to nearly all in seven. That has led to a huge explosion in demand for student accommodation.
All those things are uncontrollables, which I understand we have to wrestle with. However, they have led, to my astonishment, to my small local authority of East Renfrewshire Council declaring a housing emergency, because it had, according to the Scottish Government’s figures, the highest percentage increase in households living in temporary accommodation anywhere in Scotland. I recognise directly what Willie Rennie described in his contribution, because, to my astonishment, people in my constituency are now coming to speak to me with casework issues who are in that bereft position. They have no idea where they are going to live, what they are going to do or how they will fulfil their determination to offer to their young children, to whom they are absolutely devoted, the best start in life, when they are all crammed into temporary accommodation—at times in one room—with no understanding or knowledge of where things will progress after that. We have to do far better.
It would be fair to say that in the earlier debate today we had a bit of a rammy to do with the Labour Party and its Government at Westminster, but in East Renfrewshire we try collectively, on many issues, to be as pragmatic as possible. The local authority there—a Labour-led, minority administration—has set out quite genuinely and pragmatically why we have an increase in homelessness applications in East Renfrewshire. One problem is the abolition of the local connection benchmark, which has meant that people just turn up, present and become part of an issue that that small local authority has to deal with when it does not have the major resources that some other authorities might.
The Labour leader has said that the council acknowledges that the Scottish Government has recognised that there is a national housing crisis and it has declared as much. However, that does not sit well with the removal of some £200 million in funding for the provision of affordable housing. There is not much point in recognising an emergency and then axing one of the tools that was there to deal with it.
The leader of the council has written to the First Minister, informing him of our situation in East Renfrewshire. Yesterday, East Lothian became the 13th council to declare that emergency. The Scottish Government’s own figures must surely be a wake-up call to the Government that it needs to take action. That means, as my colleague Meghan Gallacher has argued, that we have to pause the bill and redraft it as a bill that we can pragmatically work together on to achieve and which directly addresses Scotland’s homelessness emergency.
16:38
Scotland is facing a housing emergency, as borne out by the fact that 13 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities have now declared one. The culmination of that disastrous situation has not happened overnight. It has been a long-running trend, and a feature of Scotland’s post-war history. An interesting fact is that in the mid-1970s—perhaps the member for Eastwood will recall this era—more than 50 per cent of all housing stock in Scotland was social housing, the highest concentration of any country in the democratic world. In fact, it was surpassed only by the Soviet Union.
Today, the figure is 24 per cent. In large part, that change is due to the Conservative Government’s decision in 1980 to introduce the right-to-buy scheme, which led to 494,000 houses being sold to the private sector.
Does the member think that the fact that the Labour-Liberal Administration in this place failed to remove the right-to-buy scheme has anything to do with the challenges that we face?
It is a good thing that the right-to-buy legislation was repealed. I recognise that that has been helpful in stemming the flow of social housing stock to the private sector, which has been a source of major concern. Indeed, it has been calculated that around £2 billion of profit was generated in the asset growth from those sales. That is, in effect, a massive subsidy from the state to the private sector, at a rate of £25 of profit per day.
The issue that then arises is how to redress the balance. It is one thing to stem the flow, but how do we reverse it? I suggest to the minister that it would be helpful to introduce a national buy-back scheme, whereby the state can recover social housing stock. We want such a scheme to be introduced. We know that many housing associations actively pursue such buy-back schemes, which are a helpful way of recovering social housing stock.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I want to proceed for a moment.
It might be useful to recognise that a large share of the £1.18 billion that is spent on housing benefit goes on subsidising private landlords. A more efficient utilisation of that public expenditure might be to recover ownership of the housing stock. That might also help offset some of the massive cuts that the Government has introduced, such as the whopping 26 per cent cut to the affordable housing supply programme, which has led to 1,800 social housing projects and affordable housing projects stalling across Scotland.
It is helpful to recognise that rent controls and restrictions have a place, certainly in the private rented sector, given the rapacious profiteering that we have seen. As Ms Chapman has mentioned, the privilege of being able to afford a mortgage comes with the bonus of 30 per cent lower housing costs on average, while those in the private rented sector face a massive premium, even though they might be living adjacent to someone paying far less for the same type of property. That gross inequality lies at the heart of many of the issues around poverty in Scotland that we face today.
There are myriad other issues that we need to address as part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Rent controls are one thing, but it is important to recognise that housing stock quality is another. One unintended consequence of the 1915 rent controls was that they effectively killed off factoring of tenemental property in Glasgow, leading to large-scale slums in the city by the 1960s and, in turn, the demolition of around 100,000 tenement properties in Glasgow over a 20 to 30-year period.
Today, around three quarters of Glaswegians live in tenement properties, and a number of major reforms are still needed, not least of which is ensuring five-yearly condition and fabric inspections and a compulsion on owners to carry out those inspections, in the same way that people have to have their car pass an MOT. We need to ensure that owners associations are collaborating and co-operating effectively. We need to use our community-based housing association network in Glasgow to build capacity and ensure that we have a much better-performing housing stock, as well as simply introducing rent controls. I hope that the minister will address that in the round in his closing remarks.
The final speaker in the open debate is Bob Doris.
16:43
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Scottish Government’s Housing (Scotland) Bill, because there is much to value in it. It is worth noting parts 5 and 6, on homelessness prevention duties and duties in relation to domestic abuse victims. Those provisions are about doing all that we can to prevent an individual or family from getting into crisis in the first place and potentially ending up under pressure and putting strain on the homelessness system. In other words, the bill is about stopping people feeding into the housing emergency pressures in the first place and stemming the human cost where we can.
I feel that the Conservative motion is wholly ignorant of those important issues. That is because the Conservatives are playing politics and are not looking at the practical policies in the legislation before Parliament that can make a real difference. The bill is not a silver bullet, but it can make a real practical and on-the-ground difference.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would love to, but I have only four minutes, so I am afraid that I cannot.
I am now pleased to turn to those policies. At the heart of the preventive nature of the bill is the ask and act duty, which will be placed on those in public services such as Police Scotland, the national health service, housing associations and various local authority departments. Should someone be concerned that there are vulnerabilities that could, down the line, lead to homelessness, they will have to ask and they will have to act. Risk is identified, and support offered, before homelessness looms.
I acknowledge that such a duty could put additional pressures on the bodies concerned, and we must look at that in the budget process. There has to be trauma-informed training for staff; that, too, has to be looked at. We also have to make sure that this is not simply a signposting process back to local authority homelessness departments. The bill has real potential to do something meaningful about changing the flow of people from precarious tenancies into the homelessness system.
I would add to the list of bodies set out in the legislation the Department for Work and Pensions. We cannot force it to do anything, but we can have a concordat. Likewise, I would add the Home Office, given its role in asylum seeker accommodation in Scotland, and possibly Social Security Scotland, too.
Turning to areas relating to domestic abuse, I note that section 44 has a new pre-action requirement for social landlords who are seeking to evict for rent arrears to take such issues into consideration. Section 45 would link the domestic abuse policy of social landlords to their policies on evictions.
A wonderful group that I have worked with called financially excluded, which is based in Glasgow, has told me about many women—it is nearly always women—who have ran up significant debt as a result of credit cards, store cards, other bills or rent arrears, because they are suffering financial abuse as part of a domestic abuse scenario. They can still be evicted for rent arrears—and that should not be allowed to happen. Often, the abuser keeps the tenancy, and the woman has to flee. Where there is no risk of physical violence, why does the woman have to flee the family home? Can the bill do more in relation to that?
The bill that will deal with house-building programmes—an issue that we have heard a lot about this afternoon—is the budget bill, is it not? We will have to come together as a Parliament and ensure that more money is provided for the bricks and mortar to build houses in this country. We can debate the UK Government’s erosion of Scotland’s capital budget all we like, but let us come together on the budget bill to build more houses for Scotland.
Mr Sweeney, with one or two exceptions, gave a very good speech. I say to him that housing associations in my local area are actively seeking to buy back properties from the private sector, using Scottish Government funds. More funds would be welcome, but they are actively doing that.
I commend the Scottish Government’s amendment to the chamber.
We move to closing speeches.
16:47
I am happy to close for the Greens.
I am pleased that Bob Doris finished by recognising some of the wider context of the bill. Up until Mr Doris spoke, relatively few members had spoken about the wider context of the bill, such as the homelessness prevention duties. In addition to those that Bob Doris mentioned, there are measures to address issues around joint tenancies and the way in which they end. Those issues have been raised repeatedly with me, and there is frustration that we do not yet have legislation that can address them. The bill is also about bringing older tenancies up to date, and about some of the—in a sense—softer tenants’ rights that are about making a house a home. Such things really matter.
Some members—perhaps those who brought the debate—are clearly motivated principally by an ideological hostility to rent controls, and by an ideological desire always to put the profits of owners and investors ahead of the human right to decent housing.
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a moment.
I hope that the Labour members who spoke will work with the bill. The opening speaker seemed to suggest that there were changes that he would like to see to the bill that would address some of the issues that he is concerned about. I would like to see those amendments, too. I would like to see constructive changes being brought to the bill, but we need to get past stage 1. We need to support the bill and let it go forward so that we can debate any amendments.
Having been criticised by Labour in the past for, first of all, rejecting a rent freeze that was clearly unlawful; then, imposing a rent freeze, but doing it too slowly; then, doing it too quickly; then, ending it too soon; and, then, its not lasting long enough, I do hope that Labour achieves a coherent position on rent controls, and one that we can work with.
Has the member ever reflected on the fact that, since the introduction of rent controls, Scotland has had one of the worst records on homelessness? We have 10,110 children trapped in temporary accommodation, and 42 children becoming homeless every day. That is a consequence of rent controls.
No—there is not a jot of evidence that that is the consequence of the temporary rent freeze. Mr Briggs knows very well that a temporary rent freeze was not capable of disincentivising any investment, because it was about only existing tenancies, not new build.
The Tory motion is clearly a demand for housing policy that goes back to putting landlord wealth ahead of the human right to housing. In itself, the SNP amendment is fine, and, if it passes, I will vote for the amended motion. However, given that it pre-empts the Green amendment, we will not be supporting it.
When it comes to proposed amendments, it is important to acknowledge that, even in an area where rental conditions have been assessed and there is the maximum possible evidence of extreme rent levels—even in those circumstances—the strongest action that could be taken would still mean above-inflation rent rises continuing in perpetuity. That means people’s rent rising faster than their food prices, faster than their energy prices and faster than their transport costs. That will not achieve affordability. Even in a future inflation crisis, with a similar inflation spike to what we have seen in recent years, it would not be possible to impose a rent freeze under the new proposals.
Of course supply is an important part of the picture. However, the issue is about not only numbers but the type and price of housing that is built. For example, we are seeing build-to-rent housing that costs £1,200, £1,400 or £1,500 a month. That is not the kind of housing that Scotland needs. We need to understand the distinction, which is why I hope that the Government will change its position from treating mid-market rent and build-to-rent housing as though they are the same—they are not.
Let us provide an incentive for developing—and protecting—mid-market rent and genuinely affordable homes, not an incentive for the people who want to build homes that are used merely for price gouging.
16:52
I thank Meghan Gallacher for bringing this debate to the chamber. It strikes me that the only time that we properly debate housing issues is in Opposition time. Maybe the Government will reflect on that.
Before I address the substance of the debate, I thank Miles Briggs for raising the temporary accommodation situation in Edinburgh. Unfortunately, my urgent question on the issue was not picked, so I would appreciate any updates from the cabinet secretary or the minister on that situation, which must be absolutely terrifying for the residents of Edinburgh who are affected.
As my opening remarks set out, there are few better opportunities available to us right now than to use the Housing (Scotland) Bill to end the housing emergency that is ripping through Scotland. The Government will be aware that another council has declared a housing emergency. Only yesterday, East Lothian Council became the 13th local authority to reluctantly declare a housing emergency, citing difficulties in bringing forward sites for the development of homes. Last week, at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, North Lanarkshire Council talked about being in a situation in which it could declare a housing emergency. That is happening in area after area, demonstrating the urgent need for more homes.
The reason for the housing emergency is simply that we do not have enough homes. During the debate, a number of members have mentioned that we need to take urgent action to drive up the supply of new and appropriate houses.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I cannot give way during a four-minute speech.
Willie Rennie mentioned changes to the planning system. We welcome those changes, but we could go much further. We could radically fix the planning system, which developers say is the number 1 problem that holds up developments. Willie Rennie also said that we need those builders and developers to build the homes that we need. We should absolutely give them the confidence to build and to invest, and we should make it easier for them to do so, rather than make it more difficult.
I agree with Bob Doris and Patrick Harvie that there are important parts of the bill that we should not lose. We should have a workable system of rent regulation, we should be preventing homelessness and ensuring that public organisations play their part in that, and we should have more robust rights when it comes to evictions. We support a range of other measures in the bill, too.
However, Miles Briggs made the crucial point that there is no point in having such measures in the bill unless public authorities are funded to deliver them. After more than a decade of cuts, local authorities have no money left, which is why their homelessness prevention services are at systemic risk of failure, as set out by the Scottish Housing Regulator. That is the key issue.
The Finance and Public Administration Committee was scathing in its assessment of the bill’s financial memorandum. The key point for me, Patrick Harvie, Bob Doris and others who support such measures is that there must be proper funding. I want the bill to work, so, for it to address the current housing emergency, it should include a statement of intent, define the housing emergency and require the Government to take measures to end it.
I am always willing to engage with the cabinet secretary, the minister and others in the Government on the details, but my point remains that any housing bill must at least acknowledge the primary challenge to Scotland that the housing emergency represents, surely. I ask members to support the amendment in my name, which simply asks the Parliament to recognise the emergency situation in which we find ourselves and to start building the houses that will get us out of it.
16:56
It is just over a month since the cabinet secretary and I last updated the Parliament on the Scottish Government’s response to the housing emergency. During that time, we have continued to make significant progress, especially in working with the local authorities that face the greatest challenges with homelessness and temporary accommodation. Let me be clear that addressing the emergency requires partnership, and I record my thanks to all local authorities that have intensified their efforts in support of our shared goals.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government continues to directly support individuals, here and now, by providing £7.9 million to mitigate shortfalls in local housing allowance rates, thereby helping to protect tenancies. The UK Government’s freeze of local housing allowance is disappointing. That policy began under the Conservative Government and now, disappointingly, continues under Labour. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation called it “deeply worrying” that no social security adjustments were made to effectively address homelessness and reduce hardship.
Housing services are under strain right now, so could that £7 million or so to support local housing allowance be redirected to support tenancies and prevent homelessness if the UK Government stepped up to the plate on local housing allowance?
The money could be used for a number of purposes. We are working with local authorities to provide flexibility in the grant funding that they receive.
Short-term actions, such as reducing social housing voids in partnership with local authorities, are already making a difference, but long-term solutions are crucial. The Housing (Scotland) Bill will play a vital role in reforming the rental sector and preventing homelessness by building on Scotland’s existing protections.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have only five minutes. I will pick up on some of the points that the member mentioned earlier.
We remain committed to implementing long-term rent controls to ensure that rents are affordable, which is essential in tackling poverty, especially among families with children, as has been mentioned by a few members today. The rent cap must also apply between tenancies to provide stability for tenants. However, we aim to balance our approach to ensure continued investment in the private rented sector, thereby expanding the supply of quality, affordable options for rent.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have only a short time in which to speak.
Many private sector stakeholders have welcomed clarity on the rent cap’s form. In spring 2025, we plan to launch a consultation to seek views on how to ensure that powers to exempt certain types of provision from rent control can be used in a way that stabilises rents for tenants in rent control areas while new and improved rented housing continues to be delivered. The consultation will consider new housing that is built specifically for private rent, including mid-market rent properties and other purpose-built private rented accommodation, which have been referenced on a number of occasions. Our approach balances immediate actions to meet urgent housing needs with the establishment of a stable long-term framework.
That is also underpinned by the work of the housing investment task force, through which we have engaged with investors and developers to understand how a rent control system can work for tenants while supporting private investment. Input from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has provided valuable insights into how rent controls will impact on social landlords who offer mid-market rent provision.
I want to touch on a few points that members made, but I particularly thank Mr Harvie for his work on the bill. He was right to mention—he was the only member to do so—that incredibly point about tenants’ rights.
Meghan Gallacher mentioned the number of landlords. Their numbers actually increased by 3 per cent between August 2022 and September 2024. Polling shows that rent controls are supported by 82 per cent of people in Scotland, including 61 per cent of Tory voters. I have mentioned that to Mr Briggs previously.
I want to come back to the point that Mr Griffin made about funding for housing, including capital funding. If the Scottish Government brings that back and increases the funding, will he vote for that? He and his colleagues will have to vote for it to make sure that we get increased funding. I will continue to push that point.
I thank Willie Rennie for his comments and I take on board what he said. I know that the cabinet secretary has met him and I would be happy to engage with him in the future.
Gordon MacDonald touched on outside factors, such as the local housing allowance rates freeze, and there has also been a 62 per cent cut in financial transactions. Mr Carlaw also talked about cuts to funding, but his Conservative UK Government made the choice to cut our capital budget. The right to buy also came through his party, and that made a major impact.
Let us be clear: a vote for the Tory motion will be a vote to scrap the Housing (Scotland) Bill, rent controls and homelessness prevention duties, and a vote to ignore poverty. We will not redraft the bill to solve every economic problem. We will continue to take decisive action across Scotland to deliver the housing that our communities need. The bill gives renters certainty, progresses homelessness prevention duties, quickens investment into housing and tackles child poverty and poverty more generally. Members should support the SNP amendment.
17:01
This has been a good debate, and I am glad that we have had it. When the Housing (Scotland) Bill was introduced, we had not declared a housing emergency, but we were certainly in the throes of one, and the bill has made things worse. To be fair, we had rent controls before we saw the bill, and it has led to rents going up and investment drying up—a more ruinous policy we could not imagine. So, what does the Government do? It includes more rent controls in the bill, with the minister sticking with the policy in his announcement on stage 2 when we were not even at stage 1 yet. He really should know better.
The minister has a housing investment task force that does not include Homes for Scotland. Goodness knows what it talks about, because the money is not coming here any time soon—he has scared investors off.
You might not believe this, Presiding Officer, but the minister and I go way back. He might not remember this, but when we were both councillors, we sat on the commission on school reform. [Interruption.] He does remember that. I genuinely want the best for him, so I must advise him, as a friend, to go back to the drawing board on the bill, because landlords are leaving the sector in their thousands. That might please those who think that all private landlords are evil money-grabbers, but those with any sense will know that it is not a good situation to be in.
I am grateful to the member for giving me the opportunity to intervene. We have on record organisations such as Crisis and Shelter, which have put in briefings for MSPs. They often call on the Government to do more, as they should, to tackle the housing emergency. Have they asked for the bill to be scrapped, as his party’s motion wants to happen?
We are calling for the bill to be redrafted. If only the cabinet secretary could be patient—she knows that I am a positive guy—because I have some nice things to say that will please her. The Scottish Property Federation estimates that £3.2 billion in direct housing investment is under threat from the proposals in the bill. A survey by Propertymark suggests that 59 per cent of landlords are selling their properties or leaving the market completely.
The one part of the bill with any promise—this will please the cabinet secretary—is the section that deals with homelessness, and we should concentrate on getting that right. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is muttering that she is pleased, but she is muttering something.
More than 15,000 children are homeless, and the number of applications from households that have been assessed as homeless is at its highest since 2011-12. Shelter Scotland has condemned the Scottish Government for its record on homelessness. It says that the housing system is “broken” and is in need of “urgent and drastic change”.
Part 5 of the bill deals with homelessness prevention. Of course, the best way to end homelessness is to stop it happening in the first place, which is why the housing first model ought to be commonplace. The bill introduces an ask and act duty—a duty to ask a person whether they are homeless or threatened with homelessness and to act if they are—on relevant public bodies such as health boards and the police.
That part of the bill has the potential to make some important changes to how homelessness is dealt with in this country, by shifting the approach from a crisis response to an early-action prevention response. That is good, but it is just a legislative framework, and much more work will need to be done. A delivery plan should be built into the bill, and there must be cross-departmental support for homelessness prevention across the Government and public bodies. Prevention is about dealing with the root causes of homelessness.
There have been a number of very good contributions to the debate, but Maggie Chapman’s was perhaps not one of them, because she seemed to be rather in denial about the impact of rent controls and the costs that landlords face. Willie Rennie spoke about the impact of homelessness on people. Miles Briggs talked about the situation in Edinburgh, as did Gordon MacDonald, to be fair. I was pleased that, although Paul Sweeney did not mention the tenement maintenance working group, he mentioned the group’s recommendations for dealing with the problems of tenements.
I was delighted that Jackson Carlaw mentioned students because, in September, the cross-party group on housing published a report that examined housing options for students in Scotland and their experiences of homelessness. Our report found that there is insufficient suitable and affordable accommodation for students here, and that thousands are at risk of homelessness. We came up with a set of clear and challenging recommendations for the Government, such as the recommendations that student housing be integrated into local housing strategies and that more robust data be gathered on student accommodation.
The Scottish Government must take more action to address student homelessness and answer the concerns that will undoubtedly be expressed at the rally outside Parliament tomorrow, which I will attend.
Frankly, the bill is a mess. The minister inherited some of the bad stuff in it, but he has stuck with it. That is why, as Meghan Gallacher rightly said—
Will the member take an intervention?
The member must conclude.
Patrick Harvie ought to know that I am about to finish.
That is why, as Meghan Gallacher rightly said, the minister needs to start again. If he does, he will have our support.