Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

On that point, Tom Arthur did some work on town centres, so we can come back to you on that.

Yes. Obviously, there is a focus on the five councils. On the other local authorities that have declared a housing emergency—I think that I have said this at the committee before—one of the key things that we are asking them to do is to say what their housing emergency action plan is. For example, what do they need to do in relation to their own infrastructure?

We expect that, if a council declares a housing emergency, it would ask us for what it requires, and that it would also look at a housing emergency action plan. We continue to work through local teams and through officials who are based in the Government.

Although we will continue to focus on the other local authorities, just now, our key focus is on the five local authorities. The evidence shows that those are the five local authorities that we need to target at this particular time to bring down the use of temporary accommodation. How do we deliver on that for children? One of the key things that we discussed last week at the housing to 2040 board, when we were talking about the budget—alongside acquisition funding—was how we target children in temporary accommodation. What do we need to do on that?

Shelter told us that how we fund housing for families that may have four of five children is key. We may need to buy bigger accommodation. How do we tackle that issue in Edinburgh and Glasgow? There will be individual local discussions about that, as well as discussions on what we can do through the funding that we will make available. We are not on to questions on the budget yet, but those were the kinds of discussions that were held last week. Shelter had its input, as did other organisations such as Homeless Network Scotland. Our key focus is how we deliver on that, and how we deliver actions—which are already happening—in a way that is sustainable this year and beyond?

You and I have had chats about the idea previously.

That money will help them to prepare for prevention duties. I also mentioned the acquisition fund, which is targeted funding. It was agreed with COSLA that 80 per cent of that funding would target the five local authorities—we talked about regional prioritisation. That goes back to the data, which shows that the five local authorities are facing the most pressure. We are focused on how to reduce that pressure. It also ties in to the local authorities that are experiencing systemic failure, which is the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council. We are ensuring that they come out of systemic failure as quickly as possible.