Plenary, 13 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, January 13, 2000

Official Report 854KB pdf

---

Housing

Resumed debate.

We will now resume the debate on housing. The next speaker will be Dr Sylvia Jackson.

In this morning's debate on housing, a consensus was developing around the aims of the Government's housing programme. Although other issues have been raised which will need further discussion, I want first to address those aims.

The first aim is to increase and improve existing housing stock. The 18,000 houses that will be built over three years—7,000 of which will be built this year—will provide affordable rented accommodation and houses for low-cost ownership and will include new and improved homes across rural and urban areas.

The second aim is to develop housing within communities to include mixed-housing types, which, it is hoped, will end the type of estates that exist not only in my constituency but in others and which not even homeless people want to live in.

The third aim is to tackle homelessness effectively, which is already being addressed through the rough sleepers initiative. Councils will soon be bidding on approaches to take care of the homeless problem. Research which has shown that homelessness mostly results from failed tenancy and that a range of support is needed in that area will, I hope, be taken on board in the various initiatives.

The fourth aim is to eradicate dampness in housing. We have heard much about the warm deal and the SNP mentioned some of the difficulties with that programme. I hope that those problems will be dealt with so that we can move forward with the scheme, which has the biggest grant scheme ever known and has innovative links to the new deal.

The fifth aim is to develop a single social tenancy built around the secure tenancy agreement, with the same rights for all public sector tenants.

The final aim of the Government's programme is to review the relationship of Scottish Homes with councils with a view to creating a greater partnership role.

Those aims met with agreement in this morning's debate. However, the debate centred on two areas that were covered very well by Robert Brown and Margaret Curran, the first of which was about the concept of community ownership. The aims of community ownership are to encourage investment in new and existing housing stock and to promote community empowerment, both of which are very laudable. Changes are chosen by the tenants themselves.

However, the issue is about community empowerment, which means that tenants take more responsibility and ownership of decisions. Tenants need to be fully aware of the available options and to be fully involved in an effective dialogue that will lead to a final decision. That will take time and must allow for variation between local authorities, which point was well made by Margaret Curran this morning. Will the minister tell us how that dialogue can be made more effective and how flexibility will be allowed within the system?

The second topic that caused debate this morning was the right to buy, which raises two contentious issues relevant to my rural constituency. The first issue is the viability of smaller housing associations if houses are removed by the right to buy, which is something that the Rural Stirling Housing Association certainly believes will pose possible problems.

Secondly, as social needs housing is in short supply in rural areas, there can be very heavy demand for it. Although we should all accept that special needs housing should stay out of the right to buy, that new social rented housing will be built and that there will capping on discount—a cost flaw rule system—there is still concern that the right to buy will reduce further the social rented stock or at least not increase in the way that the minister anticipates. One way round that would be to have a mechanism at local level to monitor and regulate the number of social rented houses, to ensure that numbers increase in the manner that the minister expects. That should become a possibility as the councils take a strategic role in the local housing plan, within the community planning mechanism.

Finally, I hope that the innovations that have taken place in Stirling, where domestic sprinklers have been incorporated in new-build housing, can be included in the scheme.

I will talk about the implications of the minister's proposals for rural communities around Scotland and appreciate that my remarks will echo many of the fine points that have been made earlier today.

Alarm bells are ringing in rural housing associations around Scotland due to the extension of the right to buy. Rural communities have far

fewer choices. If houses are sold off, people must leave the community and live elsewhere. It is not the same as in larger towns and cities, where people can simply transfer to another part of the community and take a bus to visit their friends or go to work. Rural communities are much more sensitive to ill-thought-out proposals such as this one. The only people who tend to win when properties are sold off in rural communities are incomers and estate agents. The locals lose out.

We can see that there are already problems in some communities in Scotland, such as Raasay, where the local Lochalsh and Skye Housing Association is unable to find land to build the four units that it is desperate to build. The association has only four units in the area. If one or two are sold off, the problem will be exacerbated.

There are also problems in smaller communities, such as Memsie in Aberdeenshire, which has only three public sector houses—despite the fact that there are 3,600 people on the waiting list in Aberdeenshire—compared with six a few years ago. The Government's proposals will lead to worse problems in that area of the world.

We need much more social rented housing, not less. Members should not just take the SNP's word for it. According to "Rural Audit: a health check on rural Britain", a piece of independent research commissioned by Labour MPs and published only a few months ago:

"A number of studies have found that the problems of affordability in rural areas have worsened over the last decade. One clear reason for this has been the substantial shortfall of provision of social housing."

The Government's rural development framework of 1998, which has a foreword from the First Minister, who was Secretary of State for Scotland at the time, says:

"Rural housing problems are exacerbated by second and holiday homes, commuters, retiring incomers and the Right to Buy."

Members need not take our word for it, therefore, but the Government's own word.

Does the member agree that the power of compulsory purchase to buy land for key housing developments, which was vested in the Highlands and Islands Development Board and which was transferred to the enterprise companies, should be exercised in the extreme cases to which he refers?

Yes. The member makes an excellent point and I certainly agree with what she says.

The problem is that the minister is so cocooned in her Edinburgh office that she is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground in rural

Scotland. It is not easy to find land to build homes to replace those that are sold off. There are infrastructure problems, which can cost local authority housing associations a lot of money. As Shetland Islands Council has pointed out in correspondence with many members, North of Scotland Water Authority will not connect houses on distant parts of land in rural communities because of the exorbitant cost of doing so.

The work of many of our associations has been undermined by the Government's proposals. Voluntary organisations and the people who work for them have put in a lot of time and effort because they believed that they were setting up something for the benefit of the whole community. Now they see that what they have done may be on the open market somewhere down the line. Their work has been undermined and to a certain extent they have been betrayed.

The minister's policy aims to extend ownership in urban communities where there is a lot of rented accommodation. In rural communities, the situation is the opposite. There is plenty of ownership, but not enough affordable rented accommodation for local people, particularly young people and young families, who want to stay in their communities. The policy is ill thought out. No one to whom I have spoken—I expect that this is the same for other members—in rural communities and rural housing associations supports the proposal.

The message to Wendy Alexander that I have heard from people is, "Get off your high horse and stop trying to make a name for yourself at the expense of rural Scotland." The SNP's message to Wendy Alexander is, "Don't wreck rural housing in the same way that you have wrecked housing in many urban areas of Scotland." If she does not take on board the many real, pressing concerns, the Minister for Communities will become the minister who destroyed communities.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Executive's housing proposals, and we support the majority of the proposals that have been put forward by the Minister for Communities today.

I make no apologies, however, for turning to the issue whose impact on rural Scotland gives us grave concern. As John Farquhar Munro has said, we need Highlands and Islands solutions for the Highlands and Islands, because there are particular problems to address there. One fit-all solution will not do for the whole of Scotland because of the impact that it would have on rural areas.

Several issues arise from the introduction of the

right to buy, and I ask the minister to respond to these.

First, could she comment on the impact of low- cost home ownership schemes? They have been championed by the Isle of Bute Housing Association, my local housing association, and have been very successful in developing a balanced approach between owned and rented property, and in avoiding mono-tenure estates. Figures from the Isle of Bute Housing Association show that 33 per cent of their houses in mid-Argyll are for low-cost home ownership. It is important that the success of that scheme is not undermined by the measures taken on the right to buy.

Secondly, on the balance of provision between flats and semi-detached or terraced housing, it is important not to end up with all the semi-detached and terraced housing stock sold. Figures for the Campbeltown area, where the right to buy exists, demonstrate that the detached or terraced Scottish Homes stock accounts for the majority of sales of all housing stock since 1980.

Thirdly, on exemptions for special needs housing from right to buy, concerns have been raised about housing built to amenity standard located in or near town centres, where there needs to be easy access for the people who take up amenity housing. An example from my constituency is Bridge Park in Rothesay, which contains amenity housing for the elderly within easy walking distance of the town centre. Many of the homes house elderly or infirm residents, but they would not qualify for exemption from right to buy under the present criteria. If sold, they would prove virtually impossible to replace.

Finally, I wish to raise a point that has not been discussed much so far in this debate: the availability of land for new build. It is all very well saying that we will build 6,000 houses to replace those that have been sold. Indeed, the ratio of houses sold to those that are built to replace them is 8:1. In rural Scotland, we need land to be available: land to which planning permission applies and which has accessible and affordable services in order that it may be used. It is no use saying that there is plenty of land when much of it does not have the accessible services that make the piece of ground a viable building proposition.

We need reassurance that, if we are to build 6,000 new houses in rural areas, there is land available. As Malcolm Chisholm said, there are real concerns about the impact of right to buy, not only in rural Scotland but across urban Scotland. The contradiction is that the examples and financial models used by the Executive are being challenged by the housing professionals.

It is all very well to enter into the issue of who is wrong and who is right, but this Parliament is supposed to be about listening and taking on board the genuine concerns of professionals and other people. Let us examine the real impact and discuss the financial models. Let us come up with the right solution, one that does not end up with rural Scotland sustaining a huge hammer blow because of the right-to-buy legislation.

The Conservative group in the Parliament generally supports the Minister for Communities' statement this morning and the thrust of the Executive's policy. It is clear to anyone who has been involved in housing in Scotland, at any time this century, that there has never been enough money for building or for modernisation and refurbishment. In so far as the Executive's proposals will unlock further resources and allow more investment in the housing stock, any reasonable person must support them. It is logical to support what the Executive says on the right to buy. Rights do not adhere to properties or to geographical areas but to people. We cannot reasonably distinguish in principle between one category of tenant and another, although there are legal difficulties that I will mention.

I question, however, the practical implications of the proposals and I hope that the Deputy Minister for Local Government will respond in his statement. What is likely to be the long-term status of the charitable housing associations? The force of the Government's logic is that the proposals should be applied to them in the future. Charity law will be under review, and if the Executive has longer-term intentions, it would be helpful to know that. The Minister for Communities said this morning that the modelling done for the Executive by Scottish Homes had shown that housing associations in general could absorb the loss of assets through sales. That is clearly the case for housing associations as a whole but it is not necessarily true for specific housing associations.

There may be problems for modern housing associations. I should have begun by declaring an interest as I own a £1 share in a housing association. Its development programme is mainly very recent and the ratio of housing association grant is not the 70 per cent stated in the Scottish Homes advice to ministers but barely 50 per cent for the most recent developments. The association calculates that if it sells a house to a tenant with a 55 per cent discount, it will be lucky to cover the remaining debt and it will have no asset to invest to replace the lost income flow. If it sells a flat, it is liable to make a £4,000 loss.

That is a very real concern for small housing associations that are struggling towards viability and depend on the income stream from rent and

need a certain number of tenants to be viable at all. The Executive must spell out what is to happen to such associations: 120 houses a year is not a lot but, over a decade, if the association is in the wrong place, a lot of stock can be lost and some housing associations may lose their viability.

The Executive should also explain how it will be able to implement the right-to-buy policy, because the houses belong not to the public sector but to housing associations whose rules and constitutions would not permit them to sell houses in such circumstances. Presumably a legal change will be needed.

We should also look at local authorities inheriting the Scottish Homes funding role. Procurement of housing is not easy and takes a long time. Plans fall through. Sometimes the Lands Tribunal is involved, sometimes there are site difficulties, sometimes the housing association needs extra money for additional expenses. There are bottlenecks in the process. In some years, a lot of money is forthcoming in a council area and in other years, it is not because Scottish Homes can vary the money and allocate it across broad areas. If funding goes specifically to councils, there will be difficulties in many areas, particularly in the most pressured housing markets, in councils and associations bringing forward development sites and making sure that they are there in time to meet the available resource. There is some inflexibility to the proposal.

On the single regulatory framework, if the ex- local authority housing association stock is treated in the same way as housing association stock, that will call for a reserve of capital for future modernisation and refurbishment to be built up from rents. That will have a rent implication, which in turn will have a housing benefit implication. It would be useful to hear from ministers that the existing housing benefit regime will protect Scotland in those circumstances. It would also be useful to know what their estimates are of the impact on the Scottish block of any significant rise in housing benefit as a consequence.

This party supports the principles that lie behind the Executive statement. We are concerned, however, because we do not know—as ministers still have to spell it out—how many of these objectives will be implemented. There is a lot of information that this Parliament must have before it can confidently support the entire bill in every detail. None the less, we support the principle of the bill.

Like my colleagues, I am pleased that we are having this debate. I have a specific interest in housing issues, as I worked as a homeless persons officer. I welcome the majority of what is outlined in the minister's proposals for the housing bill, in particular the need for action to provide good-quality, accessible housing in strong, secure communities. A roof over people's heads is a fundamental human right. It is a shameful indictment of society that homelessness in Scotland has more than doubled over the past two decades.

The minister mentioned the number of empty houses and the number of people who are in priority need: there was some sort of equation. Finding ways of making those empty houses attractive to let is important. However, simply quoting numbers of empty houses gives no indication of size, type, location, suitability or state of repair. It does not give a true reflection of supply and need.

Those who are in priority need—for example, people with children—can be helped to a degree. As long as they are unintentionally homeless, there is a statutory duty to find them a house. How long that takes is another matter. Unfortunately, many people are not deemed to be in priority need—for example, single people and couples who have no dependent children. It is extremely difficult to explain to them that, although they are homeless, society has no responsibility to house them. I am pleased that the Executive is beginning seriously to tackle the scourge of homelessness. Further, I would like some of the public misconceptions of homelessness to be addressed. In many cases, the circumstances could affect any of us.

My main point today concerns the issue of the proposed extension of the right to buy. In the 1950s, the Tories promised to build a nation of home owners. Perhaps they believed that that would produce a nation of Tory voters. The scheme to achieve that involved selling off public housing at low prices and ensuring that councils were unable to replace those houses. The Tories just about managed to achieve their aim—an aim that was abhorred by socialists and which was to result in a massive reduction in public rented housing. It also resulted in many people being unable to afford their mortgages and maintenance costs.

We are told that a recent survey shows that 83 per cent of people in this country aspire to own their home. I have two points to make on that. First, what other realistic choice of decent housing is there at the moment? Secondly, aspiring to own a home is different from the reality of being able to afford the mortgage and repair and maintenance costs. There is a market for anyone who aspires to own his or her home, but the aspirations of potential home owners should not be realised at

the expense of the needs of the homeless or people who are on waiting lists.

It is argued that the single social tenancy cannot be fairly introduced without extending the right to buy. If that is the argument, the exemption from the right to buy of additional categories of special needs housing must be an anomaly. Further, why is the Executive telling housing associations to consider adopting charitable status to exempt them from the proposed extension? Without such an extension, I foresee the possibility of a withering away of the right to buy, and the massive expansion of affordable, decent public rented housing could be a reality.

Many housing organisations—and other organisations, such as Scottish Women's Aid— have expressed concern over the extension of the right to buy. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations says that

"rented housing would be residual housing of last resort"

and that

"it could easily create the kind of socially excluded communities that current Government policy is attempting to eradicate".

Those views must be taken into account in this debate.

In response to a question in this chamber, the minister said that, on this issue, we sometimes have to listen to the people, which is the purpose of this Parliament, and not necessarily to the professionals. Not all those organisations are professionals. I hope that the minister will seek out, and listen to, the voices of the many thousands of people who are homeless or on never-ending waiting lists. Their aspiration and need is for a decent, affordable roof over their heads. The many thousands who are not in the privileged position of being able to buy need a right to rent.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that, having heard the speeches from Robert Brown and John McAllion this morning and from Richard Lochhead and Elaine Smith this afternoon, I urge the minister to revisit the idea of extending the right to buy.

I want to address the warm deal. Mr McAveety had his ear well bent in a television interview on that subject last night and I want to continue that process. The most common complaint about the warm deal is that it enables only partial improvements to properties. Although the programme has been broadened to allow for more than one measure to be taken per house, the improvements that are undertaken are rarely comprehensive. The Government has set a goal for the scheme that consists of a banner number of households being serviced by a given date. By structuring the scheme to achieve this purely numerical goal, the Government has given precedence to quantity over quality. With such priorities that scheme is unlikely to deliver meaningful improvements in energy efficiency to the housing stock as a whole.

In reaction to the current grant framework, one critic lamented that a great number of homes will have to be revisited because they were not dealt with properly the first time. He argues that the Government must acknowledge that it is cost- effective to put into houses as many measures as are sensible when a house is visited for the first time.

It is doubtful whether the grants will effectively correct the energy inefficiency of the properties and the people that are in need of that. The situation is particularly exacerbated in Scotland where, bizarrely, we have worse climatic conditions, but our grants are £200 lower than are those given south of the border. Scottish local authorities contend that the grants are not sufficient to cover the installation of condensing gas boilers. Central heating is indisputably a necessary step towards alleviation of cold and damp and gas boilers are an energy-efficient form of heating. Scottish local authorities justifiably question the basis for that disparity in grants.

The scheme has been criticised for providing only partial remedies for increasing the energy efficiency of properties. The Government's numerical approach emphasises the quantity of properties that are improved rather than the quality of the improvements that are delivered, which exacerbates the problem. A qualitative goal such as ensuring that energy efficiency is materially increased in each treated property would be more suitable. Using such an approach, the gross number of properties treated might decrease but that system would guarantee that refurbishment significantly increased energy efficiency. It would also be more cost-effective because it would reduce the necessity to revisit properties for additional work.

The figures that I quote are based on a survey that was carried out for me by one of the Parliament's first interns. It took ten weeks and responses were received from more than half of Scotland's local authorities, so I hope that the Executive takes seriously what I have to say. I also hope that the Parliament will give consideration to the motion in Fiona Hyslop's name.

A majority of local authorities agree that there is the potential for improvement of up to 30 per cent in the energy efficiency of the total housing stock in some of their districts. However, each authority

also maintains that attaining that potential level of improvement is an unrealistic goal in the context of current limitations. The authorities identify two primary limitations on their efforts to achieve 30 per cent improvements. First, they assert that insufficient funding is available. Local authorities are asked to undertake a comprehensive programme of energy efficiency promotion and renovation without being given any additional funds to support their efforts.

Secondly, local authorities lack the authority to regulate in the private sector. In most areas owner-occupied and private rented stock together comprise the majority of the housing stock, but local authorities have extremely limited powers to direct energy efficiency updates in those sectors. They therefore lack the ability to initiate improvements in the majority of the local housing stock. They can seek only to enhance energy efficiency in the publicly held minority housing stock. Most local authorities have had to readjust their targets to a 16 per cent improvement by 2007, which is half the target that was projected. I ask the minister, please, to revisit the issue as a matter of urgency in the next few months.

I am not sure that I can cover the number of issues and figures that Robin Harper managed to cover at such breakneck speed, but I will try to get in as many points as I can.

I am delighted that we are having this debate. As John McAllion mentioned, one of the triumphs of the Parliament is that members have time to discuss issues such as this in detail. It is at the heart of the Executive's social policy.

Since the Labour Government came to power in 1997, much has been done, such as the warm deal, to recognise and address the problems that undoubtedly exist in housing. The warm deal has had substantial mention today and I do not intend to discuss it in any great detail, except to say that, unbelievably, there were some inaccuracies during BBC2's "Newsnight Scotland" programme last night. My colleague Des McNulty, who used to be the councillor for the area that was mentioned in the programme, will deal with that issue in detail if he is called to speak. particularly welcome the opportunity being given to Glasgow to make a fresh start on housing through the community housing trust, to wipe out the debt burden that has hung over the city for so long and, more important, to lever in much-needed funding to improve people's homes. As we have heard already, that opportunity will also give tenants a much greater say in the management of the areas in which they live.

Those of us who have been involved in tenant- management co-operatives in our constituencies know how effective they have been in stabilising estates and in giving residents a sense of ownership of and achievement in their areas. By giving tenants the opportunity to participate in the running of their areas, through non-profit making organisations, I believe that we can make significant improvements to the quality of socially rented housing in Glasgow. For example, by installing new windows and central heating, we will eradicate, once and for all, the problem of dampness that for too long has been a scourge on the health of that city.

With all due respect to Lord James, I find it rather ironic that, in his speech, he recognised the link between poor housing and health, given that a Tory Government suppressed the Black report in the 1980s. Had he recognised the problem then, we might not have such a significant problem to deal with today.

My only caveat about the new community housing trust in Glasgow was raised by my colleague Margaret Curran this morning. It concerns the participation of tenants and trade unions in the process. I am relieved to hear that there will be some progress on that issue in the weeks to come—I was sure that, ultimately, there would be, and I welcome it.

We have heard much in recent weeks about the extension of the single social tenancy and of the right to buy, about which I seek reassurance from ministers. As ministers know, there are several excellent housing associations in my constituency, which work hard to provide good-quality housing. I have discussed with several of them the impact of these proposals on their operations and I will use an example of one of them to illustrate a problem faced by many.

Queens Cross Housing Association has a waiting list of 1,002 people and families and an average turnover of 150 properties a year. Based on those figures, it will take nine years to meet current demand. Queens Cross is in an attractive area of my constituency, where some former housing association properties sell for £60,000 on average. The incentive to buy will be high, and both I and the housing association are concerned that those policies will damage the social mix that it has helped to achieve in the area, with good housing disappearing into the private sector and fewer good houses available for rent.

I am sure that ministers have not overlooked that point, but I ask them to consider further the reform of the discount system and to allow local authorities and housing associations to vary the available discounts. I also ask for consideration to be given to areas of particular pressure, so that there can be local flexibility.

For many people, the opportunity to own their own home is light years away, because they do not even have the prospect of living in their own home. Recently, I had the opportunity to spend a night with the Simon Community's street work team in Glasgow, working with homeless people and finding out about their needs. I wish to pay tribute to the people who do that job day in, day out, as it is a hard job that requires a considerable amount of dedication. I echo Elaine Murray's comments about the need to ensure that if at all possible people do not find themselves homeless and about supported accommodation becoming the norm, rather than remaining an unusual feature of housing provision.

I am conscious of the time and will be brief in drawing attention to the difficulty many of the ethnic minority people I represent experience when trying to find socially rented accommodation. That is of particular concern to me. I hope that that will be addressed in the bill that is to be introduced to the chamber.

My colleagues and members from all parties have highlighted many of the problems that affect housing in Scotland. Although it is clear that those problems are experienced by all sections of the community, I believe that among our ethnic minority communities housing problems are especially severe. Patricia Ferguson touched on that at the end of her speech. I hope that she and colleagues from all parties will join me in being particularly concerned about the extension of the right to buy in housing associations. That and the massive stock transfer that is proposed for Glasgow are a particular worry of mine.

We in Scotland take pride in being an open and inclusive society. Newcomers to Scotland have always been welcomed. However, we must recognise that all too often the experience of people in the ethnic minority community has not been happy. Research has shown that the ethnic minorities suffer disproportionately from gross overcrowding, substandard housing, insecurity because of racial harassment and growing isolation. Their elders, in particular, suffer from alienation because of their culture. Because of discrimination in the public and private rented sectors, owner occupation has often been the only option for black people, although they are often able to afford only the very worst housing.

A Commission for Racial Equality survey found that in Glasgow 83 per cent of black households live in owner-occupied accommodation in substantial need of repair. They experience poor living conditions and are unable to finance repairs. Modernisation is an absolute impossibility and they suffer from severe overcrowding. Research carried out by the University of Stirling, also with Glasgow's ethnic minority community, shows that overcrowding and homelessness among the black and ethnic minority communities is 15 times greater than it was 10 years ago.

According to the 1991 census, members of the ethnic minority community were three times more likely to suffer from overcrowding than their white counterparts. I want to give an example of that, although I will try to keep it as short as I can. It will give members an idea of how some people have to live. The example is that of a widow in Glasgow's ethnic minority community. She is on social security. Her 23-year-old daughter is in a wheelchair and her 19-year-old son is crippled. She also has a 16-year-old son. Since 1987, they have lived in a two-up, one-bedroom, private rented insecure tenancy.

The oldest son sleeps in the kitchen; the rest of the family shares the bedroom. The woman receives no social services support and is unable to leave her family alone for any time. She rarely leaves the house at all. In May 1992—nearly 8 years ago—she applied for housing association housing. She was told that there was no possibility of the association's being able to rehouse her family in the immediate or short term, and that it would, in fact, be a miracle if a suitable flat became available. What chance do those people have of being rehoused if the right to buy is extended? I ask the minister to consider that.

It is vital that the problems of ethnic minorities are properly addressed. A major obstacle to dealing with those problems is the lack of statistics. I have not been told to wind up yet, so I will carry on.

Not too long, I hope.

This is a very important subject, and no one has really touched on it.

I understand the particular concerns of the ethnic minority community in Glasgow and elsewhere. What does Ms White think her party's policy of urging people to wait until it has won an election and negotiated independence will do for the people of Scotland? The reality is that unless we get rid of the debt problem in Glasgow and lever in more money, we will have a major problem there.

Could you answer that and close, please, Ms White.

I will not bother taking the time to answer that question. It is very sad that Johann Lamont feels that she has to intervene to score political points. She should be persuading her party not to extend the right to buy and looking

after people such as the homeless and ethnic minorities.

I want to touch very briefly—

Close now, please. We are desperately short of time.

I will try to close as quickly as I can. Positive Action in Housing, which I have mentioned before, has for years been calling for the provision of accurate and current figures. I ask the minister to put money into Scottish Homes and I ask Scottish Homes to play an important role in gathering those figures, and to provide adequate funding for research and to train young black people in housing matters so that they, too, can sit on boards.

I am sorry that Johann Lamont had to try to score cheap political points in a debate that is about everyone who lives in Scotland regardless of their creed or colour.

That now ends the time for speeches from the floor. I apologise to the 10 members who wished to speak but were not called. If the opening speakers and others had observed the time limits, five other members could have spoken in the debate. I have noted those who have waited patiently throughout—the sun will shine on them on a future occasion.

We move now to the concluding speeches, the time for which I have had to trim. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will have nine minutes each, the SNP 11 minutes and the Executive 14 minutes.

I have very much enjoyed listening to this debate, in which there have been some extremely good speeches from members in all parts of the chamber. I have learned much.

The Liberal Democrats agree that the priority that the Scottish Executive gives to housing in the first major piece of proposed social legislation in this Parliament is the right approach. Such an approach is long overdue. Speeches from members of all parties have reflected the need for such legislation.

It is right that a right to high-quality housing is regarded as an integral part of social inclusion. The approach will try to provide decent and affordable housing. The aspiration linked to the homelessness initiative that has been discussed today—that by 2003 no one will sleep rough—is important.

As the minister said, this Parliament needs to do something about the 0.5 million damp houses in Scotland. Much of what has been said today has been about that. As Patricia Ferguson said, cold, damp and cramped homes affect health, education and job opportunities. Scottish people need greater security from bad landlords and more power to make decisions about their homes. The minister and other members pointed out that £300 million of new money is being invested in housing regeneration.

It was noticeable from Fiona Hyslop's combative performance giving the SNP's perspective on these proposals that Andrew Wilson has had a busy Christmas, as spending commitments have certainly been reined in. However, Fiona could not resist suggesting that local authorities should spend money—a spending commitment is still a spending commitment, so the SNP has not quite kicked the habit it had before Christmas.

The Liberal Democrats support many proposals in the bill, such as the introduction of probationary tenancies to tackle anti-social behaviour, and the strengthening of the role of local authorities in housing. Local authorities will be responsible for determining the priorities for all funding of housing in their area. It is important that they have that strategic role, as they are surely in the right position to judge local needs. Therefore, I do not believe that it is a good policy to aim for a specific percentage target of socially rented housing— surely circumstances will vary across the country. For example, as John Farquhar Munro said this morning, the Highlands need Highland solutions.

The minister announced in December that Scottish Homes will be converted into an agency of the Scottish Executive. The new Scottish Homes will assume responsibility for the regulation and monitoring of all registered social landlords. As the minister pointed out in December, that is the end of a quango and a progressive change that Liberal Democrats support. It will put people— especially local people—back in control over the direction of their housing investment, and will ensure that standards are not just maintained, but improved.

Liberal Democrats have reservations about the right-to-buy proposals, but I note that such reservations were not confined to members of my party: John McAllion, Malcolm Chisholm and Margaret Curran, the convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, all expressed concern about that. The important point is that Parliament will have the opportunity, through the committee, to assess the minister's proposals and to assess the evidence that housing associations and organisations will present. It is surely right to tackle the question of the right to buy in an appropriate setting.

John McAllion and others said that a single social tenancy is an admirable principle, but as was made clear in an answer the minister gave

him this morning, at least a third of tenants will not have the right to buy under these proposals. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as the central feature of the overall package that is the single social tenancy.

Members have illustrated the difficulties that could be created by right to buy in urban Scotland. The varied circumstances in Scotland's cities are exactly that. The variety of views on urban housing is illustrated by the fact that a single model for Glasgow will not be the best option for all parts of that city, let alone for other cities too. The committee has an important role in assessing whether that is the right way to go or whether there are better ways to tackle housing issues, particularly in terms of stock transfer. In that context, Mike Watson mentioned the extent of the proposed house building programme and asked whether it would be adequate.

Many colleagues have also highlighted the difficulties that rural housing associations foresee in the particular form of right to buy that is proposed. It was disappointing that the Conservatives chose this morning to dismiss with such ease the concerns of rural housing associations. Murray Tosh, who has now left the chamber, could not quite decide whether he wanted a strategic right to buy or an absolute right to buy.

In my constituency, housing professionals from Shetland Islands Council have pointed out that the key aim of the new housing partnership is to protect housing stock from right to buy and to retain the rented social sector. In addition, the greatest number of housing association right-tobuy sales are likely to be in Lerwick—the place in which there is most demand for housing. I reiterate a point that many rural members made this morning: replacing those houses is bound up with the problem of the availability of land. In that area, the housing strategy for Shetland identifies the need for social housing for rent.

I have two further points about the rural perspective on housing and about my constituency. The replacement costs of building are important. Shetland Islands Council's housing plan points out that design specification, transport and climate add 20 to 50 per cent to construction costs in the central belt. That has implications for replacement costs and, even if discounts are capped, the disparity between the figures becomes ever bigger in such a scenario. The director of Hjaltland Housing Association wrote to me saying that, under the proposals, his organisation would be unlikely to be able to replace stock even at market value, never mind discounted value, as the market price falls considerably short of the replacement cost.

Shelter and other organisations have expressed concern about the figures for likely sales that the Executive has announced. I understand that Shelter has been involved in discussions with the minister and her officials. It suggests that the right- to-buy figures underestimate the number of properties that would be sold. My local council has sold 108 properties in the past year and that background gives rise to real concern for the housing association.

Those points must be carefully considered and the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee will be the forum in which that can be done. If we do what we promised to do when we set up this Parliament—conduct proper scrutiny of proposed legislation—we will be able to have a proper debate about the matter and ensure that all concerns are addressed.

Just as urban areas should not be seen as exactly the same throughout Scotland, neither should rural areas. There are apparently 42 different definitions of rural Scotland. Lumping Inverness and Perth together as rural in terms of housing policy is unhelpful and somewhat misleading, as it must skew the figures.

Alternatives have been proposed. I hope that the options will be considered when the bill comes before the appropriate committee. For rural Scotland, improvements have been suggested to the tenant incentive scheme currently run by Scottish Homes. Extended rural home ownership grants have also been suggested. Both measures would encourage social tenants into the private sector while maintaining the socially rented sector.

Other groups have proposed a strategic right to buy. I am advised that Shelter does not oppose right to buy, but sees the attraction of extending it to all tenants of social landlords. A truly strategic right to buy would allow landlords to vary discounts in priority areas. As John McAllion mentioned this morning, the Chartered Institute of Housing has suggested that there could be higher discounts in areas in which there is a shortage of owner-occupied housing or where rented housing is in low demand. Lower discounts would be needed where there is a shortage of rented housing to meet identified needs. In other words, some positive alternatives have been suggested and deserve careful consideration.

Robin Harper made some good points about the healthy homes initiative. More can always be done, but I looked up the written answer that was prepared last year on the subject. It said:

"The budget for improving home energy efficiency for low-income households in Scotland is £12 million for 1999-2000."—[ Official Report, Written Answers, 21 December 1999; Vol 4, p 12.]

Some £4.5 million of that—

I am

sorry, Mr Scott, but you must wind up now.

I shall be very brief. A considerable amount of money is being put into housing and I recognise the points that were made about progress.

In housing policy terms, the Liberal Democrats support much of the bill's proposals. There are reservations about right to buy, which I hope can be addressed in committee, but a constructive debate about finding ways to improve and strengthen measures proposed by the Executive is surely what this Parliament is about. This debate has been progress toward that end.

When the Minister for Communities eventually arrived this morning, she addressed us at some length and attempted to illustrate—with some success—how the old ways have failed. She pointed out that there was no longer any room for rhetoric and then spent two minutes embarking on some good old-fashioned rhetoric of her own, in which she attacked David McLetchie, who was not even here, and Tommy Sheridan, who had not even opened his mouth. She then read a letter from an admirer who, among other things, apologised for taking up so much of her time. Most of us wondered if it was from her granny.

Let me be clear from the outset that the minister was correct to point out that housing is too serious an issue for facile debate. There is a way forward, and all of us have a clear duty to address it positively and constructively. Having said that, neither I nor anyone else in the Conservative party has any need to apologise for the record of the previous Conservative Government. A Government that spent £8 billion on public sector housing in Scotland, increased home ownership from 35 per cent to 60 per cent, and quadrupled the number of sheltered houses for let has little to apologise for.

Having said that, the post-war Scottish housing experience has, we must all agree, been grim, and blame lies in a number of directions. I have always recognised that it is easy to have 20:20 vision in hindsight and that the errors that were made by those in government and in local authorities in the post-war period were made with the best intentions. However, they have left us with a horrendous legacy. Just as we built too many houses and too many houses of the wrong type, it was realised far too late that the aspiration of the Scottish people in the 1960s was towards home ownership, rather than the post-war ideal of getting a council house.

To see the way forward, we must appreciate where we are. We face a massive problem of investment in Scotland's public sector housing. Shelter estimates the necessary investment to be £10 billion. Glasgow City Council, operating from a different source, estimates that £6 billion is required to bring its housing to an acceptable standard. How is that to be financed? Out of every £1 spent on rent in Glasgow, 53p goes to pay debt charges. Against that background, it is essential that old-fashioned and blinkered political thinking be cast aside in order to see a way forward.

Much has been said about the fact that the Labour Executive's housing policy bears a remarkable—almost amazing—similarity to that of the previous Conservative Government, and of this Conservative group. I am sure that that makes the minister uncomfortable. I know that her deputy will be. It makes me uncomfortable, but we must all work together in this chamber in the best interests of the Scottish people to improve the current housing situation. We will co-operate with anyone who comes up with appropriate ideas that will improve the housing lot of the Scottish people. We look forward with anticipation to the housing bill, although we feel that the process should be expedited—it is taking far too long.

What would our ideas be? First, let us consider housing stock transfers. I listened with interest to what Fiona Hyslop and others said about that and to the fears that they expressed. I accept that the consultation process has been lacking. What is the answer? I have mentioned the lack of investment in Glasgow. I have been there, as have Frank McAveety and Kenny Gibson. We have seen the situation. Some of Glasgow's peripheral schemes resemble Kosovo on a bad day. If nothing is done about the problem of investment, a high percentage of the population of Glasgow will be living in third world conditions. None of us wants that.

Housing stock transfer is the way forward, although it may not be done as Conservatives would like. We think that an en bloc transfer is doomed to fail because it does not recognise the essential factor in any housing policy, which is that if we give people ownership of a problem, they will accept the responsibilities that go with it. Manageable units of 10,000 to 15,000 at the most are the breakdown position. When there is local input and a local appreciation of the problems, there will be constructive dialogue with the tenants and a constructive input from them. We will not achieve that with Glasgow City Council housing department mark two.

We would like the right to buy to be extended, as is proposed by the minister, to housing association tenants; but we also recognise that there is the potential for problems. The minister has not thought through the financial consequences for housing associations in respect of the loss of their

stock. That is especially the case in respect of rural housing associations, which owing to their size may lack critical mass if they lose a significant proportion of their housing stock. She must examine that issue fully and come back with potential answers.

Does Bill Aitken appreciate that the total value of housing association stock in Scotland is £4 billion? Even if all of it were sold at a 50 per cent discount, that would leave a balance of £2 billion. The total value of outstanding loans on housing association stock is less than £1 billion. In aggregate, housing associations will be building balances. I accept—and the consultation paper makes clear—that there may be individual housing associations that will have difficulties within those global sums. We have given a guarantee that we will consider the financial difficulties of individual housing associations. Housing associations will be building balances.

I am grateful for that response, but I am not certain that the minister appreciates the potential difficulty for some housing associations of losing a rental stream upon which they have based their financial assumptions. That issue must be examined. If necessary, they should have the right to retain the housing action grant, which would be reclaimed by the Government, or there would have to be some other compensation.

Tavish Scott made a point about rural housing— in a constructive vein—and Mike Rumbles made a point about it in a banal and unconstructive vein. I will make the Conservative position on rural housing clear. We appreciate the unique difficulties that relate to housing in the Highlands and Islands. We sympathise and empathise. We would do nothing to prejudice that. That is why I insist that the minister produce proposals—at the bill stage—that show what potential loss the right to buy would cause those housing associations.

We would also like there to be some planning relaxation where there is a lack of housing for rent in country areas that have become denuded of population largely because—I am sure Tavish Scott agrees—of the shortage of homes for young people to rent or buy.

We would support a bill that recognises that special needs housing should be a priority. Five per cent of the houses in every new housing development should be given over to those who are handicapped and have special needs. We cannot have all those people being isolated and living together. If we believe in an inclusive society, they should be included in it.

It is not good enough for the minister to talk about homelessness being a relic of Thatcherism, as it has increased by 11 per cent since the Labour Government took over. She must examine that problem.

This has been a good debate; there have been many interesting and constructive speeches. It is clear that there is no consensus in the Executive coalition. For the first time, the Parliament will be able to vote on a bill issue by issue, as issues arise. The Conservative group has highlighted its priorities and what it sees as the way ahead. If there can be a consensus directed towards what we have proposed today, a new and enlightened housing future could be there for the taking for the people of Scotland.

I would like to say how welcome today's debate has been. It is always interesting to see the new Tories of new Labour following a Thatcherite agenda. I know that it suits neither party to be seen to be agreeing with each other but Bill Aitken and Murray Tosh have let the cat out of the bag this afternoon. It seems somewhat discourteous of the minister not to acknowledge the debt of gratitude that she owes to her Conservative predecessors.

The extension of the right to buy has the minister's name stamped all over it. It is an ideological totem, a tribute to the minister's role at the cutting edge of the Blairite revolution, a triumph of zeal over common sense and a classic example of not letting the truth get in the way of a good argument.

The truth is that the extension policy is ill thought out and is based on spurious arithmetic and a rose-tinted view of the future. It might be supported by the troops opposite but, having heard some of the comments today, I am somewhat doubtful. It is opposed by everyone from the Scottish Tenants Association to the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

Will Mr Gibson take this opportunity to put on record the SNP's opposition to the extension of the right to buy to 40,000 housing association tenants?

I think that we have already made our position clear in today's debate.

Will Mr Gibson tell us, then?

I will state it for the record, as Mr McNeil obviously did not listen to the debate. We are opposed to the extension policy.

The minister has been told that the policy is wrong, but to no avail. Like her ideological forebear, Mrs Thatcher, the lady is not for turning. When outlining her vision, the minister talked about the bleak existence for many living in peripheral housing estates and enduring poor

quality housing across Scotland. She had the gall to denounce the situation, yet she will not accept that Labour councils, previous Labour Governments and the present Labour Government bear any responsibility for the appalling state of affairs.

When I was leader of the opposition in Glasgow City Council, the administration was forced to admit that, despite continuous claims of under- investment, it had spent £1.8 billion on housing between 1982 and 1997. Such was the level of mismanagement in Glasgow City Council that tenants always suspected that if they got new windows, their house would be demolished the following year. Glasgow's housing crisis has many causes, but the Labour party in Glasgow must accept some responsibility for gross mismanagement and incompetence over many years. Some record, Frank.

Will Mr Gibson recognise the sterling work done by Glasgow City Council in the face of the Tories' hostility to the public rented sector in developing excellent initiatives in housing co-operatives, housing associations and tenant- management co-operatives? Many of those initiatives were developed in the area that Mr Gibson sought to represent and I currently represent.

If Johann Lamont knew the rules of the Parliament, she would realise that I also represent that area.

Whenever Glasgow City Council is mentioned, Johann Lamont feels duty bound to defend its record, perhaps because her husband is a serving member of the authority. Labour has been in government for 20 years since the war, has led Glasgow's council for 60 of the last 66 years and has squandered £1.8 billion on poorly thought out capital investment projects. Does Johann Lamont think that the Labour party should not take some of the blame for the fact that Glasgow has the worst housing in Europe west of Naples? The arrogance of the Labour party is beyond belief.

I knew that I would get everyone going. Other speakers might put people to sleep, but I do not.

The minister talked about increasing expenditure on housing—

On a point of order.

I hope that it is a real point of order and not just because Mr Gibson will not give way.

Is it appropriate for a member to doubt my motives when I raise political questions about an area that I represent? Mr Gibson may wish to speak to my husband, who in fact did not have a vote in his own house when he stood for selection. Any judgment I have made—

That is not a point of order; it is a continuation of an argument. The member must be responsible for his own remarks and if he does not give way, that is also his responsibility.

I apologise for my bad voice today—I should not have kissed Frank McAveety under the mistletoe before Christmas.

On COSLA's figures, each year, 10,000 home modernisations, 1,800 all-house window replacements and 3,200 central heating systems could have been provided across Scotland if set- aside legislation had been abolished.

Will the member give way?

No. When will the minister abolish set-aside, which was implemented in the dying days of the discredited Michael Forsyth regime, and allow real investment in Scotland's public sector housing?

Will the member give way?

All right.

As it is me? Thank you. I seek some clarification. Mr Gibson has indicated that he supports single social tenancies, some with right to buy and some without. What would the SNP do for new tenants in both council and housing association housing who currently have the right to buy?

In fact, I shall move on.

It is interesting to note that of the policies the minister has not lifted from the Tories, her better ideas have been lifted from the SNP. Of eight major policy commitments made by the minister, six were in the SNP manifesto, none of which were in Labour's: secure tenancy, new rights for tenant consultation, legislation for a single regulatory framework, the strategic role of local authorities, Scottish Homes losing its quango status and probationary tenancies. Fiona Hyslop spelled out those commitments earlier today. She also spelled out that the SNP—under the penny for Scotland proposals—would have spent an additional £236 million on housing measures. We would have reversed the rise in homelessness that has happened under new Labour.

I was interested to hear speeches from new

Labour's erstwhile coalition partners. The real difficulties that will follow from extending the right to buy, in particular in rural Scotland, were eloquently put. We heard about the planning difficulties that would ensue; distortions in house availability; populism instead of well-thought-out policy; the effect on the financial viability of housing associations; and the fact that the views of professionals who oppose the measure are being ignored. Brave words from the Lib Dems, but when it comes to the vote—as always—they will chicken out. I know it, they know it, members know it.

Margaret Curran and Elaine Smith, among others, made positive speeches on stock transfer and right to buy. They highlighted the need for tenants who are affected to be more fully informed, for meaningful and constructive dialogue and for choice and quality in the public rented sector.

It is clear that under the minister's proposals the poor, the homeless, women and disabled people will be most harmed. I understand that the minister may be unwilling to take advice from the SNP, but will she take notice of the comments of Labour back benchers, or indeed Shelter, which is quoted in The Herald today:

"We have no doubts that the Executive's plans will limit the number of affordable rented homes in Scotland. Any plans the Executive has to tackle homelessness will be undermined by these proposals."

I will conclude by focusing on the housing situation in Glasgow. There can be no doubt that what happens in Glasgow in the next 18 to 24 months will have a profound effect, which will be felt for years to come, on the whole country. If the Scottish Executive and Glasgow City Council succeed in transferring Glasgow's stock out of the public sector, that will signal the end of public housing as we have known it in this country for decades. That, in itself, is nothing to be scared of. New Labour's arrogant assumption is that those who oppose it do so because they are afraid of change. As a lifelong Scottish nationalist—unlike other members who are British nationalists— [MEMBERS: "What?"] They do not believe in a one- world government, so they are obviously Brit nats. I am committed to my country's restoration as an independent sovereign state, so change is the last thing that I am afraid of.

The transfer should be opposed not because it is radical, but because it is wrong—not morally wrong, but "won't work" wrong. If we strip the sentimentality and spin out of the argument and look at the brass tacks of the case for stock transfer in Glasgow, the reasons it is doomed to failure stare us in the face.

Glasgow has 95,000 units of housing and a total debt of more than £900 million. After that debt is transferred from the rent payer to the taxpayer, the new landlord will be able to start afresh and borrow the money it requires to renovate the stock. The estimated cost of renovation of the 75,000 units that remain after demolition is £1.2 billion. I do not know where Bill Aitken got the £6 billion figure. I am happy for anyone to correct me on the figure of £1.2 billion.

Ninety-five thousand rent payers cannot pay back £0.9 billion but, under the new system, 75,000 rent payers will be able to afford £1.2 billion. The reality is that the new landlord will be so stuck in hock that it will be unable to carry out its duties. More than that, the landlord will be at the mercy of every fluctuation in market conditions, from increased voids to high arrears or changes in interest rates. With no public backing, it could face crisis after crisis. We have already heard that lenders are getting cold feet as a result of this.

As I am sure the minister is aware, in banking, the risk-reward equation is king. Given the size of the risk any lender will be taking with Glasgow, they will expect the reward to be substantial. The minister knows that as far as finance is concerned, she is trying to put a quart into a pint pot. The only way out of the dilemma will be to allow a new landlord to drive rents up, thus increasing voids and arrears and putting an intolerable burden on the public purse through, for example, increased claims for housing benefit, which will increase poverty and so on, and will go against the Executive's own plans vis-à-vis social exclusion.

If it is to regenerate its public stock, Glasgow requires a sophisticated approach based on the needs of its citizens and tenants. It does not need another grand plan, especially not one as ill thought out as the proposed community trust. Why not write off Glasgow City Council's debt now? Why does it have to be tied in with a stock transfer?

Will the member give way?

I am just about to finish.

The Scottish Executive is overseeing a housing policy that is underfunded, divisive and potentially disastrous. We have already heard from a number of members that there has been no consultation. It may have made forums, but unfortunately the Executive cannot tell the difference between a sales pitch and consultation.

We need a housing policy that is based on the needs of tenants. We need a housing minister who is open to the ideas of the housing profession and tenants representatives, not one who casually dismisses their views as those of vested interests. What we have heard today from the Minister for Communities and her supporters is ideology over common sense; the majority of people in the

country would join me in rejecting it.

I am tempted to invite Kenny Gibson to indicate where in his speech he put content rather than ideology. However, contrary to the mythology that he presented, maybe I will have another chance under the mistletoe. I apologise if my voice is hoarse, but I think that I am picking up the flu bug that everybody else in Scotland has. It may take time, therefore, to get through this. [MEMBERS: "Is it a crisis?"] It is not a crisis—it is just a trauma when I am ill.

First, I welcome the 30 contributions in today's debate, which is testament to what John McAllion said this morning about the opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to address the fundamental issue of how to deal with housing in Scotland. The two issues that preoccupied most of the contributions were the fundamental ones of housing and land. If we consider the politics of many of this nation's parties, particularly the noble and glorious parties that make up the partnership—the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—we will find a history of making a real difference in terms of both housing and the land reform debate.

We consider those issues in the genuine context of inviting new ideas on Scottish housing. We are not talking about the housing of the 1920s, about which my predecessors in Glasgow had noble aspirations. We are not necessarily having the debate of the early 1980s, although, sadly, some of my colleagues in the Opposition have engaged in that. In terms of aspirations and accessibility, the world has moved on since the early 1980s—

Will the minister give way?

I will let Fiona in in a moment, but it is important that I develop the theoretical point underpinning what I am saying before we go into some of the details. So far today, some people have been fairly flaccid in their contributions.

The fundamental issue is how to address what we want for 2000 and beyond. That is what many of the members of the partnership parties want to engage in, no matter how difficult it is. I say that with sincerity. I do not know any Labour member who does not wish to address the situation that we face in this century, rather than the situation in the past. If members ask me whether I believe fundamentally in some of the policies in which I believed in 1982, I am honest enough to say that I do not. The world has changed—I am willing to recognise that.

There is an ideological divide in the chamber— we should engage in that debate. However, let us consider some of the genuine issues raised by members. I will do my best to address the members who raised the points and I guarantee that if I omit anything in the time available, I will respond in writing to those members.

The first issue is the philosophy, on which I have touched. The second issue is the resource base. We must consider how to get investment into the various tenures of housing in Scotland and how to respond to the different aspirations of people in Scotland. How do we handle the debate around stock transfer, whatever model is arrived at in the areas that are examining that option? The final issue is how the Executive and the Parliament should respond to the increase in homelessness. Those are the fundamental areas on which I want to touch.

There is a debate about whether we engage with the single social tenancy and aspire for the right to buy to be made available to the 43,000 tenants who are denied it because of the exemption created by the Conservatives in their housing legislation. We want consistency across all the submissions for single social tenancy. I think that everyone agrees on that. The question is whether that should be extended to other tenants in Scotland—not just to the 43,000 tenants of housing associations who do not have that right. Kenny Gibson seemed to avoid that issue. Whatever model existing public sector tenants move into, will their sons and daughters have the rights of succession, as is currently the case? I hope that the SNP will address that fundamental concern. It is an aspiration of the people of Scotland that the Executive is prepared to address.

There are two issues: housing aspirations and accessibility. We can meet both. In the 1980s, the Tories posited that one was diametrically opposed to the other. Our partnership approach is about the way in which we can increase the opportunities for home ownership—which the majority of Scots want—as well as ensure decent, affordable rented accommodation that is accessible and addresses social need. We can marry the noble concerns that John McAllion alluded to this morning in our policies, which will need to be engaged with in further detail through the committee structure. That is the beauty of this Parliament—we have the opportunity for informed debate on such matters.

I would like to ask a specific point about charitable housing associations. It is a fairly random argument that some associations are charitable and some are not. The Executive appears to be giving rights to tenants of non- charitable associations, but what about the tenants of housing associations that have charitable status

for tax avoidance reasons? Will they enjoy the same rights?

The paper indicates that they will not enjoy the same rights because, unless there is a significant review of charity law, we cannot transfer charitable assets to private owners. That is not a matter for us to address here, but it could be taken up in a different arena.

Will the minister give way?

Not at the moment.

There has been a debate about the disparity between rural and urban housing. Executive figures suggest that sales have been roughly 36 per cent in urban areas and 34 per cent in rural areas. There is no marked disparity. However, we must address some of the concerns raised by the statutory agencies about whether the right to buy has a disproportionate impact in rural areas. Members have expressed concerns about the matter and I want to assure them that we will address those issues through our development programme, just as we aim to address the land issue in terms of access to land and for building. That was a key issue raised by Mike Rumbles and is a common concern of the Parliament.

Is it not true that the situation arises because, in many parts of the Highlands— not least in Badenoch and Strathspey in my constituency—there are no council houses left? They have all been bought. In many areas, there are more holiday homes than council homes. If new Labour is going to create any more homes in the Highlands, those Wendy homes will be holiday homes.

Although I would welcome that point at the detailed committee stage, I should point out that our information and the models that we have examined do not support what Fergus Ewing has said. The situation that he describes was created by the old right-to-buy legislation, where the cost floor rules were different. I want to point out that 83 per cent of those who have bought their council house have stayed in the area. The fundamental drive is about creating stability in terms of housing choice and allowing people to stay in their communities. Even in some of the schemes in Glasgow, the policies, I would argue, have been stabilising influences, because they have kept people in communities who might otherwise have left. We need to get the balance right.

I want to touch on what George Lyon said about low-cost home ownership. The right-to-buy extension does not impact in any way on the low- cost home ownership models that have been pioneered by many authorities across Scotland. We want to extend the opportunity to members in the chamber to work with our people to examine the models that we have considered in terms of the impact of right to buy. That opportunity is genuinely available.

I have two specific questions. First, what impact will the extension to right to buy have on the empty homes initiative? I have been told that many councils will no longer be able to pursue that initiative because of Government policy. Secondly, the minister's comments seemed to imply that the Executive wants to take away the protection for charitable status for some housing associations. Given the options offered by the review of charity law, will he, at the earliest opportunity, extend the right to buy to charitable housing associations?

I think that Fiona Hyslop has interpreted my comments wrongly. There was no suggestion in my statement that I wanted to look at charity law at the moment—that is a separate matter relating to the different way in which charitable institutions are assessed. It is important that we have that debate in an appropriate context, rather than in this context.

As Wendy Alexander said, the modelling that we have considered indicates that we want to build 6,000 houses a year. Of those, 1,500 would be in rural areas. We want to work with the agencies in those areas to ensure that the houses are targeted on the most appropriate places. Our modelling indicates that no more than 120 houses could be lost in rural areas because of the right to buy. I accept that members are concerned about that; the issue can be addressed at the committee stage. Some members accuse us of not looking at things. However, I sincerely assure members that we have arrived at those figures after considering the modelling.

I welcome this debate and I want to talk about the language that has been used. This morning, Brian Adam said that it was important that the language of the debate should not be unfair, but within two sentences he had used the word "blackmail", which I would have thought a fairly emotive piece of language. However, I welcome his sincerity—it lasted for two sentences, which is a good record for a Scottish National party member. I, however, will engage in the language of debate.

Neither I nor members of the Labour party, have been using words such as "privatisation" in relation to stock transfer—it has been members of the SNP from across the country who have been using such scare words. It has not been me who has, in north-west Glasgow, been using words such as "clearances" in an emotional way to try to terrify people and undermine any idea of stock transfer. It has not been me who has been claiming—I heard this again today from Kenny

Gibson—that there are going to be massive rent increases. Whichever model is looked at, the stock transfer proposals are underpinned by rent guarantees—something that cannot be done at present within the model for local authorities.

I will take an intervention in a moment, Linda.

It is important that we do not rubbish serious issues. I felt that the language of Lloyd Quinan's contribution was self-righteous in the extreme. I checked the facts with West Dunbartonshire today. I know that he quoted an individual from an exemplary Clydebank newspaper—what a scientific assessment that is in the context of the information available in the modern world.

Mr Lloyd Quinan (West of Scotland) (SNP)

rose—

I will finish my point, and then I will let Lloyd—who did not give way to me— respond.

Does the minister want to see the report?

The report was written by an individual; its publication was not authorised or supported by the institution that originally asked for it. The individual is no longer there, and the whole report has been found to be deeply flawed. I am sorry to have to reveal that to the chamber, but it is important to get the facts out. Lloyd Quinan, unfortunately, has made predictions today, but his record in making predictions in previous jobs is poor.

Will the minister give way?

I am sorry, I want to continue, but I will touch on some of the points that Tommy raised this morning—ever so eloquently and powerfully, which is why I have moved one seat further away from him.

We want to guarantee that we will engage with funders and with the major agencies to discuss the best model for approaching stock transfer proposals. We will also engage with tenants across Scotland.

Will the minister give way?

When will he engage with tenants?

The minister is in his last minute now.

We will engage with tenants when there is a serious stock transfer proposal that they can examine and scrutinise in detail. I guarantee that we will do that.

More fundamentally, I predict that I will abide by any decision that the tenants in Glasgow—my city—make on the future of their housing stock. I hope that Mr Sheridan will give the same commitment today instead of assuming that he knows best for tenants across Scotland.

I have to conclude because the Presiding Officer has said that I am in my final minute. It is important for Mr Sheridan to listen to the rules of the chamber.

If Mr McAveety wants to become a real minister, he will have to learn the rules.

Thanks. Obviously I will depend on Mr Sheridan's support if ever I become a real minister. I will wait a long time—in fact, I might as well wait for the revolution that he has been waiting for all his adult life.

Wendy Alexander said that we had chance to change the nature of housing in Scotland. We can all make a contribution to that aim. I do not believe that I am a singular visionary, but I want to share my experience of housing and how people live in poor conditions. The minister mentioned the Booker prize. I am a reasonably literate individual myself. Although "Angela's Ashes" by Frank McCourt is not a particularly well-written novel, it is beautiful. Interestingly, the great character in the novel is Angela McCourt, who believes in making change; the father, Malachy McCourt, promises much, but delivers nothing. The SNP is Malachy McCourt; we will be Angela McCourt, and we will make a difference. I hope that the chamber will support our position.