Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an issue about local connections, which has been raised by quite a few local authorities. We have done a substantial amount of work on that. Whether it is the bigger or smaller local authorities, it tends to balance itself out. There is no clear evidence to show that people are moving into or out of Glasgow, or that they are moving into the Highlands or out of it, and there is no strong evidence that shows if something is making a difference to the numbers, one way or another.

Your question is whether people are moving from Perth and Kinross to somewhere else, but there is no strong evidential base on that. We continue to monitor local connections regularly to ensure that that is not the case, which local authorities ask us to do. I am happy to contact the committee about that. Perth and Kinross Council is doing work on private sector leasing schemes, and so on.

You will be aware of the work that is happening on the broader challenge of supporting island communities. We have talked about transport, health and employment, and about attracting families to those areas, and the Government is working more broadly on that. For example, the work through the Communities Housing Trust is about how to maximise that—some of the developments that are being brought forward are through development companies or organisations that have been set up by islanders.

I met people from the young islanders network when they were down around a month ago at a meeting of the cross-party group on islands. They were talking about that challenge, and we discussed that report. Again, it is about working with local authorities, because that issue is part of local authorities’ housing strategies and the strategic housing investment plans that have been talked about. We have to maximise opportunities around that.

That was one of the key things in the rural housing conference that we had. I visited a local authority with a rural focus, but when we started talking about the input to the local housing strategy, we found that it was minimal, to say the least. We must make sure that local authorities have a deliverable plan, and the funding that we deliver, such as the increase in the affordable housing supply programme, enables us to sit down and discuss that with local authorities. There are discussions with local teams about how to maximise the impact, but there also has to be a regional approach.

The 10 per cent target is a minimum, but how do we deliver on that? It is very much a nuanced approach. We need to develop the capacity of development companies and make sure that local authorities focus on their investment.

On the 110,000 affordable homes target, we are looking at a number of things, one of which is the budget. We are also looking at the barriers to meeting that target. I gave the example of stalled sites. What can we do about them?

It is really important that we get a multiyear funding agreement. We plan a year ahead, but we do not have the certainty of multiyear funding from the UK Government to enable us to deliver those plans. We need to receive multiyear funding so that we have as much certainty as possible.

I come back to the question of how we maximise the opportunities of every budget. I have mentioned stalled sites. We are also looking at how we can maximise charitable donations. On mid-market rent, we have committed £100 million, and we are looking at £400 million of additional funding. I have mentioned charitable bonds, too.

There is also the work of the housing investment task force, which is looking, for example, at how we can be flexible in relation to the housing revenue account. A significant amount of work has been done on that. Another key issue is how we attract institutional investment, which I have discussed with the member in the context of rent control. I am confident that we will bring in additional funding; indeed, I have met investors on a number of occasions.

The housing investment task force is also looking at income strips, or long-lease arrangements. Such arrangements already happen in some parts of Scotland, and it is about how we maximise that approach. The task force is looking at external funding coming through that. There is broader work going on.

With the review of the 110,000 target, we are taking the opportunity to look at additional investment, as well as the barriers. Obviously, we will come back to the committee on the work that we do on that, but the key part is multiyear funding. We are looking at what we need to deliver the target over the period, but we need certainty. At the moment, we have to deal with one-year budgets, so certainty around multiyear funding will be an incredibly important part of the review.

The review of the 110,000 target, which, as I have mentioned, is looking at that sort of thing, is on-going. We also have data on house completions, starts and approvals; one of the key issues is to look at what that data tells us, and it is telling us that we need to build homes at a quicker pace. There is no doubt about that, and it is why we have needed to increase the budget this year. We have had support from the UK Government in that respect, as the First Minister has mentioned, and one of the key focuses has been housing; indeed, we have seen that coming through in the budget.

Last year, there was a reduction, which was, as I have mentioned to the committee, a hard decision that we had to make. Multiyear funding will help, but there are certain indications that we are seeing from the figures for completions. There has been a drop—there is no doubt about that—but that has been impacted by a number of things; indeed, we have talked about Brexit as well as construction inflation, which has had an impact on private starts.

There have been issues in that regard, one of which is funding. The review of the 110,000 target is, as I have said, on-going, and we will come back to the committee on that. We have to take into account the figures that have been reported, which are disappointing; however, the additional funding that we have talked about will, it is estimated, deliver an additional 8,000 homes, which should make a difference in the next financial year. We need the certainty of multiyear funding to deliver on that, too.

It is not as simple as that. When it comes to funding, homes are not delivered in the space of one financial year; they are delivered over a number of years. They might be started in one year and completed in another.

In relation to the review of the 110,000 target, we will come back to the member with specific figures. The quarterly figures that we get on completions and approvals will give an indication of where we are, but we cannot simply plump for one year and work out what a reduction in the budget for that year means.

Obviously, there have been reductions, including the reduction in capital funding, but there have been outside factors, too, such as the level of interest rates and the issues around costs and so on, as we all know. It is a complex issue. We cannot look only at one financial year. It is estimated that 8,000 more homes will be delivered as a result of this year’s increase in the budget, but we will look at the data that comes through for the last quarter of last year, as well as future data. That will give us information about the impact on the affordable housing supply programme.

The budget is one part of that, but other factors have had an impact as well. I mentioned the fact that our capital budget has been cut by 9 per cent, while the financial transactions money has been cut by 62 per cent. I am happy to come back to the member on the 110,000 target, but the data that comes through will give us more accurate information than the estimates that we have at the moment. We will look at the figures for the next quarters and learn lessons from those. The discussions as part of the review of the 110,000 target have been about how we can learn from those figures and take forward that learning as part of our discussions about maximising and optimising the budget as best we can.

We learn lessons from the figures that are reported. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach across Scotland, so we need to consider where the pressures are. We have talked about stalled sites, for example, the work on which is really important. It is not just funding that matters in that context; other issues are important, too. The work that we are doing on stalled sites aims to get construction on those sites started and completed as soon as possible. We are engaged in much broader work, but the work on stalled sites is incredibly important. The situation in that regard is not entirely related to the budget. Other factors come into play, such as water. We are doing detailed work on stalled sites in an effort to increase the figures. The issues are not always related to the budget.

Yes, there is no doubt about that. If it were available, the £97 million would be part of our consideration, and it could be used in a number of ways. For example, when it comes to tackling homelessness, we have talked about systemic failure in local authorities. That sum of money could make a huge difference to the five local authorities concerned—if, for example, it were used to support homelessness services. If the money came to us, we would have to discuss how it was used, but it could be used in a number of ways to support local authorities in tackling homelessness and in moving away from systemic failure. We have talked about the indicators in relation to coming out of the housing emergency, and that would certainly be one.

That money would go a long way towards dealing with that, and it would allow more resource to be put into tackling homelessness, including, for example, the issue of kids in temporary accommodation. However, that would have to be discussed across the Government.

It is not helpful for this money to be used as mitigation. The £97 million for discretionary housing payments is keeping a huge number of people in accommodation; if we were not using the money to mitigate the bedroom tax, more people would be homeless. There is no doubt about that.

We sometimes ask what the biggest driver of homelessness is. When Heriot-Watt University looked at that for Crisis, it found that the biggest driver was poverty. The university highlighted two top issues, the first of which was the rate of local housing allowance, which is nowhere near where it needs to be. It was good to see it increased by the Labour Government this year, but there are indications that that approach might not continue next year. The allowance was frozen for a number of years by the previous Government, and that impacted on homelessness. I should repeat that it is Heriot-Watt University that has said that, not this Government.

The second most important issue that it talked about in relation to homelessness was the rate of universal credit and the ability to address that. It is key that we do not lose sight of the affordability of housing, because there is an affordability gap. The local housing allowance has not increased as required to keep people out of homelessness. That is key, because that one specific issue impacts on homelessness in a number of ways.

The £97 million keeps people out of homelessness. We will hopefully get to a position where that money is not required, and then we will be able to invest in getting the local authorities in which the regulator has indicated that there is systematic failure out of that position as soon as possible. The more investment we can put into homelessness services, the quicker we can reduce homelessness.

I have already met housing conveners to discuss that. We will reach out to Argyll and Bute Council and pick up the specific points. Local teams engage with the council daily, weekly and monthly, but we will reach out if the council is considering any specific projects.

I will.

We have done some work on second homes. Local authorities have the ability to introduce control areas in relation to short-term lets. It is always about trying to strike the right balance—we have had a chat about this before—with regard to second or holiday homes and our work on empty homes. In the Highlands, for example, there is a huge number of empty homes that are not being used. How do we reduce that number and bring those empty homes back into use? There has been legislation and policy to address that.

If we were to go beyond that, there would need to be a discussion with colleagues. We are already seeing measures in Spain—in Barcelona, for example—on short-term lets, and other parts of Europe have been looking at different measures. It is about trying to get a balance. I cannot speak for the Government on the example from Spain specifically, but we have already looked at and introduced some measures.

With regard to the broader challenge, we need to continue to address the issue of second homes and to focus on the empty homes issue, as well. I am sure that discussions on that will continue. We do not face problems to the extent that Spain—and, specifically, Barcelona—does, but we have similar issues. There is no doubt that there will be continued discussions across the Parliament on the issue.

I will ask Kirsty Henderson to come in on that and talk about the figures. That might be outwith housing, but I see the point that you are trying to make, which is important. Glasgow has identified a lot of work that it needs to do on repurposing office space and commercial properties, because that will create city centre living and help the economy.