Housing
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01346, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on housing. I remind ministers and members that time is tight and that I would like them to stick to their allotted time.
09:15
It is nice to be here to raise the subject of housing once again. The Conservative party has a proud record on housing, but it is a feature of this Parliament that that record is denigrated by our opponents, so I make no apology for the fact that I begin by detailing that proud record.
In the 1950s, the Conservative Government broke records for the building of public housing. During that period, it was the Conservatives who provided the homes fit for heroes that were spoken about in the years after the second world war. The quality of that housing has stood us in good stead for many years. Moving on through the decades, I note that, in the 1980s, it was the Conservatives who came up with the ingenious plan of allowing the tenants of many of those houses to own the property themselves.
The concept of selling social housing to its tenants delivered social change on a scale that Britain and particularly Scotland had never seen before and has not seen since. The communities of mixed tenure that it created are among the safest, most sustainable communities that we have in Scotland. Furthermore, the sale of council houses created a pool of houses in the market, which gave many young tenants the opportunity to buy their own homes at an affordable price. In many parts of the country, if it were not for the market in ex-council houses, it would be impossible for people to make the jump from the private rented sector into home ownership. That vital stepping stone is essential to many young potential home owners.
However, the concept of the right to buy has been the subject of political prejudice in the Parliament for many years. The stimulation for bringing the matter to the chamber for debate today, although not the key issue, was the news last week that one local authority in Scotland, East Lothian Council, has gone forward with a project that is designed to buy back ex-council houses. I do not know the specific circumstances and I do not wish to raise them. It is the concept that I will address today. I do not want the practice to spread because it is dangerous and we should not allow it to be the next step of the anti-right-to-buy prejudice.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I will not take an intervention at this stage.
East Lothian Council’s decision to buy back former council houses is simply a rehash of that old prejudice. Some immediate need might be dealt with, but the practice will do nothing to help the wider picture. If the council purchases a former council house at £80,000, it will certainly have acquired a property to let, but that money would benefit many more people if it was used to subsidise the construction of two or more new houses, which would also sustain jobs and create training opportunities for young skill seekers. I am also concerned that the council’s actions might warp the local property market and drive up property prices, which could put home ownership even further out of reach for young families who are trying to get on to the property ladder.
The current market conditions are an opportunity for the public and private sectors to work more closely together in order to provide social housing; doing so will be to everybody’s benefit. I encourage East Lothian Council and any other council that is considering taking that step to explore more constructive solutions that will maximise the limited funds that are available.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I will not take an intervention at this point.
Surely East Lothian’s action goes against everything that the Scottish National Party has said about supporting construction jobs and boosting the economy. Although I am sure that estate agents will be delighted, the building trade, which faces an uncertain future in the area, will be less than impressed.
The Government’s approach to housing over the past five years has been confused and contradictory. It is noteworthy more for the sheer volume of consultations in which it has indulged than for the number of houses that it has built. On the one hand, it pursues a simplistic anti-right-to-buy campaign for nothing more than political purposes, while on the other hand it seeks to develop best practice in rent-to-buy schemes.
While portraying itself as the champion of social housing, the Government has substantially reduced its overall investment, cutting subsidy to registered social landlords and then accepting that councils can enable construction by topping up that grant in the form of aid from a council’s own resources.
Earlier this year, the Scottish National Party manifesto commitment was to build more than 6,000 new social rented houses each year; since the election, ministers have referred to a target of 6,000 affordable homes—a different definition. Today, the Government amendment talks of 4,300 homes. The minister claims that he is building houses for less, but in reality houses are being produced less efficiently and with more bureaucracy.
Some years ago, like other parties, the Scottish Conservatives signed up to the Labour-Lib Dem commitment to end homelessness by 2012. While we stand by that commitment, the SNP has demonstrated its commitment to 2012 by taking a step back, leaving local councils to pick up the pieces. To add insult to injury for our hard-pressed communities, the Government’s soft criminal justice regime means that the antisocial behaviour that blights so many neighbourhoods is not being tackled effectively.
When a council jumps through the hoops required to evict a tenant who consistently makes his or her neighbours’ lives a misery, it is faced with having to rehouse that individual, albeit temporarily in some cases. The result is that although tough action can be and is taken by councils, councils’ hands are tied and there is no real positive outcome.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, not at this point.
Sadly, it is our neighbourhoods that are left to pay the price. The whole thing is a sham, and all the while the Government has done little more than issue consultations, in between posing for yet more photos in its now well-worn hard hats and high visibility jackets.
So where now for housing in Scotland? One thing is clear: the Government cannot deliver on its own. If we are to close the gap between the number of homes that we need to build to satisfy demand and the number of properties that are built, closer partnership working between the private sector, housing associations and local authorities must be developed still further.
The national housing trust is a step in that direction but it is a blunt instrument that does not do the job for many developers or councils. Perhaps that is why the NHT is back on the drawing board. The SNP has been sent homeward to think again. Clearly, a more flexible, sophisticated solution is required, especially bearing in mind the level of return required by many lenders in order to enter the process.
However, the public and private sectors are clearly willing to work together in order to achieve outcomes. That must be harnessed and encouraged, not just to satisfy housing demand but to boost the economy, sustain jobs and create vital training opportunities for young people. It is not just about bricks and mortar. Scottish Conservatives want safe, sustainable communities that people can take pride in—communities in which people know their rights but also accept their responsibilities.
Making the planning system in Scotland more accessible could contribute to getting construction under way. Many construction businesses have expressed their frustration to me about the planning system, which they see as unpredictable and ponderous. It is holding up much-needed development and putting jobs on the back-burner. The cost of submitting substantial planning applications is prohibitive. A system that provided greater certainty of outcome and that was faster and more efficient would help remove the bottleneck of applications that are lying on planners’ desks across Scotland.
There is much that we can do. The Conservatives have always been and will continue to be active participants in the process of housing the people of Scotland. We wish to engage in that process and we have laid out our position. We look forward to hearing the usual negative resistance of our opponents.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the pivotal role of the housing market to the Scottish economy; is concerned that housebuilding in Scotland has fallen to a 30-year low; further recognises the need to ensure that there is an adequate supply of good quality housing to buy and rent in the private and social sectors; notes the success of the right to buy policy in that it empowered people to choose their preferred form of housing tenure, allowed over half a million households to own their own home and strengthened local communities; encourages the Scottish Government to remove the limitations on the right to buy contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 and to provide higher discounts under the modernised right to buy as a means of increasing capital receipts to invest in building affordable homes for those on low incomes and to boost jobs in the construction industry; further encourages the Scottish Government to consider legislative reform to ensure fairness and equity in public housing and also to allow social houses to be allocated to people with local connections so as to protect the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s communities, and further calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that landlords make greater use of the enforcement of tenancy agreements to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Perfect timing, Mr Johnstone. I call Keith Brown, Minister for Housing and Transport, to speak to and move amendment S4M-01346.2—you have precisely seven minutes.
09:26
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.
First, I congratulate Alex Johnstone on his elevation to his new post, which I think gives him the title of the official spokesperson for the Conservative and Unionist Party, although during the leadership contest he might have wanted a different title.
Alex Johnstone acknowledged the pivotal role of the housing market in the economy, as well as the severe challenges facing the market and the consequences for the economy as a whole. It would have been far better, however, if Alex Johnstone had acknowledged that cutting Scotland’s capital investment by 36 per cent over three years, as his United Kingdom Government has done, has at the very least compounded the problems that we face. Of course, the welfare reforms, including the housing benefit reform, have done a great deal to hinder the future supply of housing in Scotland and it would have been better had he acknowledged that. It would also have been better had he acknowledged that the Scottish Government has been doing everything in its power to support the housing market.
I will make up for Alex Johnstone’s oversight. The Scottish Government has accelerated capital spend on affordable housing, kick-started a new generation of council houses—much though I know that that annoys Alex Johnstone—and continued investment to help first-time buyers access home ownership through our shared equity schemes. We recognise the scale of the challenge that we face, so we have been encouraging and supporting innovative solutions, including the one in East Lothian that Alex Johnstone mentioned, which we think is a commendable innovation in how we fund affordable housing. There is also the example of the widely acclaimed and successful national housing trust.
As a result of all that, it has been possible for us to deliver a total of £460 million to be invested, which will deliver around 4,300 homes. That is not the be-all and end-all of what we will do this year, but just one part, although Alex Johnstone seemed to interpret the 4,300 homes as the total for this year. That will not be the total, but it will contribute towards our commitment to deliver 30,000 affordable homes during the life of this Parliament. It is also unfortunate that Alex Johnstone chose to overlook all that we are doing to counter the effects of ill-conceived Westminster policies.
It is even worse that his own solution to the problem is more of the right to buy at more generous discounts—talk about confused thinking. He offers a partial assessment of the impact that right to buy has had on our communities and ignores the problems that it has caused, for example, in managing blocks of flats when some flats have been bought but others continue to be owned by social landlords. Above all, though, he overlooks the impact that right to buy has had on the amount of housing that is available for social rent and the impact that that has had on those in housing need. Certainly, in my area in Clackmannanshire we saw the council’s housing stock reduced by half over a period of time, which has produced huge constraints for people looking for social housing.
Indeed, it was the recognition of the harm being done by the right to buy that resulted in almost universal support for the previous Administration’s proposals under the previous housing minister to reform the right to buy and to end it for new-build social housing and for new tenants in the sector. Those proposals became key elements of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010, which the previous Parliament approved overwhelmingly. The idea that a year later we might contemplate overturning such popular legislation is at best fanciful, although not perhaps as fanciful as thinking that more generous right-to-buy discounts would give social landlords more money for new build.
If Alex Johnstone and the Conservatives could drop their obsession with right to buy and perhaps even recognise the damage being done to the economy by Westminster’s policies, we might be able to have a much more productive debate about how we achieve fairness and equity in the allocation of social housing, an objective that everyone in the chamber probably shares. We all know from our constituency experience that that is a pressing problem and one that ultimately arises from demand constantly outstripping supply. The long-term solution is to build more of the houses of all tenures that people want and can afford in areas where they want to live, and that lies at the heart of our vision for housing.
I recognise the great difficulties that the minister faces because of the cuts in the capital budget from Westminster, but given that £200 million of capital is still to be allocated by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, will he guarantee that he is fighting for a large slice of that money to come to housing? Given that he has dual responsibilities for housing and transport, which sometimes compete for capital, will he assure us that housing is his top priority for the extra capital that is still to be allocated?
The member can rest assured that I will always argue for more funding for housing, but both housing and transport are central to the Government’s policy of economic growth because the construction of such projects is very labour intensive.
We face a challenge and, essentially, requiring landlords to strike a difficult balance between the legitimate claims of one group of prospective tenants over another is one element of that. We are committed to consulting on that and other matters, such as toughening tenancy rules to deal with antisocial behaviour, and plan to do so early next year.
Will the minister give way?
I do not have time for more interventions; I apologise to Mr Brown.
I look forward to working with Alex Johnstone and others on devising legislation that works for tenants and those in housing need and for landlords and the communities that they serve. It is important to recognise the work that is being done by the Government on housing across the piece.
There was a large degree of confused thinking in Alex Johnstone’s speech, particularly if we go back to his point about East Lothian Council. He fails to recognise that buying those houses helps engender more interest in the local market, because once the houses have been sold their owners will look to buy elsewhere. He also conceded that he did not know that much about what was going on with this policy, but he should know that East Lothian Council has worked very hard with private sector developers and has a version of the Scottish Government’s national infrastructure loan whereby they will forgo or defer capital costs for infrastructure elements of new housing projects in order to go ahead as quickly as possible. There has been a great deal of innovative thinking.
Will the minister take an intervention?
You have one minute, minister.
I will take an intervention, although Alex Johnstone refused to take any.
I want to ask the minister whether the money used to buy back those houses would have been more effectively used to promote the building of additional houses. If so, the council could have had more property.
That would be true if it was an either/or situation. If the member went to speak to East Lothian Council, he would find that it is doing a great deal, despite the particular constraints in that area, to try to encourage further housing development. That in itself will encourage further housing development and add to the council’s housing stock in an area where supply is hard-pressed. I recommend that Alex Johnstone looks in more detail at what is going on in East Lothian Council, as he should at Scottish Government policies, which have been extremely useful in starting to increase the available housing stock.
In conclusion, my amendment acknowledges the points that I have made and recognises the folly of much else in Alex Johnstone’s motion. I move amendment S4M-01346.2, to leave out from “is concerned” to end and insert:
“notes the Scottish Government’s recent announcement that £460 million will be invested to build 4,300 homes as part of its commitment to build 30,000 affordable homes during this parliamentary session, including 5,000 council houses in spite of significant cuts to Scotland’s capital budget by the UK Government; recognises the Scottish Government’s progress in modernising the legislative framework for housing, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue with an innovative approach to housing policy and invest in all types of houses to meet the demands and needs of the population.”
09:33
The Scottish Conservatives might have changed their leader and reshuffled their front-bench team, but there is no evidence this morning of any profound change in their approach to housing policy. That might, of course, suit Alex Johnstone very well. He is on familiar ground, although he seems uncharacteristically shy about engaging in debate today. Perhaps that will change. It might even suit his new leader, who, sadly, has just left the chamber, if her priority is to emphasise old certainties rather than new departures.
It is a shame for those in housing need, however, because they want the focus to be not on the right-to-buy arguments of the 1980s and 1990s but on today’s need for social housing. The Tory motion highlights the record low levels of house building that are an issue in the public and private sectors and in both the owner-occupied and rented sectors. The failure of such a well-established and respected business in the construction sector as A C Yule and Son Ltd in the north-east shows an economy in serious trouble, as yesterday’s unemployment figures confirmed, and shows both the breadth and the depth of the crisis facing Scotland’s construction industry.
Responsibility for that lies in part at Westminster and in part with the SNP Government, not just for its plans to cut support for building new affordable homes but for the complete hiatus in the commissioning of new public sector buildings of every type between 2007 and 2010.
It would therefore have been useful if the Conservatives had chosen to seek a debate on what the Scottish Government should do now, which is not to get rid of existing social housing, but to find ways of building more. However, as Mr Johnstone has chosen to prioritise selling ahead of building, it falls to Labour to highlight the real issues that the housing sector faces. The SNP will claim that all is well—we have heard that from Keith Brown—but the reasons for its unwillingness to address directly some of the issues remain hard to fathom.
The minister’s amendment mentions the Scottish Government’s
“commitment to build 30,000 affordable homes during this parliamentary session”.
His problem is that that was not in his party’s election manifesto only a few months ago. The commitment that the SNP made in that manifesto was
“to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year.”
Mr Brown knows as well as anybody that a target for a total of affordable homes is very different from a target for a total of homes for social rent. That is why his amendment talks of investing
“in all types of houses to meet the demands and needs of the population.”
We are happy to support investing in all types of houses. In government, Labour was as keen as anybody to encourage mid-market rents and rent-to-buy schemes to support those on middling incomes to obtain housing at an affordable price, but mid-market and shared ownership or shared equity are not the same as social renting, and they are not what the SNP promised when it sought election in May.
This is the third time that we have offered ministers an opportunity to explain in the chamber why there is a difference between their commitment in the election campaign and their commitment in government. Labour members have asked the same question in committee, but Mr Brown and Mr Neil have so far refused to tell us why they do not intend to implement the SNP’s manifesto promise.
As I said in our previous debate, I am glad that Mr Brown has now conceded that 20,000 of the 30,000 new affordable homes will be for social rent. That is a distinct improvement on his previous refusal to say anything at all on the subject, but it is a little surprising that the 20,000 homes for social rent do not feature in the Government’s amendment and that they have not featured in the debate so far. Let us hope that Mr Brown is not having second thoughts about that commitment as well. Our amendment is positive about the SNP’s positive commitment in its manifesto and we have offered it another chance to tell us what it will do or if it will do what is needed to make that happen.
The member mentioned election commitments. Is the Labour Party’s position that which has been put forward by a contender for its leadership, Tom Harris: that allocation by need should be ditched in favour of allocation by virtue? Young people in particular would be put above older people, as they might have a job. Is Labour’s policy what Tom Harris described or what Lewis Macdonald described?
It is a shame that the minister rose to his feet to respond to my challenge to tell us what he is doing about his manifesto commitment and did not mention it. He did not tell us anything at all. If the SNP does not take the chance to address that matter, attention is bound to focus on the changes in housing policy that it has made, and particularly on the spectacular cuts that it has made in Government funding for new affordable homes.
The Tories have called a debate on the right subject, but they have highlighted the wrong issues. The SNP has talked about what it plans now, but not about what it promised in May. If it wants to, it can move that debate on; all that it has to do is follow our suggestion.
I move amendment S4M-01346.3, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:
“welcomes the SNP’s manifesto commitment ‘to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year’, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward plans to implement this promise and to make a statement to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity.”
09:38
I welcome the opportunity to put on record once again my views on the housing situation in Scotland.
In debating the motion, we need to consider the effects on house building and housing of the current UK Tory-Liberal coalition Government’s economic and social policies. As Keith Brown said in his opening remarks, the unprecedented cuts in public spending that the UK coalition Government has implemented are undoubtedly the single biggest cause of the decline in house building throughout the country. If Alex Johnstone is serious about addressing that problem and if he wants to see an upturn in house building, I encourage him to add his voice to the Scottish Government’s demands that David Cameron and George Osborne immediately change course and increase spending on capital projects, particularly on house building.
We should all recognise that housing is fundamentally about people and that social housing is often about protecting the welfare of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged people. If Alex Johnstone is concerned about that, as he seems to be, I again urge him to join us in campaigning against the Tory reforms to housing benefit, which will hit the poorest people in society hardest.
Housing associations the length and breadth of Scotland are telling us that reducing housing benefit is a direct attack on the poor. In a housing debate on 6 October, prior to her elevation to the leadership, Ruth Davidson spoke of first-time buyers’ struggle to get on the property ladder because of the high deposit required and pointed out that people of a similar age to herself—that is, early to mid-30s—were below the average age for getting a first-time buyer mortgage; it tends to be 36 to 37-year-olds who are able to get on the housing ladder for the first time. How, then, can she justify the Westminster-led benefit reforms that will raise the age at which the local housing allowance rate will apply? With that move, 4,400 single people in Scotland aged between 25 and 34 without dependants will be restricted in their ability to apply for housing assistance.
The Conservative motion proposes that the Scottish Government remove the limitations on right to buy that were introduced in 2010. The right-to-buy policy, which was introduced by a Tory Government, has been a disaster in Scotland and has led to more than half a million homes being taken out of social housing stock, leaving councils unable to address housing needs in their areas. Few would dispute that the right-to-buy policy destroyed the council house building programme in Scotland; indeed, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has said that it has been absolutely disastrous for the low-cost homes for rent sector.
Instead of voting for a Tory party determined to push social housing stocks down further, leaving less of a chance of getting affordable housing, the people of Scotland voted for an SNP Government that was determined to see through its vision for a fairer Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No—I want to keep going.
This Scottish Government has a proven track record not only of investment in housing despite the severe funding constraints—indeed, it has invested £1.7 billion in affordable housing between 2008 and 2011—but of house building. Between 2009 and 2011, 3,295 council houses were approved and, in 2010, 1,055 were started. That is the highest recorded figure in 20 years.
Will the member give way?
The member has no time, Mr Hume.
The Scottish Government is doing everything that it can in very difficult financial circumstances to provide affordable, sustainable and original housing solutions such as the innovation and investment fund, which is building 3,462 new homes, and the national housing trust, which is kick-starting stalled construction sites.
Although I welcome the fact that the Conservative party has brought this important issue to the chamber, its motion simply urges us to turn the clock back and repeat the mistakes of the failed policies of the past. Instead, we must move forward in a spirit of consensus, building on legislation that the Parliament has already passed and continuing to find and develop innovative ways of supporting our affordable housing market.
09:42
Although we are all concerned about the dire state of house building, I think that we begin to part company over what should be done about the situation. I believe that there is significant and unaddressed demand for social rented housing and shared equity schemes, but both are dependent on Government support that is rapidly shrinking. The housing and regeneration budget will be reduced from nearly £400 million to little over £250 million in 2014, which is a cut of more than 35 per cent. Next year, the affordable housing supply budget is to suffer an even more drastic cut of 53 per cent, falling from just over £268 million to as little as £125 million.
Of course, some of the affordable housing budget is included in the local government settlement but it, too, will be under severe pressure. Manifesto promises and the requirement in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016 are unlikely to be met. The pledge to build 6,000 social rented homes each year has become a pledge to build 6,000 affordable homes, just over 4,000 of which will be social rented homes. That is nowhere near enough to meet demand; Scotland needs 10,000 new affordable homes a year.
The 60 per cent decrease in the money for building affordable homes will be achieved by limiting the subsidy to a maximum of £40,000 per unit, but it remains to be seen whether that subsidy will be raised for areas of greater need. Unless it is relaxed, the limit will make it difficult to fund social rented accommodation in areas of high deprivation; if it is relaxed, there will not be enough money to fund the building of as many houses.
The 1,000 intermediate rented homes, available through the national housing trust, are by definition affordable only for some. They are out of reach of the poorest tenants. Another 1,000 are to come from subsidised home ownership. I support the continuation of the open market and the new supply schemes, but I note that the Scottish Government is still not providing funding for the open market scheme. That scheme was assessed as being the best to meet particular needs—for example, the needs of people with a disability—and also as being a particularly cost-effective option. However, it is now available only for a very limited number of homes that are already in the process of being built.
I am also concerned about the future of social housing under the new regime of the housing regulator, which has brought forward proposals that will undermine the role of local residents on the boards and committees of registered social landlords. I am sure that there is no great demand for those proposals from housing associations and residents. In accordance with the tenant consultation and satisfaction principles of the Scottish housing charter, their views should be paramount. Any attempt to impose those new rules will be an attack on local democracy. It will not be acceptable for the Scottish Government to wash its hands and say, “It wisnae me. It was that quango what done it.”
The Government must take responsibility, and not give it away to organisations that it then blames when things go wrong. Instead of trying to fix things that are not broken, the Government should address real problems—such as factors who are withdrawing their services because absentee landlords make their task so difficult. Instead of attacking social landlords, how about the Government giving local government more powers to deal with antisocial landlords?
09:47
If awards were given out for persistence and obstinacy, the Tory benches would be weighed down by bunting and medals. In every debate on housing, they return to the same old chestnut—their obsession with the right to buy. That position flies in the face of the situation on the ground. If the Tories are relying on their record of achievement in the 1950s—as Alex Johnstone seemed to be suggesting—it will be a long way back for the Ruth Davidson-led Tory party.
Alex Johnstone referred to “prejudice” against the right to buy on the SNP benches. I have no prejudice against the right to buy. Indeed, many people in my extended family have exercised the right to buy, although—I do not know whether my stepfather will appreciate my saying this, but I am going to say it anyway—my stepfather’s father refused to buy his council house on a point of principle.
We have to question whether the right to buy was good and sound public policy. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has estimated that, as a result of that creation of the Thatcher era, some 500,000 homes have been lost from rented stock in Scotland alone. Many people are languishing on waiting lists for council houses, or for social rented houses, and every member in the chamber will have seen many of them. I question whether the removal of all the houses that would otherwise have been available to them was a sensible policy. The position of the Government—of my party—in relation to the right to buy is not prejudiced but practical.
We are now having to play catch-up in relation to the availability of social rented housing, and the Scottish Government is doing a lot. Members do not have to take my word, or the minister’s word, for that. The Scottish Building Federation has said that
“Between 2007 and 2010, the value of public sector new housebuilding in Scotland has risen by 89 per cent”
and that
“the number of public sector new homes built in Scotland annually has risen by 42 per cent”.
Good work is going on. A significant number of those homes are council houses—the most council houses that have been built for a great number of years. Therefore, the Tory position on the right to buy is a nonsense; it is an absolutely ridiculous position because there would be no incentive for local authorities to continue that council-house building programme if, as soon as they built a house, it became subject to the right to buy. Again, members do not need to take just my word for that. Shelter has said that it disagrees with the Conservative position on right to buy as expressed in the motion today, and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has said that the Government’s position is correct.
The Government’s position is coherent; it is designed to protect social rented housing, and it is backed by the people at the coalface—those who work in the housing sector. However, there is a degree of incoherence in Alex Johnstone’s position. He criticises the Government’s position on housing association grant but simultaneously calls for increases to the discount for the sale of council houses. Such a position would not only remove vitally required houses for social rent but would cut money from the public purse.
Lewis Macdonald was right when he said that the Tories have brought forward
“the right subject but ... the wrong issues”.
As Aileen McLeod said, it would have been better if we had been talking about the Welfare Reform Bill and how it will affect housing.
The member must wind up.
I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say at the end of the debate.
09:51
I will use my contribution to the debate to raise an issue that I am sure many MSPs frequently have to deal with on behalf of their constituents: that is, how local councils and other RSLs allocate houses. Before I do so, however, I want to emphasise the importance of house building and construction to the overall wellbeing of the Scottish economy.
According to the Scottish Building Federation, the Scottish construction industry workforce has been reduced by 31,000, or 15 per cent, between 2009 and 2011. Private sector construction has been particularly badly hit, with the consequence that the house-building industry has become increasingly dependent on public sector investment for new work. Those in the sector are therefore concerned by the fact that the Scottish Government’s affordable housing budget faces a cut of 30 per cent between now and 2014-15 and by the impact that that will have on jobs in the construction sector.
As my colleague Alex Johnstone did, I will mention the importance of the right-to-buy policy and the success that it has been for many people in Scotland. We should not forget the sense of pride that people gain from owning their own homes. Home ownership gives people a stake in the maintenance and improvement of their communities and neighbourhoods. It also fosters social mobility and enables people to build up capital. That is why we believe that as many Scots as possible should have the opportunity to share in the benefits of home ownership. They must include those who live in social housing, which is why we have opposed, and will continue to oppose, the restrictions on the right to buy that the Scottish Government has imposed in order to prevent people from exercising that right. None of us should forget that almost half a million households in Scotland have taken advantage of the right to buy since it was introduced in 1980.
The policy is about more than allowing people to own their homes; the Scottish Government could use the right to buy as a means to re-energise the Scottish economy. By increasing the available discounts to encourage tenants to buy their own homes, it would increase the funding that would be available for investment in building affordable homes for people on low incomes, which would also boost jobs in the construction sector. I am pleased that British Government has recognised that, but I am disappointed that the Scottish Government has not.
I will return to the main point of my contribution, which relates to the allocations policy that prevents many RSLs from giving priority to local people when allocating properties. That can often lead to frustration among applicants and anger in communities. Under the current legislation, landlords cannot take into account the length of time for which an applicant has lived in the area. They can give preference to people who reside in the area, but they have to give the same preference to other groups who meet certain criteria—for example, people who want to move into the area to take up employment. We want social landlords, including councils, to be given greater ability to take into account local connections when deciding on housing applications and transfer requests.
The situation is a particular concern in rural communities such as those in my constituency. One issue that has been raised with me time and again is the difficulty that people face when they want to apply for a house within their own community, only to find that they are so far down the housing list that it is impossible. The effect of that is to break up communities, to force young people from the communities in which they have grown up and, in the long run, to increase the average age of people who live in more remote areas, which has an obvious impact on provision of services in those communities.
I am strongly of the view that the Scottish Government should allow social landlords more scope to give extra weight to local connections in allocating houses. That would be a welcome step that would help to ensure that local people have access to local houses. We must do everything that we can to keep rural communities together and to support families who want to move house within their community. Changes to the allocation rules would benefit rural areas such as those in the Borders.
The debate is a welcome opportunity to highlight the importance of the housing sector to the Scottish economy. Even if ministers do not accept our arguments about the right to buy and the importance of the housing sector, the Scottish Government must surely acknowledge the need to help people to stay in their communities by reforming the allocations procedures.
09:55
When I read Alex Johnstone’s motion, which extols the virtues of the right to buy, I thought that we were going to be cast back in time to the 1980s. I half expected to see him wearing a leather jacket and one sparkly silver glove and doing a moonwalk across the chamber. For those who like their 1980s movies, I point out that the motion is a bit like “Back to the Future” and even has a ring of “Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back” about it.
However, there are no two ways about it—the right-to-buy policy was a disaster for low-cost homes for rent. Those are not my words, but those of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, and many more words like them have been used. Under Thatcher’s right-to-buy policy, not only did homelessness increase, but the number of households in arrears on their mortgages shot up from 30,000 in 1983 to 130,000 in the space of seven years.
Let us drag ourselves back to the present reality—an uncomfortable position for some, I am sure. There is no doubt that housing is one of the biggest concerns of many of our constituents. We are all, in Parliament, united in wanting to tackle the shortage of affordable homes, but each of us has a different role to play. I intend to make the case for Glasgow to benefit as much as possible from the Scottish Government’s near £600 million investment as part of its plans to build 30,000 affordable homes. I am delighted that, last year, 1,023 new builds were approved in the city that I have the honour of representing.
As will my colleagues in the Opposition, I will be watching the Government’s progress towards the target of building 30,000 affordable homes. That target is undoubtedly ambitious—but I argue that we have an ambitious Government.
Humza Yousaf is going on about 30,000 affordable homes. Does he remember the SNP manifesto commitment to provide 30,000 social rented houses, which is completely different?
Jim Hume is in no position to talk about that. I will come to the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition Government and the effect that it is having on the housing sector.
Just as I feel that I have a duty to hold the SNP Government to account, do not those in the blue and yellow corner feel the same obligation in relation to their bosses in London? As my colleague Aileen McLeod said, every single member has a duty to speak out against the Tory benefits reforms, which will result in a rise in homelessness in Scotland. As a result of the changes that the Tory Government has proposed, about 55,000 Scots are in danger of losing more than £500 a year, and some as much as £2,500 a year. To call those changes “reforms” is inaccurate and even disingenuous.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
The word “reform” suggests progress, useful change and making things better. The welfare changes are not reforms; they are a systematic decimation of housing benefit that will leave the vast majority of those who claim the local housing allowance much worse off. Housing organisations are queuing up to attack the Tory-Liberal coalition. Crisis’s chief executive Leslie Morphy has said:
“This cut will lead to thousands of people losing their homes across the country and Glasgow is among the worst hit. We are extremely concerned that some will end up homeless and at worst on the streets.”
Once again, the Tory-led Government is continuing its crusade on the poorest families and those on the lowest incomes while allowing billions of pounds to escape our shores through tax loopholes for the super-wealthy. It really is a tale of two Governments. In the face of a 36 per cent real-terms reduction in the capital budget from Westminster, the Scottish Government is prioritising affordable homes with the aim of delivering 30,000 of them, two thirds of which are intended to be for social rent.
You must close, please.
Scotland needs innovation and investment to boost our housing sector; Alex Johnstone’s motion cannot be supported. His cry to reinstate the policies of Thatcher serves to remind us why there are so few Tory members in the Parliament.
10:00
Last week, the cabinet secretary was again afforded the opportunity to clarify at committee that the Government has reneged on its commitment to build 6,000 social rented houses a year. Like most members, I reacted with astonishment when he described such terms as “irrelevant”. It is not “irrelevant” to establish how many social rented homes the Government plans to provide every year when 156,000 families languish on housing waiting lists. The commitment that we heard today does not mirror the one that is in the SNP manifesto.
Does Jim Hume realise that we inherited that long waiting list because, in the eight years that the Liberal Democrats were in administration with Labour, they built fewer than 4,000 houses a year on average, only about 3,000 of which were social rented houses?
The minister is getting a bit confusing and trying to create a smokescreen. [Interruption.] Does he not recall that, under the previous Administration, more than 40,000 housing association houses were built? [Interruption.]
Order.
The number was 40,000 plus houses, if the minister did not hear. He has a long way to go before he can criticise the Liberal Democrats.
A significant supply of new homes being available for social rent is vital if Scotland is to fulfil its commitment to giving every unintentionally homeless person the right to a home by 2012. The 4,300 homes that have been referred to—74 per cent of which will be social rented houses, I believe—are a welcome start, but we have a long way to go until we get the other 25,700.
When the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth introduced his draft budget and spending review to the Parliament, he said:
“I am delighted to announce that the spending review marks a decisive shift towards preventative spending in Scotland”.
He went on to say that the Government’s shift in spending priorities respected
“the parliamentary consensus that exists in that area.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2011; c 1925.]
Unfortunately, we have recently learned that the budget that was supposed to herald a “shift towards preventative spending” contains a proposal to cut the housing adaptations budget for registered social landlords from an already modest £8 million to only £6 million. I understand the financial pressures on the Government, but that significant 25 per cent cut is disproportionate and seems to contradict the Government’s commitment to preventative spending.
The nationalist members are quick to blame others for every reduction that the Scottish Government announces, but each week we hear announcements for initiatives that the Government is extending or introducing for the first time. For example, on 13 October, the Government announced the extension of funding to the open-market shared-equity scheme to the tune of more than £4.5 million. That is a worthwhile project, but it is clear that when an initiative that is to the Government’s liking requires funding, a pot of money is found somewhere.
The Government was not forced to cut 25 per cent of the housing adaptations budget: it chose to do so. Adaptations are an example of effective preventative spending. They keep thousands of Scots living in their own homes and lead to substantial savings in the long term. An independent study revealed that for every £1 that is invested in stage 3 adaptations, the Scottish Government could benefit from a total social return on investment of between £5.50 and £6.
I recently met affected housing associations, which informed me that there is a real prospect of their having to raise rents or stop providing adaptations altogether. Naturally, that will apply more pressure on the national health service, councils and the third sector.
The Government needs to admit that it got that decision wrong and reverse it. I look forward to the cabinet secretary or the minister referring to that in his closing speech.
10:04
I draw the Parliament’s attention to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee meeting of 9 November, at which the Minister for Housing and Transport almost admitted that the SNP made a mistake when it committed in its manifesto to building 6,000 social rented houses a year. We all know that that has changed to 6,000 affordable new houses a year. As we have heard repeatedly, that is a different thing from social rented houses. Why is it so hard for the Government to admit that it made a mistake and could not deliver what it originally promised in its manifesto?
As I have said in previous debates, housing is the single biggest loser in the draft budget. Still, no action has been taken to correct that. The Government will cut funding by 63 per cent over the spending review period, but the number of affordable houses that are to be built will be cut by 16 per cent. Does that mean that the quality of the houses that are built will suffer?
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I have no time to take interventions.
Will higher rents be charged in the long term to recover the cost? The registered social landlord subsidy has been cut from £77,000 in 2009 to £40,000 this year. Much higher rents are likely to be charged to cover borrowing costs. Shelter argues that, although that is a viable short to medium-term solution, extending it over a longer period would mean significant rent increases. Has the Government carried out affordability tests to gauge whether the likely increase in rents will be within hard-pressed tenants’ means? That is even before the new housing benefit reforms come in.
Less funding for new social rented homes is, of course, having a detrimental effect on the construction industry, which employs 127,000 people in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I just do not have time to take interventions.
The construction industry involves a further 63,000 self-employed people. Between April and June, 10,000 Scottish construction workers lost their jobs and a total of 30,000 jobs have been lost since March 2009.
The fall in the number of houses that are built not only reduces the supply of new housing but puts people’s jobs and livelihoods at risk. While youth unemployment is at its highest level since 1994, the Government is reducing the availability of modern apprenticeship places in construction. That is, of course, a major blow to modern apprenticeships, because between April and December 2010, 32 per cent of all modern apprenticeships were completed in the construction industry. I ask the Government again whether it thinks that it is wise to put further pressure on the construction industry and to put the economy at risk by hitting housing so hard.
It is not just housing that will be affected by the cuts—they will have far-reaching social consequences. In the past few weeks, the Government’s response to criticism of the budget has been to ask Labour members for alternatives. Has the Government considered using the £67 million in Barnett consequentials that were gained from the English council-tax freeze to boost the supply of affordable social housing?
I again urge the Government to re-examine the draft housing budget. We urgently need to breathe life into the construction industry and to get it back on its feet. If we do not, more jobs and more modern apprenticeship places will be lost and the construction industry will be deskilled.
Housing is a basic human need and the Government must give it priority.
10:08
Once again, we hear not positive contributions but yet another whinge from the Labour Party. I look forward to seeing exactly what their priorities are, if Labour members ever produce an alternative budget.
Will the member take an intervention?
Labour members have not managed to produce anything in their 20 or so minutes.
At least the Conservatives offer a position on housing for members to consider. Mr Johnstone is a reasonable man—I am disappointed that I will no longer sit beside him in the Finance Committee—so I gave his speech, and particularly his comments on the right to buy, some thought. I know that a film will come out shortly that reminisces about and romanticises Margaret Thatcher, but the Conservatives have shown that they are ahead of the curve—for the first time in a while—because they want to romanticise some of her greatest policies.
The right to buy may have had some attributes. Arguably, it transferred some resource.
Will the member give way?
I would like to make more progress.
The right to buy involved an asset transfer to people who might not otherwise have had access to capital. The problem is that the asset transfer was not from the rich to the poor but was, in many ways, from the poor to the poor. The right-to-buy discounts that were offered have been paid for through debt that was left with the remaining tenants, who have paid through their rent and, arguably, through a lack of investment.
The right to buy was not a useful tool for targeting housing investment and resource either. We know that it was taken up more in popular areas, or areas of higher demand. Rather than housing that is fit for heroes, which was the original concept of council housing, we are left with housing for the poor—in particular, the working poor.
The argument that if we were to extend the discounts many people would take up the right to buy—because they can afford it and are just waiting for the moment—is ill informed, because two thirds of people who are currently in council housing rely on housing benefit, which is also under threat, thanks to the UK Government’s Welfare Reform Bill. We would end up with a further mismatch between housing provision and what people aspire to and require.
As Jamie Hepburn said, a number of people have taken up their right to buy—I am aware of some former militant MSPs who took up their right to buy, despite their principled opposition to it. I am not, for pragmatic reasons, happy about the right to buy because it has not helped the housing situation in Scotland. The discounts were such that the debt burden increased and the impact on housing departments has been significant.
I am glad that John Lamont touched on the local connection issue. There might be more of an issue in rural areas, but there is something quite sinister about a housing policy that starts with, “You’re not from round these parts, are you?” The Conservatives have to consider carefully what they mean by local connection, because more than 50 per cent of housing applications come from homeless people. How do we establish what their local connection is? There could be just a parochial analysis of who should be allocated housing. Surely we should allocate it on the basis of need, which must be the over-riding concern when it comes to housing.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
The member is in his last minute.
Further emphasis has to be placed on investing in the innovative package that the Government has created around mixed use, mixed tenure and a range of funding packages to ensure that new homes are built. Crucially, we must invest in the houses that currently exist so that they are sustainable.
The Liberal Democrats mentioned the number of people on waiting lists. What they said is true, but we must ensure that the homeless are accommodated first. A large proportion of the 140,000 on the lists do not want to move; they are looking for a step up—it is aspirational. For some, that might be about improved housing and for others it might be about larger housing. A step backwards to enhance discounts for the right to buy, which would be disingenuous, misdirected and not affordable, would be the wrong step to take.
10:12
Boosting jobs and training in the construction industry, providing good-quality houses for sale and for rent, preventing homelessness, tackling fuel poverty, challenging antisocial behaviour, cutting carbon emissions and growing the Scottish economy are all objectives of a Scottish housing policy that I suspect every party in this chamber would say it supports. The Tories alone say that the key to achieving those objectives is to extend the right to buy and to sell more houses in the social rented sector into the private sector in order to create capital receipts to pay for new homes. As we have heard, nobody else believes that.
The key to affordable housing is not, in fact, to sell off the housing that we have, but for there to be Government investment. The need for social provision of housing comes from market failure, on which only Government can intervene on a sufficient scale to resolve it. That is not to say that Government needs to act alone. Innovative funding mechanisms and new kinds of public-private partnership can help lever in additional funds and get more houses built. If they do so, we will welcome it.
To sell more rented homes into the owner-occupied sector is not the best way to find the funds. If there is a debate on the right to buy it should be on whether we need to do more to limit the loss of homes from the social rented sector rather than on how to remove the limits that already exist.
Whatever the leveraging opportunities, it is still for Government to take a lead if market failure in housing is to be addressed. That is why we are so concerned by the cuts that the Scottish National Party has already made in the funding of affordable homes. As the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations noted in its evidence on the draft budget and spending review:
“The overall amount of funding available for new investment ... has been cut by over 30% in 2011-12 and subsidy levels were cut by around 48%. This has become unsustainable.”
I will ask Lewis Macdonald a question that I have asked before. If he believes that the housing budget should be increased, can he say by how much and from where that money should come?
I am addressing a decision by the Scottish Government to reduce the housing budget radically when it should be looking at what it can do—we have heard some suggestions this morning—to increase the level of support.
It is no coincidence that the benchmark level of subsidy per house has gone down at the same time as the overall level of funding has gone down. Over the spending review, Alex Neil proposes to cut the total funding for the housing budget by half. Those proposals have come from ministers and ministers are responsible for them. They are also responsible for the fact that the number of new houses started by housing associations fell from some 6,500 in 2009-10 to barely 4,500 in 2010-11—a cut of nearly 30 per cent—with worse to come. It is little wonder that ministers want to stop being judged by the achievement of targets for the approval of new homes and instead to start counting completions, because that will allow them to count for a second time homes that were begun before they started their current funding squeeze.
Those are the real issues for the funding of housing policy in Scotland, and the challenge is how to find the funds to enable building of houses. However, in order to deny the fact that they are making cuts, ministers are setting targets and providing subsidies in such a way that the outcomes will be more homes for mid-market rent or sale, and fewer homes for rent at a level that people on low incomes can afford. Rather than extend the right to buy, we should protect the right to rent; in that way, we really could lift people out of poverty, build more homes and grow the economy. The real housing challenge for the Government is to invest more, not less, and to concentrate support on those who need it most by honouring the promises that it made in its election manifesto.
10:16
I will use my closing remarks to say more about the strategy for tackling the problems that Alex Johnstone’s motion describes in part but, unfortunately, appears to have no solution to. His reference to “homes fit for heroes” after the second world war was at least 20 years out of date, as that initiative took off after the first world war. However, the fact that he was 20 years out of date seems to reflect the nature of the proposals in the motion.
I will also focus on action that is being taken to increase supply across all tenures. There is, rightly, an understandable emphasis on the inputs—how much money is going in. However, we must focus much more on the outputs—the number of affordable houses that are being built. That is the direction taken by Government policy. We recognise the connections between different tenures—how they can impact on one another—and the critical importance of supply to Scotland’s economic recovery and future growth.
Reference has been made to the challenges that exist in the construction industry and how much money is in the economy. It is interesting to note that more than £100 million will be removed from the economy generally as a result of the changes to the local housing allowance. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are responsible for that but made no reference to it in any of their speeches.
It is our job to make our funds work harder and deliver more affordable housing at lower cost and for greater value to the public purse. To that end, we have tried to encourage housing associations, developers and local authorities to work together to deliver housing that meets their communities’ needs; to make better use of the existing housing stock to improve choice and quality for households; and to help to deliver our ambitions for tackling climate change.
John Lamont talked about meeting local needs and allowing extra weighting for local connections. We have listened to that point and will start consultation in January on allocations. Nevertheless, I agree with Derek Mackay that we must be aware of the dangers of such an approach. A recent trend has been to ensure that veterans do not require the same number of points for local connections, as they do not establish those during their time in the service. There are difficulties with that approach, and some of the points that Derek Mackay raised are well worth bearing in mind. We will consult on the issue.
Increasing the supply of affordable homes remains our top priority. However, we could be so much further down the road in terms of the money that is available to us had successive Labour and Conservative Administrations, when tenants decided to keep their stock with the council rather than transfer it, treated both types of debt equally. Addressing homelessness and affordability issues is a vital part of our effort to build a better and fairer Scotland as we continue to regenerate our most deprived neighbourhoods.
Our target—which I have set out several times—is to deliver 30,000 affordable homes, completed by the end of the current Parliament. As one of the SNP speakers said, that is a challenging target. We understand that—it will not be an easy target to achieve. However, I am a bit puzzled by the different versions of what happened in the previous eight years.
Will the member give way?
Just a second—I am just going to mention Mr Hume. He talks about the building of 40,000 housing association houses in those eight years. However, yesterday, Patricia Ferguson told us that fewer than 32,000 were built, which is fewer than 4,000 a year, with just over 3,000 of those being for social rented accommodation. There seems to be some doubt about the numbers. Perhaps we will get some clarity and consistency on that in the future.
Will the member give way?
In a minute.
We are working towards our target, despite the cut in capital spending. It is rich to hear Mr Hume talk about a 25 per cent cut to the housing adaptations budget. Can he not refer to the 36 per cent cut in the capital budget? Does he not recognise that that produces pressure in all our budgets? He says that we have gone looking for those cuts, but that is not the case. We are having to adapt to the cuts that have been imposed by Westminster.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention from Mr Macdonald.
I offer the minister a further opportunity to address the point that I thought he was going to address when he intervened during my speech, which concerns the SNP’s manifesto commitment to build 6,000 social rented housing units a year. Does he have any intention of fulfilling that promise?
Unlike Lewis Macdonald, who did not answer my question about whether Labour was about to ditch allocation on the basis of need, I have answered that question here and in committee on a number of occasions, as has Mr Neil. It is up to Lewis Macdonald whether he chooses to listen to those answers.
Along with the commitment to more affordable housing—30,000 affordable homes over the five years of this session—I have been able to announce a doubling of investment in new affordable homes through the investment and innovation fund. Through an input of £111 million, we are producing more than £400 million of investment in our housing stock. That is the kind of result that we want to see, and it means that local authorities in Scotland are building almost as many council houses as the rest of the UK combined—5,000 over the next five years. Lewis Macdonald should compare that to his Government’s record and then think about whether he should criticise what we are doing on council house building.
Private developers are taking advantage of opportunities that are offered through the national housing trust and our support for shared equity. A great deal is being done.
As I said, one of the major elements that affect the issue that we are talking about is the housing benefit changes that have been announced. We have conducted a detailed analysis of the impacts. We know that housing stakeholders will have to deal with the reforms and that there will be major pressures on landlords. We have tried to deal with that. Accordingly, I am happy to announce today Scottish Government support for three strands of activity. This year, we will spend £100,000 through the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the housing options hubs. That money will be spent on the development and sharing of best practice across the social rented sector, adding to the capacity of those at the sharp end at a critical time.
We are taking positive action to try to deal with the cuts that have been imposed by Westminster and I would like the other parties to come forward with positive suggestions. I hope that that will happen in the next housing debate, because it has not happened today.
10:22
This has been a worthwhile and revealing debate. I will start by dealing with the things in the Conservative motion that are not in dispute. We are all agreed that the housing market is pivotal to the Scottish economy. Equally, there is no dispute about the fact that house building in Scotland has fallen to a 30-year low, nor is there any disagreement about the need to ensure that there is an adequate supply of good-quality affordable housing to buy and rent in the private and social sectors. It is a fact that the housing and regeneration budget suffers from the second-largest cut in the Scottish Government’s spending review. It has suffered a cut of £96 million—or 25 per cent in real terms, as Jim Hume pointed out in the amendment that he lodged—which is certainly of concern to at least three out of the four main parties.
The SNP’s response is very upbeat. Apparently, the pinnacle of its success is that it has built more social housing than the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition did. What the SNP cannot say is that it has built more than the Conservatives did. That record number was achieved through aspirational policies such as the right to buy, which was introduced by the Conservatives in 1980 and scrapped last year by the SNP, despite the fact that the receipts from sales under the right to buy were used to modernise houses and build new houses.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I have heard Mr Hepburn’s views on housing all too often, and he has nothing new to add this morning.
The SNP wants to take its political dogma to new heights, praising the SNP-Liberal Democrat East Lothian Council proposal to buy back former council houses. That is a deeply flawed proposal, despite what Keith Brown asserts. It is retrograde and it does not represent value for money at a time when local authorities are under severe financial pressure. Worse still, it contradicts everything that the SNP Government has told us that it wants to do nationally in terms of boosting the economy by supporting jobs in the construction industry. So there we have it: the SNP says one thing locally and another nationally.
Will the member give way?
If Mr Hume does not mind, I will not, as I am the only member who is concentrating on what our motion is about—no one else has done so.
I turn to the next part of our motion, which is on the need for legislative reform, not just to reinstate the right to buy and to address local connections, but to deal with the growing and vexing problem of homelessness. The homelessness legislation creates local tensions, because young couples and others wait patiently for accommodation—in some cases, for years—trying to build up points to improve their prospects, only to be pushed further and further down the waiting list. It is not in dispute that the ever-increasing numbers of homeless people get precedence over them.
As of March 2011, there were 156,200 applicants on local authority waiting lists. Furthermore, during 2010-11, 43 per cent of the available social lets were for the homeless. An analysis of those applicants reveals that 62 per cent of them were single people, 24 per cent of them were single parents and only 31 per cent of them were households with children. Although many of those applicants should be and are a priority for housing, many of them should not be, including those who have a record of causing chaos in their communities and who come under the banner of antisocial tenants.
Will the member take an intervention?
Perhaps later.
That brings me to the final part of the motion, which is on antisocial tenants. Antisocial behaviour has been ignored by every other party in the chamber, yet, as every elected member knows, it is a major problem in every constituency. Therefore, it defies belief that statistics on the use of antisocial behaviour orders and other antisocial behaviour remedies are no longer collated. That is because, in 2008, the SNP Government decided to develop a voluntary performance framework instead, with an annual report being made to Parliament on progress—or lack of it—towards the implementation of the promotion of positive outcomes. That represented a change in direction from enforcement and punishment of crimes to prevention and early intervention. The only problem is that, to date, there has been very little evidence of early intervention or prevention strategies delivering for people who are suffering from the blight of antisocial neighbours.
I will give one example, which, appallingly, is not uncommon. A constituent of mine has lived in her flat for 16 years. She works during the day and has an evening job. The past three and a half years have been, in her words, “a living hell”. Why? Because three and a half years ago, a 17-year-old girl was allocated a house in her block of flats, where the tenants had all looked after common property and had lived in harmony for many years. That individual does not work, so it has been party time, with loud music into the early hours and a constant stream of young people coming and going.
If that was not bad enough, a 17-year-old male, also unemployed, was allocated housing in the same block of flats. The result is that what was a well-kept council property has had its security doors ripped off and fights are commonplace, with walls being left smeared with blood. A constant stream of teenagers come and go late into the night and the early hours of the morning, urinate on the stairs and are usually so drunk that they shout through letterboxes completely unaware of which flat they are trying to access. That is a terrifying experience for my constituent, who lives alone. Sleep is impossible. The lady in question, who has never been ill or taken a day off work in her life, has had to visit the doctor, who has prescribed antidepressants such as Valium, which she does not want to take—and why should she have to? I do not need to go on. It is clear that that situation does not make any sense from a human or an economic perspective. There is absolutely no evidence of early intervention or preventative spend there.
What is evident is that the SNP Government, which has been in power for almost five years and which presides over local government and housing policy, has done nothing to ensure that tenancy agreements are enforced by local authorities so that, at the first sign of trouble, respectable, law-abiding tenants know that officials are on their side. The Government has also done nothing to ensure that allocation policies are proportionate and sensible and that they protect the elderly and other tenants.
The debate has exposed the extent to which the SNP Government’s warm words about early intervention and preventative spend are, in practice, a sham. More significantly, it has made clear the real priorities of the SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems, all of whose amendments seek to delete the motion’s reference to antisocial behaviour. Indeed, Lewis Macdonald and Jamie Hepburn dismissed the topic as being the wrong one to concentrate on. The clear and indisputable message to honest, hard-working tenants and families in Scotland who merely want to live in decent housing and in peace is that, if those parties are not prepared to make tackling antisocial tenants a priority, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party will do that. Quite simply, we are on their side.
That concludes the debate on housing.