Plenary, 04 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004

Official Report 379KB pdf

---

Housing

The next item of business is a statement by Ms Margaret Curran on a housing standard for the 21st century. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement. There should therefore be no interventions.

Just over a year ago, I made a statement outlining the considerable progress that has been made in delivering our policy objectives for affordable housing, homelessness and social justice. I then set out further measures to build on those achievements. I can announce today what progress we have made and the next steps that we will take.

I have previously brought before Parliament measures such as the Executive's response to the housing improvement task force, the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and, just this week, the Tenements (Scotland) Bill. Each of those represents an important step forward in our policy of improving the quality of Scotland's housing. The cornerstone of that policy is our commitment to introduce a new housing quality standard for the social housing sector—a commitment that is in the partnership agreement. As a country, we have been searching for decades for the answer to how we can have housing that is free from damp and that gives our children the best possible start in life. Together with the other measures that we have introduced, the new standard will provide that answer.

Today I am pleased to announce that we are, after extensive consultation, publishing the final definition of the cross-tenure Scottish housing quality standard, copies of which will be available in the Scottish Parliament information centre. The new standard forms a critical part of our long-term vision for fundamental improvement of the physical quality of social housing in this country, and of the quality of service that tenants receive.

As well as its requiring that housing meets the statutory tolerable standard and that it is free from any serious disrepair, the new standard sets out some really exciting developments that will lead to significant improvements in the quality of our social housing. For example, the standard makes major commitments to improving energy efficiency: landlords must ensure that their houses have an efficient system of full-house central heating and effective insulation. In this day and age, it is simply no longer acceptable to expect families to live and thrive in houses that are cold, damp and difficult to heat.

As I am sure many members are aware, there has been a significant reduction in the number of families who live in fuel poverty, but we cannot be complacent. In making energy efficiency a central element of the standard, we are clearly demonstrating our on-going commitment to tackling one of the most unacceptable aspects of social housing in this country. The standard will also improve the health and safety of residents through measures such as ventilation to address condensation and double-glazing to help to shut out external noise.

We consulted widely on the target date for meeting the standard and we know that we must balance aspiration with realism. On the basis of the recent Scottish house condition survey, we estimate that about 70 per cent of Scotland's social housing falls beneath the new standard, although many houses may be missing it only marginally. We have asked landlords to let us have by April 2005 their plans for meeting the standard. I believe that an achievable, but challenging, date for meeting the standard should be 10 years from submission of the plans. Therefore, I can announce that the national target for achieving the standard throughout Scotland will be 2015. The onus will be on local authorities and registered social landlords to plan how they will deliver the improvements for their tenants by the due date. Failure to deliver the standard will be unacceptable and landlords who do not deliver can expect some hard questioning from ministers and from our regulator, Communities Scotland, about why they are denying their tenants better housing and better services.

I will move on to discuss how local authorities can fund the necessary work to meet the new standard. As I have said before, I want to get beyond debates about ownership to focus on the key objective of meeting the new standard. It is for each local authority to choose the option that meets its circumstances. Some local authorities will use the flexibility of the prudential regime to generate the necessary investment, as long as that is affordable in the long term.

I am pleased to announce a further significant change—I will give councils flexibility in the use of their housing receipts. I am pleased to announce that the rules that require councils to set aside some of their housing capital receipts to repay debt will be abolished from April 2004. Councils will be free to make their own decisions about how they use their housing capital receipts so, depending on their circumstances, they will have a choice about whether to use their receipts to invest in houses or to repay debt. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and councils will welcome the proposal, which they have pressed hard for—as have a number of members—over a number of years; they have argued that that choice is necessary to allow them to make that investment in their stock. In future, we will keep a close eye on how the abolition of set-aside affects local authority housing debt and, if necessary, we will act within the rules of the prudential regime.

All of that will free up considerably the financing options that are open to local authorities. It is now up to them to maximise the investment opportunities that have been made available to them. In making such decisions, they will need to take a hard look at the opportunities that are available for securing investment. Doing that will include examination of how they deal with their housing debt in the long term, but it will not be acceptable to burden current or future tenants with excessive rent increases simply to allow the housing stock to be retained under local authority control. As part of the monitoring arrangements for the prudential regime, rent levels and the level of debt will be kept under review.

We have reviewed the community ownership process in order to improve and streamline it and we have been ably supported in that work by a group of external advisers, whose contribution I acknowledge gratefully. The group's report is being published today and copies are being placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

At the centre of the new approach will be the community ownership programme through which local authorities that wish to undertake either whole or partial stock transfers will progress. For them to get on the programme, local authorities will need to have a political commitment to community ownership, a timetable that has been agreed with the Executive, the skills to deliver a complex process, an assessment of the financial requirements and evidence of tenant involvement. The Executive will work with local authorities that want to get on to the programme and once they are on it, authorities can expect detailed help and support from Communities Scotland.

Although undertaking transfers will be challenging for all involved, the process will bring considerable opportunities for new investment in housing and communities. The new approach should allow the complexities to be managed effectively within tight but realistic timetables. That approach should also more quickly bring benefits to tenants in two ways: by creating a reliable process to reach transfer and, as I will describe, by allowing investment to take place in advance of transfer.

As the review group emphasised, major investment in housing in disadvantaged areas needs to be accompanied by wider regeneration efforts to produce sustainable change. That is why I announced last year that we will provide funding of up to £175 million to support wider regeneration as part of a community ownership proposal, which will be available to authorities that are planning either whole or partial stock transfer.

The priority for use of the funding will be regeneration activity that is linked directly to the transfer, such as new affordable housing or environmental improvements. When local authorities have got on to the community ownership programme, funding will be made available to them straight away to start work. Of course, each transfer will have its own particular needs and the regeneration funding will be available to support other initiatives in order to ensure sustainable regeneration of the broader neighbourhood.

I am very keen to make progress, so for those authorities that want to access the funding in support of a community ownership proposal, my message is clear: the funding is there and the framework for accessing it is now in place. The next stage is for local authorities to decide whether they want to go for community ownership.

If authorities want to be part of the next wave of community ownership and to benefit from this significant funding, they need to decide, and quickly, on the way ahead. They will need to keep up the momentum and to be disciplined in using the funding, because allocation that is not used within the agreed time will be withdrawn.

As I am sure would be expected of me, I have listened carefully to the views of the local authorities that can improve housing quality without having to transfer their housing, but which find that the scale of their regeneration needs are beyond their resources. I have decided that, subject to clear criteria, we should widen access to the new regeneration funding. The funding will be available to authorities that have a robust delivery plan to achieve the new housing quality standard for the housing stock that they retain. Importantly, those authorities will have significant areas of deprivation that have wider regeneration needs.

By linking housing investment to wider regeneration, we will be more able to ensure that funding reaches the areas of greatest need. We all share an interest in ensuring best value in the use of public sector funds, so local authorities must be able to show that they are maximising the opportunities that are offered by the combination of investment in their stock and the regeneration funding. Bids for the funding will be considered in early 2005 when we see local authorities' delivery plans on how to achieve the new quality standard.

Our policy of allowing local authorities to take on management of Communities Scotland's development funding remains in place. If authorities wish to take over that funding, however, or to retain it once it transfers, they will need to produce delivery strategies that meet standards that are acceptable to the Executive.

Today's announcement puts in place the framework for driving up the quality of Scotland's social housing, and it puts in place a streamlined community ownership process that will allow authorities access to the substantial funding that will be available for wider regeneration. The Executive has delivered a coherent and comprehensive policy framework that offers viable alternatives for local authorities against an immoveable commitment to deliver our new quality standard.

I expect local authorities to decide, and to decide soon, how they will use this comprehensive framework to deliver what is in the best interests of their tenants. Presiding Officer, the approach to housing that I have presented is fit for the 21st century.

A considerable number of members wish to question the minister, not all of whom I will be able to call.

I welcome most of the minister's statement, in particular the relaxation on capital receipts, which is long overdue. My question is on the £175 million regeneration fund. The minister said that priority would be given to local authorities that wish to engage in stock transfer and she then said that access would be extended to other local authorities that do not wish to transfer their stock. Who will have first priority? Will local authorities that wish to transfer their stock have first access to the £175 million regeneration fund, followed by local authorities that do not wish to transfer their stock?

I laid out some of the detail in the statement, which Sandra White may wish to reflect upon. I am sure that we can discuss the matter further. Broadly speaking, priority will be given to local authorities that are on the community ownership programme, because they will have detailed strategies on how to meet the standard and how to deliver. All local authorities will be required to present robust delivery plans and within that context decisions will be made about how retaining local authorities can access the funding. I will be happy to report appropriately to the Parliament on progress in that matter.

I welcome the minister's commitment to council housing stock transfer and I hope that the size of the new associations will ensure that the tenant's voice is heard. I also welcome the commitment to protect tenants from the high rents that are levied simply to allow councils to retain their housing stock. I highlight the fact that the weekly rent in Highland Council area is £12 higher than in Moray Council area.

Although the minister mentioned the cross-tenure Scottish housing quality standard on page 2 of her statement, the rest of the statement concentrated on social housing and local authority housing. What is being done to assist the private sector and, as I have asked before, the agricultural and landowning sector to meet that housing standard?

My second question is about what the minister read from page 3 of her statement. She said:

"Failure to deliver the standard will be unacceptable and landlords who do not deliver can expect some hard questioning from ministers".

That could apply to many council functions. It is a serious matter. What sanctions will the minister apply if councils that retain their housing stock, and other landlords, do not meet the housing quality standard?

Mary Scanlon asked a range of questions, as usual. I will work my way through them. If I do not address them fully I will correspond with her as appropriate.

Mary Scanlon's first broad question properly drew attention to our policy in Scotland to have a cross-tenure standard. The resources that are at my disposal will be targeted at the social rented sector. I think that Mary Scanlon would support that. She will be aware of the comprehensive framework that we are introducing as a result of the housing improvement task force, which provides a way forward that will meet some of the challenges in the private rented sector and the private sector broadly. I am sure that she will agree that we cannot substitute government for personal responsibilities, particularly when people have substantial resources of their own to meet the standard. I hope that that in some way answers Mary Scanlon's point.

I concur strongly with the view that tenants should have as many choices as possible so that they can have the benefits of the opportunities that we provide for them and I encourage them strongly to make such decisions. We see community ownership as being a constructive model, but we openly acknowledge that some tenants do not wish to have that model, and that it is not appropriate for some local authorities, which is why we have moved matters forward as we have.

Mary Scanlon will also be aware that we have in recent years developed the operation of Communities Scotland, which we see as having an arm's-length role in regulation and inspection. Recent events indicate that some people are just beginning to come to terms with that fairly new development within housing in Scotland, but I am sure that strict words from me would be a deterrent for most people. Nonetheless, we view attending to the regulatory regime as part of the answer to the question.

I was pleased to welcome the minister to my constituency last week to meet registered social landlords and the local authority to address housing issues in the Borders and to see the close working between all the agencies and the council. One of the difficulties that Scottish Borders Housing Association has with regeneration is the higher than average proportion of small blocks of flats of which it has part ownership. If the target is to meet the tolerable standard for common stairwells, lift lobby courts and drying areas, that will put a burden on community landlords such as SBHA. I hope that we will have a follow-up meeting, but will she consider the target flexibly and give support to SBHA in that area?

I do not know whether I can give the direct commitment that Jeremy Purvis might wish me to give this afternoon on that matter.

There are two key points. We have found that, as a result of community ownership, landlords were in some ways achieving higher standards than the standard that we have laid down. That is possible. We would need to examine the standard that was proposed in SBHA's business plan when it undertook the stock transfer.

Nonetheless, I accept Jeremy Purvis's broader point about regeneration of the community and linking housing standards into the broader strategic planning of community use and land and all that goes with that. In my visit to the Borders, I found some very interesting issues for discussion. When we talk about regeneration, we do not think of it purely in an urban context—I am sure that Jeremy Purvis is glad to hear me say that. There are stereotypes of the meaning of deprivation and need, which are strong in urban Scotland and remain a key priority for us, but we know that regeneration comes in many shapes and sizes, and that is why we have flexibility within the programme.

I welcome the minister's statement. In particular, I welcome the relaxation on capital receipts. Many of my colleagues in Fife Council will welcome the statement.

The minister went a long way to answering part of my question and I am glad to hear her say that there will be flexibility in individual approaches to regeneration because, as I have discussed with her, I would like a different approach from that which has been taken until now to be taken in the regeneration area in my constituency in order to move regeneration forward. I am happy to talk to the minister individually about that, but what day-to-day difference will the quality standard make to tenants throughout Scotland?

I thank Marilyn Livingstone for that and I recognise the strong efforts that she has made in developing housing policy in Scotland in recent years. She has been a strong campaigner for her constituency, often to my cost, and I look forward to discussing with her how the new approach applies in those circumstances.

The introduction of the standard will make a considerable difference to the ordinary lives of tenants in Scotland. I will emphasise three themes that are highly significant. The quality standard will make houses energy efficient, with a high standard of insulation and efficient full-house central heating, which is a significant step forward. The standard will also ensure that houses are equipped with modern, good-quality bathrooms and kitchens and, fundamentally, that they are safe and secure, as it will include smoke detectors, secure access doors, safe electrical and gas systems and common areas and facilities that are in good and safe order. I could go into some of the detail of that, but in and of itself, it is a strong statement for the future of Scotland's housing.

I, too, welcome much in the minister's statement, but I confess to being a little disappointed because, although I read in the housing improvement task force's report that the

"Scottish Housing Quality Standard will also apply across all tenures",

we now see that it focuses specifically on the social rented sector. Has the minister included in her thinking on the standard the concept of regulation of private landlords, which would allow the same high quality in housing standards—accessibility, home energy efficiency and so on—to apply to them? That has come up in proposals, promoted by Cathie Craigie among others, for the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.

I thank Patrick Harvie for that question. I recognise his interest in housing standards, particularly in respect of how they relate to energy efficiency. When I was giving my answer about cross-tenure issues and the focus on the social rented sector, I did not want to diminish the significance of the people who live in the private sector and of the standards that they, too, properly deserve. I was merely pointing out that we need to develop a variety of frameworks, and the housing improvement task force is particularly important in that regard. That is what I have been concentrating on this afternoon.

As members will be aware, we are examining the issue of private landlords as we develop and respond to the task force's work. The issue in that regard is whether or not to regulate under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, although that bill deals with a very specific area. When we—I hope—introduce further housing legislation, we will consider the issue that Patrick Harvie raises. In any event, I acknowledge the point that he makes.

I listened with great care to the minister's statement and will read it with even more. I heard little in it about the involvement of tenants. Clearly, the minister's objective is to make life easier for tenants and I very much welcome the changes that will deliver that. However, the policy rings of something that is being done to tenants and, perhaps, for tenants, but hardly with tenants. I heard nothing whatever to suggest that tenants will be at the heart of, and leading, the policy. What role will there be for tenants? Will it simply be a matter of organisations—once again—doing things to tenants and for tenants?

I have many faults, but I would not have thought that my commitment to tenant involvement was one of them. Stewart Stevenson will know that I am a strong advocate of community ownership. That is partly because of the financial sense that it makes, but it is primarily because it allows for a whole model of tenant involvement, which I think offers solutions to housing issues. It is about a drive to improve standards. The people who live in a house will have a real motive to sort out the fundamental problems that can arise. I can give Stewart Stevenson a categorical assurance about my commitment to ensuring that tenants are involved in as many processes as can be facilitated.

We should not forget that our proposals are being developed within the context of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which was passed during the previous session. That act laid down the highest standards possible for tenant involvement, through financial support as well as by ensuring that tenants are involved appropriately in issues that affect their housing. I would never wish to imply that just because a particular point is not particularly emphasised at a given time it might somehow be allowed to be neglected at another time.

In bringing forward the policy, we have engaged in widespread consultation with a variety of housing interests—as members would expect—and tenants organisations were involved. A number of the organisations that we consulted involve tenants in their own processes. I would never wish to indicate that we expect landlords' services simply to be done to tenants; they should always be done with tenants and with tenants' involvement.

I take what the minister has just said absolutely seriously and I believe her implicitly. She will know that much of the need for housing exists not among tenants, but among housing applicants. I think that the minister referred in her statement to £175 million of new money for regeneration, and she indicated that that would be available for new and replacement buildings for those who live in the worst housing in the social sector.

Based on the research on housing need that she has cited, does the minister accept that any such development for regeneration purposes should not count against her quantitative target that there should be 6,000 new houses per year? Does the minister accept that the research that she has cited shows that that target is driven by household formation needs in a relatively narrow range of council areas, and that there is therefore a need to resource the programme at the levels that the research shows are required?

That was interesting, as ever—Mr Tosh really does his research. A number of strands would be involved in answering his question. I should say that I am not announcing a new £175 million—I have to be honest and clear about that. That is money that was announced previously; the statement was about how we will spend it.

We have our partnership commitments, which we will honour and which we will ensure are fulfilled. We have acknowledged that we also need to consider some deeper issues if we are to meet the range of housing needs in Scotland. It is partly a question of quality and standards, which is one aspect of what today's announcement is about. It is a matter of ensuring that we deliver on quality and standards which—I am sure that Murray Tosh would agree—remain a central plank of any effective housing policy.

We must also ensure that we understand supply and affordability so that people can access the housing choices that they want. If we are aiming for economic growth, we must ensure that we have a complementary housing policy that works with that. I will resist the temptation that Murray Tosh offers me to get into a battle about specific numbers, because that is not where we need to be at the moment. We must understand the supply demands that we have, and the geographic pattern of need: Jeremy Purvis and Murray Tosh have had many discussions with me about that.

We need to understand the opportunities and challenges that exist as we try to progress. Someone might want housing to be built in an area in which that might not be possible because of various constraints. The Executive has instituted a review of affordable housing and we are engaging with key sectors and stakeholders to map out the challenges and options. I assure Murray Tosh that the issue is serious for us and that we will pursue it. I look forward to our debating numbers in the future.

How will the new housing standard be monitored in order that it can be sustained once it has been established? How will the minister ensure that the standard and the system of monitoring will not be unwieldy, given the significant regulation that exists, particularly in the social rented sector, which one could argue might on occasion take away from important work that is being done with tenants? I want to press the minister a little on her plans to extend the standard to the private rented sector, given how important the issue is if the broader community regeneration that she mentioned is not to be undermined. Does she recognise that a first step would be to consider connecting the entitlement of the private sector to publicly funded rental income to the establishment of standards for that entitlement?

I am glad that Johann Lamont is my friend; I do not know what she would say to me if she were my enemy. I will go through what she said and if I do not answer all that she asked I will be happy to correspond with her. We plan to monitor progress towards meeting the standard as we go through the next 11 years to the delivery date. All social landlords will be required to prepare standard delivery plans, which must be submitted by April 2005. There will be a monitoring arrangement to ensure that those plans are implemented and Communities Scotland will, of course, play that role on behalf of Scottish ministers. I emphasise to Communities Scotland that I am sure that it is capable of managing the balance between effective monitoring and accountability in order to ensure effective implementation and to facilitate other tasks that landlords will have to undertake. Of course there will have to be appropriate engagement with landlords on that.

I know that Johann Lamont has a strong interest, which she has pursued, in private landlords. We are examining possibilities for how we will in future legislate in relation to private landlords. We are considering the standards in various aspects of housing that is provided by private landlords, and we are considering their responsibilities. Again, we will engage appropriately with Parliament and the Communities Committee as we proceed.

I congratulate the minister on at long last adopting Scottish National Party policy on housing capital receipts. However, has she visited councils that are using those resources to invest in their stock and, perhaps, to add to their stock by once again building quality homes for rent to help meet the Executive's pledge that there will be 18,000 new homes for social rent by 2006?

I will resist the temptation to answer back on Shona Robison's party-political point. Members should not encourage me, because I am running out of time. My answer to her point about supply is similar to the answer that I gave Murray Tosh. Obviously she will agree with Labour's policy of ensuring that there are proper standards for Scotland's housing and I am sure that she would congratulate us on our drive to deliver those standards, which is what I am focusing on today. The supply of housing is obviously of importance to the development of housing policy and the delivery of housing in future. We are developing various strategies on that.

Furthermore, I could of course tell the member about the size of the community development programme, the substantial resources that it liberates for local authorities and the prudential regime that will open up all sorts of investment opportunities. I am sure that, in the light of all of that, the member will congratulate us on our policy.

I regret that I have not been able to call everyone—I note that I still have a considerable number of names on my screen.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under standing orders, should members, when they want to ask questions following a ministerial statement, wait until the minister has finished the statement and the Presiding Officer invites them to press their request-to-speak buttons, or should they press their request-to-speak buttons at any time during the statement?

I was in the chamber when the Presiding Officer indicated what to do—you should have pressed your button when the minister rose to speak.