John Lamont

I agree. What the SNP Scottish Government have done to housing in Scotland is an absolute scandal, and it is affecting the hon. Member’s constituency, just as it affects my own. I want to dwell a bit on how the national picture has been felt in my constituency. Scottish Borders council has declared a local housing emergency, which is not a phrase any council uses lightly. I pay tribute to my local housing associations in the borders— Eildon, Berwickshire Housing Association, Scottish Borders Housing Association and Waverley. Since the council transferred its housing stock, they have been the only providers of social rented homes in the borders, and they build homes of real quality. However, looking at last year’s figures, it is just not enough. The Scottish Government allocated £16.2 million to the borders for affordable housing, yet only £10.8 million of that was actually spent. Just 94 affordable homes were delivered against a target of 141. When the money allocated to fix the housing crisis cannot be spent, something in the system is broken. Maybe it is the availability of land, maybe it is the cost of building in rural areas, or maybe it is the inability of planning and infrastructure to keep up; most likely, it is all of them. Those are the questions that I am going to keep pursuing, in order to get answers. That brings me to rural housing. Too many national housing programmes are designed with cities and big towns in mind. In a village in Berwickshire or in the Teviot valley, a development is six or 10 homes, not 600. There are fewer contractors, connecting to water and electricity costs more, and the cost of building each home is higher. Too often, the numbers simply do not stack up. Rural communities need support for small sites and small local builders. They need backing for community-led housing, and they need flexibility for homes tied to local jobs—farm workers, care staff and people working in tourism and hospitality, whose employers cannot recruit because there is nowhere for staff to live. Without those homes, young people leave, the school rolls fall, the bus service is cut, and the shops close. Housing is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about the future of rural communities. The Bill puts a particular focus on second homes. I understand why—in parts of Cornwall, the concentration of second homes is extraordinary—but I want to offer a slightly different perspective from the Scottish Borders. I am not opposed to second homes. In many of our smaller and more isolated communities, second home owners are a lifeline. They shop in the village store, eat in the local pub, hire local tradespeople, and support businesses that would otherwise struggle through the quieter months. Many have deep family roots in the borders, and many go on to make them their permanent home. Second homes already make a contribution in the Scottish Borders: Scottish Borders council charges a council tax premium on them, and uses that money to help fund affordable housing and bring empty homes back into use. As such, I suggest that the answer is a balance. Where second homes become so concentrated that a community is hollowed out, councils should have the tools to act, but in the borders, the main problem is not too many second homes—it is too few new homes. Blaming second home owners is easy; building the homes we need is harder, and that is the task in front of us.