Housing
Good morning. The first item of business is a statement on housing by Margaret Curran. The minister will take questions at the end of the statement, so there should be no interventions.
Last year saw the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which is one of the most radical pieces of legislation that the Parliament has passed. The implementation of the act is well under way and is bringing about many improvements to Scottish social housing. We have funded 21,000 affordable houses since 1999 and the ballots that have been conducted will result in 100,000 council homes being transferred under the community ownership policy, which will lead to £2 billion of investment in the next 10 years. The recent Homelessness etc (Scotland) Bill is further proof of our determination to tackle head on the housing and social problems that have beset Scotland for generations.
Excellent progress is being made on many fronts. I intend to describe how, in a number of important ways, we plan to build on what we have already achieved. The measures that I will announce underline our commitment to social housing. They will offer greater diversity in the available options for landlords and tenants. In all our housing policies, we put tenants' interests first. The best way in which to do that is to give tenants a real say in the decisions that affect their homes, and we remain firmly committed to that objective. At the same time, we want to improve the efficiency of the sector and we will work with local authorities to improve the way in which they carry out their investment and management.
Through constituency work, members of the Scottish Parliament are well aware of the poor state of some council housing and of the impact that it has on those who live in it. Too much of our social housing is not up to the standards that we should expect a modern country to provide. I believe that we lack an objective national quality standard that covers all our social housing. Such standards have been established in England and Wales and around 20 Scottish local authorities have established their own standards. The Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and Shelter Scotland recently called for a standard.
I believe that it makes a great deal of sense to have a standard and I propose to consult local authorities, registered social landlords and others on the development of a new Scottish standard for social housing. As part of our consultation, I shall take the views of social landlords on what is a realistic target date to meet the standard and what interim milestones should be set. We want the setting of the target date to be informed by the Scottish house condition survey, which is under way and which will report next year.
We want local authorities to take account of the new standard in the local housing strategies that they are preparing and we will discuss that with them further. When the information is to hand, I will invite councils and RSLs to submit their plans for meeting the standard and how that will be funded. I will describe in a moment the new funding mechanisms that will be available. The development of the new standard will be tied to the housing improvement task force's work.
The whole-stock transfer of council housing remains the central plank of our housing policy. Transfers provide the necessary investment to bring social housing up to the new standard and to put tenants at the centre of the decision-making process. Debt write-off remains available only for whole-stock transfers and is a result of our partnership with HM Treasury to secure considerable investment resources for social housing in Scotland. For many authorities, transfers will be the only way in which to lever in the necessary investment and to get that sooner rather than later. Transfers will also remain the most effective use of the Executive's resources because of the investment that they unlock.
It is important that we ensure that funding for housing achieves the maximum effect and provides the best value for money. Transfers are still the best way forward for local authorities to regenerate council housing. For example, in Glasgow, £1.6 billion will be invested in the next decade to provide every tenant with a warm, dry, affordable home. That level of investment would have been impossible if tenants had not voted for change.
Considerable progress has been made on the current transfers. We have learnt a lot and the time is right to apply those lessons to ensure that the transfer process works as speedily and as efficiently as possible. Therefore, we will review and consider improvements to the transfer process to help councils to proceed with future transfers as effectively as possible. In doing so, we will consult widely in the sector.
Stock transfer already brings many benefits, but I want to consider how we can further incentivise local authorities to go down the transfer route. One area in which we can do more is in linking the investment from housing transfers with wider community regeneration efforts. We will consider ways in which other spending can be made available to local authorities to complement housing transfers as part of comprehensive area renewal. I will announce the outcome of the review and details of the use of resources in January.
The benefits of whole-stock transfers are self-evident; the benefits of partial transfers that receive new housing partnership funding are less evident. We want councils to reach strategic decisions that cover all their houses. The NHP bidding process has perhaps not always led to the most effective use of the limited resources that are available. Therefore, I have decided that there will be no further NHP bidding rounds for partial transfers. Councils will still be able to seek funding from Communities Scotland for partial transfers if they form part of a strategic local housing strategy.
Although community ownership delivers a raft of benefits, it is becoming clear that, for some local authorities, transfer is not necessarily the only option in their circumstances. Representations have been made to me suggesting that we must offer those authorities something other than a choice between transfer and the status quo. I have considered those representations carefully and, as a result, I can announce that I intend to bring local authority housing capital finance within the new prudential regime that has been announced for the rest of local authority finance.
That means that, in future, local authorities will decide for themselves what is an affordable and prudent level of borrowing in their financial circumstances. The change will take effect from April 2004, subject to the passage of the Local Government in Scotland Bill. The move to a prudential regime for housing will not change the choices that face authorities that have significant debt levels, high investment needs and high rents. For them, stock transfer will remain the best option.
I stress that the point of the prudential regime is to delegate to local authorities decisions on prudent levels of borrowing. It will be up to individual councils to decide what, if any, additional borrowing the prudential regime might permit, but our estimates suggest that the prudential regime might release £200 million of extra investment for Scottish council housing. At the end of the day, councils will need to take full responsibility for their housing debt. They must ensure that the debt remains at manageable and affordable levels and that it does not place an unsustainable burden on current or future tenants.
As happens at present, borrowing will have to be funded out of rents, which means that, in setting borrowing limits, councils will need to ensure that rents are kept at responsible and affordable levels. I want local authorities to take a more businesslike approach to planning their housing investment and I will work with them on that as part of the move to the prudential regime.
I also intend to change the arrangements for funding local authority expenditure on private housing. We plan to replace borrowing consents with grant assistance that will be earmarked specifically for private sector housing purposes. We will consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the details of those changes. The total resources for expenditure in the area, including the implementation of the housing improvement task force's work, will be £215 million in the three years to 2005-06.
From my discussions with councils, I am aware that many of them have innovative ideas for alternative funding mechanisms and for different ways in which the housing stock might be managed. It would be worth while for us to explore further with councils whether those and other approaches can be developed in the Scottish context. I am not being prescriptive about the alternatives, but to be worth while, it must be shown how they can promote improved tenant involvement, deliver the necessary investment and support effective and transparent management. As part of the consultation on the new quality standard, I propose to invite local authorities and others to suggest innovative approaches that satisfy the criteria that I have just set out.
One specific issue that we must discuss with local authorities is the treatment of capital receipts and the set-aside rules. The move to a prudential regime means that the current rules must be revisited and are unlikely to remain relevant. We will take councils' views on that when they have considered the full consequences for their finances of moving to the prudential regime.
The changes that I have proposed will tackle Scotland's housing quality problems head on. They are a major evolution in housing policy that builds upon and complements the central policy of community ownership.
We have listened to local authorities as they have tried to find ways to tackle their housing problems and we are working in partnership with them to deliver a better deal for tenants. We have answered local authority calls to provide other options for many of the issues that we face. I look forward to answering members' questions.
The minister will now take questions on her statement. The list of members who wish to ask questions is lengthening, so I shall allow around 30 minutes for questions. We will move to the next item of business at about 10:15.
I warmly welcome the minister's statement and thank her for providing me with a copy of it in advance. In its plans to adopt a Scottish social rented housing standard, the Executive is following the lead of the SNP, which adopted that policy at its annual conference this year—although we are clearly further advanced than the Executive on the issue as we already have a timetable in place for its introduction. Similarly, the Executive's intention to extend the prudential borrowing regime to housing was whole-heartedly endorsed by the SNP in Inverness, and we agreed the issue of grants last month. However, the grant assistance over three years that the Executive proposes is half the level, in real terms, that new Labour inherited.
Will you come to the questions now?
Yes. We usually have a preamble.
No—
I seem to remember Mr McLetchie being given plenty of leeway when he is speaking.
Mr McLetchie has not spoken this morning—you have. A lot of members want to speak and I would be grateful if you could come to your questions.
There seems to be one rule for one member and another rule for others.
Order. Come to the questions, Mr Gibson.
Over what period does the Executive intend to consult local authorities on its new-found flexibility over housing capital receipt set-aside? Local authorities with low debt burdens must be relieved of that as soon as possible, if the Executive decides to proceed with abolishing housing capital receipt set-aside.
Does the Executive plan to restore the 30 per cent cut in the Communities Scotland approved development programme, which is now running at £100 million less than it was when new Labour came to power?
Taking into account the concern of the Social Justice Committee that the future supply of affordable housing will not meet the rising demand, will the minister assure us that the Executive will be able to meet Scotland's housing needs fully, given the record level of homelessness over which the Executive now presides?
Kenny Gibson raises a range of issues. I hope that the Presiding Officer will allow me to respond to the preamble that was not quite a question, as I feel obliged to address some of those issues.
Mr Gibson referred to the SNP conference, which seems to have been an interesting experience. The conference passed a resolution that all stock should be located in attractive environments by 2013. That is an interesting policy, and I look forward to the SNP's definition of an attractive environment. The SNP conference also resolved that housing improvement and repair grants should not be means tested. I will be interested to see the implications of that for the Scottish housing budget and the grants that the party intends to introduce.
I made it abundantly clear in my statement that we intend to consult local authorities on a variety of issues. We will be flexible in doing that. I will have serious discussions with local authorities and, as I have said, I will come back to the Parliament in January with a series of announcements about where we are with that. The prudential borrowing regime will not be introduced until April 2004, and the housing capital receipt set-aside rules will not be changed until then. That gives us enough time to have proper consultation.
There are huge issues about resources, which have been debated many times. The acts of the Labour Government at Westminster and the acts of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition have introduced substantial increases in the housing budget and in housing supply. We have been honest about the challenges that exist in Scottish housing and we are facing up to them today. It has been the biggest reinvigoration in housing for many generations, and we have fundamentally addressed the issues of resources and supply in increasing the budgets.
I apologise for not quite being ready. The minister was very quick off the mark this morning.
It is not like me.
Yes, it is. The minister is very fast.
On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I welcome the minister's statement and thank her for the courtesy of sending me an advance copy of it.
Although the Conservatives believe that home ownership is something to which most people aspire, and we proved our commitment to that aspiration by introducing right-to-buy legislation—one of our greatest pieces of legislation—we recognise that there will always be a need for social rented housing. We agree that there ought to be a standard.
Can we have a question, please?
I have just got there. Will the minister tell us a little more about that standard? Are we talking about several standards? Does she refer to standards that are in existence south of the border or to something completely different?
The minister proposes to review and reconsider improvements in the transfer process. That would be a sensible precaution to take, in the light of the experience in Glasgow. However, I assume that she already knows what needs to be done. I hope that the consultation will not be an empty paper-chase for organisations such as the CIHS. I suspect that the minister knows what they are looking for from the standard.
Is there another question?
I was merely going to comment that delegated responsibility—
This is not a comment session; it is a question session. I would be grateful if you could come to your next question.
Are we really talking about proper devolution to local authorities?
Lyndsay McIntosh raises several questions. Yes, we have some idea about what we expect the standard to include. The standard will cross-refer to the work of the housing improvement task force. I pay tribute to the task force, which has undertaken a considerable amount of detailed work on what the standard will be. We imagine that it will include factors such as thermal efficiency, the condition of bathrooms and kitchens, adaptations for people with special needs, and so on. However, our minds are not absolutely set and we will take views on what the standard should include. I have tried to make it clear—and the Minister for Finance and Public Services would be the first to agree with me—that we will be realistic and effective in delivering the standard. It is not purely aspirational; it will be delivered. Nonetheless, we recognise the challenges that it poses. We believe that we can meet them.
I have no intention of engaging in an empty consultation exercise. That would be a waste of my time and of everybody else's time. The consultation will be genuine, as I hope that I have proved in the past.
Lyndsay McIntosh spoke about learning about the stock transfer process. I have considerable experience of stock transfers throughout Scotland, in different situations. As I said in my statement, they are a great option for many local authorities. Nonetheless, we need to improve the process and the improvements are readily available. I will, of course, talk to other people and consider the views of different agencies in improving the process. It is such a good deal for tenants that we must bring them the benefits of it as soon as possible.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the minister's comprehensive statement.
The introduction of prudential borrowing is a welcome widening of the options. First, will the minister ensure that, in the arrangements that are made for prudential borrowing, the emphasis is placed on councils' duty to consider the long-term maintenance of their properties? That has been the big failure of public housing in the past.
Secondly, will the minister indicate whether there is to be a target for the number of new or rehabilitated houses that result from the new resources that are made available through prudential borrowing?
Thirdly, will the national standard be the same as the index of housing quality, which has been talked about before, or is it a third standard that is somewhere between it and the tolerable standard?
Finally, with regard to the important announcement about private sector housing, does the Executive intend to add increased resources over time? That will be the most challenging area, because of the state of the tenement stock throughout Scotland.
Is that all?
Yes.
We can always rely on Robert Brown to ask detailed questions. Legal training has something to answer for. I will do my best to answer all of them. If I do not give all the details that he wants, I shall be more than happy to get back to him.
Long-term maintenance is central to the changes that we are trying to introduce. Local authorities agree with us on that. Stock transfer reveals clearly that we must move to long-term planning in housing expenditure—not just of the resources that are available, but by projecting long-term demand and housing conditions. Much of the information that is required to do that is not as robust as it should be. Therefore, we are trying to drive all key partners towards a more businesslike approach, whereby they take a longer-term view of the sustainability of their stock instead of just complying with the short-term rules. Local authorities sometimes say that they have not been liberated enough to do long-term planning, so we are trying to establish a more devolved relationship with local authorities.
On Robert Brown's point on the index of housing quality, we are building on previous work. Through the Social Justice Committee's work and my experience, we understand the issues in housing quality and the need to set a standard. The housing improvement task force will continue to consider the review of the tolerable standard, which is a condemnatory standard. The new standard will be more than that. We want a standard that will fulfil people's expectation of being able to live in a decent standard of council housing.
On available resources for the private sector, new money is available in the form of an extra £65 million, compared with current expenditure, over the three years from 2003-04 to 2005-06. Robert Brown's other point, if I picked it up properly, was on the need to ensure proper targets and balance in relation to housing supply. That is part of the business planning approach that we are trying to take. We acknowledge that different local authorities have different issues. For example, in Edinburgh and in many rural areas the supply of new housing is a significant issue.
During the first session of the Parliament, we have moved to a position of giving more strategic support to housing issues through local housing strategies, so that available resources can be deployed to maximum effect to meet the different needs of different local authorities. We feel that that is a key part of the jigsaw, which will allow all key housing partners to move to strategic deployment and, I hope, meet the challenges that lie ahead of us.
I refer to the minister's comments about the private sector. The minister will be aware of the anxieties of some owner-occupiers of properties that were bought under the right to buy about the implication for them of Glasgow's housing stock transfer and of the significant investment in Glasgow's council housing that will follow from that. What assurances can the minister give that the new grant system for the private sector will be targeted at those owner-occupiers and will be substantial enough for them to gain from housing improvements? Can she also assure us that such households will not operate as a local barrier to those important developments?
Johann Lamont, who is the convener of the Social Justice Committee, has raised specific issues about Glasgow. She will know that I am close to many of the issues in Glasgow and that, as a Glasgow MSP, I have received many representations about the important issue to which she referred. I believe that the housing policy that has been developed for Glasgow addresses that issue.
We acknowledge that not only in stock transfer situations but throughout Scotland people in the owner-occupied sector might not have the resources to meet needs. I have reflected that issue in my policy statement. However, that must be balanced by our belief—which differs strongly from the belief of the nationalists—that people are responsible for improving their houses. We cannot let people escape that responsibility. It is not the Scottish Government's role to subsidise private sector development in that way.
We acknowledge that particular needs must be met. That is why we will means test them and ensure that the money properly goes to those who are most in need, at whom the resources should be targeted. That position is in keeping with Robert Brown's point.
I, too, welcome the policy statement, which is a tribute to the task force and all who helped its work.
I have two quick points. The first is to pick up on what the minister said about people's responsibility to maintain and improve their houses. Many people in Scotland are in private rented stock that is below tolerable standard. It is landlords' responsibility to ensure that they take rent for a decent house. Has consideration been given to expanding the decency standard to include houses in the private rented sector? That would tie in with the issue of tenement law. When is legislation likely to be introduced?
On prudential borrowing, obviously only some local authorities will be able to take advantage of the loosening of the rules. Other authorities will not be able do so and stock transfer would seem to be the only option for them. If a council dug in its heels and said that it did not want to proceed with stock transfer, what could we do to ensure that its tenants are not stuck in the middle and do not fail to get the benefits of what the minister has announced?
Linda Fabiani raised several issues, one of which is the private rented sector. The housing improvement task force, with whose work I know Linda Fabiani is familiar, is considering a standard for the private rented sector. We will try to cross-refer the work on the Scottish standard for social housing with the task force's work on the private rented sector to ascertain whether the two standards that are being developed have aspects in common.
Much of the detailed work of the housing improvement task force will be extremely helpful in addressing those issues. As Linda Fabiani knows, the task force will report on its work in spring 2003. That report will address matters such as tenement law, with which the task force is grappling just now.
Linda Fabiani's point about the prudential regime highlights a significant issue. Some local authorities might dig their heels in, but I cannot imagine local authorities not welcoming today's statement. Most local authorities act responsibly in delivering facilities to their tenants and will be aware of the range of available options. We always want to hear what local authorities want to say. However, if local authorities cannot lever in resources from the available options, they are failing their tenants and must come to terms with the issues that face them.
The Executive is unequivocal in its view that there are substantial resources and mechanisms to allow the new standard to be achieved and for tenants to have affordable, warm, dry homes that are fit for the 21st century. We expect local authorities to operate within the available mechanisms. Most local authorities are prudent and sensible and are driven to improve standards for their tenants, and they will strongly welcome the new standard and will use the available options.
It would be disingenuous at best for us to pretend that there are hidden resources that we can just throw at local authorities. That is why, when we go into the election, all our proposals will be fully costed. We will ensure that tenants and voters get facts when deciding for whom to vote. We must take politics forward in Scotland by giving people real information and choices. I think that we have finally done that for housing in Scotland.
I congratulate the minister on her excellent achievement of extending the prudential borrowing system. Does she recall that East Lothian is an area where stock transfer could not possibly make sense and where there is a truly desperate need for more affordable rented housing? East Lothian has 6,000 people stuck on the waiting list and there are only 400 re-lets each year.
East Lothian Council will have virtually cleared its housing capital debt by 2004, so I sincerely hope that the council will be able to implement the Executive's excellent new policy and build more affordable rented houses as soon as possible. Will the minister arrange for an early meeting between her officials and local authorities such as East Lothian Council, which might be able to build new rented houses?
I am always happy to direct officials to do things and of course they can do what Mr Home Robertson suggested. I thought that he was going to ask me to meet with East Lothian Council and I was going to say that I would be happy to do so.
The minister would be welcome.
I am welcome, am I?
We have all talked in the chamber until we are hoarse about the fact that Scotland's housing policy has never been that one size fits all. The Executive has always said that stock transfer is one option among many and that it does not make sense for some local authorities. The Executive has always been honest, working in partnership with the Westminster Government, about the fact that we would only ever change financial rules when we thought that it was prudent and in the interests of the Scottish budget and the Scottish people to do so.
We will not be irresponsible with the resources that are at our disposal and we must manage them properly. That is why we are introducing prudential borrowing, which will be an attractive policy for East Lothian Council in particular. I hope that I will join my officials at a meeting with East Lothian Council and that John Home Robertson will also be there.
I thank the minister for her statement and turn her attention to the quality and availability of housing in our rural communities. Is she aware that many landed estates in rural Scotland would rather hold on to scores of empty houses than make them available to local young people who want to continue to live and work in the areas where they were born? What steps is she taking to ensure that that housing is made available to local people, not just for renting but for ownership, so that local young people can commit their futures to their rural communities?
I have taken the issue of rural housing seriously since I became deputy minister. I think that I answered a question from John Farquhar Munro on the issue last week at question time. I have visited many rural areas since I have been in post and have worked closely with Communities Scotland on the range of options that it delivers. I strongly congratulate Communities Scotland for the delivery of that work.
At question time last week I talked about the successful low-cost home-ownership strategies that we developed, but those do not answer all the problems and we need to address other issues. However, I think that the money that we announced today and the outcome agreements that will be in place between Communities Scotland and local authorities to ensure that private sector money gets invested properly begin to address the problem.
In my time in office, I have also met a number of rural landlords to ensure that they are addressing housing needs within their areas. We now have a variety of mechanisms to address such issues. Today's announcement will allow local authorities fundamentally to address the issue of supply within their area.
At the centre of our housing policy is a recognition that Scotland is a diverse country that has different needs in different parts, so it is proper that we devolve power to local authorities and work in partnership with other sectors to ensure that housing needs are addressed within the different rural communities, which are quite different from one another. Having done a lot of work with the islands and such like, I think that we now have a package of measures that will begin to address those issues fundamentally.
I welcome the minister's statement and the investment in private housing stock, but I want to push the minister a wee bit further on what she said in her answer to Johann Lamont about how the investment will work. I welcome the fact that the investment will be means tested and will go to those who are most in need, but as those most in need are often elderly, will the minister work with organisations such as Age Concern to ensure that the elderly are aware that the money is available? Also, will she confirm that the money will be ring fenced so that it cannot be used for other purposes, such as servicing housing debt?
We want the funding to be targeted. That is a fundamental issue. I will ensure that the member gets detailed information about this, but the way in which the investment will work is that the money will be allocated to local authorities, which will be required to ensure that the money is spent on what is set out in the outcome agreements that they will have agreed with Communities Scotland. That process will determine the allocations for the next year. In a sense, that will ensure that the money is targeted, given the concern that money has not always been targeted at that sector.
Rhoda Grant's suggestion about working with Age Concern is valuable, as there is a need to ensure that elderly citizens are properly informed about what their expectations should be. We also need to encourage an environment in Scotland in which key organisations work with local authorities to ensure that issues are resolved, but I think that we can make progress on that effectively.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome this morning's statement from the minister. Much of what it contained is indeed to be welcomed. I had one reservation, but the minister may have answered my question in her response to John Home Robertson. In light of Highland Council's recent statement suggesting that the lack of affordable housing in the private and rented sectors causes young families in rural Scotland particular difficulties, will she assure me that rurality will be taken into consideration in allocating funding to councils, so that that difficulty might be addressed?
The scheme that we have introduced will enable that to happen. Local authorities will determine what are the best options available to raise the necessary investment to address the housing issues that they have determined to prioritise. The prudential regime will allow them that option.
I will not pretend that all difficult political decisions will thereby evaporate, as that might not be the case. Some local authorities face considerable housing problems because of the scale of their debt, the level of their rents and the level of the investment that is required. We cannot let those problems continue and we must fundamentally address them. For such local authorities, stock transfer may be the best means of levering in finance; for others, the prudential regime may offer opportunities for the local authority itself to invest, which would then allow the authority to determine that rurality is a key issue. The prudential regime will allow the decision making to be taken at that level.
As housing minister, I would say that rurality is a strong feature of our general approach to housing. Both John Farquhar Munro and I are committed to ensuring that we have a Scottish housing policy that reflects Scotland, so it is obvious that the rural dimension must be critical. I hope that we are beginning properly to address those issues.
As well as welcoming the minister's statement this morning, I welcome the emphasis that the Scottish Executive has placed on housing. After many years of campaigning, we now rightly have housing well up the political ladder.
The minister mentioned capital receipts and the changes to the set-aside rules, which were referred to by John Home Robertson in connection with East Lothian Council. I know that North Lanarkshire Council has been lobbying the minister quite hard to emphasise the quality of well-maintained housing that it can provide with low debt, low rents and the involvement of tenants at every level. Will the changes to the treatment of capital receipts and set-aside rules allow North Lanarkshire Council to invest more in its stock?
The minister also spoke about the intention to consult on the development of a Scottish standard for social housing. I know that the housing improvement task force is looking at the private sector, which other colleagues have mentioned, but the need to expand the regulations to establish standards within the private sector is an issue that is very much in the minds of members whose constituencies contain high numbers of private sector houses.
During the time of the Scottish Parliament, issues have accumulated in our debates on housing. Indeed, Alex Neil was a member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee when we first considered many of the issues. There is a genuine understanding across the Parliament that there is a fundamental need for us to come to terms with the issues, but that is why the housing improvement task force was established and why it has gone into its work in such depth. As Cathie Craigie will know, North Lanarkshire Council is represented on the task force and has itself raised such issues.
Notwithstanding what has been announced today, I expect that the housing improvement task force's report will have something to add about what work needs to be done in the private sector. However, today's announcement is a critical component of what has been asked for by local authorities, which have spoken about the need to move forward.
Like every previous housing minister, I have received strong and robust representations from local authorities on the set-aside rules. We will not relent in our determination to deal with debt in Scottish housing. If it is not dealt with, it will be paid for in some way or another, so it simply must be addressed. However, we believe that the prudential regime will allow us to consider the issue differently, as it will allow local authorities to address the issue of how they manage their debt and how they manage their resources. Within that context, the capital set-aside rules essentially do not have the same relevance. The first issue to be dealt with is how the prudential regime for local authorities will work and within that context the capital set-aside rules will be discussed. The fact that we will be governed by the April 2004 deadline means that we will be able to talk to local authorities about that.
As ever, I do not doubt the minister's good intentions, but does she agree that, although it is all very well to set standards, the question of target dates must be resolved as a matter of urgency? We need to resolve the issue of the total expenditure that is likely to be incurred in bringing public sector housing up to the appropriate standard once that standard has been agreed. Will she liaise with her colleague the Minister for Parliamentary Business to ensure that the full figures are brought back to the Parliament so that they can be properly debated within an acceptable time scale?
I am happy to give Bill Aitken that assurance. Not to have a full and open debate on such issues would serve nobody's purposes. The Executive has nothing to hide about the resources that we are making available for Scottish housing and we are willing to proclaim our success proudly. I am more than happy to give a commitment to come back to Parliament. I am sure that if I chose not to do so, the Minister for Parliamentary Business would direct me otherwise.
I understand completely why Bill Aitken has raised the serious issue of the target dates, as that concerns how we lever in the resources, but that is why we have said that we want to introduce the new standard as competently and as efficiently as possible. We will not get into a bidding war—as some agencies or organisations might tempt us to do—on what the target date should be. We want whatever we do to make sense. The date should not be some implausible target that has been set by a politician with no true recognition of what is happening in the field.
I mentioned the Scottish house condition survey because that will give us a real sense of what the investment needs are and of what strategies must be put in place to meet the standard. That is why I said that we need to set an interim date and milestones that can be assessed so that we can know that we are going in the right direction. Matched to that is a clear and unequivocal understanding that standards must be met.
In a sense, that is the answer to the implication behind Rhoda Grant's question. We are now putting in place the mechanisms for local authorities to address the fundamental housing issues that we expect them to address. We will drive up standards and use all levers at our disposal to make sure that those standards are met. The targets and the milestones will be part of that, but I am sure that we will discuss this matter again.
I think that I will be able to get everybody in.
As the minister knows, the wind-up of the new towns was the only occasion when tenants were free to choose between transfer to a housing association and transfer to a local authority, and by an overwhelming majority they chose to transfer to a local authority. If the interests of tenants always come first, will the minister allow debt write-off to be tied to the transfer of council stock to a stand-alone housing company that is wholly owned by the council and freed by the debt write-off to borrow private capital on the strength of its housing revenue schemes? I know that tenants and council alike are calling for that in Dundee.
For the life of me, I cannot as a socialist see the attraction of a housing company over a housing association. A housing association is a much more democratic institution. Nonetheless, I still think—
Will the minister put the tenants' choice first.
I will answer the question; honestly, I will come to it. Through the housing association model we have seen more tenant involvement, more tenant empowerment and more tenant control than were ever envisaged under any other model. John McAllion and I have debated this issue over many years. I think that our positions will remain the same.
Nonetheless, in keeping with the spirit of what I just said, many local authorities genuinely want to involve their tenants and to examine different models. There are options for sophisticated levels of tenant participation in the local authority model that enable tenants to influence decision making. I have never argued against that. If possibilities exist, and if local authorities say to us, "We have a different model that allows us also to meet the standards that tenants expect," I will be open minded about it. However, I will not collude with local authorities that insist that their stock should stay under one model, irrespective of what the consequences are for all their tenants, whether that model drives up standards and whether it tackles issues such as dampness.
Our fundamental concern is for tenants in Scotland who demand, and will now get, decent housing standards. The best way to drive that is to allow them to make the decisions. If local authorities can deliver what tenants want, so be it, but we will drive up standards for tenants in Scotland.
I will follow on from John McAllion's point. Is there not a central contradiction in the minister's policy? On the one hand she says that one size does not fit all, and that the policy should be flexible enough to ensure that we get horses for courses. On the other hand, in her statement she said that local authorities' housing debt will not be written off unless they go down the stock transfer road that she tells them to go down. The minister cannot have it both ways. She cannot say, "We will be flexible," and on the other hand say, "You will get the debt written off only if you go down the stock transfer route."
My second point is on the important point in the minister's speech about linking housing investment to wider employment and other issues. We saw a report this week on child poverty and a report last week on unemployment. We know that there will be a shortage of 27,500 workers in the construction industry in the years to come. What discussions has the minister had with the Construction Industry Training Board and Scottish Enterprise on solving the skills crisis in the building trade?
This is good fun. I am amazed that Alex Neil says that there is a central contradiction in my policy. He should address that comment to Kenny Gibson and Linda Fabiani, because they strongly welcomed that policy. There is obviously some kind of double thinking going on in the SNP.
The time is now right for us to be honest with tenants, because the ordinary person in the street in Scotland understands that money cannot just be manufactured to promote a certain policy. We have said clearly that the standard of a large proportion of housing in all its diversity throughout Scotland is not acceptable. That is partly the Conservatives' fault, but we will come back to that another time.
Standards are not acceptable. Current financial regimes need to address a variety of methods to provide investment to enable housing to meet the standard. The debt profile in Scotland had to be fundamentally addressed. We could have buried our heads in the sand, but it would have done tenants a disservice if the fundamental issue of debt had not been addressed. Through our relationship with the Treasury, we have the most radical housing policy that has been developed in Scotland for generations. It allows debt to be written off, but also allows other opportunities to lever in investment.
Under Alex Neil's leadership—if that ever comes about—or in the Scotland that Alex Neil would want us to live in, he would expect the public purse to pay for everything. He could not possibly sustain the level of investment that is required to lift the debt and invest in housing. Glasgow is a case in point, which is why Linda Fabiani and Kenny Gibson ultimately supported the stock transfer in Glasgow. I presume that Alex Neil's policy would be to lift the £1 billion housing debt and to invest in housing, but he could not possibly find the proper resources do that. Through our policy, we get the best of both worlds: the debt is lifted and we find the means to invest in Scottish housing. That is absolutely what tenants require.
I had not allowed for Alex Neil in my timing calculations. I have two members—
Presiding Officer, I did not answer Alex Neil's second point. I got carried away.
I will allow this session to extend beyond the indicated time, but I would be grateful if the minister could answer the second question relatively briefly so that I can bring in Rhona Brankin and Kenneth Macintosh.
I will be brief. I would never wish to fail to answer questions in the Parliament. As Alex Neil knows, I do my best. He may disagree with my answers, but I do answer questions.
I have had significant discussions on apprenticeship training with Glasgow City Council. I have also had a number of meetings with Iain Gray, who has taken up a lot of the skills issues to do with construction jobs, in particular in relation to stock transfer.
Like other members, I welcome the announcement. I am pleased that the minister recognises the need for flexibility for local authorities.
As the minister will know, Midlothian Council in my constituency currently provides high-quality social housing, but it has major problems in meeting the demand for affordable housing. Could she tell us briefly what difference in practice her announcement will make for councils such as Midlothian Council? John Home Robertson invited the minister to visit East Lothian, so I invite the minister to Midlothian to see for herself the quality of the houses and to meet some of the tenants and, more important, some of the people who are on the rather long waiting lists. The minister could do that in a day.
My diary is getting more exciting as the minutes pass. I would be happy to come to Midlothian. It is my understanding that the issues in the Lothians require the flexible approach that we are taking. Different local authorities face different housing issues. It is important that I communicate that I understand those different housing issues. The issue is not just the stereotypical rundown housing estate. I pay tribute to the many local authorities that provide high-quality housing and a high-quality service to tenants. It is important to put that on the record. I am happy to come to Midlothian to witness that.
The new regime will give local authorities the scope to prioritise their own housing strategies and to have investment that follows those strategies, depending on their local needs. Borrowing must be within the prudential regime, so it must be prudent and based on rents, because it would be unwise for councils to go to unsustainable rent levels. However, within that framework, councils will be allowed to determine their own priorities. There are many opportunities for local authorities such as Midlothian.
I am grateful that you let me in, Presiding Officer.
I assume that it was not the minister's trip to Busby and Barrhead on Saturday that was needed to persuade her to make today's announcement, but she will know from talking to residents there how welcome today's announcement will be. Without wishing to make the minister's diary too exciting, I ask her to find a space in her diary to return to Busby and Barrhead to talk to councillors Betty Cunningham, Alan Lafferty and Ian Forbes, in particular, about the proposals. Will she reassure me that those discussions will take place before April 2004 and the introduction of the prudential borrowing scheme?
Like Dundee, which my colleague John McAllion referred to, East Renfrewshire has a number of innovative ideas to fund council housing. Will the minister discuss those ideas with East Renfrewshire Council, and perhaps make clear the criteria? That council has already involved tenants hugely, but it might not necessarily be going down the housing association line, so it would welcome any criteria that the minister could provide on what would be appropriate. I welcome any further discussion on the set-aside rules, which will also be welcomed by tenants in East Renfrewshire.
I am grateful that you asked a short question, Mr Macintosh.
Another invitation—this is getting more exciting. I notice that I did not receive any invitations from SNP members, but I will not take it personally.
I met Councillor Cunningham in Busby and Barrhead on Saturday, and I would be happy to go back to have, I hope, a less robust discussion. Hugh Henry recently met representatives of East Renfrewshire Council. Local authorities such as East Renfrewshire Council are beginning to consider different models of tenant involvement and we need to understand that. The member is well aware that we must operate within existing financial regimes. However, such ideas open up new possibilities for us and options for developing them exist.
Barrhead has significant housing issues that must be addressed. We need to talk about how the financial regimes will work. I am clear that we will have those discussions before the new regime is introduced and that we can talk about how the capital set-aside rules will work. The Executive's housing officials are engaging with many local authority officials so that we can work out the options for local authorities.
I will write to the minister with my questions.
I hope that I will receive an invitation.
I give invitations regularly.