Housing
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1603, in the name of Johann Lamont, on housing.
It is a privilege to lead this housing debate on behalf of the Labour Party. We in the Labour Party are proud of what was achieved in the first eight years in the Parliament. Much of that work was recognised as groundbreaking, but we acknowledge that there is much more to do.
It would be foolish for anyone to say that everything that we did was perfect, but it is equally foolish for the current Administration to say that there was no consensus and no agreement and that what we did was a complete disaster, because that is simply not true.
Labour's charge against the Government is that the running thread of our experience of it is that it overclaims and underdelivers, favours spin over substance and, at its very best, produces more broken promises. If the minister has been effective at anything, it has been at creating the impression of action and perhaps securing some positive headlines. However, the truth behind the headlines is a little less substantial.
The much heralded housing supply task force will not produce a report or recommendations for action; it was not involved in shaping the budget; it was not part of developing the document "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland"; and at least one member of the minister's group has expressed grave concerns about the budget allocations in relation to the social rented sector.
The Government is consulting on Scottish planning policy 3 on affordable housing at the same time that it has set up a body to consider how to unblock the planning system. The "Firm Foundations" document does not even mention Scottish planning policy 14, which looks at setting a benchmark for 25 per cent of units in a new development to be affordable housing.
The minister wants the world—or at least his own back benchers—to think that the right to buy has ended, but of course the change that he has introduced has been so narrowly defined that it will affect very few people. It undermines the balance that was struck in the modernised right to buy, which was supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which recognised the need for flexibility in regeneration communities, where ownership can make a difference, and suspension of the right to buy in hot spots where there is pressure.
Is the member saying that the Labour Party's position is that it is opposed to the abolition of the right to buy on new-build properties?
The Labour Party's position is that we recognise the strength of the right to buy and we want to see the difference that the modernised right to buy has made. That position is supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.
We are told that local authorities will build council houses, but the reality is that very few of them will be able to do that. On the other hand, the Administration is completely silent on how it will support those local authorities that have debt and voted against stock transfer on the advice of the Scottish National Party.
On low-cost home ownership, the Administration is following what has already been done, but with no sense that action is needed in areas other than economic hot spots or that there needs to be equitable access to first-time-buyer support.
On what else is the minister silent? On homelessness, he asserts that he supports the target, but he removes certainty by outsourcing all responsibility to local authorities. Given that tax cuts are this Administration's one key priority, what pressure will there be on local authorities to provide the bricks and mortar, where possible, while removing or reducing the advice, support and specialist provision that helps prevent homelessness? What will be demanded of single outcome agreements in relation to homelessness? The Administration says nothing about the needs of areas of regeneration. Indeed, Communities Scotland's expertise is to be removed from the community planning partnership table altogether. There will be no access to community regeneration funding and the wider action budget will be flat-lined—those are the very things on which community housing associations have built their credibility. The minister is silent on the Scottish housing quality standard when community organisations are telling us that they will have to deliver it by increasing rents.
Then there are the two big ideas of this Administration. Its first target is, "We will build more houses than the last lot did." Secondly, it claims that it will drive efficiencies into the affordable housing market by opening it to competition. If there is a spine on the Government back benches, it should prepare to feel a shiver down it now. On 28 November 2007, the minister said:
"My intention is not to be nice to one particular part of the sector or another; it is to ensure that we deliver more homes for people. That is the fundamental point. … That is why we have suggested some changes and why I think that competition is important. I think that who eventually owns and manages properties is of less importance than the fact that we have them."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 November 2007; c 300.]
That flies in the face of every lesson of housing history in Scotland. Given that we know that community ownership has delivered changes in our communities, it is not credible to say that ownership does not matter.
At a time of turbulence in the housing market and a credit squeeze, is it wise for the Administration to be vague on the proportion of houses for social rent? Given that the Administration's own figures show that construction inflation has increased by 35 per cent, is it credible to pretend that its target of building 35,000 houses a year by the middle of the next decade is achievable?
The challenge for SNP back benchers is to confront their front bench's agenda. The Administration has a strategy on efficiencies—who could be against that—but it is predicated on higher rents, and on the presumptions that bigger is better, that competition delivers change and that building houses is the same as having a housing strategy. We know from experience that that is not the case. We know that the Administration is undermining community-controlled housing associations. Would it not be an irony if the legacy of the SNP was to lure cross-border raids from big, asset-rich, English housing associations to take over the work that local housing organisations have done? History shows that the disastrous consequence of national building programmes that distribute funding from the centre with no priority for wider action is houses that no one wants to live in and which we have to demolish. The minister has to understand that asserting his love of the housing association and co-operative movement is not the same as delivering for it and that asserting his commitment on homelessness is not the same as delivering on it.
I turn finally to the first-time buyers grant of £2,000—the great promise. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, is non-committal on it and would like us to be her alibi for not delivering it. If she believes in it, she should argue for it. If she does not, she should say why not. The First Minister said:
"The SNP is going to work through all of its manifesto commitments over the four-year term of this Administration."—[Official Report, 6 September 2007; c 1493.]
The Administration should stop dodging and tell us whether the first-time buyers grant of £2,000 is a broken promise, a promise yet to come or a cynical election promise made with the collective fingers of the SNP firmly crossed behind their backs. We deserve to know. That is why the motion includes a demand for a statement.
The fundamental charge against the Administration is that it spins, rather than recognises, our history. It should come clean, understand that a housing strategy is about more than building houses and begin to talk about targets for social renting, the needs of the homeless and the role of community organisations as partners in change.
I move,
That the Parliament regrets the SNP government's lack of a coherent housing strategy; notes that the Housing Supply Task Force has no timetable or remit to produce recommendations for action; notes in particular the absence of robust evidence on funding and efficiencies in delivering its housing targets; further notes concerns about the impact of a single regional developer model, as outlined in the Firm Foundations consultation, on community-controlled housing associations and housing co-operatives; agrees that the Scottish Government should make a statement to the Parliament as soon as possible, clarifying its plans for the clear SNP manifesto commitment on a £2,000 first-time buyers' grant, and urges the Scottish Government to act to secure long-term improvements in housing rather than the short-term appearance of change.
I thank Johann Lamont for that mature and reasoned argument. It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to accuse us of having low ambitions for housing, given that, over the last three years of its Administration, it built 0, 0 and 6 council houses. I think that we can beat its record on council house building without any trouble at all.
I welcome a debate on housing. We brought a housing debate within a few weeks of coming to power and we see housing as a major priority for the Government. Our top priority is of course the creation of a successful country with opportunities for all Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth.
Perhaps I should remind Parliament where we found ourselves last May. For a number of years, property prices had been rising at an alarming rate, which was making it difficult for many people to become home owners. Average house prices had risen by 72 per cent in only four years, while the increase in house building under the previous Administration was of only 2 per cent over the same period. Not enough houses were being built. Put simply, far too many people in Scotland were finding it difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy the basic aspiration of having a decent home that they could afford in a place where they wanted to live.
It was clear that we had been left a legacy of housing problems that had built up over many years of neglect. In the months since May, the Government has made it clear that increasing the housing supply in all tenures—I make no apology for including all tenures—is key to meeting our nation's housing needs. We want a significant increase in house building throughout the country that creates vibrant, mixed, environmentally sustainable communities.
In "Firm Foundations", we quantified our house-building aspirations by proposing that national building rates should be increased to at least 35,000 each year by the middle of the next decade. That is not tinkering with policy but a major shift in what we seek from our house-building industry.
The proposal aims to change totally current approaches to development. Our ambition has been widely welcomed. Earlier this month, Building magazine reported:
"since the SNP seized power, Scotland's construction industry has been bursting with optimism … the feeling from developers and house-builders in Scotland is palpably different to that in England."
We need to nurture that confidence and draw on it to address the supply crisis in which we find ourselves.
"Firm Foundations" sets out the framework in which we have pressed forward on several fronts in recent months. To assist first-time buyers more, we launched a £24 million funding package for our open-market shared equity pilot in property hot spots.
On 21 January, the minister confirmed that the Government intended to roll out the pilot to six areas. Is that the same pilot roll-out as Rhona Brankin announced in March 2007, when she was the Minister for Communities?
I am happy to confirm that the roll-out is not the same, because the Lothians pilot on which it was to be based was flawed in several ways. The Lothians pilot fuelled aspiration and did not meet need. We changed the programme before we rolled it out to hot spots, so it is not the same.
Under the umbrella of our new low-cost initiative for first-time buyers, the pilot will enable hundreds of first-time buyers to take the first step towards home ownership when that is the right move for them. By helping tenants of housing associations and local authorities to achieve home ownership, the pilot can help to relieve pressure on the stretched rented sector.
To respond to the housing pressures in rural areas, we announced just last month that we will establish a scheme to enable rural landowners to apply for housing grants to help them to build new affordable homes on their land. The £5 million that we will direct to that pilot scheme could improve the sustainability of some of our more fragile rural communities.
The housing supply task force that we created last summer, and which I chair, represents a fresh approach to tackling obstacles, such as land supply and planning issues, that have hampered the delivery of sufficient housing. Far from lacking a remit or an inclination to make a difference, as the Labour Party's motion implies, the task force has made steady progress over the winter, as a glance at the papers on its web pages confirms.
The task force brings together a diverse range of housing supply interests and has dug into the detail of what affects housing delivery around the country. The task force's focus is—rightly—on delivery rather than report writing and I am determined that, through its actions, it will begin to unpick obstacles that have got in the way of development. We will issue a public statement next month about what we have learned from our work so far and how we propose to proceed in the months ahead.
Finally, I will deal with investment in our social housing stock. We have to tackle our predecessors' failure to secure value for public investment in social housing. It has been clear for years that demand for social housing far exceeds supply and that the cost to the public purse of delivering new stock is growing unsustainably. Others might have been content to ignore those hard facts, but we are not, because doing nothing denies families the homes that they desperately need.
We are determined to obtain much better value for our investment and—crucially—to do so while retaining the strengths and benefits of Scotland's unique mix of housing associations, including community-controlled associations and co-operatives. To achieve that, we propose to identify through a competitive process a few lead developers to undertake all new social housing developments in a given area over a number of years.
The developers will build not simply for themselves, but to meet the need of other associations—including community-controlled associations and co-operatives—to acquire new stock. They will build the stock, but community associations will own and manage it. We will save money by proceeding in that way. A key criterion for a successful lead developer will be its ability to show how it would meet local associations' requirements on cost, design and standards—not least in regeneration, rural or island areas.
We have been quick to make our proposals and have already begun to take actions that can make a difference to the lives of people who have been let down by the housing system and the previous Administration.
I move amendment S3M-1603.3, to leave out from "the SNP government's" to end and insert:
"the failure of the Labour and Liberal Democrat administration to tackle the chronic shortages of housing; notes the Scottish Government's commitment to increase the rate of house building across all tenures from 25,000 to at least 35,000 houses per year by the middle of the next decade; welcomes the fact that the Housing Supply Task Force has brought together stakeholders from all sections of the housing sector to tackle blockages in the housing system; recognises that it is important to achieve value for money in, and increase the provision of, social rented housing while retaining the benefits of community-based provision and encourages the Scottish Government to continue to work with social housing providers to achieve that goal; further recognises the efforts of the Scottish Government to work together with housing associations, local authorities and the private sector to tackle the legacy of housing shortages; endorses the Scottish Government's commitment to the 2012 target on homelessness, and calls on the Scottish Government to make a statement on Firm Foundations by the summer recess."
I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing policy. The minister spoke of optimism, but that is no substitute for bricks and mortar. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Like all members, I am only too aware from my mailbag of the massive and increasing problem of the lack of affordable housing throughout Scotland. As politicians, it is our duty to take the lead in offering practical and realistic solutions, because the situation is ruining many people's lives.
As the Scottish Conservative party's communities spokesman, I have had the pleasure of meeting a wide cross-section of housing interest groups and discussing their concerns and ideas. One issue that arises time and again is the lack of dynamism in our planning system, which remains cumbersome and slow, despite recent reforms that were supposed to improve it.
Just the other day, one housing expert told me that in Edinburgh alone, about 5,000 affordable housing units that have been granted permission are stuck in the planning and delivery pipeline. That situation is crazy, but it is—sadly—replicated throughout the country. Do ministers recognise the widespread concern about the planning system's role in the lack of delivery of affordable housing? If so, what action will they take to respond? Is the housing supply task force considering that? In the past, ministers have launched ambitious targets for the number of affordable housing units that they want to be delivered each year, but a gap has existed between the rhetoric and the delivery of new affordable houses. Planning is a major factor in that.
As for affordable housing in rural areas, like the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, I welcomed the Government's recent announcement of grants for rural homes for rent. The Government is recognising what the Scottish Conservatives have long argued—that the private sector has a key role to play in providing affordable homes for rent in rural areas and especially in remote rural areas. I hope that that is just the beginning of positive co-operation between the Government and the independent housing sector and that ministers will expand the scheme after the pilot study, if it is assessed to be successful and to provide value for money. I am also interested to hear whether ministers plan to expand the rural empty properties grant scheme, which has successfully brought back into use redundant and disused properties on many estates.
I am disappointed that the SNP wants to restrict a tenant's right to buy the home in which they live. We believe that everyone should be able to buy their home if they wish to, so we want to protect the right to buy for the next generation of home owners. That is why we lodged our amendment.
Will the minister confirm that the Government is abandoning its first-time buyers grant? According to The Sunday Times, of the 400 respondents to the "Firm Foundations" consultation, 90 per cent opposed the grant, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Homes for Scotland, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Cala Homes. Like the Scottish Conservatives, they all realise that, although the grant is well-intentioned, it would add to house price inflation and would help nobody. The Conservatives' policy of removing stamp duty on houses with a value of up to £250,000 for first-time buyers would help such buyers much more. After the next general election, we expect that policy to take effect all over the United Kingdom.
The lack of affordable housing is one of the major domestic issues that faces modern Scotland and it must be addressed. Many responses to the "Firm Foundations" consultation offer insight into the problems that prevent the delivery of affordable housing as well as welcome new ideas and solutions. I look forward to the Government's providing a definitive response to the consultation.
I move amendment S3M-1603.1, to insert at end:
"further believes that the right to buy should not be further restricted, and calls on the Scottish Government to encourage councils to bring forward plans for housing stock transfer to take advantage of the debt write-off which is available from HM Treasury and promote new investment as a result."
The Liberal Democrats welcome the motion that Johann Lamont has lodged on behalf of the Labour group, as it covers many of the shortcomings of the SNP Government and some of the fundamental flaws in its policies. However, the Liberal Democrat group has lodged an amendment in my name that will add to the Labour motion, highlighting further flaws in the Government's thinking on housing provision in Scotland.
The Liberal Democrats believe that housing is a basic human right and that we must build environmentally sustainable homes, producing cleaner, safer communities. The Government must not only invest in social housing but help to meet the ambitions of individuals who want to get on to the housing ladder. Additional spending on affordable housing supply is, at best, less than 20 per cent of what is needed. The housing budget will be cut by 6 per cent in real terms in year one, before recovering in later years.
The SNP is clearly looking to abandon its pre-election pledge to give first-time buyers a £2,000 grant to buy their home. Although we are glad that it intends to drop that ill-conceived policy, it was a reckless and populist pledge to make in the first place. It is set to be another SNP broken promise, much like the promise to dump student debt. The Chartered Institute of Housing is quite right to say that the funding would be better utilised through the local improvement finance trust programme.
Much of Labour's motion relates to the Government's "Firm Foundations" document. That is perfectly reasonable, given that consultation on "Firm Foundations" closed recently and that the Government is due to give its findings at some, as yet undetermined, point in the future. "Firm Foundations" sets out the Government's intentions in a number of areas, but in many cases those intentions are so vague as to be almost useless. Recently, when I asked the Government how many affordable homes will be built between 2008 and 2011, Stewart Maxwell replied that he
"expects that the … budget… will deliver more new affordable homes … than planned for 2005-08."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 4 March 2008; S3W-9149.]
How helpful of the minister to give such a vague response on this crucial issue. No wonder people are upset about the lack of Government support to tackle Scotland's housing crisis.
The Government is seeking to increase the rate of new housing supply in Scotland to at least 35,000 a year by the middle of the next decade. That sounds laudable, but the Government has not made any attempt to break down, even roughly, how many of those homes will be provided in the private sector, how many will be provided in the public sector, how many will be for rent or how many will be for part or full ownership. Shelter Scotland estimates that, far from meeting its target of 30,000 affordable rented homes, the output in the three-year period that is proposed by the Government will be around 21,500. That is barely two thirds of what Shelter Scotland regards as adequate—just adequate—to address Scotland's homelessness crisis. Liberal Democrats are concerned that the current housing budget will fail to provide enough affordable homes to rent in the run-up to the 2012 deadline for abolishing all unintentional homelessness in Scotland.
The problem affects not only homeless people but many people on the general housing lists who need accommodation for the first time, as they cannot afford to buy, or larger accommodation as their families grow. They are further disadvantaged by the Government's inability to provide enough sustainable housing to meet people's needs. That is why today the Liberal Democrats have lodged an amendment calling on the Government to get serious about tackling the housing crisis and to provide much more than a 9 per cent real-terms increase in funding for affordable homes in Scotland, covering both the private and rented sectors. We hope that the amendment will receive support across the chamber, to show that at least some of us are determined to see real and lasting improvements in our social housing sector.
I move amendment S3M-1603.2, to insert after "housing targets":
"believes that the Scottish Government's provision of a real terms increase of 9% in affordable housing over the period of the comprehensive spending review falls far short of what is needed to address the affordable housing shortage."
It gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of today's Labour motion. As a number of speakers have indicated, housing is a major issue in Scotland. That was brought home to me at my surgery on Monday night, when a young woman came in with a housing issue. She felt intimidated by antisocial behaviour and was staying in an overcrowded house. All that she wanted was a quality house, in a safe environment, in which to stay. Providing that is the challenge that we all face.
I was interested to note that the minister said that housing is a priority, but I believe that the SNP has let the housing sector down by reneging on its pledge to provide grants to first-time buyers, by a lack of detail on funding and by cutting the housing supply budget by 6 per cent in real terms. "Firm Foundations" does not give enough priority to communities. It talks up the regional developer model—a kind of Tescoisation of housing policy—and is insufficiently committed to community-based housing organisations. An excellent example of such organisations is the West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative in my constituency. I remember campaigning in the area in the 1980s, when the lifts did not work, the housing quality was poor and the people whom one met at the door did not match up with those on the electoral register. However, in 1989 a housing co-op was formed. With the commitment of the community, there has been a real turnaround in the area, with stability and good-quality housing. That shows what can be done by co-ops and community-based housing organisations. Those models should be given priority over the regional developer model.
The Government's policy is to identify savings and efficiencies that drive up investment and produce greater numbers of houses, but those efficiencies have not been quantified. I suggest that many of them will take at least three years to kick in. Some of the new arrangements will not be in place until 2009, but the Government has budgeted for them to start to kick in in 2008. We are still waiting to hear the detail of how the reorganisation of Communities Scotland will take place. That undermines the housing target that the SNP has set—it is illogical, as the numbers do not add up.
I caution against seeking economies of scale. West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative has a concierge service for residents who run into difficulties, with a response time of 40 seconds. In larger local authorities, the response time is 40 minutes. The West Whitlawburn initiative has saved four lives in recent years. Cutting it would not be an efficiency saving—it would cost lives.
I also caution against moving housing association grant funding away from community-based organisations. That will put pressure on rents, which will affect poorer tenants. It will also impact on the ability of organisations to meet the Scottish housing quality standard.
We all agree that housing is a major issue that affects many lives and communities. It is clear that the SNP's credibility has been called into question in the area. We need to involve communities and to ensure that efficiencies are not made into cuts. The document is called "Firm Foundations", but perhaps it should be called "Shifting Sands". It is time to get this matter right and to produce a housing policy that delivers for Scotland's communities.
It is accepted wisdom that, when initiating a debate, members should ensure that, whatever the subject chosen, they do not needlessly leave themselves open to criticism. If the Labour Party had asked me for advice, I would have strongly advised Johann Lamont not to debate housing today, because—how can I put it—it is not Labour's strongest hand of cards.
The first line of Labour's motion reads:
"the Parliament regrets the SNP government's lack of a coherent housing strategy".
I respectfully suggest to Labour members that they would not recognise a coherent housing strategy if it stared them in the face. The one thing that the Labour Party never had during 10 years in government was a housing policy, never mind a coherent one.
I am not the only person who thinks so. As I was reading The Herald newspaper in August last year, I choked on my tea when I read:
"Wendy Alexander has been taken aback at the strength of feeling about affordable housing, in her tour of Scotland listening to Labour Party activists. … the leader-elect said the housing issue had surprised her most in feedback from the party, and that Scotland had fallen behind England in finding solutions to the housing crisis."
Taken aback? Wendy Alexander should have been taken apart by Labour activists. She was the minister responsible for transferring Glasgow's housing stock to the Glasgow Housing Association, making promises to tenants that she knew she would not keep.
To be fair to Wendy Alexander, she was talking about the crisis in the previous five years in which the number of home starts rose by 7 per cent, whereas it rose by 18 per cent in England. Five years before last August, Wendy Alexander was not a housing minister, but Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran were. They are the members who have to take part in today's debate for the Labour Party in the knowledge that Wendy Alexander has criticised them for their lack of any kind of policy.
Between 1997 and 2007, the Labour-led Administration—the Liberals are not off the hook on this one, either—built an average of 4,300 homes a year in the social rented sector, despite a 1999 manifesto pledge to build 6,000 houses a year. The Labour-Liberal Executive built fewer houses in each year between 1997 and 2007 than the Tories did in 1995. That is why the current Government inherited a housing crisis, albeit one that it will tackle.
I, too, recollect past times, Tricia Marwick. I remember your being on a television programme with Rhona Brankin, my successor as housing minister, and saying that the answer was the first-time buyers grant. Do you still believe that?
I am sorry, I did not understand—
Let me make it absolutely clear. You were on BBC television some years ago—
No, I was not.
I apologise. Tricia Marwick said on television that the answer to Scotland's housing problem was the first-time buyers grant. Is that still her position?
I do not remember the programme, but the first-time buyers grant in isolation has never been the solution to Scotland's housing problem. We need a coherent housing strategy. The minister lays down the foundations for just such a policy in "Firm Foundations".
Shelter Scotland, which has been critical of the Government, not least about the amount of money given to housing, recognises and is encouraged by the priority that the Scottish Government has given to housing. The housing supply task force, coupled with an explicit commitment to increase general housing supply by 2015, is the clearest recognition for decades that housing production has lagged behind the need to replace housing stock.
The SNP Government will take no lectures from the party that now finds itself in opposition; that party was fortunate enough to be in government for 10 years, during which it did not tackle the Scottish housing crisis but added to it. The Labour Party should judge the SNP Government after 10 years, not 10 months—we will transform Scottish housing in the way that it should have been transformed decades ago.
As we have heard, there is no doubt that the shortage of affordable housing is one of the greatest problems facing Scotland in the immediate future. The Government will have to address not only the perennial problem of the lack of affordable housing, but the fallout from the current worldwide financial crisis.
The crisis will not affect city workers alone; it will affect everyone. The credit crunch means that borrowing will become more costly, for a mortgage, a loan or a credit card. It will be tougher to get a mortgage and tougher to get it at a reasonable price. That is why it is vital—as the motion says—that the Government comes up with a coherent and effective housing strategy. I am not sure why the previous Executive did not have such a strategy. Perhaps it did, but insofar as it effected any real change in the Highlands, there might as well have been no strategy at all.
For many consecutive years, the housing problem in the Highlands has only worsened. Many thousands of houses have been built, only to be snapped up by speculators who made a profit before the developments were complete. Government and local authorities must take a far more aggressive approach to the supply of affordable social housing.
There are three main causes of the shortage of affordable housing in the Highlands. The first is the one that we hear about regularly—lack of funding. Government needs to provide increased funding to councils and housing associations to overcome the problem. There is no doubt that we need more council housing. The second cause is the sale of existing council housing stock. We need to consider seriously a permanent extension to ending the right to buy in areas where there is a severe shortage of housing for rent. The third problem is the lack of land for building new, affordable housing. To address that, all public bodies need to look at their land holdings and release land that is suitable for affordable housing for use by housing associations or councils. Huge areas of land in Scotland are held by public bodies. Much of it lies unused, but it could be used to solve the problem of affordable housing supply in Scotland.
We require to address the delays and bureaucracy in the planning system. That would encourage developers to meet the increasing demand for social housing for rent. If we are serious about housing Scotland's homeless, we must take action now.
I am advised that there are in excess of 300 houses lying empty at Kinloss in the Moray constituency—in fact, the actual number is 354. Those houses are surplus to the needs of the Royal Air Force base at Kinloss and are for sale as a block. That seems an ideal opportunity for the Government and the local authority to join forces to acquire and manage the properties. There are 1,300 homeless applications on the Moray Council list. If we achieve nothing else today, we should agree to instruct the Scottish Government to negotiate with the Ministry of Defence and Moray Council to bring those houses into productive use.
I will concentrate on the Glasgow Housing Association, which is a hangover gift from the previous Administration and continues to be an albatross round the necks of local housing associations and tenants in Glasgow, as well as a salutary lesson in avoiding mass housing stock transfer for all those other areas of Scotland in which the same plan has been attempted or even suggested.
Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont is a wee bit early yet.
The GHA is a failing organisation. In recent months, the finance director, the development director, the senior housing manager and middle-ranking mangers have all gone. Those people are housing professionals who joined the flagship Labour housing project because they believed that eventually—they did not think that it would take for ever—it would deliver to the local housing associations and allow local people to have control over their housing. It is a flagship Labour housing project whose flag is now fluttering at half mast.
I hear what the member says about the GHA. Does he acknowledge that the model that is now being promoted by the GHA, as the lead developer for Glasgow, should caution us against the notion that a lead developer can create change? Perhaps the member will advise his minister of the problem of diseconomies of scale.
I will let Johann Lamont advise the minister and see what he takes from her advice.
The GHA was established by the Labour Party under Wendy Alexander, and successive Labour housing ministers kept it running as an organisation with no desire to deliver on its establishment promise to ensure that using local housing associations would be the way forward.
The SNP Government has begun the second-stage transfer process that will allow housing associations to benefit from the GHA's establishment, as was proposed but never delivered by the previous Administration, which had a record of proposing but never delivering and of breaking many promises from previous manifestos.
However, analysis of the GHA business plan for this year has shown that it has no intention to transfer any further properties after those in the original 16 transfer proposals. That is a result of the centralised and unrepresentative set-up that was established under Labour, which is now trying to avoid responsibility for its part in the whole shabby deal. Some 20-plus community-controlled housing associations in Glasgow and the west of Scotland have, only now, under the SNP Government, received guidance from the GHA to allow them to finalise their second-stage transfer submissions. However, those associations have felt that it is incumbent on them to commission a report on the GHA valuation process and its fairness or otherwise. This, they say, is because Labour set up the GHA as an organisation that does not even have a duty to respond to freedom of information requests.
Add to all that the grossly unfair treatment that has been suffered by GHA-factored owner-occupiers, some of whom have been landed with bills of £6,000 to £8,000 for upgrading work on their homes, which must be paid within 12 months or they will face court action. That is why I and other SNP MSPs are asking the Minister for Communities and Sport to order an independent financial review by Audit Scotland of a prime example of Labour's failed housing policy in action.
In the first two sessions of the Scottish Parliament, we improved tenants' rights, the standard and quality of our homes, the regulation to protect tenants and the legislation to protect home owners. We also completely modernised the right to buy and introduced standards and targets to support homeless people back into housing for the long term. We tackled all those issues as a priority. We introduced legislation that recognised that all housing providers have a part to play in delivering affordable and quality housing and that communities and tenants must be involved fully in all that is done.
Here we are, almost one year into the third session of the Scottish Parliament and almost one year since the SNP minority Government came to power, and what have we heard from it on housing? Precious little. The Government has published a consultation document, in which it announced its intentions on cherry-picked issues. The Government says that it has abolished the right to buy, but that is not true. The SNP said in its manifesto that it would give first-time buyers £2,000—incidentally, that was about the only housing policy in its manifesto. Where is the £2,000? I can tell the people who were persuaded that it would be on offer that that was not true and that the SNP is not to be trusted on housing, just as it is not to be trusted on student debt write-off and on delivering the other promises in its manifesto.
The "Firm Foundations" consultation ended on 25 January. Two months later, we are still waiting for the response. The Government amendment calls for a statement to the Parliament on the issue by the summer recess. I know that the First Minister has downgraded housing and that the Minister for Communities and Sport does not have a voice in the Cabinet, but that is not good enough. We deserve to have a debate on the Government's intentions sooner rather than later. We need debate, action, hard targets and a strategy for delivery. We do not need words or the short-term appearance of change that the minister would like us to believe in. We need more houses, particularly more rented houses.
The "Firm Foundations" consultation document states that the Government does not
"intend to repeat the mistakes of the past with large, single-tenure housing estates, poorly connected to jobs and services or dependent on the private car for those connections and designed in a way that does not foster a sense of identity or community."
Everybody would sign up to that. However, that statement contradicts directly the SNP's preference for a single regional developer model. The argument that a single developer would reduce cost does not add up. As members have said, creating an effective monopoly will lead to rent increases, coupled with poor investment in maintenance and care, and a lack of involvement of tenants or the communities that we seek to build.
Where is the SNP support for low-cost home ownership in areas that are not deemed economic hotspots? It is non-existent. The reality of the SNP housing policy is an empty sheet of paper. We must have action. I call on members to support the Labour motion.
It would be beneficial to consider the past housing situation and what we hope to and should achieve in the future. To do that, I will comment on the Labour motion and the amendments. The Labour motion, in the name of Johann Lamont, states:
"the Housing Supply Task Force has no timetable or remit to produce recommendations for action".
If Johann Lamont had read the task force's minutes, she would see that it has agreed
"To identify and tackle impediments to increasing the supply of housing across all tenures—all with a view to ensuring that people across Scotland have the opportunity to access suitable housing that meets their needs and demands."
That is a pretty sensible approach.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but not now.
The task force should be allowed to get on with its work and the Labour Party should stop interfering, as it had no task force and no idea whatever about housing.
What?
Cathie Craigie can shout, but that is true.
I will reiterate a point that Tricia Marwick made, as we should not forget it. In each of the eight years when Labour and Lib Dems were in power in a so-called Government, they built fewer homes than the Tories did in 1995. Labour's manifesto pledge was to build 6,000 houses a year, but it did not even reach that. Labour members sometimes have very selective memories—they do not want to think about what they did not do, rather than what they did.
The Labour motion refers to community-controlled housing associations, which is a real novelty. As Bill Kidd mentioned, in Glasgow, Labour gave us the GHA, an idea that was thought up by Wendy Alexander, who is now the party's leader. The GHA is not accountable to anyone, but Labour members proudly say that their party introduced community housing. That is unbelievable—they should hang their heads in shame over what they have done to the people of Glasgow. As my colleague Bill Kidd said, tenants, owner-occupiers and even local housing associations are all suffering because of the Labour plans for the GHA.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I am sorry. I do not have much time.
Johann Lamont talked about being proud. There is nothing to be proud of in visiting the GHA on the people of Glasgow. Recently, I read a local newspaper in Glasgow in which Bill Aitken of the Tory party demanded an investigation into the GHA. Robert Brown of the Lib Dems has demanded such an investigation. Those people supported the GHA.
In a previous debate, Labour lodged an amendment that called for Audit Scotland to examine the GHA's improvement programme for owners. Why did the SNP, including the member, vote against that amendment?
Johann, it is a bit late to be coming in through the back door.
Ms White, the member's name is Johann Lamont.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Johann Lamont has a cheek coming in the back door, when she set up the GHA, knowing full well that it would cause trouble. She should not lecture me on the GHA, which she set up.
The Tory amendment mentions extending the right to buy. The right-to-buy legislation is one of the worst pieces of legislation. It decimated the social rented sector, so I certainly do not support that part of the Tory amendment. To give credit where it is due, Labour tried to address the issue with measures such as that on pressured areas. However, the SNP Government has abolished the right to buy—yes, Cathie Craigie, abolished it—for all new-build social rented housing. We have taken action on the issue, when Labour failed to do so.
We should remember that, in three years under a Labour-Lib Dem Government, local housing organisations and local authorities built 12 houses. Members of those parties should hang their heads in shame over that. The SNP Government is determined to improve housing for the people of Scotland and, as a member of the SNP, I will ensure that that happens.
We move to the winding-up speeches.
It is not uncommon for Government ministers to make extensive use of quotations from important and knowledgeable sources to form the basis of their speeches. However, rarely in my nine years in the Parliament have I heard a minister found their speech entirely on a quotation from Building magazine.
The debate is not about questioning the right or the willingness of the SNP Government to have in its manifesto a range of important promises. The important issue—I hope that Stewart Maxwell will address it in his closing remarks, as he did not do so in his opening remarks—is that, now that the SNP has been in government for a year, it must start telling us how it will convert its manifesto promises into positive action. A year on from the election, the SNP is liable to be held to account and must do better than it has done so far in the debate to explain its position on housing. The debate is not about the Government's top-line or headline figures; it is about the positive steps that it is taking to give effect to what it has said.
The Labour motion mentions the lack of targets for the work of the housing supply task force. Sandra White read out a quotation from the minutes of a meeting of the task force but, with all due respect to Sandra White, what she read out was no more than a remit. No targets were set. All that we have are the headline figures. We still do not have a coherent idea of what the task force will say.
The member talks about targets. What housing targets did the Labour-Liberal Executive set in 1999? Why did it spectacularly fail to meet any of those targets, never mind actually build houses?
The debate is on the member's Government, its targets and what it is delivering. That is the position, and I make no apology for it.
The member is adopting the year zero approach.
No, we are not.
"Firm Foundations" raises an interesting point that was developed by Bill Kidd. He made much of what is wrong with the Glasgow Housing Association, but his party's document appears to emasculate community associations through its adoption of the single regional model. [Interruption.] That is what the document says—it is there in black and white. There is a complete dichotomy between the SNP's position on the GHA and what "Firm Foundations" says, the effect of which will be to emasculate community associations. That is what the adoption of a single regional model will result in.
The fundamental issue is that the Government, to meet its ambitions, must provide the means to produce the ends. That is where the Liberal Democrat amendment comes in, in which we say to the Government that its provision for affordable housing, in the budget for which there will be a real-terms increase of only 9 per cent over the period of the comprehensive spending review, falls far short of what is needed to address the affordable housing shortage. That is not just our view—it is the view of the majority of the major housing organisations, which have been deeply critical of the Government's allocation to affordable housing.
The motion and the Liberal Democrat amendment make perfectly legitimate and correct criticisms of the Government's failure to translate its vaunted ambition into a statement of how, one year into government, the SNP will give effect to its intentions. I call on the Parliament to support the motion and our amendment.
The title of the Government's consultation document, "Firm Foundations", is a misnomer, because the SNP's housing policies are built on some extremely shaky foundations.
First, there is the manifesto promise to introduce a £2,000 first-time buyers grant, which we know will never be fulfilled. Secondly, the SNP is determined to restrict further the right to buy, even though that flagship policy of the most recent Conservative Government has done more than any other policy to make housing affordable for hundreds of thousands of our fellow Scots. Over the past 27 years, some 480,000 households have taken advantage of the right to buy and more than £6 billion has been raised, which has been reinvested in new stock and the improvement of existing stock. Finally, the SNP's policies are built on the shaky foundation of its failure to accept—because of its unwillingness to encourage housing stock transfers—the hundreds of millions of pounds that are on offer from the Treasury in the form of debt write-off to facilitate new investment in affordable and social housing.
The Government's plan to end the right to buy for tenants of new social housing is part of a strategy that is designed to encourage councils to build homes for rent. It is a fair criticism of the previous Executive that its record in that respect was truly dismal. Over the nine full years from 1998 to 2006, fewer than 500 council houses were built in Scotland. By contrast, in the nine years from 1989 to 1997—which were years of Conservative Government—more than 10,000 houses were built by councils. Whereas 500 council houses were built under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, 10,000 of them were built under the Conservatives.
However, let us not dwell on our past achievements, however glorious they may be. Let us look ahead to the aspirations of the SNP Government. What does "Firm Foundations" tell us? On page 42, it tells us that the SNP wants to build between 500 and 600 council houses a year. In other words, over the next nine years, it aspires to build around 5,000 homes—which, of course, is only half the number of council houses that were built in the equivalent period under the Conservative Government. Although it comes as no surprise to me that an SNP Government aspires to do only half as well as a Conservative Government, I thought that it might have set its aspirations a little bit higher.
Given that in opposition the SNP did its best to undermine the previous Executive's policy of housing stock transfer, it is perhaps no surprise that it should adopt what is best characterised as a passive approach to the subject now that it is in government. Frankly, the SNP should be ashamed of itself because, in many areas, by encouraging tenants to vote no, they have set back the improvement of our housing stock by years.
Be that as it may, we are where we are. The fact that a transfer to a single all-Edinburgh housing association of the totality of the City of Edinburgh Council's housing stock was narrowly rejected a few years ago does not preclude the transfer of homes in particular estates to small community-based housing associations and the partial debt write-offs that would follow. The SNP is in government and it runs the City of Edinburgh Council in partnership with the Lib Dems, so it can introduce new proposals that will lead to the write-off of Edinburgh's housing debt and new investment in the city.
All that the SNP has to do is to accept the Treasury's rules for debt write-off. That might be a bitter pill for the SNP to swallow, but it is medicine that must be taken. It ill becomes a Government that likes to complain about tight financial settlements from the Treasury to turn its back on the hundreds of millions of pounds that are on offer to improve the housing stock in this city, in Highland, in Stirling, in Renfrew and all over Scotland. When it comes to housing, the Government's protests about financial stringency ring very hollow indeed. For all those reasons, I urge the Parliament to support our amendment to the Labour motion.
As I said in my opening speech, I welcome the opportunity to remind members of the failing housing system that was bequeathed to this Government and to summarise what we are doing to create a system that meets Scotland's housing needs.
In the few minutes that are available to me, I will try to cover some of the points that members have raised. As usual, Johann Lamont had nothing much to say and began with a complete misrepresentation of the Government's position. I intervened on her to ask her directly whether Labour supported the abolition of the right to buy on new-build property, but she did not answer. She was asked about the debacle of the transfer of stock to the GHA, but again she did not answer.
The numbers 51, 53, 0, 0 and 6 represent Labour's record on council house building during five years of the previous Administration, which is nothing to be proud of. As Tricia Marwick said, Labour members should hang their heads in shame rather than hold housing debates, because they are on more than shaky ground. The SNP is not on the shifting sands that Mr Kelly mentioned; Labour has sunk below them.
Were housing association new builds included in the statistics that the minister read out? I distinctly recall him taking great pride in opening new housing schemes in my constituency that were funded by the previous Government.
If the member had listened, he would have heard me say that the numbers 51, 53, 0, 0 and 6 represented council house building. Members who are proud of building 100 houses or so in four or five years should be ashamed of themselves. I am sure that the member was not in the chamber when Tricia Marwick pointed out that although the previous Administration set a target of 6,000 new houses per year in the social rented sector, its record was a little more than 4,000 new houses per year, which is lamentable.
Jamie McGrigor talked about planning. Consultations on SPP3 and the national planning framework are going on and we are making the planning system for house building more flexible. Part of the housing supply task force's remit is to consider planning blockages that cause problems in rural and other areas. I am glad that Jamie McGrigor welcomed our proposals for rural areas and mentioned the "Firm Foundations" consultation.
Jim Tolson and James Kelly talked about the budget. The figures were wrong, which is beside the point. We will increase the budget for affordable housing by £131 million over the next three years. The total budget for affordable housing in 2008-11 is more than £1.5 billion, which is 19 per cent higher than the previous Administration's planned budget for 2005-08. Those are the facts. If the Liberal Democrats thought that the housing budget was so terrible and such a priority, why did they not lodge amendments to the budget, to increase moneys for affordable housing? They did not lodge such an amendment to the housing budget—in committee or in the chamber—so they should not tell us what is important.
One or two members mentioned Shelter Scotland. I am sure that all members have a copy of Shelter's submission to the housing debate, which says:
"Shelter has been encouraged by the priority which the Scottish Government has given to housing. The Housing Supply Task Force, coupled with an explicit commitment to increase overall housing supply to 35,000 by 2015, is the clearest recognition for decades that housing production has lagged behind the need to replace the housing stock."
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry; I do not have enough time. I am in my final minute.
Tricia Marwick was quite right to say that previous ministers with responsibility for housing, Wendy Alexander, Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran, are responsible for the mess that we inherited. They should be ashamed of their record in office and they should not criticise us for what we have done in our 10 months in government to start to sort out the mess that we were left with.
John Farquhar Munro made a thoughtful speech about housing problems in the Highlands and how they affect people who want to be tenants. I hope that he accepts that we are trying to deal with rural housing problems. We hope that initiatives such as the rural housing grant will help. Jamie McGrigor mentioned the rural homes for rent pilot. We hope that the pilot will be successful and that the initiative can be developed.
Cathie Craigie said that we have done nothing in 10 months. We had a debate on housing in our first month in government; we set up the housing supply task force; we published the "Firm Foundations" consultation document; we set up the low-cost initiative for first-time buyers; we started the rural homes for rent pilot; and we set a target to build 35,000 houses—an increase of 40 per cent in overall house building during the next decade.
Our approach to achieving value for money has been misunderstood or misrepresented. If we carried on with the previous Administration's policy on housing association grant, HAG would reach £100,000 per unit, which is utterly unsustainable. The previous Administration buried its head in the sand; we are tackling the situation. It is a disgrace that the previous Administration let things get so out of control.
Ross Finnie took an interesting year zero approach to everything that happened before the election. He did not want to talk about that—indeed, when asked his response was, "It's nothing to do with us."
David McLetchie made an entertaining speech, but it is unfortunate that it was inaccurate in a number of areas, including on stock transfer.
The Government is determined to improve supply, quality and choice across all tenures and to work in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders in the housing sector who face up to the problems that the previous Administration ducked, to provide the long-term improvements in housing that I am sure that we all support.
I thank members for a lively, if not consensual, debate. I take issue with comments that were made about our record and will—all too briefly—run through big issues that were tackled in the past nine years and about which there was a degree of consensus.
People who have been involved in the housing debate for some time must know that organisation after organisation acknowledged the priority that the Parliament gave housing. We did groundbreaking work on homelessness, which has been acknowledged throughout the world, when we gave homeless people new rights, introduced new approaches and were determined to consider the causes and consequences of homelessness. It is deeply disappointing and concerning that the SNP minister made so little comment on homelessness.
On regeneration, we inaugurated a new generation of tenant leadership. We linked housing and community renewal and gave strategic focus to regeneration throughout Scotland. The unparalleled levels of investment cannot be denied. We facilitated new home ownership models and new interventions in rural areas and we introduced the Scottish housing quality standard, which the minister did not mention.
It is inevitable that the new Administration's activities raise key questions, which are reflected in all the amendments. The Tories are concerned about stock transfer. It is reasonable to ask the minister: does the SNP support stock transfer or does it not? If it does not support it, what is the alternative? Have many SNP members changed their minds about ownership not mattering? That is not what people such as Sandra White and Bill Kidd said in Glasgow. I will never run away from issues to do with the GHA, because I would like to think that I was a transparent and honest minister. However, the SNP cannot run away from the fact that the GHA wiped out £1 billion of housing debt in Glasgow and inaugurated profound levels of investment, which the SNP would have denied to tenants.
SNP policy raises other key questions. How will the minister deliver the Scottish housing quality standard? What is his target for socially rented accommodation? I note that he is sticking firmly to his policy on lead developers, despite the trenchant comments that housing associations have made. The minister must answer the charge that the SNP Administration is undercutting the innovative and uniquely Scottish approach to housing regeneration—it is ironic that the SNP, of all parties, should be doing that.
The minister's dismissal of housing associations' record on house building will deeply disappoint the movement. I invite back-bench SNP members who criticise our record to come to the east end of Glasgow, where I will show them the new houses that have been built. They should not undermine the socially rented sector in the way that they do.
I have as good a memory as Tricia Marwick has, so I remember debates about rent guarantees, which the SNP thought were fundamental to housing policy. What is the minister's projection for rent increases? Will there be increases throughout Scotland as a consequence of SNP housing policy?
In principle, we have no objection to the housing supply task force. For the record, and in response to Sandra White, I point out that we set up the homelessness task force and the housing improvement task force, which has been acknowledged throughout Scotland. The key difference between the SNP's approach and ours is that those task forces produced action plans and we ensured that targets were set as a result.
It was deeply disappointing that homelessness featured so little in the minister's speech. A big contribution that Labour and the Liberal Democrats made in government was our work to ensure that it was understood that homelessness was not just a housing problem but required investment in key organisations to deal with its root causes. This week's news about cuts to organisations such as the Cyrenians, which has an outstanding track record in dealing with homelessness, must be deeply disappointing to people who are active in the homelessness movement. That is a shameful record for the SNP to have after one year.
The housing debate is important and I am sure that many members acknowledge that, as the minister has done. It is legitimate for Labour to question in our motion the Government's commitment to the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, given that the grant was a central policy commitment in the SNP manifesto. As other members said in the debate, it is time for the SNP to end the confusion on the grant. The SNP was cynical to raise the hopes and expectations of many of those who are engaged in helping people on to the property ladder. At a time of such turbulence in the housing market, the time is right for the SNP to make clear its intentions.
For the life of me, I cannot get an indication from any SNP minister or MSP on whether the grant will go ahead. The minister owes it to the Parliament to explain the Government's intentions. Was the grant a good idea for housing policy in Scotland, or was it not a good idea? Does the SNP believe in the policy, or does it not believe in it? The SNP should stop dodging the issue and answer directly. Not one SNP member answered the questions put to them in the debate.
The time is right to compel the SNP to come to the chamber and answer the charge. I hope that the SNP will support the Labour motion at decision time. If Parliament passes the motion, it would be incumbent on the SNP Administration to make a statement to Parliament. It should tell Scotland's elected representatives, and the Scottish people, whether it will introduce the first-time buyers grant.
I hope that the SNP will support our motion. I also hope that, for once, we will get a straight answer from Stewart Maxwell.