Official Report 229KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is our consideration of the housing improvement task force report. As we are all aware—after all, we are debating the matter this afternoon—the Scottish Executive has published the task force's first report, called "Issues on Improving Quality in Private Housing". In considering how to develop our response to the report, we should take into account petitions PE356 and PE391. The clerk has included a note on how we should approach the issue, in which it is suggested that we undertake a limited written evidence consultation exercise and consider a draft response at our meeting on 12 June. Do members have any comments?
I suggest that we should take not just written evidence, but oral evidence. As the committee pointed out in the run-up to the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, the issue is very important. The organisations that have been listed as possible consultees are the kind of people that we would want to hear from. As this major issue affects 70 per cent of the Scottish population in the private sector, it deserves a wee bit more attention and perhaps one oral evidence-taking session would be in order.
I do not entirely disagree with that suggestion. On the other hand, the task force report simply states the factual position rather than the policies that might emerge from it. I would want some clarification about what we were seeking to obtain from an evidence-taking session instead of using such a session to go over the same ground again.
Robert Brown's points highlight the question of what we would be seeking from a broader consultation. Because we have agreed to scrutinise everything that emerges from the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and related matters, we could end up having meetings every day of the week to take evidence from people. As a result, we need to be fairly focused about any such consultation. Robert Brown is right to say that the report is a statement of the facts. In a sense, we are asking people who are already engaged in the process with the housing improvement task force to come to us and reflect on their contribution elsewhere, which means that we might be in danger simply of replicating work that is being done elsewhere.
Robert Brown is right to point out that the list of consultees is very much a case of the usual suspects and, as the convener pointed out, we have received written submissions from several of them. Perhaps we should be a bit more innovative and have one evidence session with people who are doing the work on the ground, just to find out what the situation is like and what they think of the report, instead of bringing in their umbrella organisations, which have already taken part in compiling the report. Perhaps we could invite a voluntary committee member from an inner-city housing association, such as the one in Govanhill.
But are those the people who are talking about the housing improvement task force report? Robert Brown made the point that we should take evidence from bodies that have experience of private sector properties and tenemental properties.
Many housing associations do a lot of work for the private sector. They are at the front line—getting the work together, dealing with the lack of tenement law and working through the grant system.
At the appropriate time, we will probably want to speak to people who work at the coal face dealing with issues such as those that we are discussing. I do not think that now is the appropriate time to do that. The HITF's stage one report is intended to set out the key areas on which we need to focus. The four groups that have been established to consider those areas will provide more detail. The written submissions that we received from Shelter and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland are very brief; those organisations recognise that, as Lyndsay McIntosh said, this is work in progress. We will move on from the point that we have now reached.
Time is short, and I agree with what Cathie Craigie said. I do not think that it is appropriate for us to take oral evidence at this stage. We will want to do that when the task force reports for the second time, to ensure that everything that should be covered is being covered. The situation would be different if the committee were concerned that something was missing and if it were glaringly obvious that the task force had left something out. However, the evidence of the organisations that have written to us about today's debate suggests that that is not the case.
I would like to make a practical suggestion. Everything seems to be focused on the task force's second report. Because a large amount of work is involved, it would be useful for us to do some preparatory work slightly later in the process, if we can identify the report's likely date of publication. It would probably be pointless for us to ask for written evidence as part of that exercise. Rather, we should ask relevant organisations whether they think any issues are missing from the existing report. There is little point in our going back over the work of the housing improvement task force, as all or most of the organisations that we would want to consult have made an input to that. I do not support the suggestion that we seek written evidence from them, as that would achieve nothing. Instead, we should ask the organisations whether anything has been left out in the analysis and in the way in which the task force is tackling this issue. We can feed in that information later in the process.
I will collate what has been suggested and Kenny Gibson can decide whether that would satisfy him. We might want to consider contacting a broader range of folk, but the focus should be on whether there is something missing from the report. If something big emerges from that exercise, we may at a later stage want to meet people to ask them why they think it is so important that that has been excluded. Such an approach would deal with the anxieties that Kenny Gibson has.
To be honest, I have no major anxieties about the report. However, it would be interesting to ask the organisations whether they have specific concerns about key areas. I take on board many of the comments that have been made. Obviously, we are looking forward to the specific recommendations that will be contained in the task force's second report. We want to ensure that, as we move into the second stage of this process, we are heading in the right direction. That was the thinking behind my comments. On this issue I would be happy to yield to the views of other members of the committee. However, we must widen out written evidence to include more front-line organisations.
I am conscious of time. If members have suggestions of specific organisations that should be approached, they should e-mail those suggestions to the clerks by the end of tomorrow. That would also give us the opportunity to reflect on today's debate, during which something might emerge about organisations to contact.