Social Housing
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3507, in the name of Colin Fox, on Scotland's social housing provision. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that affordable social housing is in short supply across Scotland in both rural and urban areas and welcomes all efforts to ensure that everyone gets the opportunity to live in a decent home fit for the 21st century; welcomes the decision of Midlothian Council, for example, to build 1,000 new council houses; urges all council tenants in Edinburgh to make their views known in the stock transfer referendum scheduled for later this month, and believes that local tenant-led participation is crucial to the effective democratic management of social housing projects all across Scotland.
The debate is important, so I am grateful to members who have stayed behind to participate after such a long day. I have taken the liberty of ordering some Ovaltine.
The pressing need for rented accommodation is seldom out of the news in Scotland. In the past couple of days, we have had welcome news about investment in 169 new houses for rent in the Home Farm development in Skye and today we have news that the much criticised right-to-buy scheme has been suspended in the Highlands. The debate takes place as City of Edinburgh Council tenants prepare for a stock transfer referendum.
I begin by considering the general housing conditions in Scotland's social sector. I recently remarked at a tenants federation conference in the Muirhouse millennium centre—which the minister knows well—that £1-million houses are 10 a penny in Edinburgh now. By that, I meant that the rise in house prices in the city has been so dramatic that what was once remarkable is now much more commonplace. What do people do if they do not have £1 million, or even £180,000, which is the average price of a new house in Scotland today? Where do people live and where do their kids find their first home? The reality is that hundreds of thousands of Scots cannot afford to buy and are being left behind and badly provided for. House prices are rising so fast, and have been for so long, that they are far out of the reach of hundreds of thousands of working people.
We have a chronic shortage of affordable rented housing. According to the Executive's figures, 151,000 people in Scotland are now on waiting lists for such housing. In the past year, local authorities and housing associations built just 2,500 houses, but sold off 15,000. Of the 2,500 that were built—the lowest recorded figure for a decade—not one was in the local authority sector. Shelter Scotland estimates that 440,000 homes in the sector have been lost in the 25 years since the right-to-buy scheme was introduced.
Given that background, especially the fact that not a single house was built last year in the local authority sector, I welcome Midlothian Council's decision to build 1,000 new council houses for its burgeoning population. There are 1,500 people on the waiting list in Midlothian. I understand that the council intends to build the houses under the prudential borrowing rules, which state that the council can go ahead, providing that it does not have high housing debts and if it can pay back the loan from its housing revenue account. What is good for Midlothian is good for the rest of the country. It is time that other local authorities were allowed to follow that example. The Government is prepared to use public money to write off councils' housing debts, but it will allow only housing associations to take over. We must relax that restriction and allow councils throughout Scotland to keep control. We need to change the rules, not the landlords.
In the forthcoming stock transfer referendum in Edinburgh, tenants will be asked a curious question. The Government says that it is prepared to write off £310 million of debt, but only if tenants are prepared to give up local authority tenure. Under the City of Edinburgh Council's better homes plan, 23,000 council houses will be sold off and 4,000 will be demolished. The council pledges that the new City of Edinburgh Housing Association will fit new bathrooms and kitchens in every home and that it will build 10,000 new homes for rent and low-cost home ownership in the next 10 years. However, all that is dependent on a yes vote in the ballot; otherwise, nothing will happen. One wonders why thousands of tenants are still prepared to consider voting against the transfer. The reason is that many fail to see why the Government is prepared to write off debts and allow management to borrow money on financial markets, while denying the local authority the same option.
To the tenants, the stock transfer appears to be a private finance initiative—like those in the health service—in which private money is invested in social housing. The picture that tenants face appears to be the same; money will be borrowed more expensively and paid back through rent over the period of the loan. I fear that not all the facts have been given to allow tenants in Edinburgh an informed vote on the referendum. On examination of the articles of association of housing associations, one finds above all that the onus is on them to do what is best for the company's business plan, not what is in the best interests of tenants. When tenants hear all the facts and figures in such referenda, they tend to vote against transfer, as happened in Sedgefield, Renfrewshire, Birmingham, Kingston upon Thames, Sefton and Camden. I will certainly encourage tenants in Edinburgh to vote against the transfer.
The Glasgow experience is revealing. Glasgow Housing Association's promised investment has not materialised: not a single new house has been built and not a single property has been completely repaired and modernised. Of the 80,000 properties that were transferred, some 25,000 are now understood to be under assessment for demolition. Many of the concerns that Glasgow tenants expressed in the debate have also been ignored. Colin Deans and Billy McAllister, who were elected by the tenants on to the Glasgow Housing Association board, were in effect sacked by the people who manage the company. Tenants who are facing stock transfer want to know what guarantees they have that their rights will be protected. Perhaps when the minister winds up, he will comment on the experience of the transfer of housing stock to Glasgow Housing Association.
I hope that the minister agrees that local tenant-led participation is crucial to effective management of social housing projects throughout Scotland. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about improving the provision of social housing to meet the demands and needs of Scotland's population for high-quality and affordable rented accommodation that is fit for the 21st century.
I congratulate Colin Fox on securing tonight's debate. Given his offer of Ovaltine, I should mention that our business manager, Alasdair Morgan, pointed out that although this might be a late debate for us, such a debate in Westminster would take place at half-past two in the morning. We should be grateful for small blessings.
As Colin Fox's motion is quite wide-ranging and covers not only the situation in Midlothian but Edinburgh's stock transfer, I will try to cover a variety of issues.
Compared with the rest of Scotland, the Lothians are unusual in that we have a growing population. Like the rest of Scotland, we have a great demand for housing but, especially in places such as Midlothian and West Lothian, the pressure for affordable rented accommodation comes very much from young families. Increasingly, such families are moving out of Edinburgh. The City of Edinburgh Council is seeking to close a quarter of its primary schools at a time of population growth because schools rolls are falling. That is because young families who cannot afford to live in Edinburgh are moving out. The issue, therefore, is affordability, but the problem with much of the discussion on affordable housing is that it concentrates on provision of housing for home ownership rather than on social rented accommodation.
I know that Midlothian faces major challenges. In Loanhead—which recently elected an SNP councillor, Owen Thompson, whom I congratulate on that achievement—the council is looking to have 200 houses built but, as I understand it, none will be council houses. Pressure is also being felt further down the A701 in Bilston—another vibrant community—where there is an issue about whether new-build developments will contain any social housing. I raise those points because young families should be able to live in the communities in which they were brought up. If we want community and social cohesion, that point is very important.
Another point on which the minister should reflect is that in places such as Shawfair—where there is to be a massive development that I assume will include council housing—people must have access to democratic accountability and representation, regardless of whether such developments are of council housing or housing for home ownership. However, both in Shawfair and in Suttislea, where social housing is being provided, the local councillors are saying—I hope the minister is listening to this point in particular—that they cannot represent the interests of their community because the council has a vested interest. That is happening increasingly, especially in Midlothian. Such a situation does not serve democracy well, especially when people who go to their MSP find that their voices are not heard there because she is also a minister. That is a particular concern in areas where new build is taking place. However, I congratulate Midlothian Council on taking steps to ensure that 1,000 new houses will be built.
I remember that several years ago I suggested to Parliament 10 alternatives ways of funding social housing other than by stock transfer. Given the variety of different ways that should be available, why are we left with the big-bang solution of stock transfer, as if it were the only game in town? Getting back to basics, we know that the reason is Gordon Brown's Treasury rules, which aim to ensure that social housing is taken off the balance sheet so that he can effect his economic policy for England. We should always remember that that is the reason why.
I urge the people of Edinburgh to take part in the ballot. I believe that the tenants' voice should be heard and that the tenants themselves should decide. The idea that the only way in which debt can be written off is by voting for stock transfer is an unbalanced proposition. I urge the people of Edinburgh to look at the experiences of Glasgow.
Colin Fox made a very good point about the lack of progress, even though the process was started in 1997. My concern is that Labour administrations, both local and national, have put hundreds of millions of pounds into Glasgow's housing, not just in the past decade but over many decades. The problem is that no progress has been made. Scotland's social housing is at a standing start. We have lost time and opportunity and we have lost houses through the right to buy. We must try to make up the shortfall. I look forward to examining a variety of ways of funding. I would welcome small-scale stock transfers if the tenants want them; that is a way forward. I welcome new council house building, but we need a variety of forms of housing if we are to ensure that we have homes that are fit for the future, and communities that are fit for the families of Scotland.
I am not familiar with the decisions that have been made in Midlothian Council; therefore, I will keep my comments general and speak from my experience as a Highlands and Islands MSP. It is interesting that more and more members' debates focus on housing. Last month, we had an excellent debate on a motion in the name of John Home Robertson.
In the Highlands, there are about 9,000 people on the waiting list for council houses. The lack of opportunity to gain a foothold in the property market or to find an affordable home to rent is forcing many people who grew up in the area to leave. Fiona Hyslop made that point. People in the Highlands used to leave to pursue careers or to get jobs; now they leave because they cannot afford a house.
Owning a home remains an aspiration for many Scots, and there is undoubtedly an urgent need for the Executive to work with all stakeholders to ensure that low-cost properties are made available for people who wish to own, as well for those who wish to rent. Changes in one market, particularly the first-time buyer market, impact on other markets, including the social housing market.
We have only to look at the Council of Mortgage Lenders recent briefing paper to see that Scotland has the lowest proportion of owner-occupiers: 64 per cent compared with 73 per cent in Wales and 70 per cent in England. The number of loans for first-time buyers has fallen from 50,000 in 2002 to 32,000 in 2004—it almost halved in two years. In 1995, the average purchase price for a first-time buyer was 2.2 times their salary; now, a first-time buyer has to borrow on average 3.1 times their income. Fewer people can afford to buy their first home, so more people have to rent, which impacts on the market as a whole.
As Colin Fox said, Highland Council yesterday received pressured area status regarding the right to buy. I read the minister's press release very carefully, and he admitted that he does not yet have any evidence about the effect of the right to buy on the availability of affordable housing. There seems to be an assumption that if tenants in council houses are not given the right to buy, they will suddenly move out and buy on the open market. That certainly does not happen in Inverness, and it is why many such people have been tenants for 10, 20 or 30 years. It is also a reason why so many tenancies are now inherited—for the first time since the 1950s, we find three generations living in the same house.
I wish to say a word about stock transfer. I do not agree with Colin Fox, although I am not familiar with the situation in Edinburgh. In the Highlands, the debt per council home is the highest in mainland Scotland at £11,000 per house. The last figures that I had for income were that 47p of every £1 in revenue goes to pay the interest on the debt. There is no way that the council can invest in properties for families in order to benefit communities with that amount of spending.
I thank Colin Fox for securing the debate and for his thoughtful opening speech. We must recognise the importance of housing to people in Scotland. We should not underestimate just how vital the availability of good-quality, affordable, warm and safe homes is to the general health and well-being of our society.
Yet Scotland faces a lack of affordable housing. As we have heard, there are some acute shortages in particular areas. In that context, I welcome Midlothian Council's decision to build more council homes. To address Scotland's housing problems, we must revitalise the social rented sector. We must increase the number of affordable homes to rent. The last spending review brought a welcome increase in the amount of money going towards building new homes for rent, but housing campaigners and experts have consistently told us that that is not enough. The Minister for Communities must address those concerns and ensure that more money is committed in the 2007 spending review to building new social rented housing in Scotland.
It is important that the debate is not just about the numbers involved. It should also be about revitalising the status of the social rented sector. Currently, the assumption is that the only type of housing worth having is private home ownership. We must recognise the need for a mixed housing sector. The social rented sector should not be viewed as the housing option of last resort. We must recognise that everyone needs a decent house and that that requires a mixed sector. We must get away from any notion that social rented housing is just a solution to problems such as homelessness. Although social rented housing has an important role in tackling homelessness, that problem goes much wider than the social rented sector and the need for social rented housing goes much wider than the needs of those who are homeless.
There has been quite a lot of talk about the right to buy. It is clear that, 25 years on, the right to buy has had its day. It has contributed to the shortage of affordable housing that we face and it is not delivering for today's housing needs. We must end the right to buy. We must move beyond the use of pressured area status that is growing throughout Scotland—in effect the whole of Scotland is a pressured area now. We need to get rid of the right-to-buy policy and come up with a new one that meets today's needs, not those of 25 years ago.
I will say a little about stock transfer. The problem that I, like Fiona Hyslop and Colin Fox, have with the stock transfer process in Edinburgh is that it does not offer a fair choice. We heard from Colin Fox about the £300 million bung and we heard from Fiona Hyslop that the transfer is being driven by Gordon Brown's balance-sheet needs. That puts tenants in Edinburgh in an invidious position. They do not have a fair choice over who they want to run their housing. On the one hand is local authority ownership and the prospect of no change to housing conditions; on the other hand is stock transfer and, potentially, millions of pounds going to improve housing. That is not a fair choice.
The tenants with whom I have spoken have said that they do not mind who their landlord is, as long as that landlord is responsible and as long as they can fully participate in the decisions that affect them. They do not mind whether they have a local authority landlord or a housing association landlord. I would not go as far as Colin Fox did in his criticism of housing associations, because there are some very good housing associations. Tenants are denied a real choice in Edinburgh because of the financial incentive that is presented on one side of the voting slip.
The bottom line is that rented housing in Scotland, whether people rent from a housing association landlord or have a council tenancy, should be suitable, of good quality, secure and affordable. Everyone in Scotland should have the right to decent accommodation. I look to the Minister for Communities to help to ensure that the social rented sector is no longer the Cinderella of housing in Scotland.
I agree with almost everything in Colin Fox's motion. I was strongly tempted to sign it, although I suspected that his neutral—almost honeyed—words about the Edinburgh transfer referendum concealed a determination to oppose that transfer.
It is not for me to tell people in Edinburgh what to do, but it might be pertinent to mention that my knowledge of housing professionals in other parts of Scotland tells me that other councils look with a considerable degree of envy at the deal that the Executive is offering Edinburgh. To describe a £300 million debt redemption as a bung rather misses the point that it, in effect, allows the successor body to borrow £300 million or thereby to build houses, install bathrooms and kitchens, put on cladding and carry out reroofing. That is not a bung; it is a substantial offer that people should consider seriously.
I want to pick up Mark Ballard's point about Midlothian Council, because I agree with him about housing associations and I believe they are perfectly good landlords. The one point in Colin Fox's motion with which I absolutely disagree is the welcoming of the decision to build new council houses. I have no difficulty with Midlothian Council deciding that it wants to keep its council housing in-house. If it can meet the housing quality standard by the target date, that is a matter for its forward business plan.
However, if Midlothian Council's concern is about homelessness and shortage of supply, what is the sense of it spending the capital that it believes it has on 1,000 council houses? If it used the capital to grant aid housing association development, the same money would build approximately 1,400 houses in the same time. There are different views about the right to buy, but it exists. If a council builds 1,000 council houses now, the chances are that in 20 years' time it will have 500 left. If it builds 1,400 houses now and develops through charitable housing associations, it will have 1,400 left for rent in 20 years' time. That is a fairly obvious conclusion for people to draw. People who are encouraging Midlothian Council one way or the other should raise that matter with it.
The proportion of houses that local housing associations lose to the right to buy scheme is also significant, so the figures that the member offers are not true.
I am rarely accused of being untruthful. All I would say to Colin Fox is that that is precisely why I used the qualification that the grant aid would be best given to housing associations that have charitable status and which are therefore not subject to the right to buy.
Fiona Hyslop is right: there is a public sector borrowing requirement rule. There are different views about it and people would seek to challenge it, but is it going to change? If not, should politicians use people in unmodernised houses, on council waiting lists or in temporary homeless accommodation as a battering ram to score political or ideological points about landlords, or should they advise them that in the landscape in which they operate—given the fiscal rules that exist and are likely to exist—they should accept the offer that has been made to secure investment in their own homes?
I know that there are tenants, would-be tenants or people in unmodernised houses who make the arguments and they are entitled to, because they will accept and live with the consequences. However, politicians who are very well housed indeed should not be encouraging people to go down a path that would deny them significant investment and substantial improvements in their housing circumstances.
I congratulate Colin Fox on bringing this important debate to the Parliament. The first part of the motion states:
"That the Parliament recognises that affordable social housing is in short supply across Scotland in both rural and urban areas and welcomes all efforts to ensure that everyone gets the opportunity to live in a decent home fit for the 21st century".
That encapsulates what the debate should be about. There is a shortage of supply and we must make every effort to ensure that in the 21st century everybody has a decent home that is fit to live in. Many houses in Scotland are simply not fit for anyone to live in.
The big difficulty with Colin Fox's motion and with knowing what we mean by affordable housing is that there is no definition of affordable housing. We all have a shorthand for what we understand affordable housing to be. We need to be clear and the minister must take the lead. The definition of affordable housing changes depending on who one talks to at any given time.
A definition of affordable housing would help all of us when we are having debates in the chamber or elsewhere. Measuring what affordable housing is cannot be too difficult. We have a measure for fuel poverty, which involves comparing income and fuel costs, so I cannot see why having a measure for affordable housing that involves measuring income against the cost of rented or owner-occupied housing should be too difficult.
The reality is that many people simply cannot afford to buy and cannot access a council house because they are on a waiting list. Therefore, we have a huge problem. Fiona Hyslop talked about the pressures on Edinburgh, but there are also pressures in Fife, for example. People are moving to Fife because houses there are more affordable—young families and children are moving there from the centre of Edinburgh. In turn, that puts pressure on Fife's house prices, which keep going up. We must recognise that what happens in one area of Scotland will have knock-on effects on other parts of Scotland.
Last year, the lowest number of social rented houses, council houses and housing association houses was built in Scotland since the final full year of the previous Conservative Government. That is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I welcome Midlothian Council's commitment to build 1,000 new homes, although that commitment is overdue, as Midlothian is a pressured area. I also welcome the recognition that the Highland Council area is a pressured area and the stopping there of the right to buy.
Mary Scanlon talked about 47p in every pound being used to pay the capital debt in the Highland region. That figure would not have been nearly as high if there had been no right to buy in the first place. The debt was left behind when the houses were sold off; the few tenants who are there are paying the capital debt for houses that are long gone.
Murray Tosh made a good point about why we should not use people's housing situation as a way of getting across our ideological points of view. As Colin Fox's motion suggests, it is essential that we find a way to ensure that everybody in Scotland in the 21st century has a decent house to live in. If the Parliament ensures that everyone does, it will have made the people of Scotland proud. However, all of us must work hard. The minister will have to work hard, but it is recognised that the rest of us must work equally hard to ensure that that becomes a reality, and there is a commitment to do so.
I congratulate Colin Fox on securing the debate. He began his speech fairly by reminding members of two announcements that have been made this week—on the £20 million affordable housing development on Skye and the suspension of the right to buy in the Highland area. In praising what is happening in Midlothian, he referred to the prudential borrowing regime that we introduced. Therefore, he praised some developments.
Obviously, in the first half of his speech, Colin Fox's main concern was the supply of affordable housing, and several members echoed that concern. Of course I take the supply of affordable housing very seriously. Mark Ballard reminded us of the significant increase in money in the current three-year spending period, which is why 16,500 houses for rent are being built, as well as 5,000 low-cost home ownership houses. The £400 million that is going into affordable housing this year is 23 per cent more than the money that was made available last year and is part of a £1.2 billion package over three years. I do not say that complacently. Of course, we are seriously and thoroughly assessing requirements for the next spending review period, particularly in the light of our commitments on homelessness.
Colin Fox referred to house prices rising fast in Edinburgh. Rightly, the main focus of our investment programme is on affordable rented accommodation, but we have started the widely welcomed homestake scheme, which will enable many people to buy a home who could not otherwise afford to do so. An open market homestake project is being piloted in Edinburgh, to which many people in Edinburgh have already applied.
Much of the debate has focused on the local situation in Edinburgh, and that is appropriate given the forthcoming ballot on community ownership. I will say a little more about the Edinburgh situation in a moment. First, I will address three points that Colin Fox raised in relation to community ownership more generally.
First, he was rather disparaging—as Murray Tosh reminded us—about the £300 million of debt that is being written off in Edinburgh. A large part of the rents that people currently pay goes to service that debt. From now on, tenants will be able to see their rent going into the modernisation of their homes, which they want so much.
It might be helpful if the minister could explain what arrangement has been made with the Treasury, what responsibilities the Executive has in securing that and when it was agreed.
We have had arrangements with the Treasury on debt write-off since the start of the community ownership programme. Fiona Hyslop is right to suggest that the debt is being written off by the Treasury. There are demands for that to be done and for public investment to be made, which would double the amount of public expenditure that was involved. That would be equally true whether we, in Scotland, or the Treasury wrote off the debt.
Colin Fox also referred to housing PFI. I am not sure whether he used the word "privatisation" openly tonight, but he usually does. I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not privatisation. Housing associations are non-profit-making bodies. For a long time, I have admired the community-based housing associations and co-ops in my constituency, and we know that there is a strong tradition of those in Glasgow and elsewhere. They are not private, profit-making bodies, so we should stop saying that they are.
Colin Fox's third point, which I will touch on later, was about paying back more in rent. However, there is a generous rent offer here in Edinburgh.
The minister will know that his colleague, Gavin Strang, the MP for Edinburgh East, was reported as saying that the transfer is privatisation. I am pleased to be in the company of Gavin Strang.
I want to correct the minister on one point. Rather than rubbishing the £310 million, I said that the £310 million debt write-off would be available only if tenants voted yes in the ballot. When the minister refers to community ownership, perhaps he should describe the difference between it and public ownership. Currently, the housing is publicly owned; his suggestion is that, after the ballot, it will be community owned.
I think that I have already addressed the financial point. Community ownership involves tenants far more centrally; that is an important part of community ownership.
Glasgow has been mentioned. I remind members that, this year, £127 million is being invested in housing in Glasgow, which is twice what was invested in the years before the stock was transferred. That has delivered 12,500 central heating systems, more than 13,000 new roofs, more than 8,000 kitchens and more than 3,000 bathrooms, and there is a lot more to come.
On Colin Fox's second point, I advise members that, through second-stage transfer, tenants in Glasgow will have an even stronger role to play than the one suggested in the wording of the motion.
Will the minister take an intervention?
If I am going to keep to seven minutes, I had better not take any more interventions.
One of the main aims of community ownership is to ensure that all the houses are brought up to the housing quality standard that we require of all social landlords by 2015. One of the important features of the offer in Edinburgh is an accelerated delivery of the Scottish housing quality standard. There will be new, modern kitchens and bathrooms for all houses in the early years after transfer and major regeneration in four priority estates, including new housing to replace more than 3,000 houses that cannot be raised to the standard of warm, comfortable, safe homes, which everyone deserves. An additional 10,000 homes will also be built over the next 10 years to help to meet the challenge of ending homelessness, and there will be the affordable, stable rent policy to which I have referred, with no increases beyond inflation guaranteed for five years.
Of course, tenant participation is a key feature of what is proposed in Edinburgh and of the other community ownership transfers that have taken place. The proposed transfer of the City of Edinburgh Council's housing to the new City of Edinburgh Housing Association will give tenants the opportunity to have the loudest voice in making decisions about how their homes and neighbourhoods are managed; in setting priorities for repairs to buildings and the upkeep of the environment, with more than £500 million to invest; and in participating in making policies to ensure safe communities with warm and attractive homes. All tenants will have the opportunity to participate in the management of their homes through membership of the new association or through the network of area boards that will have a significant decision-making role in relation to priorities for housing and neighbourhoods in their areas.
In Dumfries and Galloway, the new landlord—Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership—is in the process of devolving decision making to its tenants even further. Through four district management committees, tenants at the local level are making decisions about local services and standards. Recently, that work was recognised as an example of good practice, and the partnership was the runner-up in the tenant participation good practice awards 2005.
Tenant participation and even more than that, with the second-stage transfers in Glasgow, are at the heart of community ownership. That is the opposite of privatisation.
Will the minister give way?
I am not being allowed to take an intervention.
The offer to tenants in Edinburgh is excellent. I know the benefits that it will bring to my constituency. I am sure that the tenants of Edinburgh will consider the offer and vote in their best interests.
Meeting closed at 18:56.