Housing Stock Transfer
We agreed last week that we would consider further the evidence that we heard on housing stock transfer. A number of issues that we need to progress emerged from that evidence. I ask for general, quick views about that evidence and for further questions.
I have a number of points on which I would like further clarification. I was concerned about some of the evidence that the tenants gave us about the lack of consultation and involvement in transfers. I appreciate that some of the stock transfers are in the early stages, so models for the consultation process could yet be developed. Comments that we make about consultation could be quite opportune—we need to encourage people to use more sophisticated mechanisms for consultation, as tenants should be more involved in the process.
I mentioned previously that I would like more factual evidence from tenants' organisations about their views and, in particular, about consultation. I felt that some of the evidence was impressionistic and anecdotal—similar, in some ways, to issues that were raised earlier today, which were terribly anecdotal and not sufficiently substantive. I do not want to dismiss evidence on that basis; I would rather give witnesses the chance to come back to us with more substantive evidence.
The tenants were fairly clear that there had been a lack of consultation. It is difficult to see how that could be anecdotal as, after all, they are the tenants. We would be better to get clarification from the witnesses from Glasgow City Council. From experience, I am aware that there was some consultation—for example, information was circulated to all tenants at one stage. However, it is for Glasgow City Council to justify its standpoint on that matter. If tenants say that there is a lack of consultation, we should accept that that is the case.
With all due respect, Bill, that is not what I meant—I am not questioning their conclusions. I am sure that that was their experience. However, which areas was the Scottish Tenants Organisation referring to? What consultation exercises had been undertaken? Did it prefer some methods to others?
That is fine.
Both you and Bill are right, convener. By speaking to some of the trade unions that have been involved, we have learned since the last meeting that the original proposal for Glasgow—the option 2, single stock transfer proposal with which we are all familiar—is being re-examined.
The new steering group to advise the Scottish Executive has been established, but it has neither tenant nor trade union representatives, which is cause for concern. Perhaps we could write to the Minister for Communities to ask her to give us evidence about the steering group—who is on it, why they are on it and why there are no tenant or trade union representatives. I would also like to ask her why new consultants have been appointed. It appears that Ernst and Young has been appointed to carry out another feasibility study—perhaps on another model altogether—into the transfer of Glasgow's housing stock. Perhaps we could ask for access to the reports that Ernst and Young provides to the steering group. People with whom I have spoken, particularly in Glasgow, are concerned that the ball game is changing midstream and that no one has been told exactly what is happening.
During last week's meeting, I think I said that I had been involved with tenants' organisations for a long time. Initiatives succeed only when tenants really want change—whether it is a transfer to a housing association or whatever. I was concerned that the evidence appeared to indicate that tenants were locked out and not involved in the process.
I would be concerned if the committee considered only the Glasgow situation. I thought that we were clear that we are considering stock transfer as a principle and that, if we changed the way in which the consultation process operates in order to involve tenants more, the committee would have succeeded. However, there is a procedure for consulting tenants, which one of the tenants highlighted—I have forgotten the name of the booklet that describes it. The evidence that we heard last week was that tenants were not being allowed that consultation and involvement.
It is not the role of this committee to scrutinise in detail what is happening in Glasgow. We can address the issue in the wider sense, but tenants will make their decision and elected representatives on Glasgow City Council will make a decision in the light of tenants' wishes. Our role is not to get involved too deeply in the Glasgow issue. We must address the issue on a Scotland-wide basis and we should take evidence from a broad cross-section of the people who are involved throughout Scotland.
I agree. The other night, I was in East Renfrewshire. Tenants there were making similar complaints about the lack of participation in the process. We must take on board the fact that we are talking about the process throughout Scotland. There will be variations, but one of the jobs of this committee is to ensure that the process is democratic, open and accountable throughout Scotland. Cathie Craigie is right; we must not confine ourselves to Glasgow. We must look at the urban and rural pictures, because those are different situations.
The issue goes further than exclusion of tenants from the process. The feedback given to the committee, and that given elsewhere, seems to indicate that tenants feel that stock transfer is being imposed on them and that it almost does not matter what their views are because some kind of stock transfer will be imposed on them. They feel that the only debate is about what kind of stock transfer it will be.
Regarding Glasgow, there are concerns about how the Minister for Communities can be impartial as chair of the steering group. Like John McAllion, I think that we are getting to the stage when we need to bring the minister to the committee—probably towards the end of January—to question her extensively.
That is timetabled for the end of January or the beginning of February.
Did the minister say in evidence to this committee, or is it known from the press, that—although she is involved with the group in Glasgow—she is not sitting on the committee that will make decisions?
There was a parliamentary answer about that.
I raised a question about whether there was a conflict of interest. Wendy Alexander replied that there would be and that another minister would make decisions about Glasgow. However, that does not resolve what happens to the other new housing partnership bids in the rest of Scotland. In a personal capacity, I am writing to Wendy Alexander on that issue, but I am happy to share the response with the committee.
That is generous of you. Thank you, Fiona.
I am concerned about our methodology, which is highlighted by this inquiry. We have started taking briefings without having a clear objective for the inquiry. We have taken oral evidence without having a special adviser and when there has not always been written evidence. We should try to lay down our procedure so that we can proceed with the inquiry in a regular, methodical way.
First, we should decide on an inquiry and its objectives. Secondly, we should decide whether we want a special adviser. Thirdly, we should invite written submissions. Fourthly, the special adviser should recommend which of the providers of written submissions should be invited to give oral evidence, and we should discuss that recommendation because our view may differ from that of the special adviser. We should then proceed to take oral evidence.
My worry is that we seem to drawing a distinction, which I do not understand completely, between hearing briefings from people and taking oral evidence. We need to clarify our methodology and get into a regular way of doing things for each inquiry, otherwise we are liable to end up taking evidence from people on a particular issue without a clear idea of what we are about. That would not increase the credibility or reputation of the committee.
May I come in on that point? When he put his paper forward, John McAllion was clear that the aspects of stock transfer that we should look at were housing finance and tenant participation, and whether the latter represented community empowerment. Those are discrete topics, and we have had evidence on them. John also proposed that we look at an urban area—which would be Glasgow, because it would be remiss of us not to examine the biggest landlord in western Europe—and rural areas.
I suggest that we contact the seven authorities that are furthest down the line with stock transfer, and the tenants associations in those areas, to find out what their experiences are. With regard to John's recommendations, we can take oral evidence from Glasgow—which would be essential—and, perhaps, from a rural area as well.
From the evidence that we have heard, the only other matter that we may wish to hear more about is lenders. We may also wish to hear from trade union staff. If we are to be useful in this debate, there will be a time—probably early in the new year—when we will have to be prepared to bring our thoughts together and make some comments, because stock transfers will be a moveable feast. Stock transfers are changing and developing as they progress. If the committee is to provide a useful service, we have to decide at what point in the process we can most usefully share the evidence that we have in the form of recommendations and reports.
I will clarify Keith's point, because there is concern that we set ourselves courses of action that we keep changing. The committee decided to appoint a reporter on housing issues who, properly, has liaised with other members and interests and drawn up a phased programme of work, which we need to consider.
Our view is that this is not a formal inquiry—in terms of the parliamentary definition of an inquiry—but the taking of evidence relating to current circumstances in housing. That is appropriate in the meantime, but it does not mean that we will not review the matter at a later stage. When the issue of housing transfers is so fluid, tying ourselves down to a formal inquiry is not necessarily appropriate. That does not stop the committee having a special adviser, which issue we will address later in the meeting.
For the record, there is a difference between briefing sessions and evidence sessions. Most of us are now aware of that. We have agreed to have a number of informal briefing sessions to bring us up to speed on some issues. The briefings are informal because they are given by the Scottish Parliament information centre. As I understand it, the committee can take evidence that is not part of an inquiry if it decides that it wishes to investigate a particular issue.
John McAllion's report recommended that we initiate an investigation into housing stock transfers. We should continue as John proposes—amending our investigation as issues develop—and then, perhaps, consider a formal inquiry, if that is appropriate. I am keen not to change that approach, because we are trying to stick to a work programme.
I am not asking you to change it, but we do tend to make our procedures on the hoof.
I do not think that that is fair, Keith.
Okay, but it would be helpful to learn from this situation. I am not asking for anything to be changed. I am trying to be constructive. We have a rapporteur, and I agree with that. For future inquires we must be absolutely clear about our objectives from the start. If we are to have a special adviser it will be helpful not to bring him in after we have started taking oral evidence. He should be brought in at the beginning. We can learn from that.
I am concerned about the so-called distinction—which is pretty blurry—between briefings and evidence sessions. We can certainly have evidence sessions without producing a report, and that has been done before, but I am concerned that we tend to embark on oral evidence sessions and then bring in a special adviser. That is not the best way to proceed and I am just making that point with regard to what happens in future.
I have some sympathy with what Keith said, because we must be careful to maintain focus. I agree with Cathie Craigie: it is not our job to look into the precise details of all the arrangements for housing stock transfer in Scotland. We should be examining the criteria that we are trying to apply. Having said that, the stock transfer in Glasgow is such a major proposal that we must go into it in a bit more detail. In the evidence that we took previously, for example, I was struck by the business of spending £17,500 per house. Clearly, we need more detailed information about the financial and structural viability of what has been proposed.
Following the evidence of the housing association witnesses last week, I confess that I was left with severe doubts about the way in which the stock transfer was going ahead. Members may not be aware of it, but the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations produced a minority report on the Glasgow stock transfer proposition at an earlier stage. I know that things have moved on a bit since then, but the forum or the adviser might be asked to consider the criticisms in more detail, to determine whether criteria such as financial viability and consultation can be applied by the committee. Glasgow is a good example, in many ways, because of the sheer size of the project.
It would be helpful to consider the criteria.
I think that we are being wise after the event. Nobody suggested that we appoint a special adviser at the beginning because nobody knew that we had the budget to do that. The only thing that we could do was start the investigation ourselves. A special adviser would be of great assistance and would help to focus the direction of the investigation.
However, we should not prejudge what we want to find out. We want to find out the truth, and the truth might not be what we would like to hear. We should listen to the evidence and base our conclusions on that evidence, rather than on preconceived ideas that we may have about stock transfers or anything else. The programme changes from week to week.
After last week's meeting, I noted the need for a minimum of four further briefing sessions. The first would involve Glasgow City Council. All members will accept that the council must be involved, as Glasgow's is the most important stock transfer. The minister's reputation will stand or fall on whether the Glasgow stock transfer goes through. It is very important that we hear from that council. At the same time, we could invite Dumfries and Galloway Council as a rural council. However, Fiona now seems to be suggesting that we invite all seven local authorities.
Not for oral evidence. We could ask for written submissions.
So, we can have a meeting with Glasgow City Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council.
We need to speak to the funders. Glasgow City Council has been speaking to the Council of Mortgage Lenders. That might be the most appropriate body by which to be briefed, as it speaks for financial institutions. We should find out its views, and about what housing benefit changes might imply for the right-to-buy housing associations—in other words, how such changes might affect the decision to invest money in housing. The unions must be consulted. As well as the joint unions that represent Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Trades Union Congress could be invited to give a broader view. The minister could then be invited.
The problem is that our work schedule in January does not include any evidence sessions on housing, and we are meeting the minister at the end of January. That is not the right way to go about things. We should take further evidence before we see the minister. We should work into the programme the four briefing sessions, plus any other sessions that members might suggest today.
How quickly will we be able to get the adviser in place? We would like to have the benefit of the adviser's input into a lot of this stuff, preferably before hearing the evidence.
We could do that in January. That will require an approach to the Parliamentary Bureau—or should that be to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body?
Those items are on the agenda, but I do not know the time scale that would be involved. The committee needs the agreement of the Parliamentary Bureau. It can submit an instruction to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, which then contracts with an adviser and makes arrangements for an adviser to be appointed. I do not know how long that will take.
Why is the matter referred to the bureau?
That is what is laid down in standing orders.
There is only one more meeting before Christmas.
Have we prepared a job description?
We will come to that later.
John McAllion's suggestions are helpful. The criteria could come from the special adviser, and could evolve as we learn new things. They would give us some form of benchmarking.
Some tenants who have been involved in successful stock transfers, and are positive about that experience, have moved from council housing into housing associations. However, those housing associations play a quite different role in regenerating communities. It is worth exploring housing in a social inclusion context. If there are arguments for stock transfer, that different role is one of the most powerful.
I thought that we agreed originally to examine finance. You are absolutely right, but we should focus on the financial impact of stock transfer and tenant participation.
With respect, Fiona, the social inclusion context is at the heart of tenant participation.
As well as taking evidence from tenants who are currently involved in stock transfers, we must gather evidence from people who have been involved in stock transfer in the past. We must find out from them whether they are unhappy about that and whether it has worked or not. We will not otherwise get a balanced view. We must keep our direction, but we must also ensure that we receive balanced evidence so that we can produce fair recommendations.
We might not be comparing like with like. There is a world of difference between traditional small-scale transfers and the wholesale transfers that are currently on the cards.
A part of the evidence with which I had difficulty was the notion that community housing associations are private sector organisations. That principle strikes at the heart of our investigation. Having spoken to people in the area that I represent, it is clear that they would not substantiate that view. I would like to explore that notion.
The West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations was meant to do that. That was the evidence that it was supposed to give, because it represents all the bodies that have successfully transferred stock. If you want to address that, it would have to be in a separate session, convener.
That could be added to the list, and we could see how it would fit into the timetable. Perhaps John McAllion could liaise with Martin Verity on that.
On the one hand, we are stuck for time on the housing issue, but we probably have a little more time for warrant sales.
I do not want to go back to that.
It is a fact of life. We have only one more set of oral evidence to take on warrant sales. There may be some scope for rejigging the timetable in January.
There is a timetable for stock transfers; Glasgow is a big one, which is scheduled for November 2000. It will be difficult to change the minister's bill once it has been published and it will probably contain elements that will make stock transfers inevitable. We need to get something done on that before the Executive decides on the bill.
Do we know the timetable for that? Is it early spring? You are keeping an eye on them, are you not, Fiona?
The minister told the committee that she thought that the bill was supposed to be published during the first six months of the year, although it would probably be later in those six months. We should be reaching our conclusions by March or April.
We want to be out of this by Easter.
A ministerial statement is being made next week—perhaps housing stock transfer is its subject.
Let us not get bogged down in timetable issues—that is where this committee always goes off the rails. John McAllion should liaise with Martin Verity to come up with a sensible working timetable that is in line with the views that have been expressed today. Can you manage that, John?
Yes.
We are now going into private session to discuss the appointment of individuals.
Meeting continued in private until 12:37.