Official Report 183KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2008 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys.
Thank you, convener. I am pleased to be here. I do not intend to take up much of the committee's time with opening remarks. I think it would be better to leave most of the time for questions and discussion. However, I will make one or two points by way of introduction.
That is helpful. It gives the committee the opportunity to spend more time on questions and discussion with you.
As you know, we made the suggestion in the "Firm Foundations" proposals, and it attracted overwhelming support in the responses. I will say a wee bit more about our developing thinking on the allocation of the money.
What do you see as the difference between a council house and a housing association house?
For the tenant, I am sure that there is no appreciable difference. However, I believe—and I hope that we can agree on this—that, given the extent of the housing need that we face in Scotland, we must ensure that we have all hands on deck in meeting that need. That is why it is responsible and sensible to see local authorities as having a role to play, as partners with the Government and housing associations, in increasing the rate of house building, including of houses for social rent, so that as a country we can meet the growing need in a way that we perhaps have not done in recent years.
Does the policy actually identify need? What happens when councils have money but not necessarily the greatest need?
I can share with the committee some initial thinking about the allocation of the £25 million, which might be helpful in structuring future discussions. Before I do so, I want to make an important point. We are looking to determine the arrangements around allocation in partnership with COSLA. We are already in discussion with COSLA about it, and what I am about to say is a statement of current thinking rather than the final version. It is important that we work together with our partners in local authorities. I know that they share that view—they are positive about the initiative and want to be fully involved.
That is helpful.
I want to touch on a couple of areas, cabinet secretary. You briefly mentioned the first, which relates to the right to buy. For a long time, I have been of the opinion that the right to buy should be reformed. It is great that people have had a chance to access affordable housing and to live in mixed communities—that has been largely successful—but one result, which you partly outlined, is the huge demand for social housing in Scotland. The need has not been met, and I understand that one way in which the Government intends to tackle it is through reform of the right-to-buy process.
Thanks for those questions. First, I concur with the points that you made on the right to buy. On whether we are considering going further, the short answer is yes. I have no doubt that the £25 million is an important incentive for councils to start to build council houses again, but an even more important incentive is the knowledge that new-build council houses will not be subject to the right to buy. Certainly, that is the feedback that we have had from a number of councils and other players in the field.
I will indulge myself and do a Kenny Gibson on the right to buy. I think that all committee members acknowledge that people aspire to own their own home. Because of the recent publicity about the right to buy, I have had representations from people who have lived in housing association properties for more than 20 years but have never had the right to buy. They feel bitter about that, and they do not envisage ever having that right. What can we say to people in rented accommodation who aspire to own their own home? Is there any thinking about how they could be supported in some way to move from rented accommodation and buy their own home? Grievances are building up because such people see others in the housing association sector being helped.
I accept both the premise of the question and the aspirational element of the right to buy, which is what is behind the policy's success. Like many other people, I grew up in a home that was purchased under the right to buy, so I understand the aspirational element. I, too, have constituents who have raised the point that you make because they live in housing association properties that have not been subject to the right to buy. We must think about how we ensure that the aspirational element is not lost.
You said that you are thinking. Is it serious thinking? I know that in the scheme of things it might not be—
I say in all seriousness that although I understand your points and I am open minded about ideas and suggestions—the Government, too, will think about the different steps that we can take—we must not lose sight of the significant issue that all members are right to talk about regularly, which is the housing challenge that we face in all tenures, not least in the social rented sector. For that reason, we cannot simply continue with the right to buy unreformed. The right to buy is leading to the loss of houses from the social rented sector. The statistics show that the average number of houses lost to that sector every year is about double the number of new builds in the sector, so the issue is significant. In addition, the right acts as a disincentive to councils to become involved in new build. For all those reasons, we are right to consider seriously fairly radical reform.
I will ask about the £25 million to incentivise council house building. I am an MSP for Glasgow, where the situation is somewhat different from elsewhere, as wholesale stock transfer from the council has taken place. Some local authorities that have no core council housing stock might still wish to get their hands on the extra moneys that are available. Will you make initial comments on how a local authority such as Glasgow City Council, which has no stock, could take some of that pot of cash to incentivise house building?
I said at the outset that we are discussing with COSLA the principles that will underpin the allocation of the money. No decisions have been taken, so it is clear that scope exists to discuss that point. However, it is important that I am frank and honest with the committee. To achieve the maximum benefit from the money that we are prepared to invest in new council house building, the money must be focused on councils that have retained their housing stock. I understand that other councils will want to seek ways to access money. As I say, our mind is not closed to such discussions, but apart from any other arguments, I think that the overheads and administrative costs of recreating the necessary housing infrastructure would be prohibitive for a council such as Glasgow City Council that has divested itself of all its housing stock, given the scale of the investment that we are talking about. However, the discussions continue.
I imagine that a large local authority such as Glasgow City Council could still have a role. Along with the City of Edinburgh Council, Glasgow City Council has the unique role of handing out the housing association grant on behalf of what was Communities Scotland. Have you thought about giving authorities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh a wider strategic role? In Glasgow, large pots of cash are out there, such as the moneys for 3,000 new houses that Glasgow Housing Association is supposed to build, of which 100 to 200 are in the pipeline. The GHA is given significant pots of public cash. Do you see a key strategic role for the local authority in administering the HAG, any new moneys to incentivise council house building and grants to other agencies in Glasgow?
I am more than happy to factor those comments into our thinking. "Firm Foundations" talks about the need to have more regional strategic planning for housing need, which is important. Bob Doris raises what are for different reasons legitimate issues for Glasgow and Edinburgh. Glasgow City Council's issue is that it has divested itself of its housing stock; that is not the case for the City of Edinburgh Council, but it might have a lack of prudential borrowing capacity. We need to discuss such issues with local authorities individually and with COSLA.
I really appreciate that answer. You will understand that some elected members in Glasgow are frustrated when we see that although significant public funds rest with an organisation that has a strategic interest in delivering 3,000 new houses, that organisation does not seem to be delivering. If one organisation that has significant amounts of taxpayers' money cannot deliver, will you look at transferring the moneys to another organisation, local authority or otherwise?
I am more than happy to consider the points that Bob Doris makes. I was sure that we might venture into the territory of the GHA at some point in our discussions—that is entirely in the hands of the committee. Notwithstanding the points that Bob Doris makes, I have made it perfectly clear to Glasgow Housing Association that if the association and council are to meet the objectives that they have been set, much more strategic integration needs to take place between the GHA and Glasgow City Council, not least in the area of regeneration.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's confirmation that she will report further on the "Firm Foundations" document. In the debate on free personal care last week, she said that the issue was about
I am sure that I can do the arithmetic if the member gives me long enough. It is a small proportion of the £1.5 billion that we will spend on affordable housing over the next three years. I say clearly to Johann Lamont and the committee that this is a start—a kick start for a new generation of council house building, something that disappeared under the previous Administration.
However, you accepted that there is no distinction between council housing and housing association housing in terms of the quality of the housing for the people who live in it. The £25 million may be a tiny proportion, but will it be top-sliced off the allocation to housing associations?
It is part of the overall housing budget that we announced in the Scottish budget. It will make a positive net difference to the number of affordable houses that we can build. Notwithstanding the party political differences between us, I am sure that Johann Lamont and I can agree that that is an important objective. If she wants me to answer her other question, I am happy to do so.
The question is on whether what the Government is doing is entirely new. At the SNP conference the cabinet secretary said:
I am not that interested in getting into a blame game or a let's-claim-the-entire-credit discussion. I would rather have a constructive discussion with the committee.
This is a constructive discussion.
I will try to answer the questions if I am given the time to do so, without interruption.
With respect, you can say that such a view is absurd, but the settled will of the Parliament is that the document is seriously flawed and you have an obligation to respond to that.
I am more than happy to answer that question. The full quotation from "Firm Foundations" is:
The point is that there will be competition between authorities. There is an issue there.
I accept your point and I will respond to it. "Firm Foundations" set out our policy direction, and now that we have made clear the funding that we intend to commit during the next spending period our thinking has developed beyond what was in the initial statement to a more detailed level. That is why I shared with you some of the principles that we are beginning to develop with COSLA. We talk about councils that have prudential borrowing capacity or other resources that they can bring to the table, but we also talk about the need to ensure that we focus resources on areas of housing need, in particular areas that face the most acute pressure in meeting the 2012 target. We will balance those principles, to ensure that money is allocated in the optimal manner, and we will do that in partnership with COSLA.
May we put on record the facts about how many new social rented houses have been built? There has been excessive focus on council house building in the debate, rather than on the totality of new social rented housing that has been completed in recent years. Helpfully, we have been supplied with statistics. For the record, will you confirm that in the eight years to 2006-07, for which figures are available, 31,341 new social rented houses were built?
Will you repeat the time period that you mentioned?
I am talking about the eight years from 1999-2000 to 2006-07.
Your figure sounds right. I do not have the figure in front of me in that form, but I will be happy to confirm it later, if that is helpful.
We probably have the same sources. Perhaps you could take my assurance that—
I am always happy to take David McLetchie's assurances.
Thank you. In the interests of an accurate record, I can assure you that the figure splits into 15,986 houses completed in the first four-year term of the Parliament and 15,355 completed in the second term of the Parliament—broadly speaking, as the figures run from 1 April to 31 March. Do you anticipate that the total number built by councils and housing associations will be higher or lower than the 15,986 built in the first four-year term?
It is certainly my hope and intention that we exceed that figure. One confusion is that some figures are for completions—such as the figures that you have quoted—while others are for approvals. Clearly, there is a difference.
I think that we are talking about completions.
The number of approvals in the previous comprehensive spending review period was 21,500, and we have said that we want at least to meet that figure and, I hope, to exceed it.
If you accept that 31,341 new social rented houses were completed in that eight-year period, will you accept from me an assurance that the number of sitting tenant sales by public authorities in the same eight-year period was 105,466?
I accept your assurance. If I find later that those figures are not ones that I would accept, I will let the committee know.
I will apologise if they are wrong, but they are the figures provided by the Scottish Parliament information centre.
David McLetchie has given those figures, but I know from my discussions with builders of social rented housing and councils that there is a perception that the right to buy is a disincentive to building new council housing. I also believe that the mood in Scotland now is that, although we accept the benefits of the right to buy, it is time to look afresh at the policy. I accept that we will have differences of opinion on that, and I respect the view taken by David McLetchie and his colleagues. However, I take a different view, and the time is right to reform the right to buy policy. That will have a beneficial effect on the level of new social rented housing in the coming years.
We are advised that, in 2006-07, the number of sales of public authority houses to sitting tenants was 8,414. Can you give us a ballpark figure for the average price received by a council or housing association from the sale of such a house?
I do not have to hand the figure for the average cost, but I will get it to you. We saw about 9,000 sales in 2006. That figure has declined from about 12,000 a couple of years before, and we are now looking at a lower figure. The current estimate for sales is about 8,000 a year for the foreseeable future.
For the purposes of the debate—although it might not be entirely statistically accurate—would it be reasonable to say that 8,000 houses would be sold for an average sale price of £25,000, with the discount? Would that be an unreasonable assumption, or is the figure likely to be higher or lower?
That is not an unreasonable assumption.
I wonder whether your officials can tell us whether the figure is higher or whether that figure is reasonable.
I suspect that it is a reasonable assumption for the purposes of the discussion that we are having. I understand the point that David McLetchie is making; however, I point to the fact that the proposals on the right to buy that we set out in "Firm Foundations" received overwhelming support from housing associations and councils—the people who we would expect to be most alive to the kind of argument that David McLetchie is putting forward. There is clear support for the direction of travel. I accept that we will have political and philosophical differences of opinion on the matter, but I would argue strongly that there is a sufficient level of support to justify our taking our proposals forward.
It is not a matter of philosophy; it is about how much money councils have to invest in new social rented housing. For the purposes of our discussion, let us assume that 8,000 houses are sold for £25,000 per house, although I suspect that that figure for receipts is slightly on the low side. According to my arithmetic, 8,000 times £25,000 is £200 million. That £200 million could be spent by the selling councils on building new social rented housing or on improving their existing stock—they would have the freedom to do that with the money, or they could repay debt, but they would be free to choose how to deploy the money. Is that correct?
David McLetchie should not underestimate debt as a factor in how councils have spent such money.
No, I have not underestimated it. I have been telling you for months to get that debt written off. That is in your hands.
I am more than happy to have that discussion.
Indeed, but let us stick to the issue of resources. We have agreed that £200 million is—
Clearly, councils have not been building new stock with those receipts, and debt is obviously a factor. However, if, as David McLetchie suggests, our proposals were a serious concern for councils, in that they believed that they would limit their ability to build stock or invest in their current stock, it would be logical to assume that councils and housing associations would be violently against the proposals on the right to buy. I am saying that the contrary is the case. Among those sectors, there is very strong support for the Government's proposals on the right to buy—that is a fact.
But, for the purposes of our discussion, we agree that the councils and housing associations are getting £200 million that they can deploy on new or improved social rented housing. That figure, which they can generate from right-to-buy sales under the existing scheme, is eight times the amount—£25 million—that you are now making available.
Given his attention to the detail of the figures that he is presenting, David McLetchie will not have overlooked the need to factor into the figures the loss of rental income to councils and housing associations when they sell council houses. If that were factored into the equation, the figure of £200 million would look considerably different.
I would like to ask more questions, but I suspect that other members also have questions.
You may have the chance to do that, but a couple of members have yet to come in.
At the moment, about seven councils are pursuing definite plans in this direction, including Midlothian Council, West Lothian Council, Aberdeen City Council, North Lanarkshire Council and Falkirk Council. Another four are actively considering new build houses. Three councils have shown an interest but acknowledge the fact that they have issues to overcome. Another five have said that they are watching carefully the developments around how we allocate the money, and the remainder have not yet got plans in train.
People have divided the £25 million among 32 councils, but the number of councils involved is not even 50 per cent of that.
I think that I made it clear in our discussion of the principles that there would not be such a crude allocation.
So there are around seven serious contenders for the money.
As I said earlier, we want to ensure that councils that would like to move in the direction that we have proposed but whose plans are not as well advanced are not disadvantaged, which is why we are considering allocating the money in two tranches. We envisage decisions being made about first tranche allocations before the end of this financial year; the second tranche will be allocated in the next financial year.
But a number of councils will be cancelled out automatically because of the criteria—
A number of councils will decide, for one or more of the reasons that we have talked about, that what we have proposed is not appropriate for them. Perhaps other councils will meet the criteria but will decide that they do not want to go down that road—local authorities are, of course, autonomous organisations.
Yes, but you did not pull the figure out of the air.
We did not.
So what estimates of the councils that would be likely to benefit from the money did your officials have?
I have just given you the rough categories.
Seven councils would be likely to benefit.
No. Do you want me to run through the rough categories again? Seven councils have well-developed plans. I imagine that they will want to discuss the first tranche of money. Another seven councils, which I expect to be in a position to have serious discussions, are actively considering developing proposals. I do not want the committee to think that the maximum number of councils that will benefit is seven.
Okay. There are around 14 serious contenders for the first and second tranches of money.
Yes. You will remember from "Firm Foundations" that we talked about those councils that could take advantage of an incentive scheme like this delivering between 500 and 600 houses a year. As I said earlier, I see that as a starting point. We are starting from six council houses being delivered in the past year.
That is against the tremendous record of the housing associations.
With respect, convener, I accept that housing associations are the principal players, but you invited me to talk specifically about the contribution that councils can make. That is why I have focused on council housing.
Yes, but you invited us to speak about "Firm Foundations".
Sure, but it is important to be clear that I am not suggesting for a minute that the vast majority of social rented houses are not, and will not continue to be, built by housing associations.
A small but significant part of the Government's housing strategy centres on the efficiency savings that will, in the Government's view, arise from the abolition of Communities Scotland. Will you say a little more about the potential that the Government thinks exists for streamlining structures? How much work has been done to detail that potential?
We have already improved the delivery infrastructure. The abolition of Communities Scotland involved the transfer of around 240 posts into core Government; obviously, the regulation feature remains separate. Bringing Community Scotland's functions into core Government allows us to make efficiency savings that will be available to be invested in other ways. However, there is a bigger picture. The arrangements that we now have for delivering our housing and regeneration functions are much more aligned with the Government's overall purpose and objectives. I certainly think that the current arrangements are better than the arrangements that they replaced.
Given the range of activities and offices that Communities Scotland had, do the savings include potential capital savings?
A range of efficiency savings will be made as a result of the abolition of Communities Scotland, but I want to make the point clearly that it is not just about financial efficiency savings, but the better delivery of functions. One of the advantages is that the players and our partners in the area now have a single Government player to deal with, which brings advantages to them and to the Government in trying to meet its objectives. As you know, the Government has set ambitious efficiency savings targets for the public sector. It is clear that the abolition of Communities Scotland contributes to meeting those targets. Abolishing Communities Scotland was not driven purely by a requirement for efficiency savings; it was about how we deliver services and functions of Government in a more streamlined and effective manner.
We have heard a lot about housing associations and the excellent work that they do, but I have a considerable number of concerns about the number of new builds among our registered social landlords. For example, the figures that David McLetchie alluded to show a 31 per cent decrease on 2005-06 in the number of houses built by housing associations in 2006-07. That is the lowest number of houses built since this Parliament was established and was while Johann Lamont was Deputy Minister for Communities. Have the housing issues that have been discussed included how the more-bang-for-your-buck idea will succeed in reversing that?
I share Kenneth Gibson's concerns. The Parliament takes the view that we face a significant housing challenge and, given the changing demographics, nature and shape of our society, that challenge will grow and we must be able to meet it. As the committee knows, we have set an overall house-building target of 35,000 houses a year by the middle of the next decade, which is up from 25,000 just now. Within that, we also have to increase the rate of building housing for the social rented sector.
One reality that impacts on your ability to reduce the level of subsidy is the level of inflation in the construction industry, which is considerably higher than the RPI. Because of a shortage of skilled labour and the draw of the Olympics in London, the rate of inflation in the construction industry is between 6 and 8 per cent. Does cutting the subsidy per unit when construction costs are accelerating above inflation not make it difficult to achieve the target?
Absolutely. I confirm that there is no cap and I assure you that the position of smaller housing associations that serve rural communities will be borne in mind. The member makes a number of reasonable and legitimate points about rurality and the differences between Scotland and England. However, even taking into account the fact that rent levels in Scotland are lower than those in England, our rate of subsidy is significantly higher. If we did not have a housing crisis and did not need to build a significant number of additional houses, we might be prepared to shrug our shoulders and to say that we were prepared to live with that. However, in the real world, where resources are finite and where we need to build more houses and face a significant challenge, we do not have that luxury. We must face up to reality and make the efficiency savings that have been outlined. Those savings are reasonable, taking into account all the points that the member makes. If we remain resolute in our determination to make them, the result will be more houses for social rent. At the end of the day, that is in the country's interests.
Many of our housing associations are much smaller than those in England, which have economies of scale that we cannot match. Because many English housing associations are cash rich, some of our RSLs are concerned about possible buyouts by competing organisations from south of the border. Are you looking for RSLs to borrow collectively or across Scotland, so that they can compete with such organisations and cut their borrowing costs, and to work co-operatively on the schemes that they propose? Are you looking for them to build larger estates than they built before—estates of a 100 or 200 rather than 20 or 30 houses? How do you intend to achieve the efficiencies that you have outlined?
Our housing association sector has cash surpluses of around £300 million, so there are cash riches in our sector as well as in the sector south of the border. As the member knows, we have consulted and decided on changes to the HAG subsidy regime for this year. Those changes will enable us to make efficiencies, to reduce the rate of subsidy and, I hope, to build more houses. "Firm Foundations" makes clear our intention to take forward, in consultation with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, proposals on single developer competition, to ensure that we are able—without losing the characteristics of the Scottish sector or compromising the differences that the member has described, many of which we want to retain—to arrange to build houses in ways that allow us to get more for the money that we spend. That is sensible at the best of times. In the situation that we face at the moment, it is imperative.
David McLetchie made the point that, if we assume 8,000 sales at £25,000 per house, £200 million will be generated. Is it not the case that often, if not almost always, the debt that is associated with building houses is higher than the capital receipts from them and that a higher proportion of rent from remaining stock must, therefore, go towards servicing the increased debt burden? That was certainly the case in Glasgow before stock transfer.
The proposals that we have made this year and that we will take forward will not lead to that conclusion. They will allow us to preserve the special characteristics of our system but allow us to build more houses for the money that we invest in it. As the minister responsible for housing, I am not prepared to do nothing, given the scale of the housing need that exists. I want to work with housing associations and we are working constructively with the SFHA. I am not suggesting for a minute that the federation does not have concerns and anxieties about what we are proposing, but we will continue to have a dialogue with it. Just last week we agreed to set up a stakeholder group to look at how we can reduce the administrative burden of the grant system. That proposal was warmly welcomed by the SFHA, which can derive great benefit from it.
You mentioned discussions that you had last week with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and said that you would be taking forward other discussions. Are those the discussions that the SFHA had requested on the formation of a short-life working group to consider the HAG proposals?
Yes.
Good. Thank you.
We set out the direction of our thinking in "Firm Foundations". Clearly, in response to the points made in the consultation, we are developing that thinking. I am not reluctant to respond to you but, as you will appreciate, we are still firming up proposals that will be set out in a statement that I will make to Parliament before the summer recess.
Kenny Gibson asked whether you were looking to RSLs to build estates of 20 houses or whether you were considering even bigger estates. I would be concerned if that proved to be the direction of travel, not least because of the availability of land, particularly in urban areas. Again, the issue flags up various geographical differences; in rural areas, it might be feasible to build estates of 100 houses whereas, in more urban settings, the optimum number is probably 20. Are you seeking to increase the scale of building undertaken by housing associations?
The relevant paragraph in "Firm Foundations" says:
Would it not be better for you to encourage housing associations to co-operate with one another when considering building in particular areas, rather than trying to force them to use a model that they seem uncomfortable with?
We expect to make announcements on those allocations next week.
Good. Thank you.
I am prepared to invite some more questions. Alasdair Allan mentioned particular issues to do with Communities Scotland.
I would like to ask about the reorganisation of Communities Scotland. Obviously, there has been significant restructuring in the former executive agency, and there has been the creation of the regulator and the assignment of staff back in-house, so to speak, covering the breadth of Communities Scotland's responsibilities. Has that reorganisation had a negative impact on normal day-to-day decision making? Has decision making slowed down on matters that would have fallen within the former agency's remit?
No. I strongly believe that that is not the case. The incorporation of Communities Scotland into core Government went exceptionally well. Perhaps—dare I say it?—it went better than I dared hope for at the start. That is to the enormous credit of the officials who made it happen and to the credit of Communities Scotland staff who were extremely co-operative and constructive in their approach.
As you predict, I have a particular issue in mind.
I thought that you might.
It concerns surplus land that is presently on the account of the Scottish Prison Service at HM Prison Edinburgh in my constituency. Back in September 2006, as part of the public sector trawl process, Communities Scotland indicated an interest in that surplus land. I presume that it had in mind the building of new affordable housing, or the allocation of the land to a housing association—both would be perfectly reasonable propositions.
I accept that that period of time is not what people want. I have been in my job for only one year, so I presume that the first year of the decision-making process was down to another Government.
It would indeed be helpful. The relevant minister has stalled for months on having a meeting to discuss the issue, so I would very much welcome the support of the cabinet secretary.
I am more than happy to take the issue forward for you.
Thank you very much indeed.
A number of questions arise to do with what the efficiency savings actually are, but we can perhaps come back to them.
I do not accept the premise that we have lost expertise from Communities Scotland. As the committee knows, ministers gave a clear commitment that there would be no compulsory redundancies because of the reorganisation. Around 240 posts have transferred from Communities Scotland into the core Scottish Government. The end of local regeneration activities affected around 40 staff, and they have been redeployed. Corporate services were absorbed into the Scottish Government too, which affected around 90 members of staff. The work of the Communities Scotland regulation and inspection division has been transferred to the new Scottish Housing Regulator, which has around 70 posts.
I might have reservations about that in my area, but that was not the point that I was making. I accept that you have indicated what you believe the efficiencies to be, and I am not saying that people with expertise are no longer within the structure. However, everybody in the old SIP process recognised as a strength the fact that somebody from Communities Scotland sat on local community planning partnership boards, looking at projects and bringing their expertise in regeneration and the connection between housing, physical regeneration and community regeneration. It is not just local community planning partnership boards that are concerned about that loss of expertise and way of looking at things and making connections with Government; housing organisations are concerned that Communities Scotland is no longer at the table.
I have said clearly what our thinking was behind that decision. I believe that local authorities and community planning partnerships are best placed to take decisions locally.
But that is not the point. With respect, I am asking you—
You are asking whether I think that the expertise and ability of those organisations to deliver what they are delivering have been somehow reduced because they no longer have a Communities Scotland official sitting at the table. I am saying to you that one of the reasons for our decision—which local authorities agreed with—to withdraw from local regeneration was that we think that it is better for those decisions to be driven locally. I accept that this is perhaps an area in which there are legitimate differences of opinion—my opinion is not wrong just because it is different from your opinion. I am explaining as openly and frankly as I can the reasoning behind the decision.
With respect, I must say that I do not understand the point that you are making. I am not suggesting that Government officials imposed their will on local partnerships; I am saying that they provided a critical link into the housing associations and housing organisations that brought a particular physical regeneration perspective. You still have area offices, and I hope that you will reflect on the concerns that exist.
Of course. Part of the benefit of a session such as this is that we can reflect on the concerns that have been expressed. Although we can try to score points off one another, I think that we all believe in the same things concerning the challenges in housing and regeneration. We are all trying to go in the same direction, even if we choose different ways of doing that. Of course I will listen to those concerns, but it would help—particularly in committee sessions—if we avoided unnecessary confrontation.
I am not sure that it is helpful to suggest that, when someone brings a concern to the table, they are attempting to score points.
I was not suggesting that. I was just suggesting—
It is a genuine issue. Even if you listen to no other concerns or regard them as absurd, you may want to reflect on that one.
There is no separate Communities Scotland budget line now, as Communities Scotland does not exist, but the money remains in the overall budget.
There was a budget line for the next three years, post abolition, which was to stay the same for three years.
I am sorry, but I do not have the budget in front of me. I think that that was for administration—it was not Communities Scotland's total budget.
No, but it was a figure that was going to remain the same for three years.
We had to keep that line in the budget because the transfer of Communities Scotland into core Government had not been completed at that point. Clearly, the Communities Scotland budget is—as is Communities Scotland itself—incorporated into the core Government budget. It is subject to the same 2 per cent efficiency savings requirement that is required of the rest of Government.
I will perhaps write to you about that.
I am more than happy to respond on issues around that.
Just for clarity, can you confirm that there were no redundancies or early retirements—no one left the organisation—and that all the staff were redeployed?
From the figures that I have just read out, there were no compulsory redundancies—
How many left the organisation under redundancy arrangements?
I am more than happy to provide that figure. Around 40 staff required redeployment, and most of them were redeployed within the Government. I am not able to tell the committee categorically today—and I would not want to mislead you inadvertently—that no individual opted to leave Government employment and seek employment elsewhere, but I will provide that information to the committee.
There was no significant number of leavers through early retirement or redundancy.
Absolutely not. We are talking about very small numbers. For the sake of putting the information on the record accurately, I will provide it to the committee in writing.
Okay, thank you. There seem to be no other questions, cabinet secretary.
Sorry, I have one last question. We have an interim arrangement for the Scottish Housing Regulator. At what point will you legislate? I understand from an answer that I received that legislative changes to underpin the statutory role will be required at some point.
The regulator operates under a framework and a ministerial code of practice to secure its independence from ministers. If we want in the long term to create the regulator as an entirely separate legal entity, Johann Lamont is right that we will require to do that through legislation.
I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance this morning. We look forward to having further discussions about her various initiatives.
Me too.
Meeting continued in private until 12:44.