Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an important issue. The discussions that we had with housing associations and local authorities were slightly different from the discussions that we have had with the SFT, SNIB and hubco. Local authorities are represented and are inputting to the broader housing investment task force, but the investment that we are talking about should be an addition or a supplement rather than a replacement.

Discussions on institutional investment have been going on for about nine months. I mentioned that I had discussions with institutional investors in October. I want to be in the same position as other countries in Europe, but I do not have the same ability to go out and borrow money to build houses—it is as simple as that. I therefore need to look at how we flex the system with what we have just now.

I have said it before and I will say it again here: the intention is not to replace the funding but to supplement it. As I have said, the housing to 2040 strategy group has been talking about innovative ways of financing and it sees them as very important, but the devil will be in the detail. Discussions are on-going with SNIB, the SFT and hubco, as well as with local authorities and landlords, on what this sort of thing will look like and what will give them comfort—the discussions are going down to that level of detail.

The use of guarantees might give some reassurance. The discussion cannot be framed in terms of questions such as, “If we get institutional investment, where will rent levels go?” There has to be some balance. Local authorities and RSLs are being included in the discussions with the housing investment task force, and they are inputting to—and are part of—the process. However, this is not about replacing the funding that is there. It is about supplementing it and trying to get more money into the system. As I said, they are fully involved in the on-going discussions, and nothing will be decided with regard to the recommendations that come forward without their input.

I come back to the fact that the housing to 2040 group, which will obviously play a major part in all of this, is being included in the debate, too. Moreover, we have talked about the deliverability review, and the housing investment task force is fully integral to that.

You are right—there has to be a balance. The pre-application consultation process came in a number of years ago, and I think that it is really valued and important. The approach can vary in different parts of the country and with different developers, but it is really important.

I come back to the convener’s point about place plans. With all developments that come forward, the developers should be looking at the place plans that are involved. It is really important that developments are not just thrown in without any cognisance being taken of the place plans. Of course, people have become suspicious and have been asking, “What’s the point of a place plan?” However, a lot of work goes into those plans, and we must ensure that there is a flow from them to the local development plans and that developers who come forward recognise their importance. There has been progress, and that will continue.

That brings me back to the need for a two-way process that involves developers and local authorities to ensure that the information that is sent in is the information that is needed, because that quickens things, and that SEPA, Scottish Water and the other statutory consultees can come back on such matters, too. That is the broader discussion that is needed.

As Pam Gosal said, we need to reduce the time period, but we cannot do so to the detriment of local communities.

We would consider that. At the moment, we are engaging on where the damp and mould work, the RAAC work and the cladding work sit. We moved forward with the cladding bill and we are talking about RAAC, which is still an emerging situation. As we progress those in more detail, a database could be worth looking at.

As you said, it is easier to make new homes a part of such a register. We talked about a register on cladding, and I know that we will be talking about that next week. Work is emerging in all those areas. When we progress those, it would be worth looking at the suggestion that you mentioned and how we could take that forward, because you are correct that data is really important. At the moment, because individual pieces of work are going on, we could look in the relatively short term at how we take that forward.

There is obviously the work by the tenement maintenance working group, and I know that there have been discussions on that. Graham Simpson discussed the issue through the cross-party group on housing and raised it with me; I met him to discuss that particular point.

Work is still going on with the Scottish Law Commission around building maintenance and the related effects. We are waiting for the SLC to come back with an update on that, which I understand will be later in the year, in the autumn. It will be interesting to see what the Scottish Law Commission says, because we commissioned a piece of work from it on that specific issue.

Again, I am happy to come back to the committee on that point. I have said that I will come back to the cross-party group too, and I think that there is a separate building maintenance group within that which has been looking at the issue.

We are waiting to hear back from the Scottish Law Commission on its exact thoughts on that issue, because it is a complex legal area, hence why we asked the SLC for an update on that particular point. I am happy to come back and write to the committee at that stage, Mr Griffin.

That involves working with the housing organisations. We have mentioned the work of the Scottish Association of Landlords, and I will raise that issue with it. I am also happy to take up this matter with you offline and to review it with the Scottish Housing Regulator. The feedback that we got from the sector suggested that the guidance was sufficient, but I am happy to take up that point and to come back to the committee on it.

That is a really important point. I was in my constituency a couple of weeks ago at a project called insulate Innerwick. The village consists of around 400 houses and a group was started up. Two or three weeks ago it held an open day, and Changeworks and Energy Advice Scotland were there. About 100 people attended, and one of the key things that came up concerned that point about advice. The Scottish Government partly funds such organisations, and it is important that people get the right advice. People at the event gave examples of companies they had spoken to that had not met the standards.

There is work to be done around communication, which is really important, and it fits into the broader retrofitting agenda. That involves a fabric first approach and moves on to the question of how the house is heated. There is an element of working closely with Changeworks and Energy Advice Scotland on the work that needs to be done. At that meeting a few weeks ago, technical questions were being asked that I did not fully understand, but that is where the trained professionals came in.

It is about ensuring that, as the market continues to grow, it is regulated properly and that we keep an eye on how we regulate if we need to. It is also about ensuring that there is sufficient advice out there. Even at the one event that I was at, people were asking about that and giving examples of work being done that did not meet standards and had to be done again, while experts from Energy Advice Scotland and Changeworks were saying that that was not the approach that they would recommend.

There is a real role for making sure that there is enough advice out there on the retrofitting agenda and that people are getting the right advice, so that we avoid companies that do not have the proper training dealing with insulation projects for which they do not have the knowledge. As that sector continues to grow, it is a watch and brief situation.

Very much so. If people can do that in a small village with 400 or 500 houses, how do we move towards that? How do we do that in urban Glasgow or in the Highlands? We have talked before about the carbon neutral islands project up in Raasay, which had a conference a few months ago. The challenges were around how to look at that in a remote community. There are projects out there that are working really well with regard to sharing the standard and so on. That was really encouraging and it is great to see what people are doing. There are examples and I think that that work will continue to grow. How does the Government support that? How do we support local communities? That is a really important part, because the solution in Innerwick would be different from what it was in Raasay or in urban Glasgow or Edinburgh. That is a piece of work that we will need to keep an eye on, because people will see the opportunities around that. However, we need to make sure that the advice that we have out there grows to meet the growing demand.

I come back to the point that the chancellor said that the UK Government would spend what is necessary, but there has been no funding. We continue to raise the issue with the UK Government, but nothing has been set aside; funding was not set aside in the budget.

Any answer would be hypothetical at this point, because we do not know what the options appraisal will say. I am happy to come back to the committee when we have more detail, such as from other local authorities. At this moment, anything would be hypothetical, because we do not know what any particular ask will be and whether any funding will come from the UK Government to address the matter. Obviously, the issue has continued to evolve in the rest of the UK, too. If there was additional funding from the UK Government and there were consequentials, that would change the situation but, at this moment, it is hard to indicate that when we do not know, and have not had any specific asks, about funding.

There are a couple of important issues to mention, the first of which is data. In previous question sessions, we have talked about the data collection issues that arose during the pandemic. Local authorities are playing catch-up on that and will continue to do that work.

Secondly, social landlords are required by law to meet the housing standard, and the repairing standard statutory guidance sets out what private landlords need to do in that regard. If they are not meeting that standard, issues can be taken to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland for determination.

Similarly, if the Scottish Housing Regulator does not think that local authorities are doing enough on damp and mould, for example, it can write to ask them for an action plan. We discuss that with the regulator on an on-going basis, and discussions with ALACHO and COSLA feed into that point. ALACHO has not specifically mentioned to me the issue that you raised, but I am happy to pick up that point with it and come back to the committee.

Guidelines exist and actions can be taken, and COSLA is catching up on data collection. In general, the figures that we referenced are standing still. We are working with ALACHO, COSLA and the regulator on how we take the issue forward.

I am happy to come back to the committee on the point that you mentioned and I can contact ALACHO about its specific concerns. I have not been made aware of the issue, but colleagues may be aware of it. I will speak to officials and come back to the committee.

I come back to what I said in my opening statement. The strategy came out in 2021, and there was, at that particular point, no disagreement in that respect. Since I was made a minister a year ago, the board has met on, I think, two or three occasions, and obviously we regularly meet board members to discuss their own specific issues as well as broader matters.

Since 2021, we have had, as we have talked about, the pandemic as well as the cost of living crisis. There has been an impact; indeed, we have seen the impact on Scotland. The Office for National Statistics has said that, in the UK, around about one and a half million workers have been lost, and obviously, the construction sector will have been part of that. It means that, in Scotland, you would be talking about 150,000-ish people; again, that is just an estimate based on the share of the population. There has been an impact in that respect.

Construction inflation, too, has had a real impact. On my visits last summer, I was told that contracts might be there for a day or two, and then the prices had to change. Anecdotally, I have heard from speaking to developers that things have slowed down a little bit, but inflation is still high, and we have obviously had the cut to the capital budget.

The key point is that the situation has changed since the strategy was first set. The objectives are still there: we have set the 110,000 new homes target, and the review planned for 2026-27 has been brought forward to now. Work is on-going on that and the logistics are being worked out at the moment. As I have said publicly and will continue to say, the deliverability of all that is being reviewed and the stakeholders involved in the housing to 2040 strategy will be included. Indeed, we have said as much to them. The review will be carried out not just by Government but by stakeholders themselves, which I think is incredibly important.

I will bring in Joe Brown in a second to talk about the review, but I think that the issue of deliverability is really important. Things have changed; in fact, they have changed significantly from when the strategy came out. I do not think that anybody can say that they have not.

I want to come back to a couple of other issues with regard to what we do as we move forward, but I will bring in Joe Brown to talk about the deliverability review, what is happening in that respect, how it will work and how it will report back, and to give you a little bit more detail on how it will be worked on operationally, if that is okay.