Official Report 480KB pdf
Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2017 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones. As the meeting papers are provided for members in a digital format, members may use tablets during the meeting. That is normal and that is what we are doing if you see us on our phones or tablets. We are not doing anything else—I promise you that we are looking at our papers. We have a full house today; no apologies have been received.
Agenda item 1 is on strategic housing investment plans. The committee will hear from the Minister for Local Government and Housing on strategic housing investment plans, or SHIPs, as they have become commonly known. I welcome Kevin Stewart. Good morning, minister.
Good morning.
I also welcome Caroline Dicks, who is head of affordable housing, and Lisa Bullen, who is planning team leader, with the Scottish Government. You are both very welcome.
Minister, I think that you have an opening statement for us.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee about local authority strategic housing investment plans, or SHIPs, as you have already called them, convener. The purpose of the plans is to set out the councils’ strategic investment priorities for affordable housing over a five-year period in order to achieve the outcomes that are set out in their local housing strategies. We expect the documents to set out investment priorities for affordable housing, to demonstrate how those will be delivered, to identify the resources that will be required to deliver those priorities and to enable the involvement of key partners. I have brought with me the SHIPs that I received prior to Christmas to give folk an indication of what is in the documents. Some are much more comprehensive than others, which is an issue that I am sure we will come back to.
SHIPs are part of the process that supports the planning and delivery of affordable houses across Scotland, and it is important that they engage with stakeholders and housing providers to ensure that plans are deliverable. Therefore, I expect to see collaboration between local authorities, housing associations, communities, developers, the Scottish Government and other stakeholders in the SHIP development process.
It is important to say that SHIPs are plans and not firm programmes, but they will be the key documents for identifying strategic housing projects to assist in achieving the target to provide 50,000 affordable homes. In setting out the plans, I expect local authorities to overprogramme to ensure delivery should slippage occur. At the committee meeting on 21 December, I agreed to send the committee some analysis of the SHIPs that were submitted in December 2016. The overall picture that that gave us was that we are making good progress on the 50,000 target, but need to do more to increase the potential cushion that we would have should some schemes fail to come forward. The next SHIPs are due for submission at the end of October 2017.
Please be in no doubt that the Government is ambitious in respect of housing. Access to good-quality affordable housing is a vital part of our drive to secure economic growth, promote social justice, strengthen communities and tackle inequalities. We are determined to increase and accelerate housing supply. We will support local authorities to deliver quality homes in mixed communities that fit local needs, thereby delivering the right homes in the right places for the people of Scotland.
Thank you—that is helpful. I remember that you pledged the last time that you were at the committee to use the Christmas holiday period to look over some of the housing plans, so I hope that was an enjoyable festive period for you.
It was a most enjoyable festive period for an anorak like me, convener.
I have thought that about you for a while, and we now have it on the record. Excellent!
I have a bit of a constituency interest. The numbers that you have provided are helpful, as they give us something to follow throughout the years as we head towards the 50,000 houses target. Members will ask more about that, but I am particularly interested in house types. The biggest housing need in my constituency—I know that it is the same in my colleagues’ constituencies—is for large family homes. In the data, I see unit numbers and a breakdown between social rent, mid-market rent, low-cost home ownership and partnership support for regeneration, as well as total units, but I do not get a flavour of how many four-bedroom family homes are in the mix in the 50,000, or how many of the new starts in the next financial year will be such homes. Where does that information sit?
That is a matter for local authorities. SHIPs provide a strategic overview. It is up to local authorities to look at the housing need and demand in their areas and to align their future planning to take account of that.
As I have been speaking to local authorities, housing associations and other partners, I have made it clear that the subsidies that we provide are a baseline. They can talk to my officials about delivering more larger homes, such as four or five-bedroom homes, and about levels of flexibility. The same applies to wheelchair-accessible homes: I am extremely keen to ensure that we deliver for all of the needs of the people. I am pleased that some housing associations have been making great strides in providing that type of housing, too.
The SHIPs do not deal with the level of detail of housing types—that comes out later in delivery. However, you can be assured that I will continue to spread the message about the Government’s willingness to talk to local authorities and other providers about delivering such homes.
That is helpful. It seems that the numbers exist but they exist across 32 local authorities. We hope that the local housing strategies articulate with the SHIPs, but the Government does not analyse by house type the 32 local authorities’ local housing strategies. We take it on trust that local authorities have that right when it turns into the documents that we call SHIPs. Who monitors local authorities to make sure that they are getting the spread of house types correct for local needs and demands?
The Government always faces the dilemma that some folk say that we are prone to overly centralising and others say that we are not centralising and controlling enough. We have to trust local authorities to do the right thing in analysing need in their areas. In my previous life as a councillor, I took a great interest in what my council was delivering—although it has to be said that that was at a time when there was not much building. I am sure that other former local authority members round the table did likewise.
We have regional teams on the ground across the country who have regular discussions with local authorities, housing associations and other stakeholders about delivery—relating to SHIPs, the local housing strategies and all other aspects. Those discussions between local authorities and my officials continue, but it is in the interest of every local authority to make sure that it is delivering the right housing in the right places for the people in its area.
There is a difference between monitoring local authorities and dictating to local authorities. Those are two different things. I absolutely agree with you that we should not be dictating to local authorities: they know their communities best and it is for them to get the strategy right. The Scottish Government may have a view on how many large family homes we need across the country: I do not know whether it does, but if so, we would want to make sure, when the numbers across the 32 local authorities are added up, that we are getting somewhere close to that aim. Does the Scottish Government have a view on how many large family homes we need across the country?
I come back to the point that it is up to local authorities to analyse the issue and to ensure that the local housing strategies are absolutely right. I am doing everything possible by saying that we will be flexible in order that we can make sure that local authorities can deliver the larger housing that they need in their areas. It is important that we use the expertise of the local authorities, which should know exactly what is required, and for me to ensure that barriers are taken down so that they can deliver those houses in their areas.
I may be a lone voice on this in the committee—I have no idea. We will have to reflect on the evidence after our session is complete. If the committee were to decide to assure ourselves that the 32 local authorities across Scotland have struck a good balance in respect of the house types that they are seeking to develop, and if we sought a more systematic way of capturing that information, might you and your officials be interested in discussing that further with us?
As you and other members are well aware, I am always more than happy to co-operate with the committee. If my officials can provide you with further information—feedback from our regional teams or whatever—I will be more than happy to provide you with it.
That is really welcome. Thank you.
I want to explore that a bit further. We have two tables from the Scottish Parliament information centre. One of them is about unit information by tenure, which is divided into social rent, mid-market rent, low-cost home ownership and partnership support for regeneration. In Glasgow, more than 4,000 units are social rent and the other three categories come to just more than 3,500 units. However, in North Ayrshire, for example, all 1,436 units are social rent—none is in the other categories. In East Ayrshire, there are only 780 social rent units, even though the population is similar to that in North Ayrshire, and there are no units in each of the other categories. What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage local authorities to ensure that they have that balance?
I would encourage local authorities to do all that they can to ensure that need in their area is met. Kenneth Gibson mentioned North Ayrshire, and I know that he has a keen interest in what is happening in his constituency. He will know that I am quite pleased by some of the development that has taken place in North Ayrshire, particularly by Cunninghame Housing Association, which is a real get-up-and-go housing association. It provides homes that are required right across the Ayrshires and is about to move into Dumfries and Galloway. I would encourage every local authority and other stakeholders to take cognisance of need in their area.
I will have to get back to Mr Gibson with more detail about mid-market rent and low-cost home ownership in North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire, because I do not have that to hand.
10:15
Before I ask a follow-up question, I thank the minister for handing out the awards to Cunninghame Housing Association at the reception that I hosted a week ago yesterday.
On units by type, I noted the extraordinary differences between local authorities in the number of general needs and specialist provision units. For example, Argyll and Bute has 1,115 general needs houses planned, but only one for specialist provision, which seems to me remarkably odd. In my area of North Ayrshire, there are 865 general needs units and 571 specialist provision units, and Moray has 459 specialist provision units, compared to 723 general needs units. In one local authority, general needs units outnumber specialist provision units by more than 1,000 to one, whereas in the other two local authorities that I mentioned the ratio is three to two. In Edinburgh, for example, the ratio is 15 general needs units to one specialist provision unit, and the East Ayrshire figures do not seem to add up at all. There may have been some kind of typing error, but there seem to be radical differences between the provision of general needs housing and specialist provision housing, and I thought that that would, if not alarm the Scottish Government, certainly draw comment from you.
The most recent outturn figures show that 94 per cent of general needs housing was suitable for varying needs. I am looking to Caroline Dicks, who is nodding in agreement. That is the homes for life concept, basically. Although we are talking about general needs housing, we are getting much better at ensuring that those homes are adaptable.
Beyond that, I have been looking carefully at specialist provision to make sure that it is accounted for. The Government recently published the “A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People” plan—I am trying to find it now. In that plan, we set out quite clearly our ambition, which is to work together with disabled people’s organisations and the housing sector on how we improve choice and availability in relation to accessible housing, and to ensure that the housing-focused action in the delivery plan will support the delivery of more accessible homes throughout the country. We will continue to work with local authorities, disabled people and other stakeholders to make sure that realistic targets are set within local housing strategies for the delivery of wheelchair-accessible housing. Some 13 per cent of the housing that is outlined in SHIPs is that type of housing.
Beyond that, of late in my travels, of which there have been plenty recently, I have visited new developments that have a fair number of wheelchair-accessible houses, including the Glen Oaks Housing Association development at Arden in Glasgow. I cannot remember whether there are 42 or 48 houses there, but four of them are wheelchair accessible, and one of them has been allocated to a family with a six-year-old daughter who is wheelchair bound. That family is particularly happy with the home. The young lass is a great baker, and the fact that the kitchen units and oven could be lowered is just fantastic for them. We need to provide that kind of thing for such families.
When Glen Oaks came up with that development, it had nobody on its waiting lists who required a wheelchair-accessible home. However, it recognised that there was a need in Glasgow and it went ahead with that development with wheelchair-accessible houses. It went to other providers that helped it fill those properties quite quickly. I want not only the Glen Oaks of this world, the Rural Stirling Housing Association or Parkhead Housing Association, which I recently visited as well, to take account of that need, but all housing associations and local authorities to look at making such provision in the local housing strategy and meeting that need. I have said all along that this is a housing programme for all of Scotland and all the people of Scotland, and I want to make sure that we get it absolutely right.
I understand what you are saying. The national figures for specialist provision seem reasonable, but someone in North Ayrshire is 571 times more likely to get offered a specialist provision house than someone in Argyll and Bute is, so there seems to be an issue about provision locally. I hope that the Scottish Government will take that back to local authorities and press for an increase in areas where that is needed.
If we look at rehab housing, again we see a huge disparity: there are zero units in Dundee, zero units in Falkirk and zero units in Inverclyde, but there are 102 units in North Ayrshire, 101 units in North Lanarkshire and 648 units in Glasgow. More than half of all rehab houses in Scotland are in Glasgow. There seems to be a huge disparity in such provision. Edinburgh has only 11 rehab houses, and there are only 20 in Fife, which is Jenny Gilruth’s area. What discussion is the Scottish Government having about that issue, to ensure that appropriate housing is made available for people who require it?
I do not want to repeat myself, but I want to ensure that appropriate housing is available for folk right across the country. Kenneth Gibson has asked for more detail on that, which we will provide to the committee. Beyond that, I would like to assure the committee again that the regional teams across the country continue to have discussions about what the needs of particular areas are. I do not have here the level of detail on individual local authorities that Mr Gibson requires, but we will certainly get back to the committee with further answers on that and we will give you an indication of what the folk on the ground are discussing with local authorities in that regard.
That was really helpful. Kenneth Gibson raised again the theme of trying to assure ourselves that across the 32 local authorities there is a consistency of approach to housing and house types, including specialist housing.
Thank you for coming, minister. I want to look at the 50,000 affordable homes target. For the record, will you tell us how many units are planned for in the SHIPs? There is a shortfall if you compare that figure with 50,000. Given that that is the case, how confident are you and how do you plan to fill that gap?
The recent analysis shows that, in the SHIPs, affordable housing completions for 2016 to 2021, which is the period covered by the 50,000 period, are estimated to be 44,891. That does not include completions from the national programme in 2017-18. The national programme includes such things as the home owners support fund, the open market shared equity scheme, the national housing trust initiative and the LAR Housing Trust. For example, if the OMSE scheme continues at the current rate of 1,700 completions per annum, it could contribute a further 6,800 units over the period 2017 to 2021. A further 8,859 completions are identified for 2021-22, and it may be possible to accelerate some of them into the target period. I am keen, as I think that we all are, to make sure that we have a cushion. As I said in my opening remarks, we know that often there is slippage, and I want to make sure that there is overprogramming as a cushion, so that we meet that target. I hope that that is clear enough for Mr Simpson.
Yes, that is clear. How realistic are the SHIPs? You said in your opening remarks that some are more comprehensive than others, which would indicate that you are not very happy with some of them. Can you give us more detail on that? You also said that the plans are not firm programmes. Given that that is the case, how confident are you that the figures are accurate?
In December, some local authorities included vast detail in their SHIPs and identified sites, housing types and the entire gamut, whereas other local authorities submitted only figures on the number of houses that they expected to bring forward. We have expanded on that and in most places the detail has been teased out by teams on the ground talking to local authorities. As we move on, confidence grows. I am in some regards an optimist but in others a pessimist, and I want to make absolutely sure that we deliver our ambitious target during this parliamentary session. We will continue to have discussions, to try to get firmed-up proposals.
There have been some changes from December to now, and things have occurred that have filled me with some joy. I was particularly worried about delivery in certain parts of Scotland, but it seems that some folk have stepped up the plate, and that delivery looks much more likely now than it previously did. I would not go as far as to say that I am filled with the ultimate amount of optimism in that regard, but I would say that my glass is three-quarters full. The programme is leading to a situation in which some housing associations are moving into areas where they have never carried out any business before. We talked about Cunninghame Housing Association, which mainly delivers housing in the Ayrshires. It is now moving to Dumfries and Galloway, and what it will be able to deliver will be a great boon to the south-west of Scotland. That will help it to meet its social housing requirements in the south-west.
The one thing that I can assure the committee of is that I will continue to talk to my officials all the time, to make sure that we continue to bolster that number and provide an even greater cushion, so that we reach that target of 50,000, and in particular the target of 35,000 houses for social rent. I will continue to update the committee as and when you require me to.
You say that your glass is three quarters full, but what about the other quarter? Are there any areas of the country that we, as a committee, might want to look at?
The south-west was an area where I had a particular concern and where I have less of a concern now. I will continue to look at all parts of the country to make sure that everybody is benefiting from the programme, as I have said numerous times to the committee.
I have been all over the place talking to folk, because the best way of dealing with housing is to get the on-the-ground knowledge from people about what is practical and what is not. The conversations that I have been having are pretty positive, but I rely on my eyes and ears on the ground—the colleagues of Caroline Dicks and Lisa Bullen, and regional officers—to say to me, “This is going well, but you may want to keep an eye on that”. They are the ones who communicate constantly about what is happening—or not happening. In the main, it is about what is happening.
10:30
Government advice on SHIPs advocates a co-production approach, the idea being to involve people as early as possible in that process. Can you give some examples of stakeholders having engaged with local authorities as part of that process, perhaps with an eye to sharing good practice at the national level, where something has been done well?
Let me relate a conversation that I had only yesterday with CCG Construction, which manufactures houses offsite. It talked about the co-operation that it had with East Ayrshire Council—I think that the level of co-operation there is quite high. East Ayrshire’s relationship with Cunninghame Housing Association, the main housing association in the area, is very good. In various places, people are talking about good levels of co-operation. Rural Stirling Housing Association has talked about the good co-operation that it had, going back a few months, with Stirling Council, the Scottish Government and other partners in delivering the first social housing in the village of Strathblane for 40 or 50 years. I think that the level of co-operation is pretty high out there.
People also know that if they face any difficulties or barriers in what they are trying to achieve, my door is open. Folk are not backward in coming forward in discussing barriers, but it does not seem that the barriers are between local authorities and housing associations, for example. When I first took on my current role, I found that one of the barriers was between some of the developers and Scottish Water. Scottish Water has taken action to change its workforce into one that is more delivery focused, and it has improved a fair bit. I always say that if anybody feels that they have a problem, I would be grateful if they passed that on to me, because I cannot deal with things unless I know about them.
What feedback have you had from local authorities and what feedback do you give them as part of the SHIPs review process?
I am reliant on the regional teams speaking to local authorities and hearing their views on how they think that the process has gone, and feeding back the Government’s views to them. We have an extremely good set of people on the ground who are in constant communication with local authorities and other partners. They are the eyes and ears that I rely on. If I may, convener, I would like to bring in Ms Dicks to say a little more about what those officials are doing.
The SHIPs review process for communicating with local authorities was agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Officials in our area teams look at a number of areas when SHIPs are submitted, and the minister has already mentioned things that they consider. We look at the projects that are listed as priorities, which should align with the strategy that has been set out for the area. We also look at the feasibility of delivery in relation to the timescales that have been set out for the projects.
The minister talked about some projects not happening and making sure that, if a project does not happen, there is enough capacity in the programme for other things to come forward.
We look at the resources that are set out in a SHIP, which includes the money that is needed to take the project forward. We also look at consultation with stakeholders—the committee has covered that.
We then write back to the local authority, covering any points that have arisen in the SHIP.
Those are all positives. During discussions earlier in the year, some community housing associations in certain areas—and in one area in particular—were not happy about the lack of input that they felt they had into the SHIP in their area. We will feedback to local authorities on that kind of issue as well. As I have said before in answer to questions at the committee and in answers to Mr Simpson, I am very keen for community housing associations to be involved in every part of the process. However, we will relay the feedback that we get and urge local authorities to do things a little bit differently when it comes to the next SHIPs in October.
I will follow up on Kenneth Gibson’s questions about specialist provision. You suggested that 13 per cent of planned SHIP developments are for specialist provision. How was that figure arrived at, and do you think that it is an appropriate figure, given the ageing population and the increased focus on the need to develop the independent living approach?
Local authorities have to assess need in their own areas and take account of changing demographics when they make their planning assumptions. I will get officials to talk about how the figure of 13 per cent was arrived at, but the key thing for me is not just having 13 per cent specialist provision but ensuring that the stock that we deliver is capable of adaptation. It is important that, as can be seen in the most recent outturn information, we have reached the figure of 94 per cent of the housing that is delivered being for varying needs. Obviously, there is still room for improvement—but not much. We will continue to make sure that we create homes for life.
I ask Ms Dicks to talk about the 13 per cent figure.
The projects are based very much on what the local authority assesses as being local need and, as Mr Gibson mentioned, the picture varies across different local authorities. Some local authorities place a much higher priority on providing such projects, whereas others place less priority on them. We have collated the figures nationally, based on the current SHIPs, and that is the current figure. SHIPs are live documents and will be updated again in October, so the figure might change—it might increase. If a local authority said in its strategy that housing for specialist provision was a particular priority, we would follow that through to see that the SHIP showed such projects in the authority’s plans for funding going forward. That is the kind of thing that we do in assessing the SHIPs. The 13 per cent is just what the local authorities tell us that they want to provide over the next few years in the affordable housing supply programme.
When I am and about, I make it quite well known that there are flexibilities in the subsidies, and that we look very carefully at bids for higher subsidies to provide the likes of wheelchair-accessible housing. I think that that message is getting through. I reiterate that many of the housing providers—particularly housing associations—that I have visited of late are taking cognisance of what is required and are delivering wheelchair-accessible housing on the ground.
Let me tell you what is behind my question. In our budget review session, we had evidence from Independent Living Scotland, for example, which argues that although provision is fine in some areas, it is not fine in other areas. To what extent is the Scottish Government not just monitoring the match between the local housing strategy and the SHIP, but ensuring that certain local authorities make enough provision for people with special needs and, potentially, stepping in to encourage more such provision, if and where that is needed?
I encourage disability groups to speak to local authorities and get involved in the formulation of the SHIPs. We talked about the disability action plan, and it is absolutely vital that local authorities listen to groups in their area if folks do not feel that there is enough provision. I will be very careful in what I say, because I do not want to identify individuals, but I am aware of some wheelchair-accessible houses that have been built to meet the needs of people who would have had to move away from the area if that had not happened. Local authorities, housing associations and other partners should be looking very closely at such need so that such circumstances do not arise.
I have said that people should talk to local authorities and I am willing to listen to folks’ experiences. I would encourage local authorities and other providers in areas where it is felt that there is not enough housing to meet such demand to take advantage of the flexibilities with the subsidies. As always, if colleagues come across any difficulties on their own patches, I am willing to hear about those and to do what I can to encourage greater provision if it is required.
We have touched on the mix and size of developments. It would be useful to find out how decisions are taken on which projects are finally approved. How do they become approved? How transparent is that process? How confident is the Government about those projects, in terms of needs and budgets? How are housing projects and strategies identified and put forward?
We are reliant on local authorities to scrutinise exactly what is required in their areas and where it is required. Alexander Stewart will know, having recently retired as a councillor, that local authorities can have quite a high level of scrutiny. Scrutiny from the Government side is about making sure that the resources that we provide are utilised in the best possible ways, for which we rely on our folk on the ground. As I am out and about, I come across those folk regularly and their knowledge of the projects is fairly high—in fact, it is very high. It is a combination of the right project management and scrutiny at the local authority level and, beyond that, the oversight of our folk on the ground in making sure that resources are being spent on the right things in the right places for folks throughout the country.
10:45
How can we look at the overall budgets—those that are set and managed centrally as well as those that are managed locally?
In some regards, there is probably no greater scrutineer of the budgets that are held centrally than me in making sure that every penny goes as far as it possibly can. With the moneys that are given directly to councils through the affordable housing supply programme, I have made it very clear that if councils are unable to spend the resource that they are given, I will have no qualms about moving it to authorities that are able to use it. That is another insurance policy, if you like, to ensure that we deliver the 50,000 target. I do not want to move resource in that way; I would rather that authorities spent their full allocations. However, if that does not happen, I will not be afraid to move resource to authorities that will spend it and deliver.
Thank you for joining us this morning, minister. I have a follow-up to that line of questioning. Kenneth Gibson explored rehabilitation—if that is the right term; perhaps “off-the-shelf purchases” is a better term. Could the resource that you mention be used to buy housing back for the public sector?
It is for local authorities to choose to do that. Where it can be demonstrated that the use of grant to acquire housing for rent off the shelf is the most appropriate method of meeting the housing needs that have been identified in a particular council area and is consistent with the priorities in the SHIP and in other plans, grant subsidy can be made available through the AHSP to do that. We are aware that a number of local authorities have purchased ex-local authority properties with the support of an AHSP grant. I have no difficulty with that approach, as long as it meets the needs in that particular area.
I will outline very briefly, and without identifying the family, a constituency case of mine. It is the third time that I have raised the case, which I think shows the policy challenges that we have. What you said was very interesting. The case involves an elderly person who previously bought their council house, which is a second-floor, one-bedroom flat in perfectly good condition. Their health has started to fail and they are kind of in poverty. The house is not much of an asset, it is no good for them and they could feel a bit trapped in it. I am delighted that the housing association is considering buying back that flat, but the person needs alternative accommodation. Is there anything to prevent housing grant—the housing association grant or whatever—from being used to fund that purchase and suitable accommodation being identified for that individual, which then frees up a social rented tenancy elsewhere?
I am trying to identify where that grant would sit. Although it might not show up against the 50,000 target, that is a new social rented house brought back into the sector, so of course it should show up against the 50,000 target. The issue is making sure that each of the budgets talks to each other and that we are joining the dots on this. A lot of stress would go away for this particularly vulnerable constituent and a new house would come back into social rent.
It is difficult for me to talk about an individual case, as you know. However, I would expect common sense to apply. If that house were to be purchased back into local authority or housing association control, it would be one added to the total because it is a new home that has previously not been available and is now available. It is difficult for me to judge a particular case without knowing the full detail of the property, the circumstances and various other things, but I would look for common sense to apply and for the local authority and the housing association to work in partnership to try to find the best possible outcome for folk.
That is very helpful, because I did not realise until now that the housing association could make a case to the local authority to get grant funding to buy a house back. I thought the housing association would have to use its own resources to do that. That is really interesting and it helps me out in my local area.
To clarify, it can be done in a mixture of ways. If you write to me, I will respond with what we think is possible. Obviously in the end it is a matter for the local authority and the housing association, but we can provide you with the details of how that could happen.
I will certainly do that. I think that we have progress for my constituent, but the wider policy position is fascinating. That is very helpful.
I took the opportunity while my colleagues were asking questions to read through the Glasgow housing strategy from 2017 to 2022—it is 100 pages long, so I read only some of it. What I gathered was that there is a target of 15,000 new builds in Glasgow, 70 per cent of which are to be social rent, and that sounds very impressive. I may have missed it, but I could not see in that what the house types are—I will go back and check that. What I did see was that the overcrowding level in Glasgow is 17.4 per cent, whereas the national average is 9 per cent. That is an indicator. The strategy, which we had a brief look at it this morning, may take that into account when it goes for its new-build programme, but overcrowding is another example of an indicator that we hope each local authority will use consistently and the Government will monitor nationally. Overcrowding in Glasgow is way above the national average, which suggests that larger new-build homes are pretty important. Of course for every larger new-build home you build and move an overcrowded family into, you free up another tenancy, so you have a double hit. Does overcrowding feature in your analysis of SHIPs?
What you have read is Glasgow’s local housing strategy. I would expect that to play a major part in the formulation of the delivery on the ground. Again, these are matters for local authorities. I have made my situation very clear. We are more than willing to have discussions about flexibility in grant subsidy if folk want to build houses with more bedrooms to resolve some of the overcrowding problems that you mention. I refer back to my last visit to Glasgow, which was to Arden a couple of weeks ago. The houses that are being built there are larger family houses, in some cases townhouses on three floors, which meet the needs of that particular area and provide much needed regeneration in a poorer part of the city. It would be wise for the local authority, in co-operation with its housing association partners, including those in the community housing association sector, to take complete cognisance of what the local housing strategy, which you have read for Glasgow, says and to make sure that the on-the-ground delivery reflects exactly what is required.
That is very helpful, certainly for our committee as we try to get our heads round how each of the strategic documents not only feeds into meeting that 50,000 target but meets the housing needs on the ground. That is what we are wrestling with as a committee, so that answer is helpful.
Do any of my colleagues have further questions? Before we wind up, minister, is there anything else that you want to put on the record that you did not have the chance to say this morning? There is time for that.
I thank the committee once again for allowing me to come here today. I am quite sure that, over the next few years, you will continue to scrutinise the housing programme. The committee should know that I am very focused on delivery to ensure that we reach the target of 50,000 affordable homes, 35,000 of which are for social rent, and the Government’s commitment is backed up by £3 billion-worth of investment over the course of the session.
The only other thing that I would like to put on record is my thanks to partners across the country—local authorities, housing associations, developers and other stakeholders, including communities—who have not been backward in coming forward and telling me what they would like to see. Without them, we would not be able to do this and I would like to thank them very much, and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to give evidence today.
Thank you and thank you to your team. That is a nice way to end this session.
10:57 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance