The next item of business is a debate on motion 8, 6, 8, 5, in the name of Mark Griffin, on homelessness, prevention and housing supply. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Mark Griffin to speak too and to move the motion up to six minutes please Mr Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer members to my register of interest, which shows I'm an honour of our rented property in the North Lanarkshire council area. I joked with the minister yesterday that there wouldn't be many of his colleagues who would be welcomed to their post by an opposition motion, but having a dedicated housing minister is something that we and organisations like Shelter, Homes for Scotland and others have called for for months now. We hope that he can bring a long overdue and renewed focus on tackling our housing emergency. I absolutely appreciate his candor and expertise while we work together on committee, and I hope that he can take that into government. While we absolutely welcome the change in personnel, we also need to see a change in government direction, because the task is urgent. Since our last debate, the housing emergency has gotten predictably worse. The new homes pipeline has continued to dry up. The rent freeze has failed. Rents are increasing at the highest pace in a decade. 10,000 children are in temporary accommodation, a record high. At least 125 social tenants have been evicted for their homes under a so-called eviction ban. The Government's task and finish group has confirmed what we already knew. The ambition of the ending homelessness together plan has not matched realities on the ground. As well as that, the housing regulator now reports that there is an emerging risk of systemic failure in homelessness services. In advance of today's debate, crisis has shared with me, and I'm sure many others, cases of households that they've been supporting. One family trapped in local authority temporary accommodation, infested with mice and rats. Because of damp and mould, children have been recurring viral illnesses with their GP recommending strongly that they leave that premise. Tracy, a woman in her 40s with Crohn's and Asper, spent more than four years in Edinburgh temporary accommodation, left with no hot water for 18 months. But it wasn't the lack of hot water, it was a severe damp and mould that rotted her wheelchair that then isolated her. It destroyed old family photographs, school reports, treasured memories from her children's time as youngsters. In Scotland for Tracy, in 2023, it took appearing on STV Scotland tonight to be offered a new home. A homeless person in Midlothian faces a 96-week wait for their homeless application to be closed across the country that the average is over six months. Worse still, it's a national scandal that at least 157 Scots, homeless Scots died in the last year, seemingly without government response or reaction. Our motion today lays down the task to the new minister. If we want to end the homelessness emergency and the crisis in temporary accommodation, we need more homes. New social and private homes, empty homes brought back into use for living in and into the social sector. Echoing the key recommendation of the temporary accommodation task and finish report, the Government must set an interim target of delivering 38,500 social homes by 2026. That's not a number plucked out of thin air, that's a number from independent academic research commissioned by SFHA, Shelter and the Chartered Institute for Housing, who have demonstrated clearly that it would reduce housing need. Shelter pointed out that social approvals are the worst since 2015 and starts the worst since 2016, both down 20 per cent. It means that we are seeing progress rolling back and at the current pace we have a real fear, a real fear that the 2032 target won't be met. We are absolutely clear that we know that targets themselves won't build a single home, but they do sharpen minds, like the minister's appointment to deliver the homes we need. Because that wider housing crisis continues, we need an all-tenure target too. Success in the supply programme can't be separated from supply in the wider market. Homes for Scotland pointed to the Government's own research, which shows that developer contributions in 2019 were worth more than £30,000 for each private home built. The survey found that three in 10 affordable homes were delivered because of building private homes. That's why we are calling on Parliament to back their call to return to building 25,000 homes annually, to start making progress on catching up on the homes that should have been built over the last five years. What I would say about the Government's amendment is that we can't support an amendment that avoids the commitment to supporting the recommendations that are contained within their own group's report. I'm sure that the minister, having spent time with me on the local government committee, wouldn't expect me to accept the Government's claim that it's delivering investment in local government core funding, not when the vice president of COSLA was at committee. Yesterday, we talked about the £1 billion shortfall, not when SNP presidents and resource spokespersons from COSLA echo that same call. The fact that no local authority has been able to fulfil all its rapid rehousing aims shows that, without proper Government support, rapid rehousing transitions envisaged by this Government are impossible. During January's debate, the minister's predecessor repeatedly deferred to the work of the group that they've set up. They rightly set up, but now, given the chance to respond to all but dismiss the very recommendations that it asks for. That's no fresh start. It's just a long list of rehashed promises. Mr Griffin, I take it that you are concluding because you are over your time. I hope that that changes with the change in minister. The minister will absolutely have my support if it does, and I move the motion in my name. I now call on Paul McLennan, minister, to speak to you and to move amendment 8685.2 up to five minutes, please. I refer members to my register of interests. First of all, I thank Mark Griffin for his kind words. I met yesterday and am keen to work with him and Mr Briggs and other Opposition parties. The Government's ambition is for everyone to have a warm, energy-efficient and affordable home that meets their needs. That's why, since 2007, we have prioritised housing and will continue to do so. It's a key part of our interdependent missions, published last week, through our mission to prioritise our public services and focus on equality and opportunity. We are proud of having now delivered 118,124 affordable homes since 2007. That's over 83,000 of which were for social rent, including 21,313 council homes. First in the generation, and that's compared. That's in an important context. Just six council homes built by the former Labour-Liberal Coalition Government previously. Across the four years between 2018 and 2022, Scotland delivered 59 per cent, 59 per cent more affordable homes per head of population in England and 72 per cent more than that of Labour-controlled Wales and 24 per cent more than Northern Ireland. We've delivered nine times as many social rented homes per head of population in England over this period. That's a context, but we need to do more and acknowledge that. I'll address that later on in my speech. We're working hard alongside our housing partners to deliver on our next target of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which at least 70 per cent will be available for social rent and 10 per cent will be in a remote rural and island communities. I'm keen, as I said before, to go out and visit rural, island communities in previous members' debates in some of the visits that I've got coming up. That's backed by more than £3.5 billion over this parliamentary term. That figure's not changed. I know that the Labour motion mentions about reduction in the budget. The £3.5 billion commitment is still there. Affordable housing commitments need to run over a number of years, which is why they have provided local authorities with resource planning assumptions for future years and why we set out our medium-term investment plans in the multi-year capital spending review through to 2526. We know that there are challenges ahead. The impact of the pandemic in the war in Ukraine has increased prices. Alongside the UK's Government's disastrous mismatch of the economy, that led to spiralling energy costs and soaring inflation. Alongside the impacts of labour supply and trade due to a hard Brexit, inflation has had a significant impact on our spending power. On the 2023... Crem Sinsen? Thank you, minister, for taking the intervention. He has not mentioned yet the report of the temporary accommodation task and finish group. Does he accept what that report says and does he accept its recommendations? Minister. I thank Mr Simpson for that question. I'm coming on to that and my speech and I'll address that particular point that you've mentioned. I wanted to mention in about the 2023-24 budget you're on a real-term reduction of 4.5 per cent in the Barnett formula of London since 2021-22. Estimates of construction inflation, which are incredibly important, are between 15 and 20 per cent at this particular moment. That's not going to stop us delivering affordable homes for people across the communities. By doing so, we support a total investment package of around £18 billion and up to 15,000 jobs each year, while also making an important contribution to tackling child poverty and ending homelessness. We've made clear in our homelessness strategy ending homelessness together that tackling homelessness and ending rough sleeping is an absolute priority. Turning to homelessness funding provided through local government settlement, we are also providing local authorities with £30.5 million annually for their work to prevent homelessness. Particularly, we are providing a total of £100 million from our multi-year ending homelessness together fund to transform the homelessness system. £52.5 million of that with the funding supports Scotland's transition to rapid rehousing and housing first. Homeless households are entitled to support from the council and temporary accommodation if they need it. It is important, safety net. I'm aware, however, that far too many households spend too long in temporary accommodation and I'm determined to see that change. Local authorities work hard to meet the needs and preferences of homeless households. In some areas, particularly in our large cities, I acknowledge that they face significant challenges in sourcing certain homes of the right type and size. I'll be meeting the local authorities, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and I know the previous cabinet secretary, Shona Robison, who had also met them. I will continue that, and we're going to work specifically to work on the nuances that are needed in those areas. Now, 14 local authorities have shown reductions, so it's important that we learn the lessons of the local authorities that have done well in that regard as well. It's important that we remember that not all temporary accommodation is unsuitable, and local authorities try, where possible, to convert flip territory temporary accommodation to permanent tenancies. That reduces transitions for homeless households, but it lies in the property being the right size and type to meet the household's needs. Our statistics show that households with children spend an average longer in temporary accommodation compared to households without children. That is because local authorities take a person-centred approach to finding the right permanent home for each family. Doing so will allow families time to adjust in difficult periods in their lives and help them to minimise the potential disruption to their established support networks in links to their community. Just to mention the point on any about the expert temporary accommodation group and task finishing group. I'm grateful for the work. We're responding. We're considering the recommendations and we're responding shortly. I'd like to conclude by reinforcing the commitment to work closely with housing partners as we seek to reduce the number of people in temporary accommodation and continue to deliver affordable homes so everyone in Scotland has a place to call home. Thank you. Thank you Minister. I now call on Miles Briggs to speak to and to move amendment 8685.1 up to 4 minutes. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by thanking the Labour Party for bringing forward this debate in their debating time on housing today? This follows the debate that the Scottish Conservatives brought to Parliament in January calling on the Scottish Government to declare a homeless emergency. I'd also like to thank the organisations that have provided very helpful briefings ahead of today's debate as well. Also for the work that they do across Scotland, this is life-saving, life-changing work that they undertake in all our communities. I want to pay tribute to them, especially the work that they do in my own region here in the capital. At the beginning of this week, the Even News reported on 40 homeless deaths in the capital in 2022. That was compared to an estimated 21 deaths in 2019. I'd like to express my condolences to the family and friends of those individuals, but that is showing where the crisis here in the capital is only getting worse. Edinburgh is at the epicentre of the housing and homelessness crisis in Scotland today. We need to see the same concerted efforts that we saw around the drug deaths crisis for the homelessness crisis in Scotland as we see it today. The challenges that are being faced by the capital are extensive. Edinburgh has a quarter of all children living in temporary accommodation in Scotland today. The number of homelessness applications is rising now to a record level. Edinburgh has the highest number of people with homeless applications of 6,198 in the last year alone. After 15 years of this SNP Government, Scotland is facing a housing and homelessness emergency, and we need to see this Government act on that. The fact is that in Scotland, every 18 minutes, a household becomes homeless. As shelter state in their briefing for today's debate, a record number of children who are almost 10,000 are now trapped in temporary accommodation, a 120 per cent increase since 2014. We are seeing rising levels of homelessness with a 40 per cent increase in households. That's 14,450 of our fellow Scots having to live in temporary accommodation compared to when this Government came to office. As the Scottish Housing Regulator has warned, homelessness services are at an emerging risk of systemic failure in Scotland today. We need to see a new approach, and we need new solutions developed as well. Here in the capital, and I welcome what the minister has said on this, we need to see an Edinburgh-specific focus. Something that NO MSPs in last week's members' debate specifically wanted to see taking forward urgently. Delivering the homes that Scotland needs, both social and private homes, needs to be planned in a way that hasn't been to date. We need a fresh focus on the true reality facing people in Scotland today. Hidden homelessness is something that I don't think the Scottish Government has grasped, and the statistics certainly are not counting that either. One area that I believe can make a real difference and something that I want to see the Scottish Government focus on. I hope that the new minister, in the conversations that we had, will prioritise this as well, is new extra care housing models. I recently attended the official opening of Rarenalba's thawntree mill properties in the city, which provide nine homes for former street homeless men. I would like to pay tribute to Helen Carlin, who is the founder and CEO of that Edinburgh race charity, who is stepping down after 26 years working in this field. Helen started Rarenalba in 1997 with the aim of creating a new approach to homelessness. I really think that there is something in the work that they are doing here in the capital, which we should see rolled out across Scotland. I hope that the minister will agree to come and visit that charity with me. The new minister faces many challenges on all fronts, record numbers of children in temporary accommodation, rising levels of homelessness, the negative impact of the rent controls bill, no cladding accord, local government and housing budget cuts, housing building targets not met, and what is very much now becoming a potential collapse of the rental sector and rental market in Scotland. I wish the minister well that we on this side of the chamber will work with him, but it is now time for this SNP Green Government to pause and reflect on what has gone wrong in Scotland. That we are facing this housing emergency is something that Parliament needs to recognise and collectively we need to act. Not only to save lives, but work to give everyone in Scotland the homes that they deserve. I move the amendment in my name. Children in temporary accommodation, highest since record, began. Temporary accommodation households up by a third in the last 10 years. They are stuck in that accommodation for a month longer compared with just five years ago. More families with their life in limbo for so much longer, yet the Government are failing to meet their own interim target on social housing of 38,500 homes. The response from the Government is a cut to the capital housing budget. That is all we get from this SNP Government after 15 years. It is an absolutely woeful record. None of this is my analysis. All of this is from the Government's own wonderfully titled task and finish group, appointed by the minister, published on the Government's own official website and damned by their own advisers. The recommendations in the report are equally sound, more social housing, better use of the existing stock and more support to help people move on. The new housing minister needs a laser-like focus on building more social housing. He needs to look at the whole pipeline, including skills, workforce supply, planning blockages, access to land, unit price and so much more. It is a lot of hard graft, but it is that hard graft that can make a difference. I am a strong supporter of social housing, but that will not solve the crisis on its own. We also need a healthy private rented sector with new builds. For that, we need to create the right business environment for that investment to happen. I want a mix of properties, including mid-market rents. Creative housing associations can be part of that mix as well. Let's create that positive partnership with house builders, the private rented sector and housing associations to tackle the challenges together. I was pleased to see the announcement yesterday on workers in housing in rural areas, because there are acute problems in areas such as mine in the East Newark. We supported the control areas for short-term lets, even though we opposed the heavy-handed licensing system, but are really frustrated at the snail pace of implementation of those control areas. We support the council tax proposals for second homes, but they just do not go far enough. I want to explore the use of licensing and planning to control the numbers. My constituents on modest incomes do not get a look in when it comes to buying those properties, which are also up for sale as holiday lets for second homes. They are just priced out of the market, and they have no chance of getting on the council house waiting list, where the demand is through the roof. They are forced to live in overcrowded, often damp housing, often miles away or worse. They just have to move out of the area altogether. That deprives local employers of good employees and hollows out the community, threatening the future of shops, schools, libraries and other public services. I want second homes and holiday lets. I am clear about that. They bring economic wellbeing, but too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and that is why we need controls. It is why I am desperate for control areas, more social housing, a healthy private rented sector. My final plea is for the use of the rural housing burden and community housing trust. It allows people to get on the housing ladder but anchors those homes for local people. It needs support from enlightened landowners, but also an enabling government. With all of that together, we might have a hope of tackling the housing crisis that exists in Scotland. I hope that the minister is up to the challenge. Mr Rennie, I can advise the chamber that we are tight for time, because we will have to stick to the time allocation. We have moved to the open debate. I call first for the children to be followed by Ben Macpherson for up to four minutes. My case work is currently inundated with constituents experiencing housing issues. Families are stuck on waiting lists for permanent homes. Individuals are stuck in unsuitable temporary accommodation, living with damp mould, mice and rats. Students are presenting as homeless as they cannot find affordable accommodation where they study. With the appointment of a specific housing minister, it appears that the Scottish Government is beginning to take this homelessness and housing crisis seriously. Scotland is experiencing a housing emergency with record number of children trapped in temporary accommodation. As of September 2022, 9,130 children were reported to be living in temporary accommodation. That is over 100% increase in the comparison to a decade ago. The number of families presenting as homeless has also increased massively with 40% more households in temporary accommodation than in 2014. Edinburgh Council alone is facing a 65 million bill to tackle homelessness and local authorities across Scotland will also be buckling under the weight of the overflowing housing sector. No local authorities were able to meet its rapid rehousing aims within the projected five years. Without allocated resources from the Scottish Government, local authorities will continue to fall short of their housing aims. The temporary accommodation task and finish group have made a distinct recommendation about how to begin to solve this homelessness crisis. The Scottish Government must take significant action now to address these recommendations. If it does not act now and provide resources to meaningfully carry this recommendation out, then they are not worth the paper they are written on. Homelessness can affect any groups and it is not just families that are suffering in this housing crisis. Yesterday, I asked the Scottish Government what its response was to a recent report by NUS Scotland that a fifth of international students in Scotland had experienced homelessness during their studies. The study found that international students were actually almost twice as likely to find themselves homeless than home students. That is unacceptable and the Scottish Government must act now to ensure that international students are welcomed into Scotland and looked after during their studies. In January this year, I hosted a student housing round table which addressed problems students are having in sourcing accommodation. I was told a similar story of students being unable to source accommodation with many having to sleep on French couches or source accommodation far outside the city they were studying in. The Scottish Government must also do more to hold universities accountable for the housing needs of their students. Further investment in overpriced purpose-built students accommodation will not solve this problem. The Scottish Government must act now to begin solving the magnitude of problems in the Scotland housing sector. As a right and not just as a commodity, as I prepared for today, I reflected on a meeting that I had earlier this week with two people who used to run prominent housing associations over several decades here in the capital. We talked about the pressures that we face and the causes that brought us here. They have worked through the different stages of the context that we are in and what we have gone through as a society. The post-war expansion of social and council housing, the selling off of that stock by many, which realised for the individual a successful outcome but presented a challenge that was not met for us as a society. The realisation of devolution and the huge positive impact that that has brought to social and council housing here in Scotland, with provision of greater quantity of affordable homes since 1999, particularly since 2007, with 118,000 affordable homes built, 30 per cent more homes per 10,000 of the population compared with elsewhere in the UK, and the ending of the right to buy in 2014, so that we are constantly increasing the stock that is available to citizens. The implementation of the innovative housing first programme, which has been very successful here in Edinburgh and elsewhere, and the strategising behind housing 2040 and the commitment that is still maintained of £3.5 billion worth of investment. However, despite that positive progress, of course, as we have heard across the chamber today, demand continues to grow and challenge is still there, particularly here in Edinburgh. This is due to a whole variety of factors and of course inflation has added to that. Indeed, it was reported this month that 43 per cent of the income of people here in Edinburgh is spent on rent on average, and that is a very significant figure to consider because that not only means that the challenge is there so significantly for those trying to afford housing here in the capital, but it also takes money out of other aspects of the real economy. We need more housing, and in the private sector that is influenced by a number of external challenges in terms of investment, in terms of the inflationary pressures on building materials and also the monetary effect of the availability of credit. We need to continue to work with partners to see if we can increase the provision of private housing. It is also clear, as others have said, that we need to build more social housing, and that has been emphasised by the Government. In a position of significant challenge on the public finances, we need innovative solutions, as has been argued, but also consideration about how we raise more finance. Devolution of capital gains tax and dividend income tax would certainly be welcome. Is there more that we could do with land and billions transaction tax, for example a surcharge on overseas buyers, as the UK Government has done for a number of years? Collectively, now, I believe, is the time that we work together towards a land value tax. It will take time to realise and we will need political consensus, but the benefits that that could bring to the public finances and also the change that it could bring in terms of more equity of wealth would be significant. Housing is a holistic issue. It is great that the three housing ministers are here, but it is also about land reform, planning and finance. I am glad that the Government is taking a holistic approach. I look forward to working with them and colleagues across the chamber to realise affordable housing as a right, not a commodity, as a home and not just the house. The situation that we find ourselves in in Scotland specifically in regard to temporary accommodation. The latest Scottish Government figures from the end of September 2022 state there are 14,458 households in temporary accommodation in Scotland, which has increased since the previous year. The same Scottish Government report advises that there are 9,130 children recorded in temporary accommodation, and this is the highest level on record so far with the figure increasing year on year. Out of almost 15,000 households in temporary accommodation, 7,010 of them have at least one additional support need identified, so in simplistic terms, meaning they need support on a day-to-day basis. 903 households where at least one person is living with a physical disability, 529 households where at least one person is living with a learning disability. What is not mentioned in the appalling figures and is not mentioned anywhere in any of the 15 recommendations is the concern for women's homelessness and the causes behind them. While homelessness has many common triggers ranging from household disputes, relationship breakdowns, financial problems, just being asked to leave the family home, etc., for women, the overwhelmingly most common trigger is domestic physical or sexual abuse. I have to say that I strongly agree with Scottish Women's Aid when they state that they are very disappointed that this important opportunity to consider the distinct gendered differences and the underlying causes of women's homelessness and the corresponding approaches to prevent it has not been taken. Deputy Presiding Officer, we should be taking this opportunity to deal with the scourge of women's hidden homelessness, but again that we find the concerns of women are not recognised. I am worried that the Government's amendment removes the need for urgency as women's homelessness needs to be addressed now. Scottish Women's Aid goes on to say that homelessness is inherently gendered. An understanding of women's and their children's distinct experiences and the underlying causes of their risk of homelessness is essential if we are going to develop effective responses in Scotland to tackle and prevent it. It is concerning that the statistics for gender-based homelessness are not included, but it is understandable when we know that this type of temporary accommodation is not registered, with many women looking to sofa surf or using friends' generosity to remove themselves from the perils of an abusive relationship. If we do not focus on the specifics, we miss the chance to make necessary transformation for everlasting change. All of those good intentions become completely obsolete if the housing stock is simply not there to ensure a safe and permanent accommodation, and therefore a housing stock must be addressed urgently. I will be brief because I am aware of the time. I know that there was a Scottish Women's Aid's policy's not promise report that came out in the 25th of April, which mentioned about some of the issues that you have talked about already, so we have already indicated a meeting with them to discuss the report in more detail. There is information that I have in terms of why people are asked to leave. Domestic abuse is an element of that. I am taking it seriously, and I am waiting for Scottish Women's Aid to discuss that issue very shortly. I sincerely welcome that, and I am glad to hear that the Government is actually doing something about it, but I think that it is very relevant that it is mentioned in this debate. I welcome the Scottish Conservative amendment and its calls on the Scottish Government to look to develop new extra-care housing models and to provide for people with additional support needs, which intrinsically changes the process of taking into consideration the specific needs of the individual. I would also like to add that the process, and now we are having, hopefully, a guarantee from the Government that this will be taken forward, is implemented to see gender-based homelessness as a specific need and to make moves to ensure that women's hidden homelessness is eradicated in Scotland. Our housing system is broken. Record numbers of children are trapped in temporary accommodation, and homelessness is rising. Not only is this damaging to the health and wellbeing of those who are experiencing these appalling conditions, but the knock-on effects are felt throughout our society, in our schools, in our workplaces, in our communities. Of course, on our streets. We know that education, employment and health outcomes are all linked to our fundamental need for homes that we can thrive in. As the Member has already said today, this basic need is also our right. Because housing is devolved, there is no excuse for this Parliament not to act, because the housing emergency that we are facing is entirely avoidable. What it needs is political will from the Government and the resources to tackle it. Ben Macpherson, just a quick intervention. I have yet to hear any suggestions about moving capital resource from one part of the budget into housing, and I genuinely would be interested to hear of any proposals. If the Member is suggesting a meeting to discuss how we can use public investment to generate wealth for the whole of society, I would be very happy to take that meeting. In the private sector, tenants are repeatedly faced with landlords who are reluctant to make improvements to the quality of housing, despite continuing to charge excessively high rents. This leaves tenants bearing the costs of rising energy bills and of living with damp and mouldy housing and of the stress of choosing whether to heat or to eat. But it is not just tenants who pay. The housing emergency impacts us all. Our cash-strapped local authorities are having to pay the private sector to house people in temporary accommodation for years at a time, while they and the Scottish Government also provide grants to pay private energy bills to try to do that. To prevent people having to leave their homes in the first place, we are looking at the widespread use of public funds being spent to enrich the private sector. Every penny of which could be better spent on upgrading and expanding our council housing stock. As my colleague Mark Griffin has detailed, local authorities would hugely benefit from being able to provide more affordable council housing. An industrial strategy for housing could see the creation of many well-paid, secure, unionised jobs to build and maintain the homes that we so desperately need. If the First Minister truly aims to deliver a green wellbeing economy that reduces poverty, that must start by ensuring that every person in Scotland has a warm, secure home that they can afford to live in. But the current pace of retrofitting old housing stock and of building new homes is not meeting government targets or public demand. Local authorities are struggling to provide homelessness support while their resources are stretched so thin. The Government must work with councils, but, crucially, it must provide fair funding to fulfil those ambitions. That is why Labour welcomes the Scottish Government's move to increase council tax on second homes. However, the Government has had this power since April 2013, and it has taken a decade to now decide to consult on this once again. It cannot be another decade before we actually see this measure implemented. To conclude, we are faced with an emergency in housing, the scale of which can only be addressed with a response of the same magnitude. That means a co-ordinated mass roll-out of council house buyback, retrofitting and building. This is the only way to ensure public money, our money, is being spent on what people need most. Warm, secure, affordable homes, not subsidised private profits for a select few. I'm now calling Alasdor Allan to be followed by Ariane Burgess up to four minutes. Despite rightly moving to a housing first solution wherever we can in Scotland, having places where people can sleep safely while a more suitable longer term arrangement is identified remains vital. However, as the minister has acknowledged today, clearly families should not be in temporary accommodation where that can humanly be avoided. The reasons for homelessness across the UK are inseparable from the wider picture of poverty, austerity and benefits changes. The recommendations set out by the temporary accommodation task and finish group represent the key opportunity to make progress. A set-out in the report, we must see more social housing built, we must see existing housing stock maximised and the provision of suitable support put in place for those moving on. Homelessness can often be viewed as an urban issue, but in my own island constituency house prices and rent increases coupled with high numbers of second homes and short-term lets mean that even those working full-time can sometimes find themselves needing temporary accommodation in some form. Back by significant Scottish Government funding, the local authority and housing association, as well as community landowners, have been making steady progress with house building across the western isles in recent years. Even small projects adding five or ten homes to local housing stock can make a huge difference to businesses being able to employ people or not in a community and therefore to the viability of that community. However, demand still outstrips supply in many island areas, particularly for social housing. Individuals, for instance, on the housing waiting list in Stornoway, have to endure a similar length of time to those on the list in Edinburgh, for example, often waiting over two years before being able to secure housing close enough to their place of work. As for people in other areas of the islands, they often confront the reality that little or no available social housing exists at all. Of course, global supply chain issues continue and the impact of inflationary pressures makes it impossible to make housing budgets go anywhere near as far as they would even 12 months ago. However, the need for more social and other affordable housing is one of the key issues within my constituency. When working-aged people cannot access affordable housing in their own island, they are forced to move away, contributing further to the population and to the drain on suitable employees for essential local services. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the Scottish Government's recent commitment of £25 million to bring empty homes back into use in rural and island areas to enable them to be used by key workers and others. I also hope that, following the on-going consultation, councils will be given the power to increase council tax on second or empty homes. Finally, I also believe that measures to allow for limits to be introduced on the proportion of the number of second homes in specific communities would represent a key step in helping to ensure more equitable access to the local housing market and avoid the imminent hollowing out of some communities that others have already alluded to today. I look forward to discussing this in more detail with the new housing minister at our meeting in a fortnight's time. To conclude, addressing housing issues across Scotland requires co-operation, commitment and creativity from all levels of government working collaboratively with local communities. The recommendations from the temporary accommodation task and finish group will, I believe, help shape our response to a specific problem and a very real problem while work on wider housing issues continues apace, I hope. As others have said, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss homelessness and the housing challenges that Scotland faces with our new housing minister. While we made good progress on addressing acute homelessness such as rough sleeping during the pandemic, I fear that we have yet to acknowledge the scale of the hidden homelessness present in many of our rural communities. The causes and solutions to the housing crisis in the Highlands and Islands and especially in its rural communities are complex. A lack of supply and aging population, high land values and imbalance between local wages and house prices and poor transport infrastructure, especially public transport, all play a part and are all areas that Greens and Government are seeking to address. The more I have been working on housing and planning issues, the more I have become a champion of community-led housing and the potential of this model to transform housing provision, particularly in our rural communities. We must improve access to the rural and island housing fund and provide on-going financial support for rural housing enablers like the community's housing trust, which makes community-led housing projects achievable by local communities. Homelessness in rural areas is not just the lack of a roof over someone's head, it is also the loss of community, of young people of working age, a loss of language and culture. With no homes available, close to family and friends, young people increasingly feel forced into our cities and towns adding to housing issues there. We need to ensure that we create homes that enable people to become rooted in their communities, if that is what they want, and provide the workers and families that we need to keep local communities thriving and viable. In rural areas, especially, we lose homes to the holiday and second homes market. The Scottish Government is right to regulate and introduce stricter planning rules on short-term lets and to work with councils to bring back into use empty homes. I welcome the consultation on council tax for both empty and second homes. Increasing council tax on second homes alone not only creates a new source of income for local councils but helps to level the playing field between property investors and those who need a home to live in. That change will affect more than 9,000 properties in my region, the Highlands and Islands. Over the course of this Parliament, Greens and Government will also 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. Adopting a plan-led approach through the new national planning framework means that local authority, regional and national plans align and drive the right kind of development in the right places instead of the current situation that is driven by developers and their profit motive. I welcome the recommendations of the temporary accommodation task and finished group report that call for greater collaboration between the Scottish Government, COSLA and health and social care partnerships to ensure better planning and joy-dump thinking. This is the kind of systemic change that we need to see that puts housing and people first. The social housing and not-for-profit sector are keen to address this challenge in innovative ways and not just in rural areas. In Inverness, I have seen first-hand the great work of Albin Housing Association's recent Bailey Place development and of the not-profit Highland Housing Association retrofit and repurpose of the merchant house in the city centre. Transforming a derelict historic building into eight affordable energy-efficient homes. What Scotland's housing sector needs is long-term solutions and a culture change away from housing as an investment to one that creates homes for all our people. Greens and Government will continue to make the case for change and adequate funding to ensure that everyone in Scotland can access safe, affordable and warm homes in their local communities and that our rural areas remain places to dwell as well as places to visit. We should all be deeply troubled by the housing crisis in Scotland today. We are a rich country with so many resources at our disposal yet still homelessness continues to shame our country.  I know myself, Lyman and Springburn that so many people are struggling to access homeless services. They feel let down, even abandoned by a broken system that seems to be working against them, not for them. I hear from constituents every week who almost always, through no fault of their own, are struggling to get a home of their own or in many cases are struggling to find somewhere to stay even just that night. It is heartbreaking that in this day and age it should not be this way. Beyond Springburn and Glasgow, the scale of the crisis across Scotland is apparent in dozens of tragic statistics. I do not have enough time, I have only got four minutes just now, sorry. The number of open homeless applications is at the highest level since data collection began in 2002. There are 14,450 households in temporary accommodation. The number of children in temporary accommodation has reached a record high and, worst of all, more than 14 homeless people die in Scotland each month. It is past time for action to address this crisis.  There must be affordable housing to help people struggling to make ends meet, and there must be clear accessible routes for people to get on to the property ladder. The Government does everyone in the country a disservice when all they do is trying to deflect blame and dodge responsibility on this issue. This Parliament has the power to tackle the housing crisis and to help people out of homelessness. It can act, it has the budget and it has all the levers it needs. Yet too often, from SNP ministers, all we hear are excuses and passing the buck. They make those excuses and blame others because this Government's record is one of failure after failure. Targets have been missed. The number of affordable homes started has decreased almost a quarter in the last year. The number of affordable homes approved has fallen to its loss since 2013. Rent in Scotland is rising faster than the rest of the UK. A £1 billion plan designed to address the housing crisis was halted because of the SNP green short-sighted rent cap. So what does the SNP Government do in response? It has cut the housing budget by £166 million in cash terms, making the problem even worse. That record should shame ministers, but the SNP Government seems to be so out of touch and detached from reality that they won't even accept that they can and must act. As my colleagues have said, there are actions that the SNP can take to start tackling this crisis. The Scottish Conservatives have outlined what could be done. The Government could develop new extra care housing models to provide for people with additional support needs. It could spearhead an urgent Scottish housing emergency action plan. It could introduce compulsory sales orders for long-term unoccupied properties to bring them back into use. It could relax planning laws and allow the redevelopment of unoccupied businesses into housing. Most simply of all, it could provide the funding to build more affordable and social homes. Instead of pointing all the powers to this Parliament towards tackling the housing crisis, the SNP Government wants to point the finger of blame elsewhere. I urge MSPs to back Milberg's amendment to force the Government into accepting its responsibility. Emma Harper, who will be the final speaker in the open debate up to four minutes, Ms Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's been pretty consensual so far, until what we've just heard from the previous speaker. In this short debate today, Presiding Officer, I'm going to start by thanking Shelter Scotland, Homes for Scotland and all the others for providing briefings for this debate and all the work that they do to support the needs of people who experience homelessness. I welcome the minister to his new role as well. Housing supply and tackling homelessness are crucial if we are to become a fairer nation focusing on advancing a wellbeing economy. Scotland has led the way in delivering affordable and social housing across the UK with more than 118,124 to be accurate, as the minister said in his opening. There have been 18,180,124 homes delivered under the SNP since 2007, compared to six under the previous Labour Administration. If Labour is serious about tackling homelessness, it must recognise that the Scottish Government is working to tackle poverty with one hand tied behind its back. I'm sure that I don't have time. John Dickey, the director of child poverty action groups, said that the Scottish Government policies are making a big difference to families. The harsh reality is that soaring inflation and real-terms UK benefit cuts means that the gap between incomes and the minimum cost of raising a child is widening horribly. It is true that many of the actions that the Scottish Government takes are simply undermined by the UK Government cutting vital support, such as cutting the £20 universal credit uplift. Scotland is at the mercy of the UK Government decisions when tackling poverty, a root cause of homelessness. I hope that Labour would agree and acknowledge that. People across Scotland are paying a steep price for the reckless economic mismanagement of the UK Government, and that inevitably means more people falling into poverty and experiencing homelessness. According to the OBR, disposable incomes are predicted to fall by around 7 per cent in real terms this year and the next. The Scottish Government is investing £100 million to transform the homelessness system and implement the updated ending homelessness together action plan. More people with high support needs have been helped into settled housing. Local authorities have now provided more than 1,000 housing first tenancies across Scotland. However, we have particular challenges in rural Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway in my south Scotland region. I am going to pick up on the rural part that the minister mentioned in his opening. Good quality housing is essential to attract and retain people in Scotland's remote rural and island communities. Obviously that is one of Alasdair Allan's focuses as well. The Scottish Government has delivered almost 8,000 affordable homes in rural and island areas since 2007, with a clear commitment to deliver 11,000 more by 2032. That includes 4,484 affordable homes and 1,605 housing association properties in D&G. That is bolstered by programmes such as the 30 million rural and island housing funds. A remote rural and island housing plan is also under development. It asks the minister for a commitment that this plan will have a particular focus on prioritising building on former brownfield sites, like vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, and not just on greenfield, which could be used for agricultural activity. I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, and I know that there are VAT issues that the UK Government ministers have been contacted about. As far as I am aware, there has been no response, but VAT reduction would be an incentive for redeveloping brownfield sites and helping to bring them back into housing use. I will conclude there, Presiding Officer, and I support the Scottish Government's amendment. Thank you very much, Ms Harper. We now move to closing speeches in that call for screen. I am sitting up to four minutes, Mr Simpson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It always takes opposition parties to debate housing, so I congratulate Labour for doing so again today. At the heart of their motion is the issue of lack of supply and the scathing report of the temporary accommodation, task and finish group.  We need look no further than the opening lines of that report to see the scale of the problem that we face. It says that Scotland is in the grip of a homelessness crisis that is damaging the lives and opportunities of thousands of families with children and young people across every community in Scotland. It talks of a broken housing system. It says that, six years ago, the Scottish Government and COSLA convened the homelessness and rough sleeping action group. That group proposed a rapid rehousing approach to reduce the need for temporary accommodation and the adoption of housing first to help those with complex needs. I was on the local government and communities committee at that time and we produced our own report, which also proposed housing first. This followed a visit to Finland where we saw how their approach had helped to cut homelessness to as near to zero as possible. To quote the task and finish group, the ambitions of that plan have not matched up to the realities on the ground. We have rising rough sleeping, record numbers of people trapped in the homelessness system for longer and the national scandal of nearly 10,000 children in temporary accommodation. That's disgraceful. There's no other word for it. None of us lives in temporary accommodation. In September last year, 14,400 households in Scotland did the highest on record. That's a statistic that should shame the Government. The average time spent in temporary accommodation was 207 days. Just try to imagine that and tell me we'll live in a caring Scotland. Ultimately, we need to build more homes of the right type and in the right places. For as long as I've been an MSP and longer, we've known that. The task and finish group know that and so does Shelter Scotland. They say that the solutions are straightforward, namely that we need more social homes, we need to use the homes that we have more effectively and we need to fund homelessness services properly to treat people with dignity and respect. That should have been happening already, of course. Part of the problem is funding for councils who have had their budgets systematically slashed year on year by the SNP. The housing regulator said recently that homelessness services in Scotland are at emerging risk of systemic failure due to the pressure on the system with councils increasingly unable to meet their statutory duties. Funding, mentioned by Mercedes Villalba, is also a serious issue for those who are trying to deliver social housing. The minister really needs to look at the way funding is delivered because it seems to be deemed too high a risk for some people to get involved in building these vital homes. We've had a number of really good contributions. Ross McCall spoke of the problems that women face with homelessness. Miles Briggs talked about the situation in Edinburgh and wasn't it great to hear from Ben MacPherson free from the shackles of SNP group think coming up with ideas like land value tax? He'll get into trouble for that. The message is that the Government needs to do better so that I support the amendment in Miles Briggs's name. I call Paul MacLennan to wind up for the Government up to four minutes. I welcome any debate in housing and genuinely mean that. I think there's a short debate and wish it could have went on a little bit longer. The Government is committed to preventing and ending homelessness and ensuring every person in Scotland has access to a safe, warm, affordable place that they can call home homes. There's so much more than just Briggs and Morton, I think that Mr Simpson touched on that. It's where we feel most comfortable and where we spend most of our time. Housing has a huge influence on our health and on our wellbeing. This last week, the First Minister has been very clear that the Scottish Government wants to tackle poverty and improve the life chances of people across our country. Of course we want to deliver the public services that our communities rely upon, including affordable housing, so we can create a fairer society and drive opportunity for the people of Scotland. I want to touch on the few points that have been raised by a few speakers. I can't touch on them very just because of the time that's here. One of the key things that I want to mention is that there were no amendments in the Balas budget regarding homes as funding. That's one issue, I think, just to highlight, which I think is really important. I've got four minutes. I'd just like to continue if that's okay. I'd want to continue. I'm happy to take up after but I'm happy because it's a short, short debate. I've got a few points to mention. Mark Griffin mentioned the 10-year target of 25,000 homes. The Scottish Government can set affordable homes targets. It needs to work with homes for Scotland and we are in trying to develop more housing in that regard. Miles Briggs mentioned the Edinburgh focus and we had a meeting this morning to talk about that. I know that Mr Cole-Hamilton is looking to set up an Edinburgh summit. That's an important thing. I mentioned about extra care homes, extra care housing. One of the key things is that he might be aware that I brought a group into the Parliament, set up an extra care task force in that regard, held the parliamentary reception, so it's an issue that I take very seriously in that regard as well. To Mr Rennie, I will have a laser-like focus on that and I know that I reached out to you last week as well on the broader issue. That's an important point as well. Again, to Mr Simpson, he knows I reached out to meet the cross-party group on housing as well, so I want to be as collaborative as possible I can in moving forward. That goes to any member of some issues that have been raised as well. So, why don't temporary accommodation is a vital safety net for some homeless households? It should only ever be short-term. We know that lengthy stays in temporary accommodation are not good for health and wellbeing of families, which is why we want to see people in certain homes that meet their needs as soon as possible. I mentioned earlier on that it's the sixth show that 14 local authorities have reduced the number of households living in temporary accommodation and 9 local authorities have reduced the number of children living in temporary accommodation compared to the previous year. We want to learn the positive lessons about that and I'll continue to meet with housing conveners in that regard to discuss those that are under most pressure and the proposed proposals that would relieve that. I've already reached out as I said to Mr Griffin and Mr Briggs and we'll continue to do so in that regard. The new prevention of homeless duties, due to being introduced as soon as possible after some recess, will be an important milestone in achieving a commitment of preventing homelessness at source. Rapid housing, as I mentioned before, is an approach that gets people into a settled home quickly with the support that needs to make it work. It therefore reduces the need for many forms of temporary accommodation. I'm pleased that all 32 local authorities have rapid housing transition plans and 26 of these now have housing first programmes. The result is that over 1,400 housing first tenancies are in place. Housing first, as we know, is aimed at people with multiple and complex needs of history of rough sleeping and repeat homelessness. Ross McColl mentioned complex needs. One of the things that I want to try and set up as a ministerial oversight group, because I've been mentioned by people in homelessness, is to have the support in complex needs. I think that it needs a broader Government to look at that. That's one thing that we'll be doing. I want to close by acknowledging that all the more work needs to be done to achieve goals. Scotland already has the strongest rights for homeless households in the UK, and we are taking important steps towards strengthening rights and tenants and preventing homelessness. Tackling homelessness and achieving our ambition of a settled home for all cannot be achieved in isolation. It will take collaborative working, and it is crucial that this Government works across portfolios, as I mentioned before, as well as our valued partners and stakeholders to come together to find solutions based on our common goals. As the Minister for Housing, I am looking forward to the role, I will play in delivering affordable homes and helping to prevent entomousness in Scotland. I now call on Alex Rowley to wind up the debate up to five minutes. As Mark Griffin said at the beginning of his speech, the Scottish Labour Party is pleased that the Government has finally listened and has appointed a dedicated housing minister. Sadly, I would have to say that it is a new minister but the same old script. What we actually need is action to tackle Scotland's housing crisis. We have the minister, we have Emma Harper rolling out today this misleading statement again about 16 years ago, what Labour did when they were in power. The reality is that it is misleading because during that time, and we should put this to bed once and for all, between 2001 and 2007, 28,980 houses completed social housing for rent in Scotland. Is it not a tragedy that, after 16 years in power, where we have a major housing crisis in this country, the best that SNP MSPs can come along here and do is try to attack a previous Government from 16 to 20 years ago? What about the people that are living in damp, conditioned housing up and down Scotland right now? The people that can't get housing that are on the waiting list, is that the best that they can expect from this SNP Government? The Government is another disgrace and what we need now is action. Scotland's housing emergency, as shelter sets out, record numbers of children trapped in temporary accommodation, a 120 per cent increase in children in temporary accommodation since 2014, rising homelessness with a 40 per cent increase in households having to live in temporary accommodation since 2014. Homeless services that are emerging risk of systematic failure according to the Scottish House and regulator. The shelter Scotland regulator, what they say is that if urgent action is not taking, we will be unable to address child poverty, we will not improve health, we will not improve education and we will not improve employment outcomes. Social justice cannot be achieved if people do not have a home in to live in which they can thrive. I would say to the Government, let's stop the rhetoric. After 16 years, Scotland is in crisis and what we need to do is build houses. Mercediz-Valilba said earlier that we need an industrial strategy. If you today were to say that you were going to spend millions upon millions, hundreds of millions to tackle Scotland's housing crisis, there would not be enough sparkies, there would not be enough brickies and not be enough joiners. We actually have a major skills crisis across Scotland and we don't have the people with the skills to be able to build the houses that are there if you're brief. I think that that's a vital part of the process but doesn't the member acknowledge that their party's support of Brexit exacerbates the problem? We have a crisis in Scotland. We have thousands of people up and down Scotland that cannot get accommodation. We have tens of thousands of children that go home at night into temporary accommodation that are expected to do well in education. We have a skills crisis in Scotland where we don't have people with the skills. At the same time, we're not giving children the opportunities to be able to get those skills. When will this Government accept some responsibility? When will this Government actually turn round and say, we will tackle, we will put a 20 to 30-year programme in place, we will give local authorities the powers that they need over planning, we will give local authorities the powers that they need over acquiring the land that we need and we will put the people of Scotland first by ensuring that we build houses for all of Scotland's children. That's where we need to go with us and I'm afraid if you're unable to do that, then it's time that this Government, if you're brief. The member is just winding up, I'm afraid. I would say, Presiding Officer, I had five minutes but there you go. I would appeal to you today. Let's start taking this serious. Labour will work with you. We want to tackle the housing crisis. Let's take this serious. Sit down and look how we're going to do it. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility and tackle Scotland's housing crisis. Thank you very much, Mr Rowley. That now concludes the debate on homelessness prevention and housing supply. There will be a very brief pause while the front bench has changed before we move to the next item of business.


Item number, SCP-512, Object Class, Safe. Special Containment Procedures. SCP-512 is held within the Site 77 Safe Object Repository. It is to be shut at all times, and testing during adverse weather conditions is forbidden. All outdoor testing proposals must be reviewed by Security Chief Anderson.  Maximum radius of canopy when open is 0.75 meters. Make and manufacture are unknown. A taped patch is visible on the canopy section. When open and pointed upward, SCP-512 exerts an upwards force and opposition to Earth's gravity in a roughly dome-shaped area directly above itself. With a cross-sectional area of roughly 1.77 meters squared, precipitation and other objects will be suspended and deflected within this area of effect. SCP-512 has no effect when closed or when held at a horizontal angle. Despite SCP-512's efficacy against normal precipitation, it is inadvisable to use the object during severe weather. Through an as-yet unknown process, the item's anomalous effect causes the air above it to become extremely ionized. This interaction also causes electrical current to greatly increase in amperage while in direct contact with the item. This causes the threat of direct lightning strikes to become exceptionally dangerous to any individual holding SCP-512, as evidenced through the death of its original owner, as well as D-512-33. Additionally, electrical current appears to travel across the surface of SCP-512, causing little to no damage to the item's structure. SCP-512 was recovered from a public park in W.A. Florida. Local emergency services have been summoned to evacuate the area due to reports of unusual lightning strikes. SCP-512 was discovered caught on a street lamp and fully opened, with evidence of several lightning strikes in the immediate area. Its handle was noted to be covered in ash. Foundation personnel intervened after local newspapers began reporting on SCP-512's anomalous properties. Addendum. Testing Summary. Upon recovery, SCP-512 underwent standard testing, through which its properties were determined. A range of items were held four meters above SCP-512 and then dropped, after which a mechanical apparatus would open SCP-512. Tested items include the following. One liter of purified water, dumped from a standard bucket. One liter of orange juice from concentrate. Approximately one kilogram of loose feathers. One kilogram of ice cubes. The assorted contents of junior researcher Renfield's bagged lunch. A standard running shoe. A standard watermelon. SCP-1108. A 5.4 kilogram bowling ball. A 40 kilogram steel containment crate. Testing material slowed in descent approximately 0.5 seconds after SCP-512 opened, with the larger and less solid items coming to a stop approximately 0.35 meters from SCP-512's surface. All material will remain suspended in the air, unless made to slide to one side and resume freefall. Liquids in particulate matter are weakly repelled from the center of the effect, while more solid objects can be held in place with minor adjustments to SCP-512's angle. Addendum. Experiment D-512-33. Testing item. D-class personnel. Testing procedure. Object taken to Site-77 Outdoors field, for testing of the vertical distance of the anti-gravity effect. An unexpected severe storm occurred during testing, and the rain repelled properties of SCP-512, coupled with exceptionally low pressure, caused a suction effect in the region directly above the object. SCP-512 pulled the D-class, D-512-33, holding it upward into the air, and drifted on prevailing wind currents. D-512-33 was able to hold onto SCP-512 as it rapidly gained altitude. D-512-33 glided over Site-77 perimeter, and into the surrounding area. It was observed that D-512-33 quickly developed skill in altering angle of anti-gravity effect, to allow for semi-controlled flight. A helicopter was launched to pursue object, and D-512-33. The object was recaptured following a lightning strike. D-512-33's remains were not recovered. Lesson complete. If you missed the previous orientation, go watch SCP-511, Basement Cat, right now. Or for the complete course, watch this playlist.


So, I think before that you probably have figured out that this is going very methodically so that there is absolutely no ambiguity that we are facing. So, though there was a vague idea of what work is and you had heard what heat was, we started by first defining what work was and we did not define heat at all. So, we actually gave a formal definition of what work was, we tried to evaluate work and then we went to the first law where we again redefined energy, then we defined heat. So, it went in a very particular sequence and we never used temperature even at that point and then we went to the 0th law and we decided that there is something called a temperature, but we do not know except that we could label that we did not decide you know how to say whether something is higher or lower. Then there is a science called thermometry where you know you can just put some arbitrary labels based on properties of some substance that you had. For example, you could have had the length of mercury thermometer or the volume in a constant pressure ideal gas thermometer or something like this and you could fix some labels and you come up with some idea of what you know you basically have some basis for putting the labels. The second law in a way is again of course you know based on observations. So, and maybe you know one of the observations people decided was on this framework where you had arbitrarily decided that something is higher low. They thought they saw that oh heat or this so called heat is flowing from high temperature to low temperature and you cannot do it the other way. But this used a definition of high and low which was based on thermometry and we did not really come up with a solid way to put what is high and low. So, again you will realize that this whole effort is to formalize what is high and low by basing it on a log. So, that is what the effort of trying to go in this method is that you are trying to come up with a method to formalize what is high and low and in return we will also come with a property called entropy and we will find out why it is useful especially for engineers it is extremely useful. It decides the limits on processes. So, just as a background you can I will just write down we first did the first law. It had something to do with what we called as adiabatic work. We found out that you could go that between any two points you could do adiabatic work and the path would not matter at all. But the one thing that we never said was is it possible to go from every point A to every point B using adiabatic work. So, for example, if I drawn an arbitrary coordinates some x1, some x2 and let us say I am here A. So, first law just tells me yes you know between A and B I can do adiabatic work using any path maybe it is further static maybe it is non further static I know that WAD does not vary. But can I really go from A to B using only adiabatic work that question was never answered. So, you realize that there is an answered question. Similarly, you can say that people have observed that you have some so for example, let us go to the 0th law. I fixed some labels that is some temperature level which I call A, some temperature level which I call B. I figured out I could differentiate between A and B. But you realize that maybe it is possible that heat gets transferred from A to B, but not the other way round. So, this is an observation you see, but it is not explained by the 0th law. So, it just stops at labeling some of the certain things. Similarly, first law stops at you know telling what adiabatic work is we use it to define heat we use it to you know come up with a more proper definition of energy. But we never set the limits yes is this possible is this not possible. If something is possible till what extent is this possible. So, those things are not set up. So, that is why we need the second law which is of course, again based on experience, observations and you know it is true as long as you cannot find anything which contradicts and that is the situation right now. So, I would say over the years there have been various forms in which the second law has been put forth and you probably I am not sure you know many of you are explaining the second law in what form you explain it. I mean can I have a listing because mostly in mechanical engineering people I have seen they tend to follow one certain manner. Can I have some examples what would you normally say is the statement for the second law Kelvin Planck. So, I have noticed that yes more or less anyone who comes in mechanical engineering they always seem to know that the second law statement they always have been told is the Kelvin Planck statement. So, that is the one statement we will also go by though of course, you know that there is a statement called the Clausius statement there is statement by Carnot. There is also a statement by Carre Theodori in fact that was his statement for the first law was what we followed, but for our proper formulation we will stick with the Kelvin Planck because that is in our logical scheme of things to see to it that we are going from one argument to the next in a particular order. So, we will realize that just by using the Kelvin Planck statement we can arrive logically at many, many other conclusions without you know really deviating much from you know some more or less you can say simple logic. That is why we use the Kelvin Planck statement and while writing down the Kelvin Planck statement we will also notice why we would rather prefer not to use the Clausius statement because you know it uses the idea of temperature which we do not want to use as to what is higher and what is low. It uses the idea that there is some something called a high temperature and something called a low temperature we do not want to use that idea because we still do not know. So, we would rather stick with something where we do not know what is high and low, but we know what that there is something called a temperature. So, that is all that we really need to use to go ahead. So, that is why we will stick to the Kelvin Planck statement. When we come to the Clausius statement we can show that this means the other and we will again reiterate that the Clausius statement is slightly weaker. So, the Kelvin Planck statement I think most of you know is it says that in some vague way it says that there is no possible process which can just take q from a particular heat reservoir and you know convert it entirely into heat. So, for example, so basically this all deals with let us say some cyclic device which executes a cycle. So, by itself it is not really changing its energy. So, it takes q from some heat reservoir which let us say some temperature T1. So, this is the label we are giving we do not know what that label is, but we know that you know yes it has a particular temperature and that is good enough for us. Since this cyclic device you know it is undergoing a cycle it is not changing its state. So, for it this delta E is 0. So, this q is equal to W. So, this we know or this what the Kelvin Planck statement says that this is not possible. I think this is the accepted statement. So, of course, there are 2, 3 small new concept there is something called a temperature reservoir. What is the temperature reservoir? I mean it is correct. So, it is again one of those idealized concepts that no matter how much energy you take out of it the temperature of it does not change. I mean you can say it is some kind of even temperature reservoir is a relative concept you can say.  But if 2, 3 of you fall maybe it affects your temperature and that temperature may change. So, in a way it is a relative concept, but for we can say it is the temperature reservoir for our engine is what we are looking for. So, the T you know does not change then we come to something which is called a heat engine because we were talking of a device which converts Q to W. So, there is a device called as a heat engine. So, the engine is a device which you know probably interacts with a few temperature reservoirs. There is a Q transfer and it itself is a cyclic device. So, it is just taking Q and all it does is you know converting into W. Nowhere are we saying that it is only taking Q. It is interacting with some few reservoirs. There is a Q interaction between this engine and those reservoirs and Q comes out. So, the heat engine is something which you can say interacts temperature reservoirs and outputs work. It is a cyclic device which one here. So, because it is a reservoir whose temperature does not change that is what we are looking for. So, all our argument for second law is based on temperature reservoirs where we say that something is interacting with a temperature reservoir something whose temperature does not change which one? Yes. No, no, no the temperature reservoir is correct because that is the quantity which we are assuming is not changing. See you are removing energy there is no doubt that if you remove energy you expect the T also to change. But that is why I said it is a relative concept. It is so huge compared to your engine that however much energy you remove we assume the temperature does not change too much or it more or less remains constant. And that is the argument we need here because we will talk about interactions with temperature reservoirs as far as our second law goes. Actually we are taking only energy not a temperature. Correct. You are taking only energy you are not taking temperature. So, it continuously supply energy that is why it must be called a energy reservoir. No, no, no. But see we are saying it has a continuous or it has the same temperature irrespective of you know how much energy you remove. So, because we want because we will talk of more than one energy reservoirs if you want to say that I want to put two different labels to it. One has a particular temperature the other has a particular temperature. Now if I start calling them energy reservoirs I mean that is okay but you know I really want to put a label to them. So, I will say this reservoir has a temperature T1 and this reservoir has a temperature T2. So, I would prefer to call it a temperature reservoir. But you are right I mean if you want you can call it energy reservoir but the label is the T1 or T2 or whatever else that I have put on it that is all that we are trying to distinguish. No, I mean I would not say that why are you trying to say that yes. I think we should not get carried away by the nomenclature. The nomenclatures used are temperature reservoir, energy reservoir, constant temperature, energy reservoir, thermal reservoirs and anything. The idea is it is a system whose large enough compared to what we are doing. So that in a few cycles which we will be using for analysis, temperature does not change and this is a realizable approximation either we have what we call later you know large thermal inertia okay so that with a finite amount of energy extraction the temperature changes little if at all or we can have what we saw yesterday that is a or based on steam tables a constant pressure thing with wet steam in it. So long as you maintain the pressure constant the temperature will remain constant and so long as you do not extract such a large amount of heat that everything condenses or supply such a large amount of heat that everything evaporates it will maintain its temperature. So it is easily realized okay let us not get carried away by the nomenclature if you are comfortable with some other nomenclature use it. Later on by Friday we will decide what the nomenclature to use in the final course so I think that should satisfy all. Okay so since I will continue to call it temperature reservoir so what we are saying or we would rather have the Kelvin Planck statement as such. So this cyclic device is the heat engine okay so I can revert the Kelvin Planck statement and say that a 1T heat engine does not exist okay so which means some heat engine which is interacting with only one temperature reservoir okay taking having a Q interaction and outputting W such a heat engine cannot exist so that is that is how we are you know shortening the entire Kelvin Planck statement and you know making use of the word heat engine which you know as mechanical engineers would like to use it that is so this is our preferred way of putting the Kelvin Planck statement that a 1T heat engine does not exist okay so that means you need more than 1 temperature reservoir with which the heat engine will interact okay so 2T heat engine 3T heat engine these are all fine okay so that is what we would want to go ahead. So how would a 2T heat engine look like so I have just drawn a 2T heat engine so there are 2 temperature reservoirs one is at T1 one is at T2 okay and this heat engine this is the heat engine this is the cyclic device in middle that I am drawing this heat engine is interacting with one temperature reservoir you know there is a Q interaction which I am calling Q1 and it is interacting with you know the other temperature reservoir which I have labeled as T2 okay there is a Q interaction and I am calling it Q2 right now I have assumed that you know Q1 is being absorbed and Q2 is being rejected and that is why I have put a minus sign and W in naturally the first law come out to be Q1 minus Q2 okay so this we are saying is possible okay is possible I mean it is possible that this such an engine can exist okay but now we want to argue out our next argument that if this is possible we never said anything about where it should absorb heat from and where it should reject heat from so is it possible for it to do this I should put some Q1 dash some Q2 dash some W dash is it possible for the same engine to run between the same two temperature reservoirs but now absorb heat from the one label T2 and give it to the one label T1 given that the first one was possible or if this is possible is it possible to the other way around correct so the so you will the argument we will put forth okay is that whatever we do okay we will first see whether it will violate the Kelvin Planck statement or not if it does then we say this is possible or not possible okay so you will realize that for us for every argument to be true we will test it with the Kelvin Planck statement okay if it satisfies the Kelvin Planck statement we will say okay this is probably possible if it does not satisfy the Kelvin Planck statement we hold the Kelvin Planck statement to be supreme and we say you know if it violates such a thing is not possible so for example if I have such a process let us say this is possible okay this Q1 values Q2 values are different okay but you know I can since this is a cyclic device let us say you know I run it some n times okay and I run this m times I will run it in such a way that you know m times Q1 dash is n times Q2 and I will put this together this is like a black box for me so when I have done this you realize that I have removed from T2 as much energy that I had put in it using this device I have removed from it okay you will realize that these things you will have an interaction only here this combined device has an interaction only with T1 and it is outputting net energy out so what we realize is that if one of these is possible the other is not possible so if the right side was possible then the left side is not possible or if you find out that the left side was possible then you realize that the right side was not possible so it is only one of the two situations which can be possible both cannot be possible okay because if both are possible you can create a one T heating that is going to be the argument the same thing can be said you know I will not state the plogious statement but I will just say the same thing let us say that there was a heat engine where this was possible between some temperature reservoirs with labels T1 and T2 I could have done this heat interaction okay then I consider two situations now I have the two temperature reservoirs okay I mean I have just drawn this line q either you know you can say directly they are in contact or maybe there is a cyclic device in between whose only duty is to take q from T1 and put it in T2 or it is a device which just takes q from T2 and put it so by itself it is not changing its state in one cycle it just picks up some q from one reservoir and puts it in the other reservoir both the reservoirs have different temperatures okay they are not the same temperature so now you will realize that if this was possible you will realize that you would not mind this happening if I combine this and this okay from T2 in one case you are putting q here you are taking out q okay and you know I can always this is a cyclic device I can always run the number of cycles in such a way that the q's match and you will realize that I can have a net effect where I am not at all the q here I will just balance it out and there is no net q interaction with T2 and the combination will just ensure that there is an interaction with T1 and some net output of work done so that means I realize that if this is possible I have no problems with this but I have problems with this this I will say is not possible okay I have not used the closure statement of high and low I have just used the Kelvin plan to say if something was possible between two temperature reservoirs there is a q transfer possible without anything else without any external work without anything else between T1 and T2 but not the other way round okay why the argument is the same if I combine can I will I violate the Kelvin Planck statement or not Kelvin Planck statement said nothing about you know what is high and what is low it just talked about 1 T heat engines it says a 1 T heat engine cannot exist so I am just showing whether it can exist or not so that is a logical argument is that is that okay so we started with with just one statement saying that you know this is not possible okay so we are just trying to see if you know that statement is getting violated and every time we think it is violated we say yes okay whatever we had assumed then that is not possible because we believe that the Kelvin Planck statement is completely true okay that is true then something which violates it that is not possible so that is how our argument will go on now so I have I have still not I mean you you realize that this is some form of the closure statement that I have put here but I have not used high and low because the closure statement explicitly uses high and low so I am not going to use that right now so I can think of now let us say you know some heat engine which is working between T1 and T2 okay I can think of another engine which I realize I can set it between let me call this q1 q2 q2 dash q3 dash W2 dash W2 dash so though between T2 and T1 I cannot have a process where I remove some q from T2 extract work and you know put the remaining in T1 I can probably find a reservoir where I can remove q from T2 extract work and dump some amount of q in T3 it is always possible of course you will realize that I can have an argument if that this if this independently exists this one then you know I cannot have something reverse you know going that you can take it is the same argument I have used that argument earlier that if one direction is possible the other direction is not possible just because I violate the Kelvin Planck statement okay so right now I will leave you with this statement because I need to go let me save this so we had you know just decided that if you can run an engine between T1 and T2 in this fashion okay you cannot run it the reverse way because every time our only logic was are we violating Kelvin Planck statement or not if yes then we say okay our assumption is wrong so if this is possible the reverse was not possible so then we said is it possible now to probably run an engine between T2 and some other T3 so it is possible probably I mean we will have to test it out probably it is possible now if it is possible to run the engine between T2 and T3 such that you absorb Q2 from T2 reject to QT3 and have some work output W2 dash okay then we know for sure that we cannot do the reverse that is we cannot go from T3 to T2 because we will use the same argument if we do it we will violate Kelvin Planck then we can ask the question is it possible to run an engine between T1 and T3 in this way some Q1 double dash Q3 double dash W3 I will put double dash is it possible to do this your argument will be yes because always this is some cyclic device this is some cyclic device I can always run the this cyclic device and this cyclic device such that these two are equal that is I put in so much Q2 as much as is removed here okay so that means the net interaction with T2 is 0 and this total this total combination is only absorbing from T1 only rejecting to T3 and there is a net work output which is coming from here and here okay so what I have done is a combination and try to give you an engine which I mean the net device is just running between T1 and T3 as far as you know the external world is concerned okay so that means if it was possible to run an engine between T2 and T3 in this fashion definitely it was possible to run an engine between T1 and T3 you can now make an argument can I run the engine between T3 and T1 in the opposite way you will say again no because I have already used that argument for T1 and T2 once you can run an engine between one temperature label and another temperature label I cannot run it in the reverse fashion because I will violate the calculation next. So that means I have come to a conclusion that I can now draw another T4 here and maybe I can run another engine between T0 and T1 and I can keep this going on so I will have a set of levels I can use the same argument with let us say purely the heat transfer that is there is a level here there is a level here T1 and T2 it is possible to go directly like this it is possible to go directly like this it is then definitely it is possible to go directly like this same argument if it is possible to go directly like this I know that if this was possible I know that if this was possible T1 and T2 this is possible I know between T2 and T3 if it was possible to run an engine T2 and T3, then between T2 and T3 a direct heat transfer is possible, I do not violate anything. Then I know that T3 to T2 directly heat transfer is not possible because I already used that argument earlier that if I run an engine between T1 and T2 then this is possible, but this is not possible, this is not possible, this is possible. So I can use the same argument between T2 and T3 for an engine, if the engine works in this way then this is possible. If the engine works between T1 and T3 here then definitely this is also possible because I will use the same argument again and I will know that the reverse is not possible. So we see that definitely yes we are creating a hierarchy now that is from one temperature to another temperature, if an engine is you know you can run the engine such that there is a work output, the reverse is not possible. From the so called you know the temperature from where you cannot run the engine you can always find another temperature between which you can again run the engine. And if you can run let us say between T2 and T3 we have already shown that you can definitely run it between T1 and T3. So we are creating a hierarchy T1, T2, T3, T4, etc. So now you see where this is leading to. So it is as if saying that you know this guy is the bigger guy or bigger person, this is the next person in the hierarchy, this is the next person in the hierarchy and so on because it is as if you know he says this person says I can run an engine by rejecting heat to you, this person says I can run an engine by rejecting heat to you. Definitely the upper person can definitely run an engine by rejecting heat to the next lower guy. So it is you know whoever T2 can run an engine with T1 can definitely run it. So T1 is higher than anyone T2 is higher than. So then we say we are already using this logic that you know there is some kind of a hierarchy. So this is where we now decide to say this is high and this is low. So this brings us to our next step that we say that if I can run an engine between T1 and T2 such that I can absorb heat from T1, produce work and reject heat to T2 I will define this as being T1 higher than T2. So this is my logic for saying what is high and what is low. So I am not going to use thermometry, I am going to use the Kelvin Planck statement to decide what is high and what is low. I know for sure now that I cannot run the engine the opposite way, I can run it in only one direction and this is what I call high and low and now you will realize that this definitely corresponds with the Clausius statement because in the Clausius statement you can have a device which does nothing else but transfer a quantity of heat Q from so called higher temperature to so called lower temperature correct and we are saying yes this is possible and the Clausius statement says you cannot do it from so called lower temperature to a higher temperature and we are saying yes you cannot just take heat from lower temperature using a cyclic device and the net result is just dumping the entire heat into a higher temperature. The Clausius statement used high and low we never use it till now we only first said that we use the Kelvin Planck decided what is high and low based on the Kelvin Planck and we said yes this exactly corresponds to our logic for the Clausius statement that is once we have decided what is high and low we say yes the Clausius statement applies because if this is the direction in which I take Q get W and reject Q2 out then this way is not possible and this is nothing but the Clausius statement is this this is okay. So we have deliberately tried not to use the Clausius statement because it assumes something was high and low okay we did not want to get into that argument because we just went by the law we said the 0th law only you know decided stop that labeling things we did not decide what is high and low so we use the Kelvin Planck to decide what is high and low okay and then we said yes now the Clausius statement sounds reasonable okay but that is why we never went and tried to use the Clausius statement if you already knew what was Clausius statement and if you said yes this is how the law should be you can always try to derive with the other way around okay but we felt that the Kelvin Planck in the strongest statement okay and we can base our entire logic only on this so I think if you go by this logic people will hopefully you know understand yes you know you have not used any other argument except saying that we believe in the truth of the Kelvin Planck is this okay trying to build up the hierarchy of temperature deciding what is high and low so we have again you know we have only decided what is high and low we have not numbered anything we have not said that I know that this temperature is something and this temperature is something we have only decided this is high and this is low okay is this if this is fine then you know let me come to some definitions okay if there is an engine then the efficiency of the heat engine I can always say is the network output upon how much heat it absorbs this is the traditional definition that people have used for an engine because the ultimate aim of the engine is to extract work okay what we provide is the input so you know it is one of the normal ways to define an efficiency what you get out upon what you put in in some sort of way so this is if we stick with this definition this is of course W can be written as Q1-Q2 because that is arising from the first law you know we are not using any other magic there and this can be written finally as 1-Q2 by Q1 so this will be true for any heat engine 1-Q2 by Q1 that is the going to be the efficiency of a heat engine there is also something called a refrigerator you know which is just something which is the other way around you take some Q2 from a T2 you put in some work W and you dump Q1 in T1 okay so this is perfectly possible by the Clausius statement that you can take heat from so called lower temperature and dump it into a higher temperature reservoir if you are actually inputting work okay so there is something external that is happening okay so it is the only the sole thing is not just taking Q2 and dumping Q2 higher reservoir but there is also a W2 this is allowed so this thing is what is called as a refrigerator okay so I mean you know it but I guess this is the time when you are going to introduce it to the students okay what is the concept of a refrigerator that you are trying to keep low temperature region cool okay and that is the objective of running a refrigerator and in refrigerator we do not define an efficiency I guess the only logic here is because you know the numbers will turn out to be more than one what we get is actually we want what we want really is to remove Q2 so we would want to put that on the top in any definition of some measure of performance and what we put in is the work okay so you know you can have it greater than one so you are not really going to call it an efficiency typically you say we call it as a coefficient of performance okay I mean it is just it is just something that we are okay with you know by calling it a coefficient of performance so once you come to this definition okay we will now come to what is called as the Carnot theorem for the second law we will figure out so this is another statement for the second law so you have to just show how each statement is true and for every statement you have to again go back to the Kelvin plane that will be always your logic