Official Report 181KB pdf
Item 2 is the Minister for Communities and Sport's responsibilities. I invite him to make a short introduction after his officials have changed seats. The minister is accompanied by Dr Andrew Scott, who is the head of the social housing division; Alisdair McIntosh, who is the deputy director, regeneration policy and housing support; and Mike Palmer, who is the deputy director, social inclusion.
I thank the convener for allowing me to make a few opening remarks. Given the time constraints this morning, I will try to keep them brief.
I have one wee question about the timeline in relation to Communities Scotland. When do you wish the committee to give you thoughts about Communities Scotland?
As soon as possible. We want to make a decision imminently and to have that with staff as soon as possible. If members wish to raise particular issues, I would appreciate it if they did so today. If they wish to write to me, it would be appropriate for them to do so as soon as possible.
We have a timetable and lots of work to do across the board. Would doing something on our views about Communities Scotland be a worthwhile exercise, or has a decision been made?
The decision has not yet been made, but it will be made in the very near future. I fully expect a decision to be arrived at in the next week or two.
I am gravely disappointed by that. Given that you talk about ending uncertainty for staff, it is a bit much to create uncertainty by saying that you are not sure what will happen to Communities Scotland, then to give that as a reason why you are not able to have full consultation with the committee and other relevant organisations on Communities Scotland's future, especially given the serious and hard discussion about the significance of that body that we had at the away day. That is not to say that anyone thinks that Communities Scotland must remain as it is, but a discussion about the options that are available would have been more credible.
Thank you very much for those questions. In respect of consultation with other stakeholders, as I said in my opening remarks, a range of discussions have been held with key housing regeneration stakeholders, including organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, as well as with the staff and board of Communities Scotland. It is entirely appropriate that a number of meetings have taken place at official level to discuss the issues.
To be clear, you have not ensured that the committee will have an input into the process. We do not have the timescale to do that. At no stage have we been provided with an opportunity to comment on the options that you are considering. At the away day, it was made clear that there are hard issues involved, which go far beyond saying that any particular political party's manifesto commitment is to save Communities Scotland or to get rid of it. We must consider a number of questions. Should we have a regulatory body? Do we need a housing agency to drive the housing agenda, as a number of people have suggested? Is it necessary to have the expertise of an organisation such as Communities Scotland on regeneration? Is it credible to get rid of a single body and to disperse its work among 32 local authorities? Those are hard issues to resolve; even within parties, there is probably not agreement on how to do that.
There is clearly a difference of opinion on the matter. We made our view clear in the run-up to the election. At the committee's away day, I said that it was the job of the Administration to set out its position on the organisation and that it was the job of the committee to examine that decision, taking evidence if it so wished, and to ascertain whether the decision provides the delivery mechanisms that we want for housing regeneration. I have made it clear that we need to have an independent regulatory function. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. Different people have different views on how to proceed. It is up to the committee to examine the proposals that we make over the next few weeks.
We have a wee problem with this—not with your right to exercise your manifesto positions but with your not having the confidence to discuss the matter across parties and to seek a consensus or a better understanding of the options. We perhaps misunderstood in thinking that you were prepared to have an open discussion on the matter.
It is on a different subject.
Alasdair Allan has a point on the same subject.
I wonder whether the minister could elaborate. I am certain that the committee will wish to scrutinise vigorously what the minister puts before us. Is there any precedent for what has just been suggested, with a series of options put before the committee and then decided on? My impression is that there is no such precedent and that that is not how things are done in committees.
If I may interject, I am not seeking to do that. There is a clear difference between what the new Government has laid out in its manifesto and how it intends to get there. There is a clear role for the committee to scrutinise the process and get a better understanding of it, and to communicate its conclusions on the Government's thinking and its justifications for that thinking to the Parliament and to the public. No committee had a veto on the decisions of the previous Executive, nor do we seek one on those of the Government. We seek a line of communication and accountability. Our job is to try to make the Government accountable to the Parliament, through the committee.
It was not your comments that I was referring to, convener.
I entirely accept what Alasdair Allan has said about how the process works. From my recollection, the first two Administrations never put options before a committee for it to get involved in that part of the process.
We have heard what the minister has to say.
I have a couple of questions about housing stock transfer and how the Scottish Executive intends to deal with the situation that has arisen in those local authority areas where tenants voted against stock transfer in a ballot. As the minister knows, the deal with stock transfer was that if tenants voted to transfer their housing stock, the Treasury would agree to write off the housing debt, which would then lever in further funds to improve social housing stock and to build additional social housing in areas such as Edinburgh and others where such stock transfers were proposed. What discussion has the Scottish Government had with the Treasury about the prospect of the Treasury relaxing its previous ruling on the subject and thereby in effect writing off housing debt for local authorities where the local authority is still the landlord and there has been no stock transfer?
Several members have expressed concerns about that point and many local authorities have had difficulty grappling with the issue. From contact at official level, it is fair to say that the Treasury is not keen to move on that point. As far as the Treasury is concerned, those local authorities that transfer their social housing stock out of public control will get their debt written off and those that do not will not have that debt written off. I am disappointed with that. Other models could have been used and the Treasury should be a bit more flexible, but it is unlikely to move on that point at the moment.
As that is likely to remain the case, is the Scottish Government going to accept that and agree that nothing more can be done for those council areas that rejected the initial stock transfer proposals? Alternatively, does the Scottish Government have ideas about working with those councils so that debt transfer might be achieved by, for example, having partial stock transfers for particular estates?
I do not accept that that is the end of the matter. We must come up with a solution that will help with housing regeneration in such areas. However, there is no doubt that the Treasury will not accept anything other than housing stock transfer as the model for housing debt write-off.
I take it that you think that the Scottish Government's role in this is essentially passive in that it will be responding to councils' proposals rather than actively working with those councils to find solutions.
No. If that was the impression that I gave, it was a mistake. As I said, we met City of Edinburgh Council councillors and officials to discuss some of their problems. I also met the leader of Renfrewshire Council, along with its housing spokesperson and officials, to discuss the problems that they have had. We are proactively going out to engage with the councils where the problem exists. We are also, as I said, bringing forward options, choices and possibilities through the consultation document that will be published quite soon.
Is everyone who is involved in the dialogue clear that there is no debt write-off if there is no transfer and that, therefore, any alternative proposals for consideration will have to include a transfer element if debt is to be written off and new moneys are to be levered in for investment in housing?
That is the Treasury's position at the moment, as far as we can make out. I am happy to continue the previous engagement with the Treasury on the issue. One of the problems is that if the Treasury were willing to accept a model for debt write-off in Scotland that was not stock transfer, the impact for the Treasury would be quite high levels of cost throughout the rest of the UK. I understand the Treasury's position, although I do not doubt that there are other models that it should consider. We would be happy to engage with the Treasury to see whether there is any room for manoeuvre, but I am not optimistic.
Can the committee have access to the communications raising the issue that have passed between Scottish ministers and UK ministers and officials?
I am happy to go back and look at that, convener. If you allow me to pause and reflect on it, and check whether it is—
Pause and reflect on an exchange of information?
If those communications are available for publication or release, I am happy to pass them on. You will understand that some correspondence between ministers and Government is confidential. There is a protocol about keeping letters and correspondence between ministers confidential.
Let us take a step back, minister. How many meetings have taken place between Scottish ministers and UK ministers on the issue? How many meetings have taken place between officials of the Scottish Government and UK officials on the issue since May?
Since May, there have been no formal meetings between officials on that particular point.
What about between ministers?
No, not on that point. Not since May.
So, since you came into government, there has been no contact on the issue. You have just told the committee that you presume that there will be no change in the UK Treasury's position, yet you have no grounds to substantiate that, as the Scottish Government has not contacted ministers or officials.
The UK position, as set out, has not changed since May. That position was clear before May and it has not changed.
Will you give the committee an assurance that you will carry out that work formally and make those discussions happen?
Carry out which work?
I may have misheard you, minister, but you gave evidence that the position had not changed. You gave us the impression that discussions between officials had taken place, but it now seems that those discussions have not taken place and that there has been no contact with the UK Government on the issue. If we are to get anything meaningful to happen, it is vital that we get debt write-off, but there has been nothing—
There was correspondence between the UK Treasury and officials prior to May. That had been going on for a considerable period. It is not that a raft of meetings suddenly took place post-May; the position that was laid out to me is that, on the basis of the contact prior to May, there is little prospect of the UK Treasury shifting its position. I am not aware that anything has changed in relation to the UK Treasury's position since the 3 May election.
We read about changes in the UK position on air-guns and all manner of things since then. I am puzzled by your coming here and portraying the UK position as something that is set. We have no means of confirming that.
I think that we need a bit of clarity. My understanding of what you said, minister, was that there had been dialogue between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on debt write-off and housing stock transfer. However, it was unclear whether you meant the new Government, post-May, or the previous Government. There has been dialogue and you have seen communications showing the previous Government's approach to the UK Government on the issue, which does not make you optimistic. The committee would be happy if you were to give us a commitment that you will reopen communication lines. That would certainly satisfy me.
I want to talk briefly about the
Your last point is, of course, a matter of record and I did not suggest otherwise. However, debt write-off happened within the scope of the stock transfer that was managed by the previous Administration. Councils could choose either to transfer or not transfer housing stock. It is my impression that that was the end of the matter, as far as policy was concerned. That is my view, although you might have a different one. You seem to suggest that we are taking a policy decision to increase rents.
A parliamentary answer from Nicola Sturgeon identified three options: increased rent levels, disposing of HRA assets and increased efficiencies. Would a certain level of rent increase be unacceptable and would you intervene? What assets do you imagine disposing of and how would such efficiencies be delivered?
The setting of rent levels is a matter for local authorities, who must set levels that are appropriate to allow them to carry on their work to maintain the quality of the local housing stock. It is not for me to dictate to them; we have no national rent cap or policy as such and neither did the previous Administration. It is for local authorities to set the appropriate rent level so that they can manage their stock and bring it up to a decent standard. Nothing has changed in that regard; it is a statement of fact.
Some of those options must be more acceptable to you than others in the context of there being no debt write-off. The challenge to local authorities is to meet the Scottish quality housing standard, but you say that they are unable to do so. The Scottish Government is saying to local authorities, "Here is a range of things that you can do; now bring forward these particular options." You identified those options as the new tools in the box, as opposed to the one tool that you said was there before. You say that you do not want to build new houses, but at the same time, you encourage local authorities to vest themselves of land. Those two things do not fit together terribly well.
In some cases they will not fit together, but in others they will. Different councils have different levels of assets. It might not be appropriate to build council houses on some parts of the land that they own; it might be more appropriate to sell that land. What has been said is that councils have those options; it is not for us to dictate rent levels, although it would not be appropriate for there to be sudden steep hikes in rent. Nobody suggests that there should be; I am certainly not suggesting it.
You said in your opening statement that you would report later on progress towards the 2012 homelessness targets. Saying that you will report later is a bit vague; I would like details for the committee about what you plan to do to help to meet those targets. A great concern in many areas is that local authorities are using up to 60 per cent of their current budget allocation on homelessness. That makes many people try to jump the queue by saying that they are homeless, although they might not previously have done that, to ensure that they are housed as quickly as possible. That puts extra pressure on many local authorities' housing lists. What are you doing to increase the housing stock for local authorities and registered social landlords?
That raises several points. We have discussed with COSLA the timetable that is in place. In the summer recess, I spoke to councils throughout the country. You are right to say that they are feeling some pressure on the issue. We intend to publish the report that I mentioned on progress towards the 2012 targets later this year, so it will be available in 2007.
Good morning, minister. As you know, a plethora of grants is available to tackle fuel poverty—some grants are more widely known and more effective than others. What action is being taken to consolidate and simplify the different grant schemes that are available to tackle and eradicate fuel poverty?
You are right to say that there is a range of options. The issue is cross-portfolio and involves not just me but other ministers who deal with energy efficiency, building standards and other matters. We want to examine how we focus on fuel poverty. The current set-up has been welcome and many people have benefited from the grant schemes that are in place, but one of my concerns is that it lacks local flexibility.
Your answers have been very helpful, minister. It must be difficult to get to grips with the issue. In some respects, you do not have much control over the matter. The Scottish Parliament might have control over how it deals with energy inefficiency, but you clearly do not have control over levels of disposable income. You probably have even less control over the price of domestic fuel, given the variability of prices in recent years—judging from recent issues with gas supplies, it seems that prices depend on the mood that President Putin happens to be in on a day-to-day basis.
We intend to have meetings with energy supply companies soon, although we have not had any since May. I also intend to meet representatives of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to discuss common approaches to bringing down the level of fuel poverty in Scotland. Ministers with responsibility for fuel poverty from throughout the UK meet periodically. There has been no such meeting since May, and I am not sure when the next one is due. However, at that next meeting, I will raise the specific problems of fuel poverty that exist here in Scotland. Officials meet their opposite numbers in the Department of Trade and Industry—as it was—to discuss many of the issues.
As you know, I have secured a debate on fuel poverty on 27 September, so we can go into the matter in greater depth then. However, I am concerned about our target of eradicating fuel poverty by 2016. Given the extraneous pressures from fuel supply, costs and wage levels, is it realistic to have such a target? It is like a moveable feast.
The target is certainly difficult—it is extremely ambitious. However, I think that it is worth having a target. It puts pressure on Government and others to focus their energy on eradicating fuel poverty as far as is reasonably practical. It helps to drive forward the momentum and ensures that we do not take our eye off the ball with regard to tackling fuel poverty. It has a great deal of value in ensuring that the pressure is kept on and that our foot is kept on the gas.
Good morning, minister. You are aware of the representations that I have made about the central heating scheme and the apparent variations in the performance of the contractor, Scottish Gas, in different parts of the country. I know that you are dealing with that matter, and I will not press you for further details on it unless you wish to supply any.
I will comment briefly on the performance of Scottish Gas, which has been disappointing. I have made no secret of my view on that in responding to questions on the issue. Officials have been pressing Scottish Gas in meetings to ensure that it honours its commitments. It has said that it will meet the target of 12,000 installations, but the problem relates to the variation in the number of those installations throughout the country. The area that Alasdair Allan represents and others—particularly rural and island areas—have, up to now, been losing out under that contract. We will continue to press Scottish Gas to ensure that it acts according to not just the letter, but the spirit of the contract. We must ensure that all parts of the country have the opportunity to benefit from the programme.
Today, as previously, you are raising a wee bit of concern among committee members by talking about the free central heating programme in the past tense. You have taken the time to question its outcomes and benefits. Are you moving towards ending that scheme, as something that does not provide the value that you and the Government want?
That is not the position at all. We only want to see what benefit has accrued from the scheme, which has been welcomed and supported across all parties. Nevertheless, it is the case—officials will correct me if I am wrong—that more than half of the systems that are now being installed are replacement systems rather than systems for people who had no system at all. Clearly, there has been a shift in the delivery of the programme. All that I am saying is that it is right and proper that we examine the initial research and the figures that are coming out of that about how many people are in fuel poverty and the impact of the programme before we decide how to proceed.
Are you suggesting that the free central heating programme might be means tested in future?
No, I am not suggesting that.
Are you giving your guarantee that it will continue?
I am saying that we will review the programme and find out whether we are getting the maximum return for the public money that is going into it, so that we can ensure that fuel poverty is tackled. It is only right and proper that we should review that to ensure that we get the best value for those who are living in fuel poverty.
So there are no guarantees for its future in its present form.
Nothing stays the same forever and we cannot say that the current programme will last forever. It is entirely reasonable to review it. I am not for a minute suggesting that we will take it away or stop it; that will not happen. The programme will continue, but we have to ensure that it targets those who live in fuel poverty, which might mean looking at other options to ensure that that happens. That does not mean that we will means test people, or that we will stop the programme. It just means that we should look at the evidence.
But you would not rule out any of those possibilities.
They are very unlikely. I cannot see the purpose behind what you are suggesting.
I am just wondering why there should be a review.
The review is about ensuring that the effort is being made to tackle fuel poverty. If the evidence is that the programme is not tackling fuel poverty in the way that we hope it is, I assume that any Government would consider that evidence and ask how it can adjust the programme to ensure that it focuses on the problem, which is fuel poverty. Surely the focus of the Government should be not on defending the current programme no matter what the evidence, but on ensuring that the programme is fit for purpose and that it tackles fuel poverty.
We welcome the review and look forward, as a committee, to being involved in the debate. I hope that you can assure us that our views will be taken into account fully.
If the Government is going to review the programme but it is not going to consider means testing, does that mean that you are looking at continuing with a free central heating programme for the over-60s and extending it to other groups? What elements of the programme are you going to review if not who can access it?
We can review the evidence to see whether the programme is reducing or eradicating fuel poverty. If it is not doing that, we have to ask questions about how we ensure that any programme that we propose does that. We will review the evidence, the results of the programme and what it has done so far, and then we can consider critical questions, one of which is the geographic variation of the programme's impact.
Is this the first time that the Government has said that programmes are to be reviewed?
I am not aware that that is the case. We discussed the issue at the committee's away day. The Government's clear message has been that we are considering whether all programmes—not just on fuel poverty, but across portfolios—are fit for purpose. Any new Government that came into office would consider whether existing programmes were the right way to go or whether it had to take a new tack. I do not think that I have made a new announcement.
So the review is internal at ministerial and official level and is not an external review for which stakeholders and other people are invited to submit evidence and which involves consultation processes.
At the moment, the review is internal. Once it is complete, we might move to a second stage, but we must have the internal review first.
The line of questioning is bizarre. If a new Government did not review existing measures as a matter of course, it would be doing something far wrong. It would be bizarre to say that we would review programmes but keep everything the same. The review does not involve ruling anything in or out. As part of good governance, a review will take place. I am happy with that.
Of course, Bob. However, I remind you that you had the opportunity to ask questions about Communities Scotland at the beginning of the session.
I tried hard to get in.
I also remind you that our session with the minister at the away day was informal and private, whereas the comments today are on the record, as they need to be.
I am allowed to give my view on the record, too, convener.
You have just done so.
I think that the review is positive. Am I right in saying that the review is intended to enhance delivery of the campaign to reduce fuel poverty? The minister talked about examining what is happening in other areas. One reason why I raised warm zones is that a successful measure is being implemented south of the border, which I would like to be considered. The review's aim is to help reduce fuel poverty and not to do anything that could detract from that.
If the question is whether the review is about budgets, the answer is that it is not. It is about enhancing the programme to ensure that we do what I think we all want to do—tackle fuel poverty. That was the reason for introducing the programme and why it attracted cross-party support. It is only right and proper to have an internal review of whether programmes are achieving the ends that we want and, if they are not, to ask how we should enhance them to ensure that they do. That is the fundamental point.
I will move on to regeneration. What are the new Scottish Government's key policy priorities for regeneration, particularly urban regeneration?
Our policy is to build on the work that has been done. We all acknowledge that previous Administrations have done much good work on regeneration. Several structures that are in place have been shown to be of value in delivering regeneration projects in various parts of the country. The detail of our policy position on regeneration will be laid out after the spending review.
I certainly hope that you will do all that you can to implement the SNP's urban regeneration policy, which I drafted and which was unanimously agreed at the 2001 annual conference. It covers all areas of regeneration.
We must scrutinise that, minister.
It took a year and a half to produce that document, which runs to more than 100 pages—it has quality and width.
And joined-up writing?
Absolutely—very small writing.
I will deal with your second point first. The URCs' business plans are undergoing detailed appraisal to allow us to determine whether they match up with our ambitions and are realistic. That process is continuing.
Which geographic areas do you wish to prioritise? Are they the areas that are covered by the six URCs, or are other areas under consideration?
If you are asking me whether I have a shopping list of areas that I think should have URCs set up in them, the answer is that I do not. For me, the priority is that we use an evidence base. We have the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, which we use to ensure that our regeneration effort goes into areas of multiple deprivation. My priority is to use the evidence from the index to ensure that we have a targeted and focused regeneration effort in those areas, rather than to identify a list of geographic areas from which to pick and choose.
I have a specific question. You will be aware of communities' anxieties about the future of the community regeneration fund. Many organisations are waiting for decisions on that. Can you tell us where we are with that? If, because of the spending review, you cannot take a long-term, strategic approach to the community regeneration fund, what will you do in the short term to address the fact that some projects are now closing? There is a huge amount of anxiety about the issue. If you are not able to take action in relation to the big picture, can something be done at least for a year?
You are right about that. The caveat is that we must await the outcome of the spending review. I understand the uncertainty and anxiety in some areas, and I wish to minimise that. Decisions on the community regeneration fund will be taken as soon as possible after the spending review process is complete.
I should point out that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, in response to similar questions, said that decisions would be made soon. She was enthusiastic about that. My following question was whether there would be an announcement over the summer, before the committee returned from recess. The cabinet secretary said no, but she said that there would be one early in the autumn. She did not refer to the spending review—although that might have been an omission.
I have a copy of the Official Report of the meeting in question. Nicola Sturgeon was indeed enthusiastic, but she did mention the spending review in response to your follow-up question. She did make—
I remain to be convinced.
If you check the Official Report, it is there.
I would like to clarify that the Executive is considering all technical possibilities. I do not understand the detailed technicalities, but I understand that it is possible, pending the outcome of the spending review, for the Executive to decide that it wants certain projects to continue for a further year. It can allow them to roll on for another year and then examine the situation in a year's time or six months' time. It is not just a matter of people getting redundancy notices. People are looking for other jobs; projects will stutter and fall anyway.
I am trying to give as much comfort as I can under the constraints of the spending review. We have had private conversations about the matter, convener, and I have heard rumours from around the country but, thus far, no local authority has approached us to raise issues in this regard or to make representations. There have been individual short conversations in corridors, but local authorities have done little else to make formal points to us that they are experiencing difficulties in this regard. I accept, however, what the convener and Johann Lamont have said to me this morning about the anxiety that can be created through uncertainty.
We all understand that the community regeneration fund is not the only element of overall spending, but we appreciate the important work that arm's length community organisations do in our constituencies. If redundancy notices were being handed out to public sector employees, perhaps we would hear much more about that. I am sure that all members value the work that community organisations do, but some of them are very vulnerable. We do not want that work to be put at risk. I take the minister at his word, though, and I hope that he will communicate with the committee on his room for manoeuvre and give as much comfort as he can. I look forward to hearing from him.
I want to ask about jobs. I have said previously that I would like the minister to bring to the committee more information about the reform of Communities Scotland. I admit that one reason for saying that is that I was looking for a decision on Communities Scotland to be taken as soon as possible because of the uncertainty about jobs in it. During the earlier debate, I wanted to say that I am glad that a decision is imminent, as such a decision is important. It means that people will quickly get an idea of the future of their jobs. I hope that, in making a decision about Communities Scotland, sensitivity will be shown to the individuals who work for it and their families, whether there are to be redundancies or whether people are to be transferred elsewhere. I am grateful that a decision will be taken imminently, and hope that policy implementation will be as sensitive as possible.
Bob Doris made a general point about the anxiety among staff. I am well aware of the anxiety among staff and their families and am keen to minimise it. We are therefore happy to engage with individual members of staff and their representatives—the trade unions—on the implementation of any decision or possible organisational and structural changes. I guarantee that we will do so.
I thank the minister for his attendance. Given our time constraints, we appreciate that things are difficult for everyone.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation