Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Official Report 451KB pdf

---

Scottish Social Housing Charter

Agenda item 3 is consideration of the Scottish social housing charter. At its previous meeting, the committee heard from a range of organisations about their views on and suggestions for developing the Scottish Government’s draft Scottish social housing charter. The committee will now hear evidence on the draft charter from the Minister for Housing and Transport.

I welcome back to the meeting Keith Brown, who is accompanied by William Fleming, branch head, and Anne Cook, tenant participation development manager, from the Scottish Government’s social housing and strategy unit. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Thank you, convener.

We believe that Scotland’s first social housing charter will be an important departure for social housing policy in Scotland. It will set the standards and outcomes that all social landlords, local authorities and housing associations and co-operatives should be aiming to achieve for their tenants and other customers. In effect, it will tell tenants and other customers what they can expect from their landlords, and it will tell landlords where they should focus their efforts.

The charter will state in clear and plain language—language that will be worked on before it is finalised—what tenants and other customers can expect from their landlords, and it will empower them to hold landlords to account for the services that they deliver. It will also enable the landlords to explain what they are achieving for their customers. Just as important, it will provide the basis for the new Scottish Housing Regulator to assess and report on how well landlords are performing and to identify where they are doing well and where they need to improve.

In consultation with tenants, social landlords, the regulator and other stakeholders, we have tried very hard to identify a set of standards and outcomes that will encourage landlords to deliver the high-quality services that tenants and other customers want. The standards and outcomes in the version of the charter that the committee is considering today do no more than describe what a good landlord should be achieving for their tenants and other customers, and it is clear that many social landlords are already achieving some or all of them and are doing an excellent job of managing their housing stock and helping to build strong communities across Scotland. We want the charter to challenge all landlords to match the performance of the very best.

As the note accompanying this version of the charter explains, the process of development has been quite lengthy, including a public consultation on a draft that contained 71 outcomes. To reflect the consultation responses that we received, we reduced that total to the 16 outcomes in this shorter and more focused version, and I am very pleased that the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee a couple of weeks ago seemed broadly to support this version and the changes that we have made. Since then, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, too, has said that it is content with the charter.

I am keen to hear members’ views and to answer their questions, and I am certainly interested to hear any suggestions that the committee might have. In the light of our exchanges, the Government will make final revisions to the charter that the committee feels are important. We will then invite the Scottish Parliament to give its approval and ensure that Scotland’s first social housing charter can come into effect on 1 April.

Will you summarise your opening remarks by saying what you consider to be the Scottish social housing charter’s key priorities?

It is quite hard to prioritise the 16 different outcomes but, if we start from the basis of what tenants want, I think that the important issues are that they want to have a say, they want to be consulted on changes to communities and housing, and they want to be treated fairly. For example, when they are offered a house, they want it to be clean and ready to occupy.

I suppose that it is all about empowering tenants, although through the housing regulator’s reports the Government, too, will be empowered to say whether the taxpayer money that is being spent is having the right effect.

I expect that resources will increasingly be directed at those who meet the obligations and responsibilities that will be imposed by the charter. As I have said, it is quite hard to prioritise the outcomes, but I think that the right not only to have the right kind of accommodation but to influence the process in the community is very important.

What is the process for finalising the charter and laying it before Parliament?

As I have described, we have further revisions to make. That is a genuine process. For example, I met the Scottish Housing Regulator yesterday and we may still receive further representations, including any comments that the committee might make. Following that, the charter will be presented to Parliament. William Fleming can say more about the exact process.

We aim to have the charter back in Parliament, after taking account of any comments that the committee makes, by the middle of February. It will be laid formally at that point and will go to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for its comments before coming back to you for final comments and your recommendation to Parliament on whether to support it or not. Then there will be a vote, as the charter can come into effect only once it has been voted on by Parliament.

I understand that you will be interested in what the committee says and that you have spoken to the regulator, but to what extent can stakeholders become involved in the process? Will you be recanvassing stakeholders’ views, or has that part of the process come to an end?

We have been through that process. We have not just said to people, “Give us your views and we’ll make amendments.” There has been a continuing dialogue. For example, I met the Tenants Information Service last week and have listened to what it had to say. We are now at the stage at which we will incorporate the views of this committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I should point out that we also want to change the language to make it more accessible.

Have you already decided that there will significant changes before it is presented to Parliament?

Do you mean changes to what you have before you now?

Yes.

No. If this committee makes suggestions, we will look to make changes based on them, but we do not anticipate further changes.

We can look at what is and is not there. Focusing on the latter, we have heard suggestions about additional aspects that should be referenced. Outcome 12 is obviously relevant to what we have been discussing for the past hour or so. It struck me and others as being a bit thin on homelessness. Should there be some reference to homelessness prevention and the key issue of a homeless person’s right to settled accommodation? It seems a bit odd that those are not mentioned in outcome 12.

The fairly open initial consultation produced 71 potential outcomes, as I said. Everyone agreed that that would be far too many, so we reduced the number.

I would not say that the points that you have made would not be meaningful to people, but the regulator, in particular, has been strongly of the view that the outcomes should mean something to individuals in terms of the housing that they have.

Malcolm Chisholm makes fair points. If there is a way in which the outcomes should be expanded, I am happy to consider that. As you say, outcome 12 mentions homelessness. It describes what local authorities should be doing by meeting their statutory duties. That is maybe not spelled out in the way that you would like, but the intention is there. We have not tried to quote legislative requirements, because we wanted to make it more accessible. However, we will look at ways of incorporating the point that you make.

Two other areas that were highlighted in evidence were disabled people’s rights to independent living and environmental standards and transparency. Do you have any comments on those issues?

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 obviously has an impact in this area but, again, rather than set out all the legislative requirements on providers, we have tried to lay the issues out in the way that they might be approached by someone with a disability, so that they can see the obligations that exist under equality of treatment. We have tried to make the charter accessible. That does not mean that we are not concerned about the issues that Malcolm Chisholm raises.

There has been quite a bit of dialogue about the level of financial transparency, and we have tried to take a pragmatic approach to that so that groups of tenants can agree levels of transparency with their landlords; for example, they can set the level above which transactions can be made available. Although the reaction from providers was that they thought that that could be an onerous burden on them, we believe that that information is held by the providers, by and large. We are trying to promote transparency on the basis that the money that social housing providers expend is often—but not exclusively—public money that has been provided by the Government, their money from reserves or rental money. The idea behind it is that people have a right to see how that money is being spent. Going back to the first point, on transparency, it is about empowering people.

In relation to outcome 12 but also more directly in relation to outcome 10, on access to social housing, at the consultation stage various groups argued that there should be a clear statement on the underlying principle of social housing. For example Shelter said that given the scarcity of stock, the allocation of social housing should be underpinned by the principle that those who are excluded from other parts of the housing market should have the opportunity to access good-quality social rented housing. Do you agree that it is an omission that the charter does not clearly state the underpinning principle for social housing?

Once again, we could have laid out principles at some length in the charter, but we have tried to avoid that approach. Our approach to outcome 10 was to try to express it as someone in that situation would want to see it expressed:

“people looking for housing find it easy to apply for the widest choice of social housing available and get the information they need on how the landlord allocates homes and their prospects of being housed.”

We could word it differently and include principles or even the legislative or structural obligations of providers, but wording it as we have makes it easier for people in that situation to know whether they can challenge it. We would start to lose people if we were to list acts or regulatory obligations. If someone is finding it difficult to find and apply for a wide choice of social housing, or to get the information that they need, they will know that they can challenge that situation. We have tried hard to make the charter accessible in the broadest sense for people in that situation. I think that it strikes the right balance.

In previous evidence, comments were made on the wording of the value-for-money outcome. It was suggested that the wording should change, because making landlords guarantee year on year that they will continue to improve value for money could make them hostages to fortune. Will you explain what the value-for-money outcome is intended to achieve? Do you agree with some witnesses that it may lead to unrealistic expectations among tenants?

This might seem to many of us to be stating the obvious, but it is meant to bring about a situation in which providers continually improve not just their processes and value for money but their standards in relation to being providers of social housing. We were challenged on that—people said that that could be unfair and continuous improvement could be quite a big burden. We disagree. We think that we should oblige providers to improve continually.

There is a mix. There are some excellent housing associations that are dynamic, that challenge themselves and that seek to improve continually all parts of their function. One such housing association is Dunedin Canmore in Gordon MacDonald’s area. Many private organisations would envy the quick, friendly and accessible service at its call centre for repairs, but such a service only comes about if a housing association challenges itself or is challenged by others constantly to improve that service.

We do not think that it is wrong to require all providers to meet the basic test that they will seek to improve continually all aspects of their service and, in the process, to provide value for money.

Does the Scottish Government agree that the charter should do more to recognise that social landlords work in partnership with other bodies and contribute to a range of public policy aims, for example in community regeneration?

That could certainly be argued. The 71 outcomes that initially came back to us are much more wordy and all-encompassing. We had to discipline ourselves hard to make them more manageable. There is a danger that a lengthy charter would be less relevant to people, which is why we boiled it down to a smaller number of outcomes and made as our starting point individual tenants and how they would access it.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that—as you said—people should be aware that social landlords work with others in many cases, but we are trying to focus on outcomes. People just say, “I don’t get this service here”—I do not think that they are particularly concerned about who might be involved in providing that service or what partnerships may have been formed. They just want to know whether they can challenge whoever is providing the service if they do not get it. I do not think that it is necessary to supply the background information.

11:30

The important issue is whether the broad charter outcomes are translated into actual improvements for tenants. The role of the regulator will be pretty important in that regard. Are you confident that the regulator will be able to develop meaningful performance measures? Will you ensure that the regulatory framework is underpinned by relevant statutory obligations?

Yes. We believe that it currently is, although that can be improved. I mentioned in our previous discussion the consultation exercise that we are undertaking, which will address aspects concerning regulation. One of the main mechanisms for driving forward improvement will be the regulator, which can apply a standard and see whether providers are reaching it.

Tenant organisations can play a big role and can use the charter very effectively, but I think that we would all acknowledge that they are not as prevalent in some areas of the country as they are in other areas. It is therefore important that individual tenants who are accessing housing can look at the charter and say, “I’m not getting that and I should be”. The charter will empower both individual tenants and tenant organisations.

You are right to say that the regulator, with the correct regulatory underpinning, is important. I do not think that any housing provider will treat lightly an assessment by the regulator.

Will there be any statutory changes as a result, or are you saying that the regulator already has enough power to enforce the charter?

The regulator’s view is that it has the power, but the situation is dynamic. As I mentioned, we have a consultation out just now that focuses on areas including antisocial behaviour and the allocations policy. The legislative situation will continue to evolve—that is bound to happen—but we will do that in consultation with the regulator.

The committee has heard that, in some areas, levels of tenant participation are really low. Do you agree that many social landlords need to improve their tenant participation? It is not just about particular houses, but about the environment that people live in and community participation. What support will the Scottish Government offer in that regard?

We already provide important support to tenant organisations on grant funding and other issues. We had a very productive meeting with the Tenants Information Service last week. As the committee might be aware, one issue that came out of that meeting concerned the way in which the service felt that its representations in relation to the charter had been treated. Some of those representations were deemed by ODS Consulting—the company that looked at the responses—to be of a campaigning nature, and so were almost put to one side.

I have spoken to the regulator about that, and the message will be filtered through to ODS, too. If tenants are willing to make known their views, it is really important that we treat them seriously and respect them. It is a bit like the situation with planning applications, in which people sometimes add their names to a huge petition. Nevertheless, given the difficulties in ensuring that every tenant is involved, we must respect the representations that they make.

We have agreed with the Tenants Information Service that we will look at further suggestions on building capacity. For many years there have been hotspots of tenant activity around the country. We are trying to make the situation much more uniform, and we will work with the Tenants Information Service to do so; that will include direct financial support.

I felt when we were taking evidence that the tenants were very vociferous, but they made excellent points. I got the feeling—rightly or wrongly—that many social landlords are approaching tenants in completely the wrong way. They view tenants not as assets and allies, but as an irritant. Among many social landlords, there seems to be a need for culture change, and for a recognition that we are all in this together and that everyone could help each other.

You are right to the extent that providers of housing must see their tenants—I realise that this a cliché—as being core to what they do. I believe that the charter will be a powerful weapon to ensure that they do that and that they have due regard for what tenants want. Of itself, it will not be sufficient to ensure that that happens—we will still have to do other things—but it will be extremely powerful, even at the level of individual tenants. As I said to the regulator and the Tenants Information Service, I think that the charter will empower individual tenants, regardless of whether they have a tenants group to represent their interests. They will be able to look at the charter and say, “I’m not getting that, because I was not given fair treatment,” or “When I was given my house, it was filthy.” That empowerment will start to drive a process of cultural change, where it is required among social providers.

How should tenants be involved in the regulator’s development of performance measures?

In the charter, we have indicated mechanisms by which that can be done. The regulator will have discussions with tenants organisations, so tenants will be central to that process. William Fleming might want to say more about the extent to which tenants will be involved in driving the assessment of performance.

Under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010, which provides the statutory underpinning for the regulator to assess and report on performance against the charter, the regulator is under a duty to consult tenants. There are particular requirements on the regulator to involve tenants in the development process, so tenants will have to be involved as the regulator comes up with performance measures.

Margaret McCulloch might have a question about tenants’ involvement.

You might have partly answered this. How will all tenants be made aware of the charter so that they know what their rights are? How will the information filter out to them?

That will happen through the process that they have been involved in so far and through the continuing process, which William Fleming can say more about.

The Government will make quite a splash with the charter, once Parliament approves it—as we hope it will. We will hold quite a big launch, and we will use various mechanisms, including the Tenant Participation Advisory Service and the Tenants Information Service, to ensure that it is publicised.

One of the key outcomes in the charter is outcome 2, which is on communication. As part of that, landlords have a duty to communicate with their tenants, not least about the charter.

It is unlikely that any provider that did not have such dialogue could meet the terms of the charter. If a provider was not taking tenants’ views into account, it is almost inevitable that it would fall down on the charter.

Once the charter is in place, how will the Government monitor whether its provisions are effective or whether some revision is required?

The possibility of revision is built into the legislation. I think that the next standard revision will take place after five years. The Government will monitor the charter’s effectiveness mainly through the reports and activities of the regulator, whose whole focus will be on ensuring that the charter is observed and that its outcomes and standards are met. The regulator will have reports on individual housing associations and so on. That will be the main process by which we will follow through on the charter.

So, essentially, if the regulator notices something on a regular basis that you think is a systemic issue, you can look at the charter and see whether it needs to be changed.

Yes. The regulator will examine systemic issues and patterns of behaviour rather than individual cases. Individual cases to do with housing providers will continue to go to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The regulator will look for patterns, as will we. It is also true to say that we will want to take decisions on future allocation of resources on the basis of what we get back from the regulator on the extent to which individual providers are meeting the terms of the charter.

I would like to ask the question that I tried to ask earlier, when I was told to wait until we got on to the charter. Can you give us more information about the extended probationary period for new tenants?

That is not part of the charter. Last week—it might actually have been this week, on Monday—we launched a consultation.

The idea behind that is to see whether all new tenants who are being offered a house are given a probationary tenancy in the first instance. That impacts on the Scottish secure tenancy, which is the gold standard. However, it seems to me—and not only to me; we have had many representations on this—that the idea of people earning rights, and then losing rights if they do not adhere to their obligations, is a good one. We are told that housing associations alone get 24,000 complaints a year about antisocial behaviour. Of course, that number relates only to the people who complain. Many councils will not go to court nowadays because they do not believe that they can get the outcome that they want, given the cost, time delays and anxiety caused to those involved. They do not take it as a serious proposition. The probationary period is a device whereby we can potentially ensure that people understand that they have obligations when they are given a council house or a housing association house. That is my thinking at the moment, but the matter is out for consultation and we will see what comes back.

There are no further questions. The committee will consider at a later stage all the evidence that we have heard and will write to you on any outstanding issues. I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

11:41 Meeting suspended.

11:42 On resuming—