³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

When I met Argyll and Bute Council nine or so months ago, those same points were made to us. I would point out that infrastructure includes transport, education and employment and therefore will involve much broader discussions within Government. When she was minister, Emma Roddick was involved in that broader work, and it is still on-going. Extensive work has also been carried out on how we get people to move into Argyll and Bute and other rural communities. That is all part of broader Government work.

As for flexibilities, there are discussions about the rural housing fund and how it is funded. Every project will be slightly different when it comes to the point of a feasibility study being carried out and how it moves beyond that. We have considered the issue in our discussions with the Communities Housing Trust, for example.

We have tried to be as flexible as possible with the funding that local authorities receive. Within the current affordable housing supply programme, flexibility is already built into how local authorities tackle voids and deal with acquisitions. The affordable housing supply programme was always flexible. For example, we listened when it came to funding for acquisitions, and after receiving feedback from local authorities, we included voids, too. We have talked about the additional £40 million that will be delivered this year and the balance between voids and acquisitions. Homelessness does not exist in just those five local authorities; it exists in other areas, too, but there is flexibility when it comes to tackling homelessness.

The other flexibility relates to mid-market rent and the £100 million commitment that we have talked about. There are opportunities for mid-market rent in different parts of Scotland, and work is already going on around that, which involves engaging with the Wheatley Group and others. It is also about how we maximise flexibility around charitable bonds, which brings us back to Will Tyler-Greig’s point about getting the biggest bang for our buck across Scotland. There is flexibility in that respect.

We have individual discussions with local teams about how they want to use the funding. The increase will give them more flexibility when it comes to the RPAs, but a lot of flexibility is already built into the system. We will listen to local authorities about what they need to do, and seek to maximise opportunities through the increased funding.

There are a number of things there. There are discussions about rollover in each local authority. A key thing for me, having talked with local authorities, is that they need to maximise their RPA. The turnout figures for last year will show us how much each local authority has spent and what it has delivered. That is an incredibly important part of it.

On the budget, funding for a project will be spent not just in one financial year; part of it may involve stalled sites, and there are discussions about that. If a local authority is consistently not spending its RPA, we need to have discussions about the barriers and what we need to do. We will discuss the rollover with local authorities.

It is hard to comment on specific projects without knowing what they are, but we look at any project that comes forward with regard to the flexibility that is used. It comes back to the same point about the infrastructure funding that is required, especially if there is infrastructure funding to deliver on land.

We were up in Shetland several months ago. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister were there, and we were talking about a project at Staneyhill that needed around £20 million of investment. The people there talked about the need to do a lot of work on the infrastructure before they could even bring the project forward. If a local authority has a proposal, we can look at that. The project in Shetland was going to deliver 300 homes, which is a huge increase there. It is hard to comment on the specifics when the infrastructure is being discussed, but we have the flexibility to look at that under the project cost. As for its value, we would bring that through. I will bring in Kirsty Henderson, in a second, to talk about that.

There is flexibility within the affordable housing supply programme to assess what infrastructure would be required to deliver a project. A housing infrastructure fund has been set up by the Scottish Government, and we have discussed that with local authorities. However, without knowing the full details, it is hard to comment on specific projects. They would be part of the consideration of what would be delivered in each place.

In principle, it is better left to local authorities, because there are different pressures within each local authority. That view is based on 15 years of local authority experience. We can have broader discussions about waiting lists. For example, when we speak to the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, we hear that a lot of people on the waiting lists are single. We can discuss how that feeds into a council’s local housing strategy, into its strategic housing investment plan and into its homelessness strategy. However, the matter is best left to local authorities.

The feedback that we get is that most people on waiting lists are single. We can discuss with local authorities how they can get the right balance between building housing for families and building housing for single people, but it is up to local authorities to prioritise their investment opportunities. Some local authorities are looking at what they can do for single people—the convener mentioned co-housing—and there are different ways to tackle that issue, but the situation is different across Scotland. In principle, it is best left to local authorities.

A report is being produced, but it has not been finalised. I will read that when it comes to me. We asked Ken Gibb to do some work on affordability for the reasons that we have talked about and because of the longer-term discussion that we need to have. The report looks at a number of things, but it has not been finalised yet. I understand that it will probably be finalised during the first quarter of this year. It feeds into the longer-term structural discussions that we need to have, because the affordability gap is an issue across Europe.

I cannot talk about what is being discussed or covered at this point. There has already been action and delivery in trying to address some of the issues, and members will have seen how that is having an impact on, for example, the number of second homes. Part of the reduction in the number of empty homes has been done through addressing second homes. A property might be used for only one month a year, so we need to look at what we do in that respect. Action has already been delivered, but I have no doubt that the SNP group and other groups will continue to discuss how we tackle the issue. There will be further discussion to develop actions.

We can consider that and come back to you. We are trying to be as inclusive as possible, if you have any suggestions for that.

Again, the work is very much at an early stage. I will maybe bring in colleagues who have been involved in some of it.

One of the key indicators would be the number of children in temporary accommodation and the general temporary accommodation figures. At last week’s board meeting, everyone was focused on how we get children out of temporary accommodation. It is about looking at a sustainable reduction in the use of temporary accommodation over a period of time. That is one of the key things.

Homes for Scotland also raised the issue of the number of stalled sites, so an indicator could show what work is being done on those. There are also the usual indicators on starts, completions, authorisations and so on. Those are the key things that are being developed. For me, however, one of the key indicators would show a reduction in the number of children in temporary accommodation.

The work is very much at an early stage and it needs to be inclusive. It is not up to Government to declare an end to the housing emergency—it is up to the stakeholders, including local authorities and the regulator. The question is how we deliver that. I do not know whether anyone wants to come in with regard to where the discussions started and where they will go.

I will bring in Lauren McNamara in a second. We have regular meetings with the housing regulator on a number of issues. We have talked about how we reduce homelessness as quickly as we possibly can, and what we can do to reduce the pressure on local authorities. We have targeted an additional £42 million of funding support in 2024-25.

There are also lessons to be learned from across Scotland, because 13 local authorities have reduced their homelessness figures and 16 have also reduced the number of children in temporary accommodation. The convener mentioned Perth and Kinross Council, which reduced the number of children who are in temporary accommodation by 57 per cent, and Angus Council and Moray Council have reduced that figure by 50 per cent, so we have to learn from them.

It comes back to targeting the five local authorities. The regulator has warned that there is systemic failure in some councils. About £4 million in additional funding has been allocated in the budget to help local authorities to prepare for new prevention duties, which is an incredibly important aspect of the work that we are doing, as well as to try to reduce the current pressure. I have talked about the targeted funding for voids and acquisitions, and about additional funding for local authorities so that they can target those things. We have to try to tackle the challenges so that we can reduce the pressure on local authorities.

There is £2 million to support the work on empty homes, and the increase in the housing budget will try to reduce empty homes. Local authorities meet the regulator and agree action plans with it, which we are informed of. We are trying to support local authorities so that we can reduce the pressures on them, including reducing the number of kids who are in temporary accommodation, reducing temporary accommodation figures, and increasing the affordable housing supply programme. I am not going to interfere with the work of the regulator; it makes observations, which we take into consideration, but we need to consider how we work with local authorities to reduce the pressure on them through increased funding for homelessness, empty homes, and the affordable housing supply programme.

Meghan Gallacher asked about the key performance indicators that are being developed so that we know when local authorities are out of the housing emergency, given the observation of where they are just now. The way that we do that is to work with the regulator, which is also on the housing to 2040 strategic board. We need to consider how we reduce the pressure on local authorities in the immediate term by looking at voids, acquisitions and so on. We need to ensure that we support local authorities with increased funding and reduce the pressure on them as quickly as we can. We work very closely with the regulator. I do not know whether anyone else wants to add anything else on that?

It is across all local authorities.

For me, coming from a local authority background, one of the key things has been to get round as many local authorities as I possibly can to see what their specific issues are. I still have one or two to visit, but I have visited Argyll and Bute.

You are right; there are 32 local authorities with 32 different approaches, and there are lessons for other local authorities to learn from the five councils on which we are focusing. I mentioned the acquisition fund. When we spoke to COSLA, we were keen to look at what we do in that regard with the five local authorities and there was an 80:20 split—80 per cent of the fund went to the five local authorities and the other 20 per cent went to other local authorities. We are still focusing on voids in other local authorities as well. The work that I mentioned on empty homes is incredibly important and we have a breakdown of the situation in that respect.

There is a large number of empty homes in Highland and in Aberdeen, so we need to look at what we do with each of those local authorities. There are lessons to be learned from the work that Glasgow has done. We talked about the £2 million for empty homes, so we need to focus on that as well. It is about ensuring that the lessons that we learn from the five local authorities in that regard are taken into the other local authorities.

The local teams engage with local authorities regularly on how we increase the affordable housing supply programme. The increase in the budget relates to the opportunities in that respect and getting the resource planning assumptions back to where they were previously, so we need to think about what that looks like.

I mentioned the additional funding based on the planning assumptions. There are always planning assumptions regarding how much a local authority receives to put towards an affordable housing supply programme. Discussions are already going on with local authorities on that, looking at how we maximise the opportunities from the project in Argyll and Bute and get projects in other local authorities up and running as quickly as possible. That is being helped by the work on stalled sites, which is looking at how we get those sites up and running.

One of the key aspects involves our discussions with local teams. You mentioned mid-market rent, convener. One of the key things that we mentioned in the programme for government was a £100 million commitment to mid-market rent. That commitment is forecast to bring in additional funding of £400 million from other investors for delivery. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations was very focused on that commitment, because they deliver some of their housing through mid-market rent. There is a question of where we look for mid-market rent opportunities in other local authorities. We can do more in some local authorities than others, and that is important. Our discussions with local authorities and local teams are about what those mid-market rent opportunities are and how we can develop and grow that sector. The charitable bonds that I mentioned earlier are also really important for getting investment into that sector.

Coming back to Argyll and Bute, a key thing that I mentioned in my opening statement was the role of housing work in terms of how we deliver and I mentioned the partnership with the Nationwide Foundation. As you will know, an important issue that rural authorities mention to us is the ability of development companies to deliver on housing. Often, our discussions are about how we increase their capacity to do that, because that is really important. That funding makes a real difference in helping companies to develop housing. In rural communities, 10 to 15 houses can make a real difference.

There is a wide range of opportunities, but what can we learn from the five local authorities about how we look at mid-market rent and the funding for that? How do we look at the rural affordable homes for key workers fund? We have a nuanced approach to each local authority. So, yes, we are focused on those five local authorities, but local teams work on a daily basis with other local authorities to maximise opportunities and there are on-going discussions about the budget for doing so.