Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 15 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999

Official Report 205KB pdf

---

Housing

I would like to move on to housing, which is a key part of our remit. John McAllion is our reporter.

I have circulated a brief progress report on our work to date. Members can see from it that I am in the process of meeting and consulting various groups. Fiona Hyslop and I have had a very good meeting about our ideas of what the work programme should be.

We also met the Chartered Institute for Housing and Ownership Options in Scotland, which is a voluntary organisation that promotes ownership for people with disabilities and learning difficulties.

Further meetings have been arranged. I am meeting the west of Scotland forum of housing associations after this meeting and will meet the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. I will meet Robert Brown to discuss his member's bill and how it might impact on the work of the committee.

Many other groups should be given the chance to have some input, such as Shelter, the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

You will see that a possible outline programme has resulted from the discussions I have had. It covers about a dozen important areas, such as housing investment, affordability, the role of Scottish Homes, the role of local authorities, the housing green paper, the Government's legislative programme, the social rented sector, tenants' rights, housing finance and access to housing.

We cannot deal with those all at the same time—we must prioritise, plan and timetable the areas on which we think the committee should concentrate. My final report to the committee will suggest possible time scales and priorities. I would like to do that in consultation with other members of the committee and with other bodies.

There is still the problem of what we do in the interim; we should not do nothing. That is why I have mentioned possible early action. We could—in the early stages—use those organisations for gathering evidence.

The Chartered Institute for Housing, for example, was keen to point out that very few people in Scotland understand the complex housing finance system. If this committee does not understand it, that will be a major handicap, so it may be worth being briefed on that. John Breslin has been mentioned and he is one of the few people who genuinely understands and can explain it. It might be beneficial to have a session with him.

We may want to discuss the responses to the consultation to the green paper or we may want to invite one of the outside organisations to give evidence. We may want to bring Scottish Homes in. Peter McKinlay is leaving that organisation and as yet no replacement has been appointed. Instead, the chairman has been asked to do a day's extra work per week. We could maybe bring in Peter McKinlay and John Ward to question them on how they see the future of Scottish Homes. That future seems uncertain at this stage. We must get on with the programme

One issue that I wish to raise is that the meetings in here are inadequate. I did not realise that this was an all-ticket affair. Many people turned up this morning but could not get in because they did not know that it was ticketed. This is the best committee room we have. Meetings that deal with housing—for example the one with Scottish Homes—should be held in this room because they will be useful and of interest to the public. Some other meetings, for example those at which we take evidence on housing finance, could take place in one of the smaller committee rooms.

We will take some general comments on the paper and then move on to specific points.

Stock transfer is an issue that we should home in on at an early stage because it is complex and there is a variety of views against the proposals. Decisions will be made on the matter in the near future, so it is important that we have an understanding of how the process operates, what are the advantages and risks and what are the criticisms that have been levied by a number of housing bodies. That might involve hearing from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and groups like it which have a view, as well as finding out what the councils who are putting in bids have to say.

I agree with Robert. Stock transfer is receiving publicity as if it were the only important housing issue. In fact, as we know from John's list, much is happening. I would like the committee to address stock transfer at an early opportunity by taking evidence from all sources—for example from tenants and organisations who are well qualified to speak on the issue. We could then form an opinion about whether stock transfer is the best way forward for our housing stock.

I had a useful meeting with John at which we discussed many of the issues. I agree with him that we should take action sooner rather than later. We can make progress on inviting Scottish Homes to an early meeting. Looking back to the decisions that we made on the issue of stock transfer, we must be careful that we do not keep creating new agendas and that we pursue the decisions that we made. Stock transfer was the housing issue that we agreed we would examine. After meeting Scottish Homes, we should examine the financial implications and the community empowerment aspects of stock transfer.

John and I discussed how to make progress on those matters, not only with regard to urban areas but with regard to rural areas. Although there are great problems with and concerns about Glasgow, we have a responsibility to broaden our considerations—there are rural areas that are moving quickly on stock transfers. We should have meetings with councils and tenants. I hope that we can schedule those meetings soon because it will take time to get people to attend. I echo what John said about having an early meeting with Scottish Homes. After that we should meet tenants and councils.

I agree with John and Fiona that the issue of stock transfer should be an early priority for us, but I also want to flag up what John said about housing finance. He is right: it is a complex area. Two thirds of housing finance is expenditure on housing benefit. As we know, the UK Government is proposing changes to housing benefit. They were flagged up in an English housing green paper, even though the measures will cover the whole of the UK. I suggest that when the Government announces its initial proposals for the reform of housing benefit, this committee considers them seriously to ensure that measures are not dictated by the demands of England and ignore the needs of Scotland.

Convener, while it may be predictable that you and I consider that there is absolutely nothing that is more problematic with regard to Scottish housing than council housing in Glasgow, we must recognise that there is a rural dimension to the problem. We must underline the fact that housing investment impinges almost entirely on the so-called partnership agreements, or stock transfers.

Until such time as we are able to achieve consensus on that issue—if people disagree we should at least be out in the open—there is little hope of an increased level of housing investment, particularly in the peripheral schemes of our major cities, which is the main problem before us. That must be the priority and it underlines the decision that we took at our previous meeting.

I want to back up what Fiona said. It is important to consider the rural angle. Not only is the situation on some housing estates, such as Ferguson Park in Blairgowrie, desperate, but even towns that are relatively prosperous on the surface, such as Perth, have serious problems on certain housing estates. We must not ignore that and get drawn exclusively into dealing with the west of Scotland or the cities.

John's paper provides us with a useful overview of the issues that we have to consider. I am hearing that we need training in housing finance, that we need to meet Scottish Homes, and that we need to spend a considerable amount of time looking at housing stock transfer. Obviously, the situation in Glasgow will form part of that discussion, but we will also take in the rural dimension.

I accept everything that has been said around the table. At the moment stock transfers are the big issue. As Fiona made clear, the problem is different in rural and urban areas. I envisage having two separate meetings on stock transfers and a third meeting with the Scottish Executive to discover what its intentions are. After all, stock transfers have to be funded.

The Chartered Institute of Housing stressed that the committee cannot focus on stock transfers to the exclusion of everything else. West Lothian Council has set up a housing company that successfully runs and manages housing in the public sector. That is an alternative form of investment in public sector housing. In private finance initiative projects currently under way in England, private money is used to build new houses, but the houses are managed and controlled by local authorities in the normal way. That is another option that we must consider. Again, if the Treasury changed its definition of what constitutes public borrowing, some Scottish local authorities could invest massively in housing.

We should not focus on stock transfer exclusively, but look at the whole issue of housing investment—how we raise the money that needs to be put into housing. There are several different options on which this committee should be concentrating.

The housing benefit reforms that Alex mentioned are absolutely critical. We need to get up to speed on housing benefit. It has implications for affordability, because if people do not receive the requisite benefit, they cannot afford to stay in their houses. It also impacts on the Government's community ownership proposals.

And its overall social inclusion agenda.

The Government will not be able to transfer stock if the private lenders are not guaranteed a rent flow through housing benefit. Only a limited amount of the Scottish Parliament block grant is available as housing benefit. We need to consider the implications of housing benefit changes introduced by the Westminster Parliament for how much we can spend in Scotland.

There are many issues that we need to consider. I would like to have a broad discussion and draw up with Fiona and anyone else who wants to a final proposal for a programme of work.

A long-term plan?

In the meantime, I would argue very strongly for a public meeting with Scottish Homes and a less-than-public meeting on housing finance in one of the smaller committee rooms.

People seem to be in agreement about the early meetings. I take Cathie's point that housing stock transfer is not the only issue, but it looks as if we might have to make early decisions on that. I am keen to hear submissions giving the case for and against. I know that the Scottish Tenants Organisation, the Glasgow Campaign against the Housing Stock Transfer and other organisations have strong views on the issue. It is incumbent on this committee to hear those views. We also have to hear the housing associations, which have a different perspective on the issue, and to examine the Executive's proposals.

At the moment seven local authorities are considering housing stock transfer. It might be advisable to take evidence from some of those—perhaps from one rural and one urban authority.

We have to get the facts on the table. I take issue with John on whether we need input from the Scottish Executive at this stage. We as a committee should take responsibility for gathering the evidence and come to a decision on what we want. We do not need advice from the Scottish Executive.

That is not what John McAllion is suggesting.

Let us leave the grilling of the Scottish Executive until after we have heard all the evidence and formed an opinion on it.

I cannot see John disagreeing with that.

We can make the point when we have the ministers here that in future we intend to seek their views on housing stock transfer.

I imagine that there will be questions today on that issue, so we will get some steer on it.

I am being bureaucratic rather than political, but we need to get some decisions made. Housing stock transfers, finance and Scottish Homes will be our pre-Christmas priorities. Can we leave John and the clerks to book rooms and come forward with a programme? We need to ensure that the organisations that have a stake in the issue get access to the committee to give us their perspective. We are also willing to take written evidence. We must not make it too daunting for people if they want to give a formal presentation.

Is it agreed that I should try to arrange with the clerks an early meeting with Scottish Homes? That is our first priority.

Yes. I would be keen to tackle the finance issue too.

That would have to be at another meeting.

Yes, but it would not take too long for some organisations to provide us with a briefing, given their expertise. That does not require much organisation.

The big issue will be housing stock transfer. Cathie is absolutely right to say that we need to brief ourselves—let us hear the facts and figures and get the housing association movement, the people who have decided that they are against transfers and the people who favour them, to speak to us. Is that agreed? That is agreed. We are agreeing far too much, folks. This is absurd.

It is the new politics, Margaret.

I know. It will no last long.

Another 10 minutes.

Fifteen.

Thanks for your work, John. That was very helpful.