���˿���

There are a number of things to mention. First, £35 million has been set aside this year to deal with the issue.

On the housing emergencies that have been declared, the week before last I was up in Argyll and Bute to talk to housing associations and some of the island communities about the position that they are in. The local authority, which is a stock transfer authority, is developing its housing emergency action plan and we have agreed to work closely with it. We are having the same discussions with it that we have had with Edinburgh—I have a meeting with the City of Edinburgh Council tomorrow or Thursday to talk about the details of its housing emergency action plan. Glasgow City Council is developing its housing emergency action plan, and we have agreed to work with it on that, too. We are also having similar discussions with Fife Council on its housing emergency action plan, which it has indicated will be published in June, and are working closely with it on how it develops that.

As I have said in the chamber, the response of each area is different, and it is important that we work specifically with each local authority on its plans. I mentioned the funding that has been set aside already for this year, and we are working on that with them.

There are other important issues relating to homelessness, such as the issue of voids, empty homes and allocations. Some figures that we are clarifying at the moment indicate that there is a lot of work to be done on that issue that would make a real difference. We are engaged in on-going discussions on that with ALACHO and COSLA, and I am confident that something will come out of that soon. Obviously, we will come back to the committee on that point.

There are a couple of other important factors. We want to work with the UK Government on the two biggest issues that were raised in the Crisis homelessness monitor, including the issue of the local housing allowance, which will be a key ask for whatever UK Government comes in later this year. We need to increase local housing allowance—there is no doubt about that. That is not only my view but the view that is expressed in the Crisis homelessness monitor, based on work that was carried out by Heriot-Watt University.

The other big issue that the Crisis homelessness monitor raised was the level of universal credit, which must be taken into account.

Of course, we need to increase the supply of houses and we need to build more homes—I talked about the discussions that the housing investment task force is having about what we can do with regard to the supply side—but we need support from the UK Government in terms of the local housing allowance and universal credit. As I said, that is not only my view but the view of Crisis, as expressed in the homelessness monitor. That comes back to what we need to ask of the next UK Government when it comes in.

Of course we need to build more homes. You mentioned the figures. How can we increase the finance that is available to build more homes? A number of pieces of work are going on around that, including the housing investment task force.

The other key thing is that there are opportunities. I talked about the work of SSEN and the seven or eight renewables hubs that are being built in Scotland. SSEN has just employed somebody to go through that. The connection with homelessness is that we will be looking for accommodation for workers in those areas because, if we do not have enough housing, whether it is temporary accommodation or whatever, all that that will do is to increase homelessness in those areas. There is a detailed piece of work being done by SSEN on how we house workers in temporary accommodation over, probably, two or three years, and what the legacy opportunities are. We had a meeting about the green freeport in November, which involved the five big companies that are involved up there. We had about a dozen housing developers, of which about 10 have not built in that area at all. There are economic development opportunities—that is replicated across Scotland—but we need to consider how we can ensure that they do not impact on different parts of Scotland. Pieces of work on that are going on, and there are opportunities to build more houses.

On homelessness, we can work on the voids, empty homes and allocations, but of course we need to build more homes. We have touched on what that would look like.

The £60 million that we have talked about has made a dramatic difference in that respect, and being able to flex the funding in the system will be key when we look at continuing our approach to acquisitions. The resource planning assumptions for local authorities might be coming out, but the fact is that they already have the flexibility and the powers to look at acquisitions. Having spoken to the local officers, I know that they are having those local discussions.

Again, we have said to local authorities that they have the power to look at acquisitions now, and we will be flexible in any discussions on the matter. We are continuing to look at more funding opportunities and to flex the funding in the system, but local authorities have the ability to do these things now.

I am not sure whether Joe Brown or Laura Dougan can respond. I will have to come back to you on that. I know that the review is on-going. I can write to the committee on that.

I have touched on those actions briefly. One is resource, and the committee has previously discussed the resource that is required. The current resource review is therefore incredibly important. Homes for Scotland is part of that review.

I have mentioned the planning round-table that we had, which Homes for Scotland was involved in. We are having discussions with Heads of Planning Scotland at the moment, which have been productive so far. Another round table is planned on how we look at those issues. That is one part of resource.

The second part is about what the transition from national planning framework 3 to NPF4 will look like, which has been raised in the feedback that we received. It comes back to deliverability and a focus on resource—how we get the plans done in time, which is the focus of the round table that is looking at the transition from NPF3 to NPF4. Joe FitzPatrick and I have joint meetings with Homes for Scotland, and those issues have been raised. The round table was held partly to look at those issues, which the resource review feeds into. Obviously, we need to look at the planning system so that it works as effectively as possible. That work is on-going. I, or Mr Fitzpatrick, will be happy to come back to the committee and report on progress.

You made a point about delivery of new starts. That relates to how we support the SME sector because, as we have seen, it is more vulnerable in some situations—for example, when interest rates or borrowing costs go up. We are having discussions about our support of SMEs through the resource review and how we make sure that we transition from NPF3 to NPF4 and to local development plans.

Again, Homes for Scotland has done work on demand and is having individual discussions with local authorities on local development plans and what the minimum all-tenures housing land requirement—MATHLR—process involves. That all feeds into what we are doing. It is about resources and making sure that the system works as effectively as possible.

I note that I have not been a councillor for 15 years. The larger developments do take longer, but 62 weeks is too long—the resource review has indicated that. There is also a piece of work to be done with Homes for Scotland, for example. It has to be a partnership in terms of the information that is provided at the start of an application. There may be on-going back-and-forth discussions where people say, “We need this”, and it may take time for information to come back. I saw that in relation to applications when I was a councillor.

The review will look at where the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water come in and how those organisations can speed up their processes. They have been part of the discussions on reducing the length of time that applications take. Mr FitzPatrick is probably the best person to speak about the specifics, but I know that there have been discussions with SEPA and Scottish Water, as statutory consultees, about reducing the time that applications take. The time varies in different parts of Scotland, so we need to learn from best practice and reduce the time period for applications. I hope that we will begin to show some progress on that through the resource review and the round tables that we have been having. We have another one planned.

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.