 Y cwestiynau y bydd yw unig i yw yn dwybu i 7.614, oedd undegwyd mlynedd yn unig atdwyfatig o'n fee Ysbyliadol. Felly, byddai eich cyfgwrs ar hyn o dyma i ddysgu i gyd, neu mewn dwybu i ddysgu i ddysgu i gyd, ac i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i gyd, fel y maen nhw. Mae'n ddysgu i ddysgu i'r dysgu i ddysgu i gyd. Ysbyliadol yw unig i ddygol fan hynny i ddysgu i ddysgu i gyd i ddysgu. I don't think that any parties across the Parliament and from the amendments that I see brought forward today want to question that situation. In fact, homes for Scotland have calculated that across all tenures there have been an accumulated shortfall of over 110,000 new homes since SNP ministers came to power in 2007. That is their target for the next decade. That makes the drop in a number of new homes being started, reported by yesterday's housing statistics, even more worrying. While the 1,806 increase in completions in the year to end of 2022 is welcome, that is more than offset by the 2,765 drop in the number of new homes started and will be further added by the housing crisis that Scotland faces. As well as private-led new build starts decreasing by 15 per cent in the year to the end of June, social sector starts have also fallen by 16 per cent. Miles Briggs has been meeting with the sector. He will have heard what I have heard. The key issue for them is the rate of inflation and interest rates as well, but particularly the rate of inflation. Will Miles Briggs not acknowledge that as a major driver at the moment? That is where the global commodity prices have been impacting. Certainly, coming out of the pandemic, both steel and concrete have had a huge impact globally, not just in Scotland. They tell me that their major concern has been the Scottish Government's rent controls and the impact that it has had on their sector. I am sure that that is why the minister sitting beside the cabinet secretary took the action to finally remove the sector from that piece of legislation. I welcome that, but I wish he would listen to Conservative concerns at the time on that. The cabinet secretary has spoken about peaks and troughs to the Government meeting its housing targets. The concern is that all we are currently seeing is troughs. I agree with what Willie Rennie has said in terms of delivering the homes that Scotland needs. There is also a real concern over the impact of what is the Scottish Government's current proposed budget cuts, especially on the housing budgets and local government budgets, which are facing significant pressures. We are hearing that from every single councillor across Scotland. I do not know why the Scottish Government has decided to target the cabinet secretary's portfolios with such major cuts compared with other ministers, but the impact is going to be very real on being able to meet the housing targets of the future and a direct impact on key vital council services. The lack of new housing and affordable housing is a particularly concern in rural and island communities. Last week, I visited the United States along with the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. The message that came across loud and clear from the island that we met was that it is now critical for more affordable homes to be delivered in rural and island communities in order to meet the needs of key workers and that, without urgent action, depopulation was rapidly becoming a real issue once again. That was not also to mention the real anger at the devastating impact of the ongoing delay to delivering the new ferries that the islands need to both their transport connections but also to those vulnerable communities. Scottish Conservatives have continually called for the doubling of the Scottish Government's rural housing fund and to help to incentivise construction in remote and rural communities. I think that that is something that the Government needs to really listen to. With regard to collect Stevenson's points with the national planning framework, the reason why I felt that we could not support it was that framework does not acknowledge what is a housing crisis in Scotland and that is something that the Government needs to get real on. It does not provide the framework that many wanted to see in focusing on delivering the new homes that we desperately need to see brought forward in all sectors across Scotland. The situation for first-time buyers is also very concerning. Decisions that are taken by SNP and Green Ministers to scrap help-to-buy schemes has made it harder for many young first-time buyers to even consider buying their future home. That is why Scottish Conservatives want to introduce our own rent-to-own scheme. That would allow tenants to buy their home and receive a percentage of their rent towards a deposit. I hope that that is something that Ministers will really take on board and look at the pressures facing many households and take that policy forward as soon as possible. However, it is clear that Ministers need to act and take into account the changing market. For example, allowing councils to vary in prices across Scotland and raising the national LBTT threshold. We need to see a new approach from the Scottish Government. We all agree that we urgently need to see more social housing built. I have met the sector and know that there is real anger at how it has been treated by the Government, but it wants to look to a long-term solution to address the lack of affordable housing. More action is needed. Many members have mentioned this in terms of empty homes. Bringing those homes back into use is something that the Government has promised for many years—15 years now—but we have not seen that progress. I agree with the point that was made in the Labour amendment that urgent interventions are required to unlock those homes, but we have not seen them coming forward from this Government. It is clear that there are real negative impacts on the horizon for our property market in Scotland. Surveys conducted by Scottish Land and Estates, Property Marks, Scottish Association of Landlords, demonstrate that people are now looking at removing their private rented properties from the sector. 70 per cent of agents report that landlords are deciding not to bring forward rental properties. Government ministers say that they agree that the private rented sector has a key park to play in ending homelessness and the housing crisis, yet we have seen them attack that sector and we are seeing fewer homes coming forward. That crisis is only going to build as we head into the autumn. To conclude, we have real concerns at what could be the collapse in the private rental market in Scotland, especially here in the capital, where supply is significantly decreasing at the very time that demand for housing is increasing. Ministers need to start heeding these warnings and act before it is too late, and I move the motion in my name. I remind members to exercise a bit of caution in any references direct or indirect to the Cost of Living Tenant Protection Scotland Act 2022. As members have been advised, a position for judicial review of that legislation has been lodged with the court, and the case is therefore considered to be active for the purposes of the sub-judice rule. Members were provided with further information on that point, and I hope that all members would be very careful when making references to the issues at hand. I now call on Shona Robison, cabinet secretary, to speak to you and to move amendment 7.614.2 up to six minutes, please. I will move the amendment in my name at the beginning. I will just say how refreshing it was to hear the tone of Jamie Greene's concluding speech. Wouldn't it be so much more productive if that was the tone that the Tories took in this chamber, rather than just the constant attacks? It is all our fault. There is no positivity or solutions being brought forward. I do think that something that the Tories really need to reflect upon. I come on to the point about empty homes, because Jamie Greene mentioned the issue of empty homes, which is an important point. Of course, we have been taking action on empty homes, which has brought more than 8,259 homes back into use since 2010. There is more to be done without a shadow of a doubt. Of course, that is why we have made a commitment to look at the compulsory purchase powers, and we have made a commitment to look at modernising the compulsory purchase order process. I wonder whether the Tories will vote for or against those measures when they are brought forward. I suspect that, yet again, there will be a test of saying one thing in this chamber, but then voting a completely different way when it comes to measures to resolve the problem. I welcome measures to modernise the compulsory purchase process. The awareness that councils do not have a lot of money to complete that compulsory purchase process, will the Government bring forward plans for compulsory sale orders so that local authorities could export empty homes back into use, but without the capital requirements of a compulsory purchase order? The member will be aware that we are considering the matter of compulsory sales orders as part of the review, but any new powers, of course, will need to be compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights. There are issues there that he will be more than aware of. I am happy to speak to him separately in more detail about that, but I am keen to look at losing all the levers that we possibly can. We have focused very much on the delivery of affordable homes, taking a world-leading approach to tackling homelessness and improving people's experiences of living in the rented sectors and, of course, increasing our housing stock, albeit that there is more to be done. Of course, we brought an end to the Tory policy of right to buy back in 2016, a policy that saw over half a million social homes move out of the reach for people who would otherwise have been able to access them. Our change to that policy has secured 15,000 homes over a decade that would otherwise have been lost from our housing stock. The Government is aware that the economic mismanagement of the UK Government has led to soaring inflation, spiralling energy bills and hardship, and that is of deep concern to this Government. We continue to urge the UK Government to use the key levers that it holds. The Government is providing almost £3 billion in this financial year that will help households to face increased costs of living, including a billion pounds only available here in Scotland. There are concrete actions that we are taking now to help people through the current crisis, but we are taking longer-term action to support people with their housing costs, too. We have seen raging inflation, the damage to the labour supply and trade due to Brexit, surging energy prices, the illegal war in Ukraine, all having a huge impact on the delivery of affordable housing, as anyone in the sector will tell anyone who wants to ask and listen. It is in this context that we now work to deliver more affordable homes. It is a very difficult backdrop without a doubt, but we remain committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which 70 per cent will be for social rent. That target will support a total investment package of around £18 billion and up to 15,000 jobs each year, while also making an important contribution to the economy, backed by £3.5 billion in this parliamentary term. I do not think that it is credible for anyone to say that we are not putting the resources in. On the matter of resources, I would be surprised to have to tell anyone in this chamber that our capital budgets across the whole of the Scottish Government are impacted due to a 3.4 per cent real terms cut by the UK Government. Our capital budgets depend on the UK Government's capital budgets. It is basic economics, Barnett consequentials. If there is a real terms cut to UK capital budgets, then our budgets are reduced. Budgets across the whole of the Scottish Government are reduced, but I set out in my speech earlier the measures that we are taking to mitigate that 36.87 million or 4.7 per cent reduction on the published capital spending review figure, the measures that we are taking, a mixture of financial transactions, transfer from the heat and buildings fund, donations from our charitable bond programme, in order to make sure that we keep that supply of funding coming through, and that is what we will continue to do. The biggest impact, as anyone will tell you, is inflation. The Government will continue to review the impact of current inflation repressures and market conditions on our capital programme. We will take the measures that we need to take. We have huge ambitions for housing in Scotland, set out in housing to 2040, and we are working closely with local authorities, housing providers, landlords and the construction house building sectors to achieve that. I am proud that our long-term housing strategy sets out a route map for how the Government intends to deliver that housing to 2040 vision, and we will continue to work with others to translate that vision into action and reality. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call on Mark Griffin to speak to and move amendment 7614.1. Up to five minutes, please, Mr Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Again, we welcome this afternoon's second debate. Although there is much crossover with the previous debate, we are absolutely clear that the faltern house market in Scotland is as much a consequence of Tory economic chaos and mismanagement as it is to Government in action here. On that basis, we do not find ourselves in a position that we can support the Government amendment or the Conservative motion at decision time. The fact is that, to get a home that a family can be proud of, one that is warm, safe and affordable, regardless of whether it is in the social sector or the private sector or owned, is an uphill struggle for most and for many of their choices are limited to which tenure they can choose. That is because we are not building enough and too many properties for which their primary purpose was to be someone's home are going unused or are used by wealthy individuals to accrue for their wealth. We share the Conservatives' disappointment that the last target took an extra year to be met, and we agree that we need to build our way out of this housing crisis. However, yesterday's statistics confirmed that starches are down across all tenures, with dire prospects for the years ahead. Homes for Scotland calculate that we are now 110,000 homes short of where we should be. It is no wonder that there is practically no choice in the market. We have just had a debate about homelessness, but those declines and starts will mean greater shortfalls in the future. The affordable housing pipeline is something that we should consider too, with approvals in the year to September down to 1,400, starts down to almost 2,000 and SFHA flagging that they believe that the Government is not on track to meet its targets. Having questioned the Government for months now about construction inflation and the suitability of benchmarks, I am glad to see that the Government now accepts that the construction inflation situation has meant a slowdown in some of the delivery projects. That is a start. That recognition is a start. However, what follows from that recognition is surely that a further review of the benchmark system is absolutely essential. Internally, the Government has known that the pipeline has been drying up. Its risk register on the affordable housing supply programme that I obtained over the summer shows that the affordable house building scheme is struggling. Every single issue was marked with a risk score higher than its target. Material shortages, underspens, rising tender prices, insufficient capital, slow approvals and starts are all flashing red on the Government's own risk register. However, the continued discussion about what the budget looks like for the year ahead and what it does not look like and whether that is investment peaks and troughs or not, what shelter are clear, they count it as a 16 per cent cash cut. Spice, say comparing budgets like for like, it is a 12 per cent drop. In real terms, in cattle grant is down 19 per cent. It does not matter where you take your figures from. Money has been lost from the building sector this year and so we will have less homes for the future. However, it does not stop just at the overall budget, because there is another issue affecting the local affordable housing supply, and that is the hike in the additional dwelling supplement announced in December, because councils will have to pay that while RSLs do not. Will we agree with the increase, we still feel that the Government should bring forward measures to take that burden from local authorities. In my region, North Lanarkshire and Falkirk councils have been liable for average payments of between £3,000 and £5,000 for the purchase of off-the-shelf homes or of parts from the market. Those sums will now increase by 50 per cent. I know that the Government has consulted on exempting them, but nine months on, that has to become a reality. The funding that the Government puts in to build houses is actually coming back to Government again on additional dwelling supplement, rather than the primary purpose that it was addressed. I want to make clear that the Tories are absolutely not off the hook when it comes to that debate. Even bringing that motion to Parliament seems to be slightly lincard. We all saw the Scottish Poverty Federation briefing that was issued last week's tightness, a £700 million loss of investment in the private rented sector, but we do not have short memories. It was clearly caused by the disastrous— Mr Griffin, I will need you to bring your remarks to a closed place. It was clearly caused by the disastrous Conservative mini-budget that weighs billions of pounds off the value of the economy. That has to be borne in my mind, and I move the amendment in my name. Deputy Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being at the conclusion of last debate. I got stuck into a very detailed discussion with Murdo Fraser about whiskey of all issues. I do not think that we need any more details, Mr Rennie. I apologise for that. I want to start off where Mark Griffin finished. There is much for what Miles Briggs said in his opening contribution that I agreed with, but he cannot ignore the direct impact on people's mortgages of the Liz Trust budget. A 10 per cent increase in payments has blown a hole in many people's finances. On a typical budget, it could mean an extra £1,800 a year. That is the context that we are living in just now. We are right for Miles Briggs to reflect on that. I know that he was embarrassed by the budget as many Conservatives were, but that is the context, that is the environment. When young people in particular are facing a real challenge and even just raising a deposit to buy their own home, we have a massive intergenerational problem in terms of housing. Many people older people have access to property, but younger people cannot even think about it. I bought my first home when I was 25. Many people do not see themselves ever getting their own home. Again, that is the context. The minister is right to identify the huge challenges in terms of inflation and costs, but also skills in the sector and access to land, because some housebuilders are finding it very difficult to access land. That ties into the NPF4 debate that we had at the end before Christmas. There is a real emphasis on trying to get brownfield sites and properties above shops utilised, but they are not cheap to do. They are costly. Otherwise, they would have been developed by now, so we need to look at what incentives there are by the Government to make that happen. The more we put into that, the more challenging it is to meet our overall other targets. We need to get the balance right between brownfield and greenfield. There is great pressure to build more houses and we need to provide the right incentives from Government, but the wider policy environment is what I am concerned about. We are in a state of massive flux. We have had a range of pieces of legislation of recent years on short-term lets, the 2016 act, the coronavirus act, the emergency rent cap before Christmas, and we have supported all those measures. We did not support the short-term let licensing, but we did support the control areas. On top of that, landlords have seen the UK with the landlord tax relief changes having a direct impact on their investments that they are making. We are in a state of flux just now. We have got many reports of landlords evacuating the sector. Before we move on to the next stage of proposed changes around rent controls, I would like us to see the evidence of what the current legislation impact is on the housing sector. If young people cannot get into a property of their own, we need to make sure that there is a healthy private rented sector. All the jungle drums are that it is not healthy just now, that good landlords and good people who are providing good homes for people are finding it difficult to sustain their private properties and they are leaving the sector. We may be at a tipping point. I want to make sure that the Government is listening and watching and reading all the evidence before we go further with any proposed rent controls. I have heard and seen the evidence about the impact that rent controls can have on the lack of investment and disinvestment from the private rented sector, the evidence from other countries. I want to make sure that we have the evidence before we make the next step. One final plea is that I would like the Government to put more emphasis on the community housing trust and the rural housing burden opportunity. It will be particularly beneficial to areas such as the East Newk and Fife, where people find it working and people find it really hard to have their own home close to their place of work. That may be part of the answer, not the whole answer, but part of the answer, and I hope that the Government can put greater emphasis on that in future. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. Up to four minutes, I call Graham Simpson to be followed by Jackie Dunbar. We do not debate housing often enough in this place, so to get two debates in one day is really good. Perhaps it is not seen as exciting enough, I do not know. Our debate on housing targets probably is not going to grab any headlines, even very worthy things like Alex Rowley's attempt to have all-new homes built to passive house standards do not really cut through, but housing affects us all. We all need somewhere to live, and there are wildly varying standards of accommodation in this country. Solve the cold homes problem with top-notch insulation and you help to solve the fuel poverty crisis. If our old folk can live in warm homes that cost very little to heat, they will have a better life. We all would, actually. Solve the tenement maintenance problem, as some of us in this Parliament are trying to do, and you solve the issue of people living in poor conditions in many of our towns and cities. Housing matters to our health and wellbeing, mental and physical. Delivering the homes that we need is one of the most important things that we can do. However, when you have 47,000 homeless people and 21,000 households in temporary accommodation but 67,000 unoccupied properties in Scotland, then something is wrong. When that number of households in temporary accommodation has gone up since Nicola Sturgeon came to power, then you have to question her priorities. I have to give the SNP some praise. They are consistent. They have repeatedly missed their house building targets. They told us that 50,000 affordable homes will be built in the last Parliament. Well, they were built, but a year late they have missed their target to build homes in the social rented sector and in the recent national planning framework for, there was scant reference to housing targets. Homes for Scotland say we need 100,000 new homes after years of under supply. Well, they always say we need more. It is their business to do that, but I do not hear anyone contesting the figures. We know this. We have known it for years, but we do not do anything about it. We need a homes delivery agency tasked with the job of helping and cajoling councils to hit targets with the right homes in the right places. Right now, we are just tinkering around the edges. Not only that, we have a Government that actively damages the housing sector. Patrick Harvie's rent controls are going to lead to fewer homes being available for rent, less investment in those that remain and ultimately higher rents. You could not make it up. I just wish I had, but it is true. We will see students struggling to find somewhere to live. We already are. We should be encouraging firms, yes, private firms to build more homes for rent, not putting barriers in their way. We should be dealing with the problem of empty homes by having compulsory sales orders. That used to be SNP policy, but it has obviously ended up in that mountainous, too difficult pile. Deputy Presiding Officer, I will go back to where I started. Housing matters affects us all. It is too important to let ideologues loose on it. Sometimes, soon, reality is going to have to kick in and support the motion in the name of Miles Briggs. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I now call Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Faisal Chowdery. I am surprised to see the Conservatives bring this debate forward today. When it is their Government and Westminster that is directly impacting the Scottish Government's ability to build new homes and to tackle inequality, it is the capital spending decisions of the Tory UK Government that have led to such difficult choices being made in this year's draft budget. The Scottish Government saw a 3.4 per cent real-terms reduction in its capital allocation for housing between the financial years 2023 and 24 as a result of the decisions taken in Westminster. For straightening, the falling capital grant allocation that Scotland has received, along with the relentless inflation and cost pressures, has reduced the buy and power of the Scottish Government's ambitious housing investment. In anticipation of difficult financial circumstances, a reduction has already been identified in the capital spending review. Without full fiscal levers of an independent state, difficult decisions have had to be made. Despite the challenge of UK Government austerity, Scotland's £3.5 billion commitment on the affordable housing supply programme remains. The Scottish Government's £752 million investment for 2023-24 represents progress towards that £3.5 billion pledge. Additionally, and in the most challenging budget settlement since devolution, the Scottish Government is providing more than £13.2 billion to help to support councils and communities to meet their housing needs. Inflationary pressures and market conditions will continue to affect the capital investment programme, but the Scottish Government has been clear that that will be monitored. A different approach to that of the Tory UK Government is possible. Unlike Westminster, the SNP-led Scottish Government is using all the levers at its disposal to maximise housing investment to the benefit of people and the economy. Our ministers have already laid out how they are targeting public spending as effectively as possible. As affordable housing remains a key priority, the Scottish Government plans to mitigate the near £37 million reduction in its housing budget from Westminster with a £15 million in-year transfer from the heat and building strategy budget to help to fund zero emissions heating systems, with charitable bond donations that will be directed towards investment in social rented homes and with further financial transactions. The Tory motion complains that the Scottish Government has not met its housing building targets. However, the Scottish Government remains fully committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. Over 113,000 affordable homes have already been delivered since 2007 by the SNP in government. Since 2007, the annual average supply of affordable housing per head of population in Scotland has been 13.9 homes per 10,000 population. It is the highest in the UK. This is higher than England, who has delivered just 9.7 homes per 10,000, higher than Wales, 8 homes per 10,000 and higher than Northern Ireland, 13 homes per 10,000. For the new target of 110,000, 4,927 affordable homes have been delivered. Indeed, the SNP Scottish Government has a track record to be proud of. The previous 50,000 affordable homes target was met in March 2022, a year late, but we have had a pandemic. That has been reducing inequality by providing more warm, safe and high-quality places to live, including within my Aberdeen-Donside constituency. It is this SNP Scottish Government that is acting to build homes, tackling inequality and to get to the lives of our people of Scotland. I now call for—we have no time in hand. I call Foisal Childry to be followed by Liz Smith. Mr Childry, up to four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. My case work is inundated with constituents experiencing housing issues, whether this be caused by waiting lists for permanent family homes being offered unsuitable temporary accommodation or suffering the effect of mould and dump in the social housing. I am very concerned that the allocation for housing in the Scottish Government proposed 23-24 budget will only make this housing crisis worse. We need to address these problems head on. If funding is not allocated to the housing budget for the building of new homes, the Scottish Government will be hard pushed to reach its own affordable housing targets. Further cuts to local governments also mean that local councils cannot attempt to tackle this housing crisis. The creation of new homes is crucial to solving the catastrophic which is currently unfolding in our housing sector. The reduction in housing investments can be directly attributed to the UK Government's disastrous mini-budget and at a step raise in interest rates as a result. Scottish Labour supports a rent freeze and eviction ban to help tenants during the cost of living crisis. While we recognise that this is not a long-term solution to the housing crisis, ending restrictions on rent and eviction would only further exacerbate this crisis with an estimated 14,250 households who experienced core homelessness in 2021. Shockingly, an estimate of 13,000 children may not sleep in their own homes tonight. New housing must be built to try and tackle this evolving problem and the Scottish Government must increase funding to local authorities in its 2023-24 budget to deliver vital homelessness service. Edinburgh Council alone is facing a 65 million bill to tackle homelessness and local authorities across Scotland will also be buckling under the way of the overflowing housing sector. New and existing homes must also be brought to standard to ensure that they are energy efficient and can protect tenants against mould and dump. I have recently raised this issue in a motion to the Parliament and I am very worried that, without action, housing across Scotland is putting our constituents in danger. Dump housing disproportionately affects those living in poverty and the cost of living crisis has forced people to avoid hitting their homes. This has simply made the problem worse. New homes need to be provided but we need to ensure that these houses are energy efficient, insulated and, most importantly, affordable for those who need them most. That must be a priority for the Scottish Government. The housing crisis cannot be resolved if not. My colleague Graham Simpson quite rightly said that housing policy is extremely important, and it certainly is. I want to concentrate on the economic and geographical mobility aspect of this policy because that is absolutely critical when we are looking at the future. That is because there is extensive evidence in several quarters that the SNP's current housing policy is hindering that mobility that we so desperately need. Indeed, the Deputy First Minister has quite rightly said on several occasions in this chamber that the biggest challenge for the Scottish budget in future years is Scotland's demographic profile, and most especially the diminishing size of the working population in relation to the total population with the knock-on effects, of course, that it has for productivity and the tax take. It is surely important that the policy decisions on housing do everything possible to address those issues and the likely behavioural changes among the public. For example, and this is something that has been exercising the finance committee for some weeks now, the Scottish Government has made it very clear that there are two intentions behind the proposal to increase the tax rate on the additional dwelling supplement from 4 per cent to 6 per cent, namely to raise revenue and to protect first-time buyers. That is all well and good in principle, but as the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said, landlord associations and local authorities have all said, there is potential for significant behavioural change as a result of this policy. Here is why. In many parts of Scotland, the only people who are buying and modernising properties are private landlords, and that includes empty houses being brought back into use. That is extremely important activity, especially in our rural communities, which are already at risk of depopulation and where we very much need farm and rural sector workers. There is also the need to promote the tourism market, and that is a market that Scotland can ill-afford to undermine. Landlord associations are now complaining that 44 per cent of their members are already intending to reduce their portfolios. That is very serious indeed for Scotland. Yes, that is true that it is income for some of these landlords. From a general economic perspective, it matters to ensure that there is better housing stock and it also encourages a more mobile workforce, which Scotland so desperately needs to improve productivity and geographical mobility. If Scotland is to be truly open for business, then housing policy has to play a critical role. My colleagues have spoken about the recent rent freeze and cited the reaction from several stakeholders, not surprising given that the Scottish Government's inability to justify the different approaches to the rent in the social housing and private rented sector. Critics make the case about the inflexibility of this policy, that the rent control applies irrespective of the financial positions of the tenant and the landlord, and that a relatively well-off tenant who is renting in the private sector is provided with the financial protection that is not afforded to someone less well-off in the social sector. That does not make sense. John Blackwood of the Scottish Association of Landlords rightly makes the point that the rent freeze and eviction policy means that many landlords are not surprisingly selling up on loss-making properties, further reducing the housing supply at a time when demand is increasing. He points out that local authority and housing associations can put up rents in order to make repairs and improvements, failing to acknowledge that private landlords face exactly the same challenges. We had that ridiculous situation at Glasgow University a few months ago, which, because of the difficulties with getting suitable rented property, was telling students that they would best not to enrol for their education courses until they found accommodation. That is hardly an acceptable situation. I do not doubt that housing policy is complex, particularly when it comes to matching supply with demand, but neither do I doubt that the current SNP interferences in market forces are making things a whole lot worse. They are forcing detrimental behaviour change with the same result that stakeholders who have been relied upon to help the housing market are now being forced out. That is not good for Scotland or the ambitions to achieve long-term growth. I now call Christine Grahame to be followed by Ariane Burgess up to four minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a basic human right of a place to call home. It provides shelter, comfort, a sanctuary and identity. You have your own address. This is where I live, but now there will be increased pressures on people to keep what home they have, meeting that mortgage payment with interest rates soaring, as well as energy and food bills. We need more socially affordable homes, yes, but consider the following factors all impacting on the costs of constructing houses—inflation. That 10 per cent inflation stems directly from the economic failures of the UK Government. It has reduced the actual value of the Scottish Government budget when it was set 3 per cent inflation by £1.4 billion, which means that housing budget referred to by the cabinet secretary buys even less in the market. Brexit. After the nice stagnation of construction in the two years of Covid, demand for construction materials is extremely high, but there is a supply chain issue. One reason for the shortage of construction materials is the fact that lorry drivers in the country are in short supply. That means that it has become more expensive to deliver construction materials to different parts of the UK, therefore more expensive to build. A large number of lorry drivers in the UK were from EU countries, and many of them cannot come back here. According to the construction leadership council, 60 per cent of imported materials used in construction are from the European Union. The supply of timber has especially been affected by Brexit, as 80 per cent to 90 per cent of softwood is imported from European countries. Scarcy again adds to construction costs. Skill shortage. It is worth noting that it is estimated that close to a million construction workers are set to retire in the next 10 years. That again will significantly impact the industry. Before Brexit, about 40 per cent of all construction workers in the UK came from other EU countries. Now such workers are unlikely to get visas to work here, as the UK has introduced a points-based system. The impact of the skill shortage in the UK is that employers will have to increase wages as competition will be stiff amongst the companies, all putting up construction costs. Then there is VAT. I quote Richard Sunack for the first and possibly the last time. Greenbelt land is extremely precious in the UK. We have seen too many examples of local councils circumventing the views of residents by taking land out of greenbelt for development, but I will put a stop to it. Yet VAT for construction on brownfield sites remains, in some cases, at 17.5 per cent and in other circumstances at 20 per cent, while it is 0 per cent on greenfield sites. Perhaps Mr Sunack's attention is occupied on other taxing matters because nothing has happened on VAT equity to date. All of those, Brexit, inflation and VAT, add to the costs of construction of homes, especially in the socially rented sector, where councils are already under pressure because they have inflation on all fronts attacking their budgets. None of this is in the control of the Scottish Government, all reserved, so let's have some refreshing honesty from the Tory benches. Starting, perhaps, with agreeing that VAT for construction on brownfield sites should be levied at 0 per cent. The need for affordable energy-efficient homes continues to be a central topic in the Highlands and Islands, so I welcome this opportunity to highlight the progress that is being made across Scotland. People struggle to find a home where they want to live and often face unaffordable rents and inadequate accommodation. That is why the Bute House agreement commits the Scottish Government to building, as we have heard already, 110,000 further homes by 2030, with 11,000 in rural areas. However, there is no point in trying to fill the bath with the plug-out. Scotland was right to end the right to buy in 2016, which led to the loss of 500,000 social homes. Many of them now being let out by private landlords at two or three times the rent. The Tories would have us continue with that right to buy. In rural areas, especially, we lose homes to the holiday and second homes market. The Scottish Government has been right to regulate and introduce stricter planning rules on short-term lets, again opposed by the Tories. It is also right to discuss with COSLA the reforms to council tax on second and empty homes and to make changes to the additional dwelling supplement. Also, you guessed it, opposed by the Tories. There are a range of practical challenges to the delivery of rural homes, including the lack of skills trade, a shortage of planning staff and the rise of cost of materials. Last week, I visited the Merchant's House in Inverness, an example of what can be done to repurpose and retrofit older buildings to make them energy efficient and sustainable for the future. The renovation, supported by the Scottish Government funding, has created high-quality affordable homes. The approach that makes the most of the embodied energy in our existing housing stock would be helped immensely if the Conservative UK Government revised its position on VAT in relation to retrofitting buildings. We need to look at where well-placed affordable homes in our rural communities could create an opening for young people and families to stay or settle. To that end, I am working to ensure that there is support from the Scottish Government for rural housing abilers, such as the Community Housing Trust, who help rural communities to build the housing that they desperately need. The Community Housing Trust is currently working on 600 projects across approximately 150 communities, predominantly in rural Scotland, but there is a lack of funding certainty for their early-stage work on building confidence and capacity in communities. The work for other housing abilers is hampering project development and putting much-needed rural homes at risk. Enabling our housing ambitions requires resources. Over the course of this Parliament, we will deliver a mechanism for capturing for public benefit a share of the increase in land value that occurs when a development is supported through the planning system. It will take time for us to see the benefit of these actions, but all of them will increase the number of homes of the right type in the right place and make the best use of homes that we have. It is vital that homes are affordable. That is why the Butehouse agreement commits us to rent controls and why we consulted on that in the new deal, far ahead of anywhere else in the UK. In the short term, we have taken emergency action to limit rent rises during the cost of living crisis—again, far ahead of anywhere in the UK. I challenge the assertion that regulation means declining supply and reduced investment. Neither is true in Germany where there has been the largest rented sector in Europe but also one of the most regulated. In closing, what Scotland's housing sector needs is long-term solutions and a culture change away from housing being seen as an investment to one that creates homes for people. I call Paul MacLennan, the final speaker in the open debate. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate this afternoon. Four minutes is a short speech to talk about an incredibly important subject. Having been a councillor for 15 years, like many councillors on here, the biggest issue that I had to deal with was housing, whether that is new homes, homelessness or repairs. Council housing in the Thatcher area proved to be a disaster for Scottish also rented sector stock. East Lothian lost 8,000 houses in that period. It has been in recovery since then. The Scottish Government acted on the right to buy in 2016 and rightfully so. Despite the challenge of the UK Government's austerity, Scotland's five-year, £3.5 billion commitment on affordable housing programme remains. I will repeat it again, fully committed to delivering 110,000 affordable houses by 2032 and referred before. 70 per cent will be available for social rent and 10 per cent will be in a rural and island communities. The previous 50,000 affordable homes were met in March 22 and were delayed due to Covid. That provides warm, safe and high-quality places to live. The cabinet secretary mentioned about the 3.4 per cent real-terms reduction in its capital allocation for housing between 2022-23 and 2024. I make no doubt that that is a result of decisions taken by the Westminster, based on the disastrous trust-quarting economic experiment. I have just seen that now. UK government is at a record high. The national debt is now at £2.5 trillion. The result will be peaks and troughs of investment towards this goal. The Scottish Government has said that a £752 million investment for 2023 represents progress towards the £3.5 billion pledge. We have heard about the housing market slowing down. I have spoken to homes for Scotland only just last week and other house builders on that. The biggest impact on just why the market is slowing down is interest rates due to two territory government incompetence. It is due to interest rate rises. People are not investing in that. Scotland has very limited capital borrowing powers compared with other small independent countries similar to us. Colleagues in the local government and social justice and social community committees know that in this area I would like to see Scotland be given more extensive borrowing powers. That could be done within the current devolved set-up and has been discussed with on-going fiscal framework discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments and the Cabinet Secretary I asked on that last week as well. Yet Labour and Tory colleagues and committees will not support that additional borrowing power. I urge the UK Government to be as flexible as it can in this regard. Investment housing will bolster economic growth and provide more jobs. As I said, another fallout of the trust economic disaster is high inflation rates. The UK has the highest rate and the G7, apart from Italy, is one of the worst in the G20. We have heard about inflation and pressure feeding through to construction costs. Inflation is at 10.5 per cent. The briefing that we received today from Home for Scotland mentioned that the report of construction tender price index is at 22 per cent—not 10.5 per cent, 22 per cent. The Scottish Government is committed to fully delivering 110,000 by 2022. That is despite rampant inflation. Christine Grahame talked about the impact of Brexit around the current supply issues. Today, Mark Carney, the ex-bank of England Governor, stated that the UK is in the most difficult position of all the major world economies due to Brexit. Across the 15 years between 2007-08 and 2021-22, the annual average supply of affordable housing was at 13.9 homes per 10,000. I will not repeat the point that Jackie Dunbar made in that regard. Being a member of the local government committee, we have, like the Parliament, we have discussed in the NPAF4 how we can support that home building. We will be more working the targets in terms of 110,000, but we will also be looking at other things such as the Honda process, the Matla process, empty homes and other funding models in planning. I know that the minister, Tom Arthur, is engaging with the RTPI to deliver the 700 planners that are required. The Scottish Government is delivering on extremely difficult circumstances, and it is working with partners such as Homes for Scotland and RTPI to build as many houses as it can across all tenures. As I stated earlier in the debate, the causes of lack of housing and the homelessness crisis is something that has to be borne by both Governments. The disastrous mini-budget will have long-lasting effects on Scotland's housing market, both on the social and private sectors and beyond, which is unforgivable. Their failed economic experiment will only be made worse by continued government action here. Only a couple of weeks ago during the debate on NPAF4, the Government again dismissed concerns that the all-tenure housing land calculations actively exclude tens of thousands of young households from the numbers needed in the bill, and the autumn voted-down Labour proposals to help mortgagers struggling with a revamped scheme with lower equity requirements and increased thresholds reflecting current prices. A frustration that I have had this afternoon is that neither the Conservative nor the Government motion and amendments offer an idea for travel. They offer no policy proposals, no changes that could be implemented that would support change. Now we have had backbench contributions, my regional colleague Graham Simpson highlighted compulsory sales order, my Labour colleague Follysol Choudhury suggested a course of action on dampness. Christine Grahame, Ariane Burgess talked about reform to the VAT that should be introduced by the UK Government. Paul McLennan talked about changes that we would seek as a committee on NPAF4, but there does not seem to be that direction of travel to drive forward policy change either from the Conservatives front bench or the Government. That is why we see a clear and urgent need for a dedicated housing minister. Now this is nowhere near a criticism or a motion of no confidence, but the minister has parliamentary responsibilities. In the words of Burns, today's lungs mirem, the cabinet secretary has an entry that includes local government, that includes the devolution of a whole range of social security powers, who has no doubt had our time taken up by a gender recognition reform bill. There is clearly a desire within the housing sector among builders and among the third sector to see a more focused Government policy on housing, and I would like to see a dedicated minister leading that. I also spoke in the last debate about how grant guidance rules require open market acquisitions and therefore vacant possessions and require sellers to make tenants homeless. In the context of the debate, what that also means is that purchases with a tenant in situ are all but ruled out by the supply programme. Councils and RSL's choice is limited to a property where a tenant may have either been made or threatened with homelessness, and it is an area that I would like the Government to look at and urgently see if changes can be made to protect tenants from homelessness and still allow social sector acquisitions. I know that the cabinet secretary made an attempt to intervene on me on a previous debate on that, and I am happy to take an intervention on social sector acquisitions from the private sector with a tenant in situ, if the Government has any announcements that it wants to make. The member is in his final 10 seconds. The member, because it is an important point, and I have raised it with COSLA, and I hope to make progress ever so briefly. There is a whole range of issues that I hope that we can get our teeth into in a further housing debate. That is the start of a substantive discussion and debate on housing, rather than Labour bringing forward proposals and either being voted down or repackaged a couple of months later by the Government, but I thank members for their consideration and asking them to support the amendment in my name. I am not sure that I can quite express my relief at being told by Mark Griffin that it is not actually a motion of no confidence that he is bringing. Given the importance that we all attach to housing policy, I do hope that members will stay focused on the policy that the Government is pursuing, rather than on whose name is on which door. I think that there is more common ground between us than is sometimes recognised. The importance of housing policy has been recognised by members across the spectrum. I believe that the importance of housing policy is written right through the housing to 2040 strategy, the long-term vision by housing in Scotland, as well as the housing elements of the programme for government and the bute house agreement, which builds on that long-term vision. I will not have time to address all the issues that have been raised today, but supply has, of course, been critical. Not only the extent of supply, but the nature of supply. Several members have raised issues such as rurality. Of course, the existing commitment to deliver 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 includes at least 10 per cent of those for remote rural and island communities, including through our demand-led rural housing fund, as well as the remote rural and island housing action plan that will bolster that work. Unlike Ariane Burgess, I also want to recognise the importance of community housing bodies in delivering that work. The nature of supply is also about accessibility and the work that we are taking forward to streamline the adaptation system, as well as reviewing housing for varying needs that will lead to changes to building standards. Miles Briggs. The member mentioned supply. Does the minister believe that there will be more or fewer private rented properties in Scotland this autumn? I was about to come on to the extent of supply after initially talking about the nature of supply. The extent of supply is, of course, critical. It has been raised by a number of members. It is worth just recognising something of the track record. The 2,500-plus affordable homes that were completed in the latest quarter to September 2022 brings the total number completed in the 12 months prior to that to 9,449. That is only an increase of 2 per cent on the previous year, but against the backdrop that we all recognise of extraordinary inflation pressures, as well as the lack of comparable action that we have seen from the UK Government, any increase in that last year is significant. I am not, for a moment, nor will the cabinet secretary wish away or pretend that we do not face continual on-going challenges. I know that some members do not like when Scottish ministers compare our track record to that of the UK Government, but let us just recognise that in the four years leading up to 2021-22, Scotland did not just see a marginal improvement on what is happening in England. 59 per cent more affordable homes delivered per head of the population than in England. Over nine times as many social rented homes delivered per head of the population than in England. Scotland does have a strong track record. We also have challenges to continue to deliver on that track record. I know that members have debated the budget and different interpretations of the budget that the cabinet secretary has laid out clearly how we will continue to strain every sinew to make sure that we fund that long-term commitment of £3.5 billion being made available for the affordable housing programme over the course of this Parliament. However, I would take criticisms a little bit more seriously from Conservative members if one Conservative member, since the ideological experiment of the mini-budget from the trust-quarting temporary government, had argued that the UK Government should be inflation-proofing the Scottish Government's block grant so that we are protected from the harm that has been done by that. I have been accused by Mr Simpson of being an ideologue during this debate. The most ideological actions that we have seen that have impacted on our ability to deliver affordable housing have come from the UK Government, not from this one. However, I want to finish by saying that this is about more than just supply. There are those ideologs who think that the free market will deliver everything. I do not believe that a deregulated free market will deliver housing as a human right for people. I think that we need the action of government. The action that we are taking forward, I know that I am limited in what I can say about recent legislation and I regret that I cannot respond directly to the points made by some members who chose not to respect those limits that were warned about at the start of the debate. However, we are clear on the need to protect people from high rents and to ensure that people have security of tenure. What we are seeing in Scotland is a continued commitment to ensure that the housing system meets everybody's needs, our human right to adequate housing, security of tenure, as well as affordability. That is what we will continue to do. I start by reminding people of my register of interests in that I own a share in two properties that are let on the private rental market. We have had two debates this afternoon, and we have had two helpful debates, which have exposed the dismal track record of this Government in terms of housing. Let us look at the facts. Homelessness is on the increase. A number of children in temporary accommodation has doubled in the last eight years. 100,000 children today on social housing waiting lists, at least 24,000 people with disabilities on waiting lists, a real-terms cut in the housing budget by £215 million, a failure to meet the affordable homes target on time, a housing gap now of 110,000 new homes, according to Homes for Scotland, as Miles Briggs reminded us. The only excuse we hear from the Government benches is to say that it is all down to inflation. It is all down to inflation. Completely ignoring the fact, it seems, that in the Eurozone we have inflation pretty much equivalent to what we have in the UK. Indeed, back in the month of November, inflation in the Eurozone was actually higher than it was in the UK. How that is down to Liz Truss is beyond me, but maybe Mr Harvey can explain. I am pleased that Mr Fraser is such a fan of the Eurozone and of our European colleagues, such as Germany, with a decades-long system of rent controls and a stronger and larger rented sector than we have in this country. Isn't that evidence enough that we can do a great deal better than the deregulated free-market approach that he advocates? I notice that Mr Harvey could not respond to the inflation point, but I would say to him gently about Germany. Take a trip to Berlin, Mr Harvey, and you will see what rent controls have done to destroy the availability of the private rented sector. Even if there is an issue with inflation in the current year, that does not excuse the last 14 years of failure from this Government when they were in charge of housing in Scotland. We believe, Presiding Officer, that housing should be a priority for this Government, but the sad thing is that the interventions that it is bringing forward are making matters worse. Yes, I will have the minister's brief. Can he describe the delivery of 115,550 affordable homes as failure since 2007? Does he agree with the Daily Express? First-time buyers get the biggest leg up in the Scottish market. Are those not things that he should be praising rather than criticising? The minister hasn't been listening to all the statistics in this debate about the rise in homeless lists, the rise in people in social housing waiting lists and the 110,000 gap that is being identified by Homes for Scotland. He needs to listen to what is happening out there. We heard about the private rented sector from Graham Simpson and Liz Smith. It is important for social mobility. Not everybody can afford to or wants to buy a house, not everybody can get access to the social rented sector, so we need a vibrant private rented sector. The reality is that the choices made by this Government are delivering a rapid reduction in supply as a direct consequence of the minister's choices. I thought that it was really interesting. Patrick Harvie did not respond to Miles Briggs' intervention about the decline in supply of the private rented sector, because what we hear is that there has already been a 29 per cent fall in the number of properties in the private rented sector since 2016. £700 million of residential investment has been paused. Landlords are selling up, as every letting agent will tell you. The real life impact of this is that in the city that Mr Harvie represents, Glasgow, the university was telling students back in September to give up their courses at the university because they could not get accommodation. That is shameful, Mr Harvie. I am sorry, but I do not have time for another intervention at this particular point. We have a minister who does not understand the sector, and if he engaged with it, he would realise that his interventions are causing a greater problem. The international evidence tells us that rent controls, whether they are introduced in Dublin or in Berlin or in Sweden, are caused by a mismatch between supply and demand. They lead to long waiting lists, they lead to a reduction in social mobility and they lead to illegal subletting. That is what happens if you bring in rent controls. Mr Harvie is a huge error. Let us look at the owner-occupied secretary. We have a problem. Willie Rennie identified this, and I forgive Mr Rennie for trying to blame me for his tardy re-arrival at the previous debate. When Mr Rennie and I, who I think are of a similar vintage, bought our first homes in our 20s now, the average age of a first-time buyer is, I think, 37 in Scotland. Property is increasingly unaffordable. We need more homes because we have a growing population. We have more people living on their own. We have a population shift in Scotland from west to east, so places such as Lothians, Fife, Aberdeenshire and Tayside need more properties, and we are not building enough homes. We need to look at the excessive delays in getting planning. In the national planning framework debate three weeks ago, Fergus Ewing—I do not think that he is in the chamber, sadly—made an excellent speech about relaxing planning rules to allow farmers in the States more opportunity to build more housing, provide opportunities, provide the economic benefit from more house building, and drive the economy forward. That is a sort of intervention that we should be listening to. We have solutions on this side of the chamber. Reform of the planning system and relaxing rules to allow the redevelopment of commercial properties into residential. Miles Briggs talked about the right to buy scheme. Reform of LBTT, action to bring empty homes into use. Those are the things that the Scottish Government should be doing instead of its dismal record. We have a crisis in housing. We have too much demand chasing too little supply. The answer is to increase the supply, both in the owner-occupied sector and in the private rented sector, and indeed in the social rented sector. The policy choices of this Government are going in the wrong direction. They are making the problem worse. That is why we need change and that is why we need to support the motion. That concludes the debate on delivering the homes that Scotland needs. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 7615 in the name of Mary McCallan on genetic technology precision breeding bill UK legislation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons. I call on Mary McCallan to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, minister.