Housing (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7294, in the name of Alex Neil, that the Housing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:05
I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee, under the chairmanship of Duncan McNeil, for its detailed consideration of the bill, which was informed by evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. I appreciate the time that the committee took to seek the views of tenants and service users. The bill has benefited greatly from the debate in the committee.
I thank the clerks to the committee for their help and co-operation throughout the progress of the bill. I give particular thanks to my bill team, who provided excellent advice and back-up support.
The bill introduces important measures that will safeguard social housing for future generations and ensure that social housing is used to deliver good-quality housing and services to those generations. It demonstrates our willingness to seek radical solutions to the problems of inadequate supply and poor quality in housing, as does the discussion document that we published earlier this year, “Housing: Fresh Thinking, New Ideas”, which will be followed by the publication of a policy paper in the new year. The Housing (Scotland) Bill will safeguard and improve the supply of housing through reforms to the right to buy, and it will improve the value of social housing to tenants and taxpayers by modernising the regulation of social housing and introducing a Scottish social housing charter.
In the week before we take time to remember those who fought and died for our country, the bill will give to our servicemen and women the same rights to be housed where they have lived and worked that are afforded to everyone else in our communities.
I established a stakeholder sounding board to bring together all those with an interest in the bill so that we could benefit from their views on how it could be improved. I am pleased to say that I was able to incorporate some of their ideas in the bill. For example, tenants told me that it was important that they should be involved in the self-assessment of their landlord’s performance, and that charging fees for regulation would impact negatively on tenants. They also told me that the bill should strengthen the protection for tenants who are threatened with legal action for rent arrears.
I pay tribute to the work of Shelter for persuading us to introduce the pre-action requirements. The Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations was concerned that the regulator’s modernised powers would not allow it to take account of the unique characteristics of community-based housing associations, so I introduced an amendment providing for the regulator to take account of the size and governance of landlords in carrying out its functions.
I appreciate the amount of consultation and conversation with stakeholders. Did many tenants tell the minister that they thought that landlords should have the sole opinion in deciding whether their benefits payments to catch up on their arrears were satisfactory?
Landlords will not have the sole opinion. We have introduced a balanced provision.
Finally, registered social landlords and rural housing bodies were concerned about the impact of the 20-year rules for leases and standard securities. Abolishing 20-year leases is a major advance and will allow us to mobilise new sources of capital for investment in social housing. There is no better time to do that than now, given the financial climate in which we are living.
The main reforms in the bill relate to the right to buy—they end that right for new tenants and for new houses. Some committee members and stakeholders argued that the reforms could go further. Although I respect their views, the Government gave a manifesto commitment not to affect existing tenants’ rights, and our reforms were shaped to keep that promise. However, over a 10-year period, the reforms may save between 10,000 and 18,000 houses from being sold off under the right to buy.
Our reforms provide reassurance to those local authorities that are building council houses for the first time in many years. The Government has provided £80 million to kick-start that programme of new-build council housing, which will deliver nearly 3,500 much-needed new homes. Councils have been willing to start building again because they know that those houses will continue to be available to future generations as affordable houses to rent.
It is critical that we continue to find ways of increasing the supply of housing and encouraging new and different types of investment to deliver that. One in four people in Scotland live in social housing. We need to ensure that they live in a decent standard of housing and receive good-quality services. We also need to ensure that those who find themselves homeless or threatened with homelessness are treated fairly, and that adequate consideration is given to the needs of people on waiting lists. The modernised framework for regulation establishes the independent Scottish housing regulator, with the statutory objective of safeguarding and promoting the interests of current and future tenants, as well as homeless persons and others who use the services of local authority landlords, registered social landlords and co-operatives. I was happy to improve those provisions further on the committee’s suggestion.
The establishment of a Scottish social housing charter is an important part of the bill. We will take that forward in consultation with the Parliament and key stakeholders.
It is a human right to have a decent roof over one’s head. Too many people in Scotland today do not yet have access to the accessible, warm, affordable, comfortable home to which they are entitled. The moral purpose of the bill is to take the additional steps that are needed to ensure that we increase access to social housing and rented accommodation. We will do so by making supply much more stable than it is at present and giving people on the waiting list greater access and a fairer chance of getting a decent home in the future.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Housing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:13
Suitably chastised by the minister, I will do my best to be consensual. However, when I express different views, I do so because I disagree with him. As we move forward, seeking a false consensus is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
We have indicated that we are happy to support many of the bill’s provisions. In particular, I note and concur with the minister’s comments on veterans’ entitlements. However, I do not think that the bill deserves to be described as radical. Some of members’ disappointment about the bill arises from the overblown rhetoric that the minister used in the early days about his plans to abolish the right to buy. When we voted on the issue, it was recognised that the minister had overstated the case and that past changes had made the really big difference.
There is an overall challenge in relation to housing. It is about the availability of housing to individuals and their families, but it is also about housing’s role in sustaining communities, especially at this difficult time. The minister will be aware of the term “community anchors”. Often, housing associations play that role. We should tread gently when we move into that area, to ensure that we do not damage the role that housing providers—housing associations and councils—can play in communities. We will have a tough budget decision to make, and housing providers will play a critical role in determining what happens in the future.
The plans for housing benefit at United Kingdom level have many implications both for individuals and for those who are planning and making decisions at community level. For example, a housing association might be faced with a tenant who has rigorously paid their rent, who has been unemployed for a year, and who discovers that their housing benefit is to be cut by 10 per cent because they have stayed on jobseekers allowance. That sort of situation has implications for housing associations and other organisations that generally manage things in a businesslike way. I have no doubt that the proposals also have implications for people in supported accommodation—there are people with learning disabilities who are currently supported, and we do not know what the proposals will mean for Women’s Aid refuges and so on. I am sure that we will have to revisit the impacts of the housing benefit proposals on housing as a whole.
Tough decisions have to be made, of course, and one of the frustrations felt in my party comes from the silliness of some of the things that the minister and the Scottish National Party have said in the past about the division between our support for council housing and RSLs. We took a tough decision to support stock transfer in Glasgow. We brought £1.2 billion into the city. If ever there was a Labour legacy for tough times, it is the fact that properties are still being improved there and there is still new build. There is a new-build development in my constituency that is creating jobs in the construction industry, and the private sector has embraced that. The idea that spending through the public purse does not support private investment and activity is false. We should be careful about making false divisions, which do not help the debate.
I am genuinely disappointed about the decision to remove the whole question of the private sector. The minister says that it is water under the bridge, but the single most significant concern that is brought to me and others in our casework is to do with the quality of rented accommodation in the private sector. Sarah Boyack highlighted the question of party flats, and Pauline McNeill mentioned houses in multiple occupation. There is also the matter of addressing antisocial behaviour, which Charlie Gordon raised. It is unfortunate that, when it was indicated at stage 1 that there was a problem, the minister did not sort it out. There is a sense of urgency. People do not want those issues to be dealt with slowly. I am concerned that the HMO provisions are not coming until 2011.
There is an issue around the regulator. We know the importance of having solid regulation, but there is a concern that the regulator will increasingly focus on community-controlled housing associations, despite the fact that they generally perform better in inspections. The fear is that the regulator will get a notion that bigger is somehow better, so that there could be forced mergers, although we know that the lesson from the community-controlled movement has been that managing things locally, with control going down to local communities, makes a difference.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to avoid forced mergers. The approval of the tenants will now be required before any merger or takeover happens.
I welcome that, but we should ensure that the regulator’s approach is light touch. We do not want to kill innovation at a local level in housing.
There is uncertainty about the fact that housing association grant has gone up and down. It has been put to me that there is a fear that banks will use that as an opportunity to intervene and review, and perhaps change the arrangements that they have made with housing associations. That is of concern.
We have already discussed the controversial issues around homelessness, but I reiterate that the issue is the provision of support at the right stage. We have been talking about preventative spend. If we can address the issue at an early stage, ensuring that other agencies are engaged, that will be significant.
We welcome the Scottish social housing charter, but it has to be real. We need to listen to what tenants say about allocations policy; about the difficulties of evicting difficult tenants, particularly drug dealers; about the need to address antisocial behaviour, and the need to bring back a community aspect to how antisocial behaviour is addressed; about sensitive lets and people being told that they cannot identify categories of housing for older people, whose whole lives might be disrupted by younger people being placed in a way that is inappropriate for both of them; and about the role of private landlords. The social housing charter should reflect those concerns of tenants. It should also reflect the fact that tenants want there to be mixed, safe communities. There is a gap between that and what the regulator says. There are also concerns about rent levels going up more quickly for councils and about increased debt being masked by low interest rates.
We are happy to support the bill for the limited changes that it creates, but we trust that we can engage with the minister on the many issues where action is necessary.
16:19
There is an often-held principle in Scottish politics that he who shouts loudest is right. Many members have been honoured today to witness a head-to-head between Alex Neil and David McLetchie. It probably did not amount to a championship bout—no such competition could happen without the First Minister being involved—but it certainly performed the role of championship eliminator, if nothing else.
Scotland has had a number of difficulties with social housing over the years. The slum clearance projects of the 1960s led to the construction of modern slums, in many cases, and many buildings were demolished before the debt that was incurred in their construction was anything like paid off. People who were involved in the construction of public housing in Scotland during the past half century have a great deal to be ashamed of. We must take account of the importance of public housing and how we got to where we are today.
I do not have time to go through the provisions in the bill of which we approve. As I am sure that members realise, I will talk about the bits that we do not approve of. The idea that we should end the right to buy, progressively, by a thousand cuts, is unacceptable to the Conservatives. The institution of the right to buy was the single biggest driver of social change in Scotland in the past 50 years. We will always be proud of the measure that we introduced.
Attempts to cut away the right to buy are symptomatic of a Scottish political establishment that wants to go back to a time when 70 per cent of our houses were publicly owned and rented. The aspiration to own the home that one lives in should not be denied to any social class or individual in Scotland. The approach in the bill is driven largely by political dogma.
Will the member give way?
I have only four minutes.
Worse still, the approach avoids opportunities that we could grasp. It is unfortunate that we cannot grasp those opportunities because so many people do not approve of them.
We heard in an exchange that amendments that the minister lodged could facilitate the recycling of capital in Scotland’s social housing stock, through the sale of property to financial institutions and the use of the money to build new social housing. That is a wonderful idea, which we will be forced to consider over time, if for no other reason than that the availability of public money for social housing will be limited in years to come.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I do not have time to do so.
The problem that we face is that although the option might be forced on us, actions that the Government has taken, with the support of Opposition parties, will prevent us from allowing tenants—the occupants of the houses—to become beneficiaries of the approach.
I welcome the fact that the minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that there was a manifesto commitment not to interfere with the existing right to buy, whether we are talking about the original or the modernised right to buy. He said that some people would have had him go further, so I am glad that his manifesto commitment was enough to keep him from doing that.
We cannot afford to have a housing policy that is driven forward by what is, in essence, a prejudice. The Conservatives took Scotland out of public sector housing dependency, by giving people in public sector housing the opportunity to step up. There are members in this Parliament who will vote tonight to pull up the ladder. That is a shame.
16:23
I thank the clerks to the Local Government and Communities Committee and the people who drafted the amendments. I also thank all the witnesses who gave up their time to come to the Parliament to give evidence on the bill. Their evidence proved invaluable to me as I worked on the bill.
I have looked forward to such a bill being introduced since the Scottish Parliament’s inception in 1999. Little did I imagine in 1999 that I would be so closely involved with one. I have been involved in social housing as a councillor and an MSP for nearly 20 years, so I am only too aware of the pressing need for good-quality social rented housing and the impact that the right-to-buy legislation has had on available stock at a time of increasing need.
If we are serious about tackling that inequality, we need to be willing to take bold steps to reduce homelessness and give reasonable options and timescales to those on the general housing list. That is exactly why I moved a number of amendments at stage 2. In the bill, the Government introduced restrictions on the right to buy in order to protect new homes from being purchased and lost to the huge social rented housing market. The Liberal Democrats fully backed that measure. I regret that further reforms to the right to buy did not receive full support at stage 2.
Another significant measure in the bill relates to pressured area status. Previously, that allowed local authorities to protect their stock in certain areas. It applied for a maximum period of five years and was available only with ministerial approval. The Government’s proposals are a welcome step that will give much more flexibility to local authorities to protect areas where demand for houses vastly outstrips supply, to such an extent that extra measures have to be put in place.
Following stage 2, I lodged amendments 14 and 15 as probing amendments, to ascertain how much money the new duty on housing support assessments would cost. As has been said in Parliament and elsewhere, members were not unanimous on the matter. However, if Johann Lamont or anyone else had read the Official Report of the relevant committee meeting, they would have seen that the minister and I both severely questioned the cost implications. However, in a climate in which local authorities are having to make millions of pounds’ worth of cuts, it is important to be sure that any financial burdens that are placed on local authorities are proportionate. As I said, the Scottish Government and I raised that issue at stage 2, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities more recently raised serious concerns about the extra cost. We are now satisfied that the proposal is affordable—that is why we did not press the amendments—and will help to ensure that the right services are provided.
This is a landmark bill. It has been keenly anticipated for a number of years. It has produced strong debate that has resulted in legislation that will make a tremendous difference to many people in the social rented housing sector. Some opportunities have been missed, of course, but I sincerely hope that the legislation is remembered for its achievements rather than its failings.
16:27
Members know that housing is important; it is one of the priorities of our daily postbag and our surgeries. The timing of this debate is crucial. In 2010, the roof over someone’s head should be a right, not a privilege.
It is worth noting that since the stage 1 debate, the private rented sector provisions have been removed and included in the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill. The main policies of the bill are the improved regulation of social housing and the right-to-buy reforms.
Many social landlords need to do more with regard to the promise to eradicate homelessness by 2012. For example, North Lanarkshire Council effected 162 evictions between April 2009 and March 2010. Only three of those were for reasons relating to antisocial behaviour; the rest were for rent arrears, and it is debatable whether those evictions were based on genuine rent arrears or on technical arrears. The Scottish Government has, quite rightly, placed an emphasis on whether more could be done to protect tenants of social landlords. In March 2010, the consultation document, “Eviction of Tenants in the Social Rented Sector” was published. That led the Government to introduce amendments that strengthen tenants’ rights by introducing pre-action requirements before eviction proceedings.
With regard to the spirit of the bill, in the shape of the reform of the right to buy, the bill proposes to end the right to buy for all new tenants, with the removal of the right to buy from newly supplied social housing. I and some other members sympathise with those who wanted to go further with the restriction of the right to buy.
It is good to see the last vestiges of Thatcherism in Scotland continuing to defend the right to buy, despite the housing waiting lists bulging with families looking for four and five-apartment cottage-type housing—the very homes that were snapped up with a 60 per cent discount under the right to buy. That is a concept that the Conservatives have continually promoted. Although my committee colleague David McLetchie pontificates about the benefits of the right to buy, he has never addressed the social costs of the right to buy and its impacts on Scotland.
The bill also establishes the Scottish housing regulator and its functions. I am satisfied that the bill ensures that the regulator has the primary role of regulating the housing functions of local authorities. Ensuring the good practice and performance of social landlords is a key element of the bill.
On the intention to move to risk-based and proportionate regulation, I, like some of my fellow committee members, have some reservations about the lack of inspections. Anyone who has read the reports of a registered social landlord’s inspection visit knows that they are valuable for scrutiny purposes and are published for everyone to see. As the committee stated, self-assessment must be a meaningful, robust and transparent process that fully involves all tenants.
The bill’s intention to give the Scottish housing regulator detailed powers to set performance targets for social landlords is most welcome. On analysis, it has been an issue for me for some time that, when local authorities talk about sharing services, there is a need for an approach that places the emphasis on housing associations coming together, particularly against the current economic backdrop. I am assured that the proposal to extend the period for pressured area status from five to 10 years, together with local authorities self-designating rather than relying on ministerial approval, will speed up the whole process.
The storm clouds continue to gather, especially considering the impact from the UK Government’s comprehensive spending review and emergency budget. As I stated in the chamber in June, the proposal to cut by 10 per cent the housing benefit paid to anyone who is registered as unemployed for more than a year will not be reversed. The Prime Minister seems determined not to give concessions on that cut, and the assessment of local housing allowance by the Department for Work and Pensions means that the average loss will be in the region of £9 to £12 per week as a result of the emergency budget.
In finishing, I say that it is good to see the bill go forward today but, like others in the chamber, I have been slightly disappointed. We could have taken a more radical approach and had a comprehensive housing bill before us. As other members have said, there are issues in housing that need to be tackled, particularly in the private rented sector. I hope that the new bill that the Government has proposed will do that.
16:32
When we came into the chamber, it was to consider a bill that, if passed, would have legislated in the areas of social rented housing and the private sector. However, the bill that we will pass into law tonight deals with only the social rented sector, as the minister has withdrawn all the elements that affect the private sector. Others have commented on that aspect of today’s proceedings, and we all agree that this is a unique, if not somewhat unsatisfactory, situation.
I am grateful to the minister for hearing my plea at stage 2 to recognise the different sizes and compositions of housing associations—an important issue for housing associations throughout Scotland. In this short debate, I want to concentrate on two areas in which I still seek reassurance from the minister. The first relates to the transfer of assets from housing associations and the second to the circumstances in which the pre-eviction protocol comes into effect.
At stage 2 I moved an amendment that, if passed, would have introduced an additional test before the regulator could direct the transfer of a housing association’s assets. The minister, and indeed most of the committee, did not agree with me that that was necessary or that such a check or balance was required, despite the fact that we see them in other areas.
It now seems that the regulator will be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to a decision to transfer the assets of a housing association. If the same provision applied in local government, it would mean that the Accounts Commission would have the power to exercise draconian powers against a local authority without recourse to the minister. I do not believe that that would be right for local government, and I do not believe that it is right for housing associations either. The set-up does not recognise the responsibilities that housing associations have to their tenants and communities, and I seek the minister’s assurance, in spite of his earlier comments, that it will not lead to a policy of mergers and restructuring.
Next we come to pre-eviction protocols. The minister indicated in advance of stage 2 that he was minded to move an amendment that harmonised the pre-eviction protocol for those tenants in the social housing sector who might face eviction for rent arrears. The minister assured me that that would apply only to cases in which rent arrears, not antisocial behaviour or drug dealing, was the issue, which is something that I have pursued for some time.
The minister’s assurance that that was the case was very welcome, as was his on-the-record response to a committee colleague at stage 2, in which he said:
“we have drafted the provisions extremely carefully to ensure that people who are being convicted for antisocial behaviour cannot hide behind the pre-action protocol for rent arrears.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 6 October 2010; c 3576.]
My concern here is about the wording of the Government’s stage 2 amendment, which says that provisions come into play
“on the ground that rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid ... or on grounds including that ground”.
In other words, rent arrears might not be the only consideration at that stage. Schedule 2 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which lists the other grounds, runs to some five pages. One of those grounds is
“using the house or allowing it to be used for immoral or illegal purposes”.
Another is acting in a manner, which
“in relation to an action or course of conduct, means causing or likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance”.
To my mind, that most definitely covers antisocial behaviour. I would be grateful if the minister could provide clarification.
After hearing Alex Johnstone’s speech, I almost ripped mine up and wrote a new one, but I decided not to. However, I would just say this: Alex Johnstone and David McLetchie are right that the right to buy is all about ideology; it is about the Conservatives’ ideology. For many members, the issue is how we best serve our constituents, and we do not serve them well by continuing with an unfettered right to buy.
I close by thanking the clerks to the committee and the Parliament’s legislation clerks, who were of great help to me in preparing manuscript amendments, which, unfortunately, did not comply with the regulations.
16:37
I continue in the same vein, by thanking our committee’s clerks and researchers, who have done a sterling job in helping us to navigate our way through the bill. The Government civil servants have been excellent, too, in ensuring that we have had the maximum amount of information to allow us to scrutinise the bill. Both groups have done a fantastic job.
In the small amount of time that I have, I will quickly set the scene on affordable housing in Scotland. I remind the chamber that 2,609 more affordable houses were built in Scotland in 2009-10 than in 2006-07. That was the result not of a magic wand approach by the Scottish Government, but of sheer investment—£1.7 billion was provided, which represented a 19 per cent increase. To that can be added the capital acceleration from 2010-11.
I mention that because we know that capital investment is starting to dry up because of cuts by the UK Government in the amount of spending for Scotland. That is why reform of the right to buy is important. The Scottish Government is to invest £80 million in council housing. Up to 3,500 new council houses will be commenced in this session, not just because of Scottish Government investment, but because of reform of the right to buy.
Only six new council houses were built under the previous Labour-Lib Dim—sorry, Lib Dem; although perhaps I was right the first time—Executive. The springboard for the upsurge in that number was not just the Scottish Government’s financial commitment; it was the clear signposting in the SNP manifesto of the ending of the right to buy for new-build houses, which I believe will become increasingly important as we navigate our way through UK Tory spending cuts.
That is important because local authorities can deal with a subsidy of around £20,000 to £25,000 in terms of a housing association grant subsidy. The reason for that is that they bring additional things to the table such as land and other assets that housing associations sometimes do not have. They would not be willing to use those assets were it not for the reform of the right to buy. I think that that is a core element of what we have in front of us, and I am proud to say that we are part of that. I, too, reject the negative, dogmatic ideology of the Conservatives on the right to buy.
The social housing charter is quite a serious issue—perhaps Mr Tolson should stop laughing—as it looks at the wider role and activities of the housing associations, local authorities and landlords and praises them for how they benefit the amenity and environmental wellbeing of local areas and for how they participate in their regeneration. Many a housing association has done that in the past, but has not always received the credit for it.
I will mention one local housing association, with which I know that Patricia Ferguson also has a relationship. Cadder Housing Association has intervened to help a local community to keep its community centre, which was threatened with closure. One of the issues that Cadder raised with me was that it has to make sure that it concentrates on its core business of providing affordable housing. Under the social housing charter and the wider role, the housing association will be able to be assessed and given credit for its positive community activity.
It is important to mention the benefit cuts. This morning, the Local Government and Communities Committee heard that some local authorities could be down by 25 per cent in housing benefit revenue and 10 per cent in council tax benefit revenue because of the Tory cuts over the next three or four years. That is a heavy impact indeed, and I am delighted that this Government and most parties in the chamber are rallying to protect social housing. That is what the bill does, and I am delighted to be able to support it at stage 3.
16:41
I thank the minister for the co-operative approach that he has taken during the passage of the bill. I and my colleague Jim Tolson appreciate it.
Although I am not a member of the committee, and have not been at any stage, I thank the committee for its work under the convenership of Duncan McNeil. Albeit at second hand, I appreciate the detail with which I have been furnished. Also, and just for the sake of it, I thank my colleague Jim Tolson, who is not the Liberal Democrat spokesman for housing but is a member of the committee—one of the anomalies that occur in the Parliament—and has shouldered a difficult burden and done a good job.
In the limited time that I have available I will talk briefly about the minister’s comments. One of the things that strikes a chord with the Liberal Democrats, and the minister has mentioned it, is the idea of a decent deal for our servicemen and women. That will reach out into our electorate in a way that some of us perhaps do not quite realise; it is important.
When the minister spoke about mobilising new sources of capital, particularly within the rural housing context, it was music to my ears. I believe that it will—if I may use the expression—ginger up housing provision in rural areas, such as parts of the Highlands.
The minister rightly made the point that the right to buy for existing tenants is being protected. That is important, and we should not forget it.
Johann Lamont spoke about the necessity of revisiting the legislation. I accept that. Perhaps Alex Johnstone was making a debating point when he said that we got things wrong in the past, but all parties have got things wrong in the past and it does not alter the job that lies before us. The bill is a step in the right direction, but it might well be—in fact, it is a racing certainty—that in a future session the Parliament will look at the legislation again and fine tune its detail.
Statistics have been bandied about to show whether the right to buy is a good or a bad thing. Let us park the issue: we do not propose to alter the rights of existing tenants. However, I have 24 years of experience, first of working for a housing authority and then as an MSP, and I remember the days of 1986 when Ross and Cromarty District Council was building houses. We were proud of that, because we could house people and give them some hope. When we came to 1996, no houses were being built in the Highlands. Facts are chiels that winna ding, and that was a pretty hopeless situation.
I should make this important point to the Conservatives. We can argue about a property-owning democracy and allege that the Labour Party is all about people being incarcerated in rented accommodation, but it is not so. Ownership is not for everyone. Some people have found themselves in difficult and deep waters, to say the least. Perhaps for all the best and altruistic of reasons they got the first step on the housing ladder, but then they were encouraged to borrow, to buy a bigger house and to get into debt. We should remember that ownership is not for everyone; the private sector and the public sector play their part. That is the balance that we must strike.
I believe that the bill that we will pass today is a step in the right direction. When we return to our constituencies, we can greet the people who come to us with a flood of housing problems by saying that the Scottish Parliament has taken a step in the right direction that may, in the fullness of time, be of help to them.
16:45
I have very much enjoyed participating in the consideration and scrutiny of the Housing (Scotland) Bill as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee. Like other members, I thank those who supported the minister and the committee in progressing the legislation, and all the individuals and organisations who gave written and oral evidence.
We must view the bill in the context of the shambolic Scottish National Party housing policy, which got off to an inauspicious start with Nicola Sturgeon’s rapid ditching in half a sentence of the promise to give every first-time buyer a £2,000 grant. Do we remember that one? No—I suspect that some would like to forget it.
That was followed by the failure to encourage further stock transfers of council housing to housing associations, which would at that time have written off Scotland’s housing debt balance of £2.2 billion. The SNP did that because it wanted to embark on a council house building programme to spite and embarrass the Labour Party rather than recognise the wisdom and good sense of the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy of identifying housing associations as the principal providers and managers of affordable social housing in Scotland. Remarkably, the SNP succeeded in that, because a shame-faced Labour Party backed off from supporting further stock transfers—even with tenants’ approval—in a number of debates in the Parliament, even when we gave it every opportunity to support the policy.
The latest instalment in the sorry saga is the SNP’s assault on the right to buy, with the connivance of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. In a few weeks’ time there will be much greeting, wailing and whining when the affordable housing budget is cut by John Swinney. Members should pause to reflect that the policies that they have supported have led to a situation in which there will be limited funding for new building and development programmes, not through any decision taken by Mr Osborne or Mr Alexander, but as a result of decisions taken by this Government in this Parliament.
I wonder if that is why the SNP Government is now promoting the sale and lease back of hundreds and thousands of affordable homes in Scotland to institutions in the City of London. I point out to back-bench SNP members who tried to protest in denial of my interpretation of that provision that the minister did not deny it. He merely said that it required tenant approval in a ballot—not unlike a stock transfer from a council to a housing association. The SNP Government does not support stock transfers, however, so how does it square all that? Frankly, it is all over the place.
It is a pity that a bill that contains many useful sections on the housing regulator and the governance of registered social landlords should be tainted by association with the inclusion of the ill-judged proposals on the right to buy. That is why the Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time tonight.
Other parties in the chamber may wish to betray the aspirations of ordinary working people to own the home in which they live in the community in which they live, but the Scottish Conservatives will not do so. Home ownership is an aspiration that we have enabled half a million families in this country to fulfil over the past 30 years. We are proud to have done so and we want others to have the opportunity to do the same.
The social benefits of the right to buy for Scotland over the past 30 years have far outweighed any social costs, and for that reason we will vote against the bill this evening.
16:49
I join other members in thanking the clerks and the witnesses who came to the committee and helped us to bring the bill to the chamber. Usually on such occasions, we say how delighted we are to be passing the legislation. I am pleased with the bill, and we will—unlike Mr McLetchie and his Conservatives—support it tonight.
However, I have a nagging feeling that we could have done more. That is not just about our having removed the private sector aspects. It is also about the need to address some of the issues that my colleague Johann Lamont raised. The need for a comprehensive housing policy is there for all to see. There are pressures on all tenures. Whatever tenure we consider, be it ownership, public sector renting or private sector renting, people are having difficulty in accessing housing that meets their needs. Whatever happens after the elections in May and whichever party is in power, there will be a need to consider housing issues further and we might need to bring forward yet more legislation.
I am pleased that the minister mentioned the Scottish social housing charter. There was great agreement between the parties on the measures that are being brought forward. Unfortunately, the result of a lot of agreement is often that things do not get highlighted as they should, so I am glad that the minister mentioned the charter. I stress that tenant involvement in its development will be critical to its success, but I am sure that the minister will see to that.
The minister mentioned the amount of consultation that has taken place on housing. That is to be welcomed. However, there comes a time when consultation has to stop and action has to take place. We are now in a position to answer some people’s needs, whether they are older people, with their particular housing needs, or young people, who presently have few options with regard to housing unless they have family or friends who can help them. We will need to look at those issues when we next legislate in this area.
When the bill was launched earlier in the year, there was much trumpeting that it was to contain the abolition of the right to buy. No matter how many times we see the minister in his JCB with his hard hat on, the fact is that we have not abolished the right to buy today. However, we have made a pragmatic response to where we are with it. I disagree with Alex Johnstone. We should not just sit back and allow things to continue as they are. We have to look at the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and the demand for social rented housing means that we need to ensure that its supply is increased. The committee and the Government have sought to strike a balance between increasing the availability of stock and ensuring that tenants do not have their rights removed.
I welcome new council house building, but I remind the minister that it was the Labour Party that provided the financial framework to ensure that it could happen. It is not helpful for the likes of Bob Doris to come to the chamber and reiterate the myth that the previous Administration built only six council houses. We built thousands of affordable houses, and it is insulting to people in those homes to keep repeating nonsense as some members do.
Alex Johnstone suggested that the changes to the right to buy are an ideological choice. The ideological choice that we are seeing from the Con-Dem Government south of the border is one that we should all be condemning. People will not have the choice to rent affordable homes because his Government will make that unobtainable to them. We believe that people should have that choice. Those who want to rent should be able to rent and those who want to buy to be supported to do so. Perhaps Alex Johnstone could speak to his banker friends sometime about making mortgages available to people.
If we look the role of community housing associations—
You should be finishing now, Mrs Mulligan.
As Johann Lamont said, community housing associations have been the backbone of housing throughout Scotland and we should continue to support them.
I am always happy to take part in debates that improve housing in Scotland, but I say to the minister that I still have a feeling that we could have done more. I believe that we will need to return to the issues after the next elections.
16:55
I will try to answer some of the points that were raised in the debate. I turn first to genuine points of inquiry. Patricia Ferguson raised two points about our policy on housing association mergers. On her first point, I make it absolutely clear that we have no policy of forced merger. We have never forced mergers on housing associations and we will never do so. As far as we are concerned, the way in which housing associations are structured is primarily a matter for them. That is decided by their boards, members and tenants; it is not decided in Edinburgh by Government ministers.
Patricia Ferguson’s second point was a reasonable point of inquiry on the provisions in relation to the pre-action protocol. I make it clear that I share her view that we should not in any way allow people who are guilty of antisocial behaviour to get away with using any law to escape eviction where eviction is justified. As a result of the manuscript amendments that she lodged yesterday, we double checked the legal position, which is as I outlined at stage 2. If someone is being evicted for rent arrears, the pre-action protocol applies. If they are being evicted for rent arrears and antisocial behaviour, the pre-action protocol applies. However, if they are being evicted only for antisocial behaviour, the pre-action protocol does not apply—it absolutely does not apply.
Will the minister give way?
I need to move on I am afraid.
I turn to other points that were raised in the debate. Johann Lamont raised the situation in Glasgow. In fact, when we took over, the Glasgow Housing Association situation could be described only as an unholy mess. The core element of the promise that Labour made to the people of Glasgow was that second-stage transfer would happen, yet the GHA had transferred not one house to local community associations. By next Christmas, 20,000 houses will have been transferred under second-stage transfer.
Mary Mulligan made a much more moderate speech than Johann Lamont did, which would not have been difficult. However, Mary Mulligan got into difficulty when she spoke about the number of council houses. What she said stimulated me to do some research. I have the facts before me. I looked at Labour’s record on council house building during the eight years that it was in office and, just for the record and in the interests of transparency, I can tell the chamber that—[Interruption.]
Order.
—in the eight years of the Labour/Liberal coalition, the total number of council houses built in Scotland was 497. We will build seven times that number over the next two years. We have made substantial progress.
In her fairly moderate speech, Mary Mulligan said that there was much more to be done in housing and that we should have done much more in the bill. I have been looking at Labour’s leaked policy document for its new ideas on housing, but I struggled to find one new idea. Before Labour criticises others, it should look at the state of its own policies. As far as housing is concerned, it is a bare cupboard.
I say to Mr McLetchie, who is in opposition to these measures, that the bill that I hope the chamber will pass today is a major step forward. It will keep in the rented sector up to 18,000 houses that would otherwise have been sold under the right to buy. When we took over, we inherited one of the longest-ever waiting lists and a 50-year low in the availability of rented stock. We have been building at a record level, but we have still had to take other measures to ensure that housing stock is available for people who need and deserve it.
The bill is a major advance. On top of it, we are already firing ahead with our new ideas, such as the national housing trust initiative, under which more than 1,000 additional houses will be built in Scotland over the next two years.
In pressing members to pass the bill, I say that we are proud of our housing record. We have a far better record than any previous Government. The Housing (Scotland) Bill is an historic bill for the people of Scotland, and it should be passed unanimously.