Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2986, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on the general principles of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
I begin by thanking the Communities Committee for its hard work in considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill and I acknowledge its vast knowledge of the issues, which I discovered when I attended the stage 1 evidence sessions. I also welcome the committee's general endorsement of the bill's principles. Its scrutiny of the bill has been extremely useful and we will consider its recommendations carefully ahead of stage 2. I am pleased that the committee recommends that the Parliament should agree the bill's general principles. I do not intend to discuss all the committee's recommendations today, but I will set out the Executive's position on key issues in the bill and the committee's report.
It is important to place the bill in the wider housing context. The housing picture in Scotland has changed dramatically over the past 25 years. More than 70 per cent of Scotland's housing is now in the owner-occupied or private rented sector and owner occupation is the tenure of choice or aspiration for the majority of Scotland's people. Only around 20,000 houses fail the tolerable standard—that figure is down from 120,000 houses in 1979, which is a significant achievement.
However, we still face a huge disrepair problem in private sector housing. According to the Scottish house condition survey 2002, around £5 billion-worth of urgent and pending repairs need to be addressed. With that in mind, I was pleased that the committee welcomed the bill as a means of improving the condition and quality of private sector housing in Scotland.
It is worth remembering that the bill has benefited from a detailed policy development process. The bill's provisions are based on the work of the housing improvement task force, which was made up of a range of experts. The task force's final report, "Stewardship and Responsibility: A Policy Framework for Private Housing in Scotland", was well received by the Parliament when it was debated last year.
The bill is underpinned by the principle that individuals should have responsibility for maintaining their homes. There is a strong public interest element. People have a right to be protected from the impact of poor-quality and badly maintained houses, as poorly maintained private houses can impact not only on occupiers, but on neighbours, the wider community and, ultimately, the public purse.
I was pleased to note that the committee supported the principle of individual responsibility and I agree with its views that we must change attitudes to home repair and that owners should take more account of the need to maintain their property. That issue was highlighted in press reports last week stating that the cost of renting a home is, over time, more than the cost of buying a home; maintenance received only the most passing of mentions. Owners must see the costs of ownership as more than just their mortgages—that is the culture change that the bill aims to promote.
The bill has three main strands in aiming to balance the rights of individual owners with the responsibilities that arise from owner occupation. First, it aims to modernise the powers that are available to local authorities to deal with housing of poor quality and in poor condition. Secondly, it aims to improve the information that is available to house buyers. Thirdly, it aims to enhance the rights of private sector tenants.
The powers that are currently available to local authorities to address poor housing conditions have served us well, but some of those powers have run their course. I was pleased to note that the committee was positive about the powers in the bill, which it believes will allow local authorities to address disrepair in private sector housing. I will not dwell on what the committee reported on that matter, but I note its support for the housing renewal area approach, the changes to the tolerable standard, the repairing standard, the single work notice and maintenance orders. The committee also made important points about the thermal insulation element of the tolerable standard, energy efficiency targets, the role of mediation in resolving disputes between landlords and tenants and the potential for expanding the role of the private rented housing panel. We will carefully consider those issues.
It is important that local authorities should have the right powers, but how work is funded is also an important question. Our view is that individuals should have responsibility for maintaining their houses and that support should be targeted to where it is needed. The proposals around the scheme of assistance are therefore a central part of the bill, so I was reassured that the committee welcomed the scheme of assistance provisions and particularly the broader range of forms of assistance that local authorities will be able to offer. The committee is keen to balance local flexibility with national consistency. I share its view and believe that the bill allows for that balance.
There has been discussion in the evidence that was given to the committee and in the stage 1 report about the resources that are required for implementing the bill. I am talking about expenditure that is required to gear up to implementation rather than the costs of direct assistance to owners, which are a different matter—the Executive supports those costs through the private sector housing grant, which was introduced in 2003-04. The Executive has committed £72 million to the private sector housing grant this year, which means that spending this year will be over 40 per cent more than it was in the year before the private sector housing grant was introduced. That clearly demonstrates our commitment in the area. I am keen that resources should be available for the implementation phase of the bill and have asked officials to investigate how best to provide support.
The committee has made some strong recommendations about the measures in the bill that affect disabled people, which I will gladly look at in more detail in considering whether to lodge amendments at stage 2. The provisions for assisting disabled people who need to adapt their houses aim to improve the existing body of housing legislation for Scotland by delivering assistance more effectively to that whole group, giving help that is necessary and appropriate to as many people as possible.
The bill represents part of a package of measures that are intended to achieve that. It gives local authorities the flexibility to ensure that housing assistance fits with the joint future approach to co-ordinating assessment and resources and it makes councils' use of that flexibility transparent by requiring them to publish criteria. I am seeking ways in which to reinforce that package. First, we intend to review the means test relating to disability in the light of experience. Secondly, I am inclined to ring fence money in the private sector housing grant that we give to local authorities to ensure that an appropriate level of support is given for adaptations in each area.
The committee calls for disabled people to be given a right to grant. I agree that that has the advantage of simplicity, but I am not sure that simplicity would necessarily mean effective, fair delivery. We must be realistic and accept that resources—notwithstanding the 40 per cent increase that I mentioned—are finite. It would be unfortunate to exchange careful assessment of priorities for queueing. The committee also calls for rights that are on a par with those that exist in England, where grant is means tested and subject to capping. Our proposals remove the statutory cap in Scotland, while the disabled facilities grant in England is currently being reviewed because of question marks over its efficiency and fairness. I shall, however, carefully and seriously consider the committee's suggestions.
In particular, I will consider how the proposals in the bill compare with the merits of, first, a right to means-tested grant and, secondly, a right to grant in various circumstances over and above that for the provision of standard amenities. I suggest that, if we are to go down that second route, it should be through powers to make regulations by affirmative procedure, so that the Parliament has the opportunity for scrutiny. We will consider that issue further in the run-up to stage 2.
On the tenant's right to carry out adaptations, I am surprised that the committee feels that the bill is discriminatory in not providing for support from the Disability Rights Commission. The bill does not provide for the commission to give support for the simple reason that the commission is a reserved body and the Scotland Act 1998 prevents the Scottish Parliament from giving it any functions. We are, however, working with colleagues at Whitehall to ensure that support from the commission is available to people in Scotland. I hope that those efforts will be successful. The committee makes other comments on the differences between the tenant's right to carry out adaptations in Scotland and the equivalent right in England and Wales. We will consider each of those issues in the light of the different legislative framework that exists in Scotland and take a view on whether to lodge amendments.
I will now say a few words about the bill's proposals for the private rented sector. That varied sector plays a valuable role in meeting housing needs. Providers range from large, established organisations to individuals who may let one house for a short period. Against that background, we have sought to strike a balance between the long-term strength of the sector and the need for standards and quality. It is interesting that, given its detailed consideration of the issue, the committee has concluded that none of the evidence that it heard indicated that the bill would impact on the supply of housing. That reinforces my view that the bill has got the balance right.
I am pleased that the committee welcomed our proposals on the repairing standard, including the establishment of the private sector housing panel, along with the provisions on houses of multiple occupation and the powers to allow the introduction of a letting code. When I gave evidence in May, committee members raised the issue of a rent deposit scheme, which the committee now recommends be considered as an option. I am keen to ensure that there is action on the matter and I have asked officials to look at the whole area of the protection of tenancy deposits.
The committee also refers to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which contains a specific provision on equal opportunities. I am sympathetic to the committee's recommendation that there should be a similar provision in the bill, so I have asked officials to work on that as well.
On the information that is available to house buyers, I was interested to read that most committee members share my view that market-led solutions alone would not address the problems that were identified by the housing improvement task force. I am also pleased that the committee supports the principles behind the proposals to reform part of the house-buying process in Scotland. In 2003, the task force recommended that the Executive should organise a voluntary, market-led test of the single survey concept. The task force also recommended that the option of legislation to introduce the single survey, should that be required, be held in reserve.
The task force identified three potential benefits of the single survey. First, better information about the condition of property would be made available to house buyers. Secondly, the need for multiple surveys and valuations, especially in buoyant markets, would be removed. Thirdly, the inclusion of a valuation would provide a disincentive to artificially low upset prices. Those benefits underpin the single survey approach.
Under the current system, there is a huge disincentive for house buyers to have a more thorough condition survey carried out. Every buyer faces the risk of being unsuccessful in buying a property or series or properties after having commissioned multiple surveys and wasted their money. Even offers that are made subject to survey—an approach that has been adopted in some areas but that is not favoured by all property professionals—tend to employ scheme 1 valuation reports, perhaps because of the risks that are involved in that approach. Therefore, at present, the vast majority of buyers rely on the cheapest form of survey—the scheme 1 valuation report—which provides relatively little information on property condition. That cannot be right.
Does the minister agree that it is not the buyers but the lenders—the banks and building societies—that rely on the scheme 1 valuation? We must bear that in mind and consider whether lenders will have to rely on single seller surveys that may be three or four months old.
There will be more detailed information in the single survey than there is in the scheme 1 valuation report. As Christine Grahame knows, we are considering the whole issue of the timing of the survey—the valuation is the key issue in relation to that. The stakeholders group is examining the issue, but I do not think that that argument overrides the main reasons for our introducing the single survey, which I have outlined.
Under the present home-buying process, the buyer obtains certain information about the property only after an offer has been accepted. That can delay the conclusion of missives and, in some cases, sales can fall through altogether. With that in mind, the task force has also recommended the introduction of a purchasers information pack, which would be provided by sellers of property at the start of the transaction process to make the process faster, more transparent and more consumer friendly.
In recent months, there has been much discussion of those recommendations. That is hardly surprising, given that they propose a radical change to the process of house buying and selling. The issue appears not to be that house buyers need more information; it is how that information is provided and what should be covered. A great deal of work was done to develop the single survey pilot scheme across a number of participating professions, including surveyors, lawyers, estate agents and lenders. I am grateful to all those who were involved in the design and implementation of what is a radical shift from the normal way of doing things.
Given the disappointing uptake during the single survey pilot scheme, I have reached the conclusion that the only way of ensuring that the information that the task force recommends is made available to buyers is to make the provision of that information mandatory. I know that some of those who are involved in the house-buying and selling process have concerns about that. As the committee recognises, the proposals represent a major change to the house-buying and selling process, so it is important that we get it right. It is also important that the new system is understood and accepted by consumers and professionals and that we strike the right balance between the provision of information and the cost of providing that information. The committee has identified several important issues that need to be addressed as we develop the scheme. I give an assurance that we will address them and that key stakeholders will be central to the development of the scheme.
Work with stakeholders has already started on the details of the mandatory single survey scheme and the purchasers information pack. Preliminary work is also under way to develop a test of the purchasers information pack, which will take full account of the helpful and detailed points that have been raised by the committee. I will be happy to provide the committee with the information that it has requested about how the Executive expects the scheme to operate. I note that the committee has recommended that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure; I am minded to accept that recommendation.
The bill contains provisions relating to the specific issues that right-to-buy purchasers and their landlords face. Those provisions are based on the experience of problems arising from right-to-buy sales when owners could not afford to maintain their house because they did not understand all the costs associated with ownership. Moreover, landlords have reported that improvement programmes are held up because owners cannot afford to pay their share. Under the bill, prospective right-to-buy owners will be given a clear steer as to what ownership, including maintenance and wider obligations, will actually cost. I note that the committee considers that additional information similar to that contained in a single survey and purchasers information pack should be available to right-to-buy purchasers. I am happy to consider that, but I caution against replicating the single survey provisions, as they might not address the specific issues around right-to-buy sales.
When we talk about housing issues, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that we are talking about people's homes. Whether they be rural cottages, suburban semis or inner-city tenements, all houses should be fit to be homes. If homes are to meet people's needs, they have to be safe, secure and fit for purpose. In the past five years, the Scottish Executive has gone a long way in addressing Scotland's housing needs; I believe that the Housing (Scotland) Bill represents a major step forward in securing the house conditions that Scottish people deserve.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Of course the Scottish National Party welcomes the bill as one of many pieces of housing legislation that have been passed since the Parliament began in 1999. The housing improvement task force must be praised for the amount of detailed evidence that it considered in forming its view on how we should proceed with Scotland's housing.
As is reflected in the committee's report, one of the most important things about the bill is the significance of the culture change that will be required of owners to allow the legislation to be used in the intended spirit and to make a real difference in Scotland's private sector housing. It is important to have information campaigns and monitoring processes in place so that we can ensure that the legislation is acted on.
We also have to consider this country's view of the private landlord. Not all private landlords are bad; there some very good examples of private renting in this country. Of course, we always hear about the bad private landlords—indeed, in my career, I have had experience of extremely bad ones. There is a problem that must be addressed.
The citizens advice bureaux said in evidence to the committee that, in the past year, one in every 10 issues brought to their network was about housing. That amounted to 43,000 housing cases, of which 4,600 related to problems with housing conditions. I do not have the figures, but I can almost guarantee that most of those problems would have been with private sector housing.
As the minister said, it is estimated that there is £5 billion-worth of disrepair in the private sector. That problem must be addressed. We have made progress since the late 1970s and 1980s, when housing action areas and housing associations came on to the scene to address the major problems in tenemental housing—at the time, some people were living in real slums. We have moved on from then, but we still have slums, albeit of a different type. We have to deal with problems such as dampness in houses that were built by the public sector in our inner cities and peripheral estates.
A new issue has arisen in the private rented sector since the introduction of the right to buy. We all know that, as the minister said, some people who exercise their right to buy either do not take on board or do not receive the information that will enable them to recognise that they have obligations towards their properties. That is also the case when such houses are privately let. Where I live in the East Kilbride constituency, there is a big issue around the private rented sector in ex-right-to-buy houses.
That leads me on to local authorities, how they have to deal with the problems, their powers and the implementation of this far-sighted legislation. One of the worries expressed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and by Edinburgh, Glasgow and other councils concerned the financial and human resources that are available to them to deal with the new legislation. In the past few years, the Parliament and the Executive have placed an awful lot of new obligations on local authorities, under the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, for example. I am concerned that we are not providing sufficient resources to ensure that all that well-intentioned legislation is properly implemented.
One strategic housing function relates to the change from housing action areas to housing renewal areas, which is to be welcomed. However, there are issues about resourcing. Local authorities will have to be fairly proactive if the bill is to be properly implemented. That is the only way in which big strides can be made in improving our housing stock.
The tolerable standard will be slightly upgraded. I will not talk much about that, except to say that the committee heard a lot of evidence that, as part of the tolerable standard, it would be better to consider a satisfactory level of thermal performance rather than thermal insulation. I will leave my colleague Rob Gibson to talk about that.
Rob Gibson will also discuss remote and rural areas, where the private rented sector is a huge issue. There is a problem with getting tradesmen to carry out the work identified and required by local authorities. We also need to consider whether it is possible to carry out such work in some of the building forms and styles in rural areas. The committee was reminded of some of the constraints that agencies such as Historic Scotland put on owners who wish to do up historic properties.
We generally welcome the revisions to the repairing standard. However, the committee and others recognised the need to strike the right balance and to achieve improvements in the private rented sector without that having a detrimental effect on the supply of houses in that sector. We do not want to say to landlords, "This is going to be so difficult for you that it is not worth your while, so just sell your property and move on." The private rented sector is a necessary part of the overall housing picture in this country.
I was heartened by the minister's response to what the committee said about disability issues, about which Sandra White will speak in greater detail. I am interested in the intention to consider ring fencing funding. The committee did a good job on that issue and I am glad that the Executive has taken on board what we said. It is obvious that rights for disabled people in social or private rented sector housing have not been properly addressed in relation to the operation of adaptation grants, for example. This is our chance to get the system right and to move forward towards having equal access to housing for everyone in our society.
I know that I am running out of time, but I want to mention the single survey. Of course, my party welcomes the proposal—it was our policy—but the issue must be explored in more detail. As I listened to evidence, I became more sceptical, although I have not changed my view that the survey is the only way forward. However, there is a bit more work to do. The pilot scheme did not work very well—there is no point in going into all the possible reasons for that now—so the issue has to be considered again. There are also issues to be investigated about costs.
On right-to-buy properties, I am still of the view that they should not be exempt from the bill's provisions, especially if we are seeking to standardise procedures. We have all heard horror stories from our areas of people buying their property under the right to buy only to find out later that the property is defective. Similarly, two or three owners down the line, people who have paid market value for their property sometimes find out that their property is defective. If we are seeking to effect a true culture change in the way in which houses are purchased and sold in this country, everyone should be on a level playing field.
I conclude by noting the committee's recommendation on national guidance and local flexibility, which was an issue that came through at various points of our stage 1 consideration. It was important that the minister echoed our recommendation in his opening remarks. Local authorities need to be able to look to national guidance to help them to implement strategies for their areas, but we need local flexibility, because it is clear that our country's communities are varied and that there are different housing needs in different places. That brings me back to where I started. If national guidance is to be adapted for local communities, resources—finance and workers—will be necessary. I ask the minister to take on board the issue of funding.
First, I thank the minister for the manner in which he addressed the main points in the Communities Committee's stage 1 report. It was good to hear him acknowledge the principle of individual responsibility; at least we have one small principle in common.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome measures in the Housing (Scotland) Bill to tackle the amount of disrepair in the private sector, the cost of which—as others have said—is estimated at £5 billion. As in many bills that Parliament considers, there are measures that we fully support, measures about which we have concerns and measures on which—as Linda Fabiani said—there is not enough evidence to allow us to feel confident that we can be successful in tackling the problems that are faced. Then there is the single survey.
In its written evidence, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities stated:
"The Housing Bill is one of the longest and most technically detailed Bills considered by the Parliament."
When I was preparing my speech, I soon found myself immersed in the detail of the bill. The purpose of the debate is not to go into such detail, so I scrapped my original speech and moved on to mark 2.
The process that we have gone through to get to this stage has been thorough; the bill has been considered carefully. I hope that the concerns that were expressed in written and oral evidence, which are well documented in the report, will be addressed by stage 2 amendments. I believe that the report that is before Parliament is very good. The committee has reflected the views of disability groups and has acknowledged that there is a great deal more to do on energy efficiency and other issues at stage 2.
Like other members, I support the proposed investment in the fabric and structure of buildings and hope that the bill will raise standards and improve the quality of Scotland's private sector housing. There is no doubt that that is needed.
Several concerns were raised about the costs—financial and in terms of human resources—of implementing the bill's provisions. More work is necessary on local authorities' grant and loan schemes and on repayment. As the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said, further clarification should be provided in conjunction with mortgage lenders.
The committee is right to ask that it be provided with draft regulations. Too often, Parliament passes bills in blind faith that the accompanying regulations—which provide so many answers and deal with implementation—will fit the bill's original intentions.
My colleague David Davidson will highlight the condition of housing in rural areas; I note that the Scottish National Party has allocated a speaker for that purpose. The issue is huge and needs to be addressed separately. In rural areas, maintaining and repairing the many older traditional properties is costly and difficult.
As other members of the Communities Committee will know, my main concern has been the single seller survey. As the minister and Linda Fabiani said, the results of the pilot single survey scheme were disappointing. The target was that 2,000 such surveys would be completed. Although that target was reduced to 1,200 only 74 single seller surveys were carried out. A single seller survey steering group—the members of which included the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Law Society of Scotland—was set up to consider the pilot, which ran from 14 July 2004 until March 2005, when the steering group heard on the news that the new survey was to be made compulsory. The Law Society expressed its disappointment that the Executive had decided to announce and press ahead with enabling legislation prior to the pilot's being closed and data from it analysed, and other organisations on the steering group made comments about having been ignored. We must acknowledge not only that the Executive's decision was discourteous and demoralising for the organisations involved, it also sent out the wrong signal on engagement with and participation in the political process in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
The financial memorandum states that provision of better information could mean that, in the first year, house prices will be £120 million lower than they would have been, but it does not mention the projected fall in prices in future years. We need more clarity on how such figures have been arrived at.
Although most stakeholders are mentioned in the financial memorandum, tenants are not. Any additional costs to landlords will, however, be passed on to tenants. Alternatively—as Linda Fabiani said—some landlords may feel that it is time to leave the house rental market, which would have the knock-on effect of leading to a shortage of rented accommodation.
The fact that the single survey will be paid for by the seller means that buyers cannot ask questions about the survey or query it, so many buyers will have to pay for their own surveys if they want a surveyor's advice on work that they would have to do to protect their investment. I am not convinced that the single survey will mean that multiple surveys will not be carried out; many witnesses backed up that view.
Some of the people who gave evidence mentioned the shelf life of a survey. On every committee, members learn something new; I now know that dry rot spreads at a rate of a metre a month, which raises the question of how long a survey will be valid for, which may not be a problem in a hot market in which properties sell quickly, but could be a serious issue if it is taking months or years to sell a property—especially when the property is old.
A purchasers information pack will need to be produced, which will include copies of documents that relate to planning, listed building status, building regulation consents and approvals, guarantees for work carried out, land certificates, summaries of common repair and maintenance obligations. Further research is being done, so I assume that more documents will be added to that list. I am delighted to hear that lawyers in Scotland have agreed to provide all that for a legal fee of £100 and I am sure that many buyers will be similarly delighted.
Before the seller puts a house on the market, they will need a single seller survey, a purchasers information pack, a valuation, a hidden defects guarantee and—as of January next year—a European Union energy certificate. In a fast-selling market, large firms of solicitors, surveyors and estate agents might be prepared to make such an outlay and be reimbursed when the house sells, but that is not likely to be the case with small firms or in a slow market, when businesses could wait months or years to be paid for their outlay. I imagine that the seller will be expected to make significant expenditure prior to putting a house on the market. For many sellers, that will not be a problem, but it could be a serious issue for sellers of older properties in slow markets.
The bill is extensive, technical and complex. On behalf of my party, I look forward to discussing positively and constructively the amendments that will be lodged at stage 2, which I hope will reflect the concerns that have been expressed at stage 1.
I am happy to intimate the support of the Liberal Democrats for the bill, which is the result of a great deal of work over the years by a good many people and by various groups, committees and so on—most recently the Communities Committee, which reached considerable agreement on it. Certainly, I find myself in agreement with just about everything that Linda Fabiani said and with a fair amount of what Mary Scanlon said. I welcome the minister's speech, in which he said that he would take on board a number of the points that the committee raised.
The objective of the bill seems to be twofold: first, to improve the standard of our houses, whether they are owned or rented; and secondly, to improve people's knowledge and understanding of their obligations with regard to housing, whether they are owners, landlords or tenants.
There is a buildings aspect and a people aspect to the bill. My view of life is that people are the problem and the solution. People are far more important than things: things can always be sorted out one way or another, but the people aspect has got to be right. There are some good points in the bill in that respect and we can build on them.
The committee was unanimous in saying that the bill is weak in two respects, both of which the minister alluded to in his speech. The bill is weak in terms of energy—thermal performance and all that sort of thing—and disability issues. Various witnesses told the committee that our disabled people were getting a worse deal than English disabled people, which instantly raises the hackles of MSPs. We will have to explore those two issues carefully; more attention will need to be given to them.
The panel for dealing with problems is an example of a provision that could relate both to the buildings side and to the people side. The panel will sort out disputes about the fabric of buildings—their quality, repairs and all that—but the committee took a lot of evidence that suggested that the panel's duties could be widened to include disputes between tenants and landlords, mediation, building standards and so on. We can build constructively on the panel's duties.
I turn to the single survey. Like other committee members, I started out feeling that the survey was the way forward, but we took a great deal of evidence in which concern was expressed about how the single survey would work. Before we get going on amendments at stage 2, the minister must produce more material that explains exactly how the single survey will work. People need to have confidence in the survey. First, we have to ensure that it is neutral and that people believe that that is the case. Not all my colleagues on the committee agree with my view, which is that we have to separate the structural survey from valuation. The structural survey should be a dispassionate and informed account of the state of a house, whereas valuation is an art rather than a science. If the two were separated, we would get away from the shelf-life issue. Obviously, creeping dry rot affects a few houses, but the condition of many houses will not alter greatly over a few months. It would be interesting to get research on how rapidly most houses are sold. I think that many sell quite quickly.
Among the attractive suggestions that were put to the committee was the suggestion that the single survey should be offered with a hidden-defects guarantee. That suggestion is worth working up, possibly with such a guarantee being offered voluntarily rather than compulsorily. If a company were to offer a hidden-defects guarantee, it could earn so many brownie points that people would use that company over others that did not produce guarantees. We must produce a system in which people have faith and which is genuinely neutral in its dealings between buyers and sellers.
Three interesting financial aspects were raised in evidence taking, the first of which is the idea of a rent deposit scheme, about which the minister has made encouraging noises. The idea greatly attracted the committee because deposits seem to be one of the main bones of contention between tenants and landlords.
Another idea was that there should be a sinking fund, which tenants and owner-residents in a block would put together to ensure that money was available for future repairs. It was suggested that such a fund should not be compulsory but—again—could be made such an attractive proposition that most people would buy into it. In the absence of my friend and colleague Robert Brown, who has always been a great advocate of sinking funds but who has been elevated to higher things and is not now allowed to talk about housing, I want to make it clear that I, too, believe in such a fund. I wish Robert luck in his new responsibilities.
The other idea is that of councils getting together to provide loans, along with not-for-profit lenders. Again, perhaps without asking the minister to enforce a duty on councils, the way could be made easier for councils to co-operate and to use funds from not-for-profit lenders in order that they could produce the considerable resources that will be needed to improve the quality of buildings.
I return to the issue of people as opposed to bricks and mortar. We need to inform people better about their duties and opportunities; people need to know about the assistance that is to be made available. That has to be done nationally and locally so that everyone who is concerned with the subject knows about it. We are all short-term animals—politicians, possibly, more than most—and for all of us, putting money aside for a future eventuality that may befall our house comes low down our order of priorities. We have to educate people to be much more far-sighted in looking after their property, and we need to encourage tenants and landlords to get on better with one another.
The bill has great potential, but it will require more resources to enable councils to support the bricks-and-mortar aspect and to educate people better. Councils always say that they need more money and ministers always say that they do not. We have to resolve that aspect of the bill.
I look forward to the lodging of many constructive amendments at stage 2. The bill is a big bill and a good bill but—that said—the detail can be improved quite a lot. The minister has indicated his willingness to consider improvements, so I hope that members will support the bill and help us all to improve it at stage 2.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill is part of the Scottish Executive's on-going commitment to improving housing conditions for all. It follows significant legislation and spending initiatives that include the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, the warm deal and the central heating programme. All that legislation and all those initiatives are based on the simple premise that everyone in Scotland, regardless of their financial status, deserves to live in good quality, warm and dry homes.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 took significant steps towards improvement of housing conditions for people who live in socially rented housing. The bill that is before us today seeks to provide the same level of protection, security and support for people who live in the private sector, whether as private tenants or as owner-occupiers.
Although some important issues require to be addressed during later stages, it is important that we recognise the broad support that exists for the general principles of the bill. Like many of the key agencies that were involved in the housing improvement task force, the Communities Committee welcomes many of the important elements of the bill. I am thinking of initiatives such as the much-needed changes to the tolerable standard, the broadening of the range of assistance that local authorities may provide to support improved levels of repair to private-sector properties, and the setting up of the private rented housing panel. Those measures have been welcomed by organisations such as Shelter Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.
The committee recognises the view of some agencies that the remit of the private rented housing panel should be extended to include adjudication between tenants and landlords in disputes over disability adaptations and wider management issues. I welcome the minister's commitment to examining further the need for amendments at stage 2 to enable the setting up of a rent deposit scheme; a measure that is strongly supported by Shelter and by Citizens Advice Scotland.
Unlike some members, I believe that the purchasers information pack—the so-called single seller survey—has the potential to make a significant difference. The present market-led approach is not addressing the problems that were identified by the housing improvement task force. However, it would be wrong to neglect the committee's strong concerns that there remains a need to put meat on the bones of the purchasers information pack. Issues such as the shelf life of the survey, the contents of the information pack and the inclusion of a valuation must be properly addressed if we are to introduce a system that is workable and which will gain the confidence of purchasers and sellers.
Although people who were involved in the housing improvement task force felt that the consultation had been thorough, the key organisations representing energy efficiency interests and people with disabilities felt that more could have been done to include them in the process at an earlier stage—the Executive should reflect on that. As a result, it is no surprise that a number of the committee's recommendations relate to those organisations' evidence. I listened carefully to the minister's comments on the evidence that was given to the committee by the disability lobby. Although I accept that the issues need to be explored thoroughly, it is important, because of the lack of consultation, that any shortcomings in the bill be followed through at stages 2 and 3, in particular because we should take this legislative opportunity to ensure that Scottish disabled people are no worse off than their English and Welsh counterparts as a result of the bill.
The committee also recognised the potential impact of the bill on Scottish local authorities. As our report points out, it is vital that the Executive provide a commitment to monitoring the effect of the bill at local authority level to ensure that its provisions do not hinder improvements in repair levels in private sector housing in Scotland either through lack of finances or lack of resources. Linda Fabiani also made that point.
I conclude by thanking everyone who was involved in supporting the Communities Committee in preparing our stage 1 report. First, I thank all those who gave written and oral evidence. Their input ensured that the committee was able to tease out many of the complex issues that have arisen from the bill and, I hope, to improve the quality of our final report. In addition, a number of organisations provided evidence that highlighted possible shortcomings, particularly in relation to disability issues and energy efficiency. The committee is grateful to them.
I also thank the City of Edinburgh Council, Glasgow City Council and Perth and Kinross Council for facilitating fact-finding visits that provided invaluable insight into the variety of housing issues that are faced by local authorities, and how some of those issues might be addressed by the bill.
I thank Kate Berry from the Scottish Parliament information centre for her excellent briefings on the bill and for the assistance that she provided to committee members. Thanks should also go to members of the bill team for their input, support and information provision. Finally, on behalf of the committee, I thank our clerks for their continued support during a rather frenetic stage 1. In particular, I thank Katy Orr, who worked diligently to ensure that the committee produced a comprehensive and detailed stage 1 report.
I am pleased to support the general principles of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and look forward to stage 2.
As my party's speaker on justice and communities issues, I do not often get the chance to address the slightly narrower range of topics that are often mislabelled "green issues". Climate change, recycling and the protection of small fluffy animals do not often fall within my remit, even though I am happy to admit that I am one of the smallest and fluffiest members of my party.
The bill offers an opportunity to address a theme—waste of resources—that is familiar to people who mistake the Greens for a single-issue pressure group. I will talk first about energy efficiency, which is the most obvious aspect of waste of resources that is addressed in the bill. Through walls, windows, doors and roofs, Scotland's homes are leaking energy that costs householders money and which has costs for environment both locally and globally. Overconsumption of energy does not get enough press and when we talk about the so-called energy gap we often talk only about generation of energy. Scotland is by no means the only country that is guilty of overconsumption and waste of energy, but we must address the problem rationally.
Some provisions in the bill relate to energy efficiency, but the committee heard evidence from some witnesses that, for example, the national home energy rating of 2 represents for most homes no great hurdle to overcome, so surely we can be more ambitious. The committee thinks so and calls not only for a national target for improved energy efficiency by a specified date, but for the tolerable standard to address more than just insulation and to address overall energy performance. That would take account of environmental concerns, but would also address the hugely important problem of fuel poverty, which is of real concern to the Executive. I hope that ministers will use the warm summer months to consider carefully what more can be done.
The second wasted resource is homes themselves. I refer members to the briefing from Shelter Scotland on empty and derelict homes. We need to build more affordable homes in many parts of the country. The Executive's target is 5,000 homes a year throughout Scotland, but many thousands of homes are left unlived in—some because of physical condition and some, I am sorry to say, out of little more than selfishness on the part of owners who have no intention of letting or selling them. By following the lead that has been taken in England and Wales, we could make those homes available for social rent, which would not only meet immediate need, but would bring resources back into use that would otherwise continue to rot over the coming years.
We all know of the serious problems that local authorities often have with planning issues when we seek to build new homes. We will bear those issues in mind later today when we hear the Executive's proposals on the planning system. Especially in urban areas such as Glasgow, where space is at a premium—particularly open space—we have difficulties in building homes because people feel that such building is an intrusion that results in their having no control over what happens in their communities.
In Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and elsewhere, as well as in some rural areas, the number of empty homes is almost as high as the number of people who are waiting for a place for social renting. A small proportion of those empty homes being brought back into use would help to meet need. A compulsory leasing order, as proposed by Shelter and which would be similar to the scheme that has been brought in south of the border, would enable local authorities to bring a home into use, to recoup renovation costs and management costs from rent, and to help to provide good quality, affordable, socially rented housing for all those who need it.
There are one or two other opportunities in the bill that we should not waste. The tenancy deposit scheme has been mentioned and the minister's words on that in committee and in the chamber are welcome. Citizens Advice Scotland estimates that somewhere between £52 million and £75 million is being held in Scotland as tenancy deposits. Let us not forget that that is tenants' money, not landlords' money. Not only should that large sum of money be held independently, with only reasonable deductions being taken off, but the interest from it should be put to use for the good of tenants, not landlords.
Beyond that, there is an opportunity to address wider management standards. The minister is right to speak of the balance between supporting the private rented sector and ensuring high standards. However, we should not imagine that high standards are a purely physical matter. Management standards also impact heavily on tenants' quality of life, so we should take the opportunity to address them. Members know that I supported Cathie Craigie's amendments to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill on registration of private landlords—one of the few parts of that bill I really liked. We should take the opportunity that is presented by the bill to build on that system so that we can address issues such as rights of access and the rights and obligations of tenants as well as those of landlords. We must ensure that tenants and landlords have information about their rights and obligations and that we give them a clear and simple route for making complaints and seeking redress. The bill presents an opportunity to drive up management standards.
Other members have mentioned disability. We heard compelling evidence from Ownership Options in Scotland. I do not have time to address such matters, except to say that I share the concerns that were expressed. I welcome other provisions in the bill and will endorse its general principles. I thank my fellow committee members, colleagues on the clerking team and the researchers for making this a relatively pain-free process. I apologise for having to skip part of the debate later.
I congratulate the committee on all the work that it has done. I was a committee member during consideration of the previous Housing (Scotland) Bill and I know how much work is put in, not only by members but by the clerks. It is very much appreciated.
I will concentrate on two areas: disability, which Linda Fabiani mentioned, and houses in multiple occupation. I am concerned about the exemption from licensing of certain HMOs. The memorandum on delegated powers says:
"Subsection (1) gives Scottish Ministers power by order to designate types of HMOs which may be exempted from licensing by a local authority."
It goes on to say:
"In particular, the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 provides for all private landlords to be registered with the local authority, having been passed as fit and proper persons to let property. It is thought that registration, and other developments, may provide sufficient control over some categories of HMO, without the need for licensing. This power would enable the Scottish Ministers to indicate that in general such HMOs need no longer be licensed."
I would like some clarification on that. Legislation on care homes was introduced in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, but I am concerned that if landlords are registering under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 they no longer need to be licensed. Perhaps the minister could address that when she sums up.
I support ministers having the power to regulate the fees that are charged in relation to HMOs. For too long, fees in the Glasgow area have been extortionate compared with those in other areas. Regulation will provide uniformity and is a welcome addition to the bill.
I welcome the minister's commitment to consider the introduction of amendments at stage 2 on disability adaptations and grants, particularly if that involves reviewing the means testing and ring fencing of moneys in the private sector. I look forward to considering those amendments. The minister said that he believes that it is not discriminatory for disabled people in Scotland not to have the same rights as disabled people elsewhere, but I disagree; I echo Karen Whitefield's comment that people in Scotland should not be disadvantaged compared with people in the rest of the United Kingdom. The fact that the Disability Rights Commission is a reserved body is being used as an excuse for denying disabled people in Scotland the same rights as disabled people have in the rest of the UK. The minister said that he will speak to his Westminster colleagues, and I look forward to hearing any response that he receives. Perhaps we could come up with our own legislation to protect disabled people.
From past evidence and from speaking to the disabled community, we know that the disabled are among the poorest in our society and that they pay more money for heating. It is essential that disabled people are treated more fairly, and more equally with everyone else in society. The moneys that disabled people receive are not nearly enough to cover their living expenses, let alone the adaptations that they need to live a normal life. The minister said that moneys were important. That is true—funding is crucial. The minister mentioned postcode prescribing, as we used to refer to it in the health service. However, in this case we are talking about postcode prescribing of adaptations and moneys for those adaptations. We must put a stop to that, and I welcome the minister's commitment to doing that. It is ridiculous that some local authorities provide more money for adaptations than others do.
The minister mentioned the removal of capping, which would be a positive step forward. However, I seek clarification because, although the minister said that he does not want capping, he also said that he may have to introduce means testing. He said that moneys and funding are important. Will there be an upper limit of grant before means testing is introduced?
The bill, and in particular the commitments to disabled people in Scotland, are overdue. I welcome the bill and look forward to stage 2 and any response from the minister to the questions that I have asked.
I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members' interests. I am a sleeping partner in a family farming business that includes some let houses.
I have been on the Communities Committee for nearly a year and in all my years as a parliamentarian I have never had to deal with as much legislation. The fact that the committee has a big workload is fair enough—that is what we are there for—but we should be concerned about the impact of that volume of legislative change on the people who have to live and work with all the new laws and regulations. Linda Fabiani was right to make that point in relation to local authorities. Until 1999, the big problem in Scotland was that it was well-nigh impossible to get parliamentary time at Westminster for urgently needed improvements to the law of Scotland. There must be sheds full of well-intentioned—or perhaps less well-intentioned—draft legislation, dating back to the days of George Younger and Michael Forsyth, lying around in St Andrew's House, still waiting for the legislative slot that never came along.
This Parliament was established to achieve Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. Obviously, we need to identify the highest priorities and to address urgent problems first. The committee has considered the bill carefully. It has taken a lot of evidence and has concluded that the Executive proposes a useful batch of reforms to address problems in private sector housing. That includes owner-occupied housing, private rented housing, houses in multiple occupation and even mobile homes. There are important provisions to enable local authorities to redevelop bad housing areas as housing renewal areas; there are useful extensions to the statutory tolerable standard and repairing standard; there are valuable measures on adaptations for disabled people; and there is provision for assistance to owner-occupiers to repair their homes. I strongly support all of that.
Also—slightly controversially—the bill includes provision for single surveys, with the intention of encouraging people to think about roofs, wiring, drains and unattractive things like that, and not just to consider kitchen units, conservatories and patios when they are buying and selling houses. Not surprisingly, surveyors and lawyers are alarmed by that sort of logic. The committee's view is that that is a good idea, but that perhaps it has not been worked through properly. This could be an example of premature legislation, so we urge caution and further consideration. I welcome the fact that the minister has picked up that point.
What would I do in the unlikely event of my having an opportunity to introduce a new housing bill for Scotland? In relation to this bill, in more than 20 years in Parliament I have come across three cases of significant problems with getting essential repairs done to older flatted accommodation in the private sector in East Lothian; I have dealt with a case of one aggrieved tenant of a stance for a mobile home; and last month I met the owner of multiple-occupation property in Edinburgh, who complained about the city council's charges and inspections. That constituent will at least be happy with section 147 of the bill.
The bill is useful and I support it. It deals with a number of important issues that affect a proportion of the people in my constituency. It contains the sort of stuff that I might include after part 1 of my housing bill. I must not be offensive, but some of the bill is the sort of material that I might expect from a Liberal Democrat minister; however, I shall not develop that theme. The point is that there are some serious housing problems in many parts of Scotland. I took part in an interesting discussion on that subject at the annual general meeting of the East Lothian Housing Association on Monday this week. Incidentally, there was consensus at that meeting that Communities Scotland is part of the problem, which is a bit worrying.
The problem is that we have a housing crisis. There is a critical shortage of affordable rented housing in constituencies such as mine. People who are on lower incomes cannot afford the rents and mortgages for private housing in the area and those who are on the waiting lists for council and housing association houses are likely to be stuck on those lists for many years. Every day in life, I hear about more and more desperate cases and, to be frank, I am not impressed by the excuses that I have to give to the people who are involved, so I do not expect them to be impressed. I encountered another batch of such cases at my constituency surgery in Tranent last night. They involved large extended families, including people with young children, who are living in ridiculously and outrageously overcrowded accommodation. Their only hope of getting housing is for somebody to be put out on the street so that they can be treated as if they are homeless.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill is useful as far as it goes, but it does not address the big issue. What is missing is the serious housing crisis in areas such as my constituency. We have two good Labour ministers in the communities portfolio and I look to those Labour colleagues to address the most important social problem that faces hard-working families who cannot get decent, secure, affordable accommodation in towns and villages in East Lothian.
I am very happy to support the bill. It is constructive, useful and addresses a number of genuine problems, but my problem is that it does not address the big issue. The ministers might have noticed that more than 40 members have signed the motion that I lodged on affordable rented housing, and I hope that the Executive will be able to develop some initiatives on that shortly. Who knows, I might be able to have a members' business debate on that motion when we return in September. I look forward to some Labour initiatives to deliver affordable rented homes to people who need them desperately in my constituency and similar constituencies throughout Scotland.
I suppose that I should declare that I used to rent out houses in a rural area. I certainly suffered the pains of having to bring some old houses up to standard. As John Home Robertson said, there is a critical shortage of affordable houses in rural areas. Many people want to live and work in rural areas. They might have jobs but, if they marry, they have to move away because they cannot achieve homes in which to start their married lives.
Rural housing is connected to the sustainability of rural communities. I mentioned the age of properties. Many farms have redundant farmhouses, cottar houses and old-style barns that are no longer fit for agricultural use because big tractors cannot be fitted into them. The problems with renovation often relate to access to utilities. Scottish Water is the biggest blocker of planning applications for new or renovated housing in Aberdeenshire. That is a matter for the Government to pay heed to, so what is being done about it? Another issue is the cost of bringing electrical power to, for example, a row of six cottar houses. There is such a row in my community. The farmer wants to do up the houses, which are in fairly good order, but they need to have electric power and he does not earn enough from his farm to be able to deliver that.
Many members have talked about thermal efficiency. We must live in the real world and accept that, if renovated houses are to be affordable, some of them will never be as thermally efficient as we would want them to be if they were new-build houses. We must talk realistically about what can be done to such properties and consider the rate of return that a landlord will get on major investment in renovation. In the last farmhouse that I renovated, we ended up with two and a half walls and no roof. Having started with what we thought was a reasonable building, we virtually built a house within the stone walls. The old stone walls were built on a foundation of big boulders, so we had to put in chemical damp-proof courses and all sorts of things. That problem exists throughout Scotland. The cost of renovation is huge, which is fine for somebody who has the money but, if they are going to rent out the house, the cost makes the decision to invest difficult. I hope that, as the bill progresses, there will be far more clarity in relation to grant aid to realistic schemes to put houses back into the affordable rented sector in agricultural and rural communities.
Aberdeenshire Council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats, has a bizarre planning policy: no matter how large a farm steading is, there can be only one home on it. Many people have come to my surgeries saying that they have feasible plans for four or even six low-cost houses, but the council has told them that there can be only one house. Because of the cost, that house will be sold to some oil magnate and their family. When there are opportunities on our doorsteps, such a policy is nonsensical. The ministers ought to give guidance on planning to get councils to consider the feasibility of some of their policies. We have many brownfield sites that are capable of taking steading conversions. Old farmhouses can be converted, but what else can we build for rental that would fit the style and will there be any assistance for that?
Yesterday, campaigners from throughout Scotland came to the Parliament to worry MSPs about the closure of rural schools. If we do not have the housing that we need, some rural schools will suffer because insufficient numbers of pupils will go to them. However, it is not only schools that will suffer: rural shops and post offices will close. Where in those communities are the skills that are necessary to do the required renovations? Anybody who drives round a rural constituency will soon pick up the fact that hundreds of properties are capable of being renovated and would make good homes. They fit the rural style but are costly to do up and I hope that the minister, in her closing speech, will address support and aid for people who are willing to take on that challenge.
The Scottish Rural Property and Business Association gave evidence to the committee. The association is heartened that the committee took heed of its concerns, but states that the bill has not been rural proofed. From what I have read of the bill, that comment is applicable. We might have to vary certain standards to deal with the housing shortages, because we cannot expect a renovated house to have the same standards as a brand new build that has been built to Scandinavian thermal standards.
The SRPBA also raised the issue, which people in Aberdeen have brought to my attention, that changes are needed to the remit and procedure of private rented housing panels to include, at the very least, a requirement for tenants to give landlords prompt and adequate notice of repair requirements under the repairing standard. That is imperative not only in view of the draconian penalties with which landlords could be faced, but to ensure that repairs do not escalate and their cost become prohibitive, as that would mean that the property could no longer be leased out and we would lose yet another house.
There is a lot in the bill—which, as John Home Robertson said, is a large piece of work—so I hope that the Executive will not rush the committee into and through stage 2, which must be considered carefully. I beg that due account be taken of the difference between rural housing and high-rises in cities.
I support the general principles of the bill. I endorse what John Home Robertson said about the lack of affordable housing, as well as David Davidson's remarks on the problems of traditional buildings in rural areas. However, I will address a particular aspect of the bill: the proposal that the minimum tolerable standard for housing should be enhanced by including a degree of thermal insulation.
The committee suggested that the emphasis in the amendment to the tolerable standard should not be on the use on insulation alone but should encompass the efficiency of heating systems and that "satisfactory thermal performance" might be a more appropriate term than "satisfactory thermal insulation". I am anxious that the definition of satisfactory thermal performance should include insulation and not compromise energy efficiency. The committee also suggested that the bill should contain a target for energy efficiency improvement by a specified date for residential property; I agree with that proposal.
The Communities Committee, naturally, considers those provisions from the point of view of occupiers of homes, because homes need to be warm, dry and fit for purpose. That is inextricably linked with our need to address the problem of climate change, which is driven by carbon emissions. We must be able to provide homes that are both warm and energy efficient. Twenty-eight per cent of carbon emissions come from domestic energy. As Patrick Harvie said, we leak heat through our walls and roofs. More efficient heating without improved insulation will not necessarily cut emissions. It could mean that people will simply have warmer homes without paying more, while using the same amount of energy, some of which might still be leaking from the roof.
We must address seriously the question of how to cut emissions without compromising warmth. How do we get to where we want to be? If we confine our efforts to improving the energy efficiency of new build only, we could take 100 years to achieve acceptable energy efficiency standards overall, because of the very slow rate of replacement of old stock by new.
Although the new regulations give us better energy efficiency requirements than those that apply in the rest of the UK, they are nowhere near the standard that applies in Scandinavia, which lies on the same latitude as Scotland and where warm, well-insulated homes have been prioritised for many years. We have no tradition in Scotland of valuing energy efficiency. The public seldom demand it, and builders often do not provide it. A typical home buyer would rather have an en suite bathroom than a heat pump.
Mortgage lenders and surveyors have a role to play. I have been made aware of a whole street in a Highland town where foam insulation was put into the houses about 20 years ago. There is no problem with that insulation: the houses are warm and dry. However, because, on one occasion many years ago, surveyors came across some dampness that had been caused by such insulation, they insist, when one of those houses comes on the market, that its insulation must be removed. That is the sort of daft, tick-box attitude that means that people cannot have the warm homes that they ought to have. I have written to mortgage lenders, to surveyors and to the Executive, but the matter does not seem to be getting addressed.
Recently, there has been a joint development by a housing association and a private builder in the Highlands. The private builder would not join the housing association in a biomass heating scheme in case that put off prospective purchasers. We must change such attitudes. We need to educate both builders and purchasers. We need to address the shortcomings of our present housing stock, difficult and expensive though that might seem, through grants and loans to enable homes to be brought up to as high a standard of energy efficiency as possible. It is obvious that not all homes can be brought up to the same standard. The warm deal and the central heating programme for older people have achieved much, however, and grants for installing renewable energy systems in homes and communities also help.
I note the concern that was expressed in the Communities Committee's report that a requirement for the standard of energy efficiency in the private rented sector to be raised might have a severe impact on the number of private lets available. We must treat that as a challenge to be overcome, rather than as an insurmountable obstacle. In evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee during its inquiry into climate change, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development noted that, with respect to existing stock as regards energy efficiency,
"We do not have many levers that allow us to act".—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 22 February 2005; c 1681.]
Regulation and support for change in the private rented sector, as far as it is possible in older buildings, could be such a lever, as could placing an obligation on the seller to furnish an energy efficiency report when a house comes on to the market. We must ensure that we have levers in place to deal with the woeful lack of energy efficiency in much of our housing stock.
While we improve the energy efficiency of our homes as we are living in them, we must consider the overall carbon cost of the materials that we use in building or renovating our homes, and we must begin to factor into our building regulations the need to use more energy efficient materials. Every tonne of cement that is replaced by timber saves 2 to 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide; replacing 1m3 of brick with timber saves 4 tonnes of CO2. We have huge potential to substitute timber for other materials, if we can only get the planners and the public to accept timber-clad buildings, such as those that we see in Scandinavia and Canada, and indeed in Shetland. We must ensure that buildings are sufficiently resilient to cope with the increased storminess that is brought by climate change.
I hope that the minister and members of the committee will forgive me for straying from the scope of the bill, but I believe that addressing climate change across ministries is of the utmost importance and must be done as soon as possible. That is why I urge the Executive and the Communities Committee to explore how far they can move on the energy efficiency agenda, in both the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the forthcoming planning legislation. We must reduce energy demand if we are to achieve our emissions reduction target of 60 per cent by 2050. We could achieve half that target through energy efficiency, but we must make a strong start now.
I totally agree with everything that Maureen Macmillan has just said. I say to John Home Robertson that one does not have to be a Labour MSP to recognise the underlying problem of the lack of housing. We have great expectations of the forthcoming planning bill, which we hope can take away some of the reasons for a long-term problem. I commend Patrick Harvie for zeroing in on the waste of housing; houses are standing empty when they could be brought into occupation. David Davidson mentioned rural proofing, which is very important.
I want to discuss the part of the bill that relates to mobile homes and the extension of protection for people who occupy them and lease a stance from a site operator. The bill makes provision on issues around tenancy conditions, security of occupation and the sale of mobile homes. Legislation on mobile homes and residences is complex. There are particular problems for people who live on unlicensed sites; they have "no protection at all" according to Shelter, which points out that the bill does not address the problems that are faced by that group. Shelter calls for the bill to be amended to give people who rent mobile homes similar rights to those that are enjoyed by people who rent permanent structures.
I have homed in on that area of the bill because of the evidence that was given to the Equal Opportunities Committee by Gypsy Travellers. Their caravans are not classed as houses, which means that they are excluded from the protection that is afforded to people in fixed houses, whose homes must meet certain standards and who have certain rights. Gypsy Travellers are also excluded from any assistance with the provision of aids and adaptations for elderly or disabled people, which would be available to them if their caravans were brought under the definition of a house.
The permanent structure amenity blocks on Gypsy Traveller sites are not permanent living accommodation. They generally provide only toilet, washing and laundry facilities, so they do not need to meet tolerable standards in the same way that a permanent house would have to. Even chalet-type properties in which people live are not classed as permanent houses, so there is no tolerable standard, no help with aids and adaptations and no protection or rights for them. We were told of one Gypsy Traveller who had lived in an amenity chalet and had paid rent since 1987. Theirs is not a permanent house, however, therefore it does not need to be brought up to modern standards, it is not eligible for improvement or adaptation aids and it does not even have an inside toilet or electricity. It was suggested to the Equal Opportunities Committee that the Housing (Scotland) Bill presented an ideal legislative opportunity with which to redress some of those inequalities. I hope that the Executive and the Communities Committee will take that opportunity.
If members lodge amendments at stage 2 to address the issues that face mobile home owners on licensed sites, I ask them to be aware of the specific needs of Gypsy Travellers, whose mobile homes are indeed mobile, rather than being located on a site permanently. I note that the Minister for Communities made a commitment to conduct research on the nature of mobile home accommodation as a first step, and that the accommodation needs of Gypsy Travellers were raised with the minister. We should ensure that their particular circumstances are included in the research that is done.
I have mentioned adaptations for people with disability. There have been calls from various disability rights groups and from Citizens Advice Scotland to introduce mandatory grants for adaptations that are required as a result of disability. The Communities Committee suggested that the Equality Bill, which is being considered at Westminster, might be an appropriate legislative vehicle to ensure that disabled people in Scotland have equal rights with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Equal Opportunities Committee has asked ministers to discuss amendments to the UK Equality Bill on other matters relating to Gypsy Travellers. Some cross-border co-operation would be to the benefit of us all.
I welcome the recommendation that there should be a mandatory single survey scheme and the committee's constructive suggestions about the issues that the Executive needs to resolve to make the surveys credible, acceptable and effective. I welcome the comments that the minister made on that today.
I welcome the Communities Committee's encouragement to the Executive to consider including energy efficiency targets in the bill and remind members and the people who work on the bill that at least half the effort that is required to meet the challenge of climate change will have to come from reducing energy demand. Increasing energy efficiency in housing would contribute significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and every opportunity to promote and encourage that should be taken.
Finally, I suggest that the purchasers information pack could include a thermal photograph of the property. A picture is worth a thousand words and such a graphic illustration of wasted heat might be a strong incentive to people to take action to avoid that.
This is one of those rare debates when we have ample time for speeches. It was interesting to listen to representatives of the landlord class—if I can say that—in John Home Robertson and David Davidson. John Home Robertson is correct to say that the most serious housing problem that faces Scotland is the chronic shortage of high-quality and affordable publicly owned accommodation for rent. That is clear to anybody who has eyes. However, our attention today lies elsewhere, as the bill deals principally with the private rented sector and the private housing sector.
When we think of the private housing sector in Scotland, what springs to mind? It is the fact that private sector tenants enjoy far poorer protection than do their public sector counterparts. When I think of the private rented housing sector, I think of high rents and bad landlords, by and large. As other members and the SPICe briefing have said, the figures show that more people live in and are being forced into the private rented sector because of a lethal combination of fewer local authority and housing association dwellings and the exorbitant cost of buying even a modest property. Linda Fabiani was right to highlight the Citizens Advice Scotland figures that show that one in 10 of the issues that were brought to it throughout Scotland last year concerned housing. That amounts to nearly 43,000 cases, many of which were complaints about private landlords' behaviour.
I welcome the bill's efforts to improve the quality of housing, which remains a major scandal. I am sure that other members, too, believe that that scandal is often paid insufficient attention and is the subject of insufficient force for change. I also welcome the bill's efforts to redress the balance in favour of private tenants and to insist that private landlords' responsibilities must be fulfilled. The Scottish Socialist Party will support the bill at stage 1, but it feels that several amendments will be needed, because the bill does not go far enough to protect private tenants' rights.
First, I will discuss the parts of the bill that I welcome. The single survey idea is good. I was heartened when the Minister for Communities described it as a radical change; it is always good to hear of radical change from the Executive. For each prospective purchaser in the housing market to collect the same expensive information is nonsense. I welcome the idea that the information should be shared. The idea is popular with every section of society, with the probable exception of estate agents and surveyors. Perhaps that is why the Tory party objects; it is the party of estate agents and surveyors.
I understand that the pilot scheme had problems, but it is right and proper to persevere and to ensure that the seller provides each prospective buyer with information about the property that they are about to purchase or are inquiring about purchasing. I have some sympathy with Donald Gorrie's idea about a hidden defects guarantee scheme, so that people could have greater confidence about embarking on a substantial purchase even if they found out later that the property had flaws.
Similarly, I welcome the bill's provisions on the private rented housing panel, which will afford people greater protection in pursuing landlords to undertake repairs. However, that should go further than repairs alone.
The bill has welcome proposals for tenants of mobile homes—I think that there are currently 1,200 mobile homes. Unfortunately, staying in mobile homes might become a growing phenomenon because of the severe lack of affordable permanent homes; that is often the case in rural areas. Like the bill, I recognise the plight in which people find themselves. Shelter welcomes the attempt to provide people in mobile homes with protection that is equivalent to that for people in permanent structures, but it is anxious to decrease the number of people who live in temporary mobile homes and, while doing that, to ensure that existing sites are licensed and that standards are improved.
I move on to the parts of the bill that cause me concern. I have written to the Minister for Communities about my anxieties about the adaptations scheme. A diminution is proposed in the rights of disabled people, who will go from a system that provides grants to one that provides loans. I am struck by the parallel with Labour's plans to replace grants with loans in education. The proposed scheme will be a backwards step. I am not reassured by the minister's reference to an "appropriate level of support", which seems to be a euphemism. He stressed that resources are finite, which is usually a prelude to budget cuts.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I am in my last minute.
I would like more rights for local authorities. They should be given powers to make compulsory the lease of empty properties—some 87,000 properties lie empty throughout Scotland. That could go a long way towards alleviating Scotland's chronic housing shortage.
The Scottish Socialist Party will support the bill at stage 1, but we intend to lodge and support a series of amendments later.
Like other members, I am pleased that the Parliament is closer to implementing legislation to deal with our private housing stock. The Parliament and the Scottish Executive can be proud of the housing legislation that we have passed but, in debates on previous housing legislation and in committee evidence and discussion, we have been constantly reminded of the need for legislation to deal with the private housing sector.
Measures have been called for to assist local authorities in dealing with disrepair, day-to-day maintenance, the lottery of buying and selling houses and the problems that can be encountered in the private rented sector. The bill will go some way towards tackling the problems in the private sector, and its principles have been broadly welcomed. However, in its report, the Communities Committee highlighted several matters on which more work and stage 2 amendments will be required if we are to have a bill that tackles the problems in the private housing sector.
I very much support the introduction of housing renewal areas. The existing housing action area status is outdated and bureaucratic. It can take years to complete projects. Providing the scope to tackle not only housing but regeneration of a wider area in a community is a sensible approach that I support. I am sure that the public will support that process.
The bill must give councils the power to do the job properly, to assess their communities' needs and to use a mixture of grants and loans to match residents' needs and circumstances. The scheme of assistance will allow that to happen. It must be understood throughout Scotland, and local authorities must be allowed to reflect their local situations in determining how the scheme of assistance will operate.
For example, the average owner-occupier in North Lanarkshire is a member of a low-income household in a relatively low-value property. That diminishes the ability to encourage investment in housing through loans. Therefore, the need to provide extensive grant assistance might continue to a greater extent in such areas than in many other parts of Scotland. The Executive must recognise that when it determines what resources will be made available to local authorities to provide assistance to private owners.
On that point, the Executive should also give serious consideration to the evidence that the committee received on establishing a national loan scheme, whereby local authorities could use the expertise that such a scheme might make available.
Does the member recognise that a problem with the previous housing repair grants scheme was that the moneys that it provided were siphoned off by many local authorities into other capital projects? The reason why many local authorities had practically no grant scheme was not that the money was not available but that housing repair grants were not a priority for some local authorities.
I have no personal experience of that. Although moneys for private sector housing grants were not ring fenced, my understanding is that my local authority—which is the authority that I know in greatest detail—did not siphon off moneys. Such siphoning off was not the practice in the North Lanarkshire area. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the Parliament should dictate to local authorities what their local priorities should be. Legislation that the Parliament has already passed requires local authorities to publish a housing strategy, which must be provided to the general public and to the Scottish Executive. It is up to each local authority to determine what is in greatest need of investment in their area.
Disrepair is a big problem in a majority of tenement properties. Indeed, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland briefing paper for today's debate advises that more than £377 million will be needed to deal with such problems in the owner-occupied sector.
You have one minute.
We must try to find ways of encouraging owner-occupiers to plan for future repairs and investment. I know that the matter has been considered at length by the Executive and by parliamentary committees. I do not have an answer—nor, it appears, does the Executive—and the committee struggled to find a solution. Although voluntary schemes for such investment operate in some parts of the country—such as the scheme that was set up by owner-occupiers in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth—such schemes face difficulties if some owner-occupiers will not get involved. I call on the Executive to reconsider the issue. Although the matter has been considered before without a solution being found, unless we find a way forward that involves all owner-occupiers, we will have serious problems.
I would love to make many more points—I had thought that the Presiding Officer might allow me injury time for taking one of the few interventions in the debate—but I will pick up only on the interesting point that John Home Robertson raised, which is the big issue of the availability of housing. Housing is a commodity for which, unfortunately, demand far outstrips supply. I take John Home Robertson back some years, when we had really serious housing problems and local authorities were crying out for housing to be raised up the political agenda. I believe that we have done that. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive have given local authorities the power to build houses if they need them, working with housing associations where necessary. We should encourage local authorities to use the full powers that the Parliament has given them to provide better-quality housing for the people of Scotland.
I support the principles of the bill.
The aims of the bill are progressive and are welcomed by SNP members, but the proposals must be measured against the housing challenges that Scotland faces. Does the bill meet some of the following tests?
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has proposed that people with personal pension plans should be encouraged to include house purchases within their portfolios, what do Scottish ministers think will happen to desirable housing stock in attractive areas of Scotland? Although we have yet to witness the situation in which there is a £1 million house in every Highland village—whether that be Evanton or Erbusaig or Locheport—every croft and former council house with a view that comes on the market will mean that house buying is denied, both now and in future, to the resident population. Those who have been alerted to the situation can already see that their children have little or no hope of competing in such a market. Young, able and willing people who want to work in the Highlands and rural areas of Scotland face a very harsh future indeed.
Like my colleague Jim Mather, who lodged questions earlier this month to probe the Government in Scotland on the matter, I want to ask what consideration the Government has given to the future availability of affordable housing in Scotland when the changes in the rules that allow self-invested pensions to invest in residential property come into force. What will be the impact on the future availability of affordable housing in Scotland? We must have answers to those questions, because the issue is fundamental to the provision of sufficient homes for people in every part of this country. Naturally, the bill does not address an issue that has arisen only since its introduction, but the chancellor's proposals will create a context in which it will be much more difficult for us to meet need.
We on the SNP benches agree that the repairing standard is a key part of the bill but, as is identified in the Environment and Rural Development Committee's climate change inquiry report—which is currently in the hands of ministers for comment—Scotland has around 700,000 homes that need to be climate proofed. The task of tackling disrepair could be a major economic driver that could create many jobs. It could cost a huge sum, which the minister suggested might be around £5 billion, but does his figure include the 700,000 houses that, based on a Benfield hazard research centre estimate, the Environment and Rural Development Committee report suggested will need to be climate proofed? We need clear figures on the size and scale of the problem.
All new houses will need to be eco-friendly. Part of the reason why achieving that could be a problem was summed up in last Sunday's edition of The Observer. It points out:
"Less than five per cent of the 170,000 to 200,000 new houses built in the UK every year, meet the ‘very good' independently audited EcoHome grading, set up by the Building Research Establishment."
That means that the proportion of eco-friendly houses that have been built in Scotland is very small indeed. However, now all repairs and new build will need to contribute to tackling climate change.
Climate change and sustainable economic imperatives are set to dominate policy development, so houses that are built in Scotland will need to meet the highest possible standards. As Maureen Macmillan correctly pointed out, our standards might be the highest in Britain, but they are not as high as standards in Scandinavia and are by no measure the best in Europe. Higher standards will be good for tenants and owners and for the able and disabled, so it is essential that we put in place the measures on which a sustainable economy is based.
Increased funding must be targeted at larger-scale eco-housing demonstration projects that would showcase 50 or 100 such houses in one place. We have yet to see efforts—not directly related to the bill, but forced along by it—that would allow that to happen. That is why, whenever a house is built, current storm proofing and the storm-proofing designs of the future will have to be reflected in the housing logbook, which will have to show repairs, insulation and improvements that have been made to the house throughout its life. It is necessary that the housing logbook becomes a central document that shows not only surveys but all the developments that have taken place. The bill could achieve that.
In the north, we are experiencing a sea change in attitudes. Highland Council is enthusiastic about sustainable development and has listed examples of eco-friendly buildings, to aid general understanding of the types of homes, offices and workspaces that we can expect to see in the future. To build those in remote and rural areas, the ministers with responsibility for housing and for transport will have to get together to ensure that costs for materials are slashed. We know that wooden materials are available on the mainland and that they are more highly thermally insulatable than bricks and mortar. Perhaps post-and-beam construction, rather than bricks and mortar, is the future. However, at the moment the cost of transporting such materials adds to the cost of new housing and repairs, so ministers will have to get together to try to solve those problems for people in many parts of the region that I represent.
I endorse firmly the principles of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. One difficulty of being at the coo's tail in a debate such as this is that other people have made many of the points that one wants to make. The fact that I may be repeating what other members have said in no way diminishes the importance of the comments.
The three issues that I want to consider are disabled adaptations, a rent deposit scheme and the vexed question of the single seller survey.
On a rent deposit scheme, all members of the committee were delighted to find when the Minister for Communities gave evidence on the bill that we were pushing at an open door—in fact, the door had already been well and truly opened. In his responses to questions from the committee, he indicated that he was committed to examining such a scheme. He endorsed the committee's view, based on evidence that it had taken, that a rent deposit scheme was a long-overdue development in Scotland and would guarantee protection for a vulnerable part of the electorate. The vexed question of deposits being withheld at the end of private tenancies was the biggest housing issue that Citizens Advice Scotland raised in its evidence on the bill. I am glad that the minister reiterated that point in his opening speech this morning.
A number of members have covered disabled adaptations and I do not want to go over the points that they made. However, I re-emphasise to ministers what the committee said in paragraph 39 of the executive summary of its report. We said not only that there should be consultation between Scottish Executive ministers and the Westminster Government but that the Scottish Executive should
"liaise with the Department of Trade and Industry as a matter of urgency to establish whether the Equality Bill would be an appropriate legislative vehicle to introduce similar powers for the Disability Rights Commission, or its successor body, to issue such guidance in Scotland."
We understand the legislative competences of our two Parliaments, but we want to ensure that, where we can, we work together to extend to Scotland the protection that others in the United Kingdom currently enjoy. If consideration could be given to doing that through the Equality Bill that is going through the Westminster Parliament, we could go a long way towards providing the coverage that the committee wants to see.
In the remaining time that is available to me, I will concentrate on the single seller survey. As has been said, currently most house buyers rely solely on a basic valuation survey, which provides only a limited assessment of the condition of a property. As we all know, the aim of the single seller survey—to improve the information about a house that is available to potential purchasers—is simple, worthy and long overdue. It would also address the problem of multiple surveys being commissioned on the same property.
In expressing opposition to the proposal, both in committee and during today's debate, Mary Scanlon often quoted the low take-up of single seller surveys. I am sure that she goes to sleep at night reciting the mantra of the 74 single seller surveys that took place, because at every opportunity she reminded both the committee and witnesses of that fact. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that uptake in the pilot was disappointingly poor. However, sometimes in politics one has to take a leap of faith and to go with what one knows is the right thing to do. In principle, it is right for us to introduce the single seller survey, notwithstanding difficulties relating to the practicalities and to some of the finer details of the scheme that members have outlined today and that the committee outlined in its report.
It would have been easy for the committee to take a great deal of evidence on why it is right to introduce the single seller survey, if it had chosen to do so. We could have cited the countless thousands of people who find the current system totally unsatisfactory. Although we took evidence from the professional groups that are involved in conducting surveys, which gave us their take on why the single seller survey might not be a good idea, we never took formal evidence on the current reality for many people. However, we all know from direct experience and the experience of our constituents that the situation is poor and that the system is not delivering what people need. We must bear that in mind.
Donald Gorrie suggested that it might be a good idea for us to separate the valuation from the structural aspects of the single seller survey. Although I have some sympathy for that view, I wonder how such an approach might work in practice. Donald Gorrie was right to say that, at the end of the day, valuing a property is not an exact science, but a matter of opinion. After all, a property is worth only what someone else will pay for it. However, purchasers need to know what the local market is and to have people who work in the area tell them roughly what a house is worth. Houses are not worth only as much as their bricks and mortar—much more goes into a house price. I am not sure that Donald Gorrie's proposal is quite as simple as he suggested, but the committee could consider and debate the matter at stage 2, which will be an interesting process for members of the committee and for others who want to lodge amendments. There are a number of issues that need to be teased out.
I warmly endorse the general principles of the bill and think that the Executive has almost achieved what it is seeking. With a few worthy amendments at stage 2, we will have a worthwhile piece of legislation.
I apologise to members, but they will have to listen to me again. My colleagues are busy being reorganised, which is a fate that affects all of us in different organisations now and then. I am a fixed pillar and am not being reorganised, I hope.
This has been a good debate. As I expected, my colleagues on the Communities Committee have all made well-informed and useful contributions. Several other members, with different points of view, have made constructive suggestions, and almost all the issues have been well covered by one member or another.
I want to stick to two points. More than most bills, the Housing (Scotland) Bill will have to have built into it a facility for keeping it continually under review, to see whether it is working. The philosophy behind the bill is more or less agreed—at issue are the mechanics of delivering that philosophy. We must have monitoring systems and a facility for the minister and the Parliament to make rapid adjustments, without our having to consider yet another complete housing bill.
Consideration of how bills work out is an important part of the system that, on the whole, we neglect. By the time that the Communities Committee has dealt with bills such as the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill, the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the planning bill, which will come in due course, we have almost no time to revisit bills that were passed in the first session.
To ensure that we are able to do that, we must build into the bill provision for monitoring and making adjustments to things that do not work. Whether in relation to housing renewal areas, single seller surveys, houses in multiple occupation or mobile homes, which Nora Radcliffe dealt with thoroughly, we want to ensure that we can adjust the system so that it works.
We must create a society in which there is the proverbial level playing field, so that people can make a choice that suits them and their resources between buying and renting a house. A stigma has developed that suggests that if someone rents a house, they are inferior in some way. That is contrary to the way in which many continental countries are going, where renting is the norm and although one can buy if one wants to, that is not the normal thing to do.
The reason for the situation in this country is partly that the private rental sector has not been satisfactory and partly that—to be truthful—some of the council house rental sector has not been well managed. We must improve the management and physical condition of rented houses so that people can be happy in a rented house if that is what suits them. We should think about that aim when developing the bill.
All the points have been well covered in the debate and I look forward to some entertaining arguments at stage 2. Many of the briefing papers that we have from various organisations are good mines of amendments and during recess I will use my pickaxe to turn some of those good ideas into amendments, using the curious language that must be used. We invent our own amendments then the officials who think that they understand such matters change them all into some language that none of us understands. There is much scope for good amendments and I look forward to working with the committee to produce them.
This interesting debate has been a clear indication of how the housing debate in Scotland has advanced over the past 30 years. When I entered politics, I recall that Scotland had an owner-occupation level of 38 per cent, which was the lowest in Europe with the exception of the former East Germany. The fact that that has risen to 70 per cent today reflects the change in thinking and is something in which the Conservatives take great pride.
That is not to say that the current situation has come without problems. We cannot relax when the Scottish house condition survey demonstrates that something like 27 per cent of houses and 40 per cent of flats have a major defect that requires early remedy. Equally, the estimate that £5 billion of repairs are outstanding must give us some cause for unease. It is on that basis that we applaud the Executive for introducing the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
As every other bill, this one has good, bad and unnecessary parts. The committee, which has done an excellent job, will require to re-examine in much greater detail a number of issues at stage 2.
There is a tremendous unanimity of purpose that we must do what is necessary to combat bad landlords. As Linda Fabiani correctly said, the vast majority of landlords are good, but it is the bad ones who get the publicity. Although that is true, we must be unremitting in our efforts to ensure that those who own houses for private letting make sure that those houses meet not just a tolerable standard, but one that is regarded as generally acceptable. That is why we fully approve of a number of measures in the bill, although we draw attention to the fact that the frequency of inspection could result in a more bureaucratic approach, which will have an on-cost. We must not arrive at the stage where, in a genuine effort to improve the situation, we make it uneconomical for people to let out houses.
Other parts of the bill are a little unnecessary and the provision for councils to be lenders of last resort is one of those. We now have a plethora of financial providers and it is difficult to see how the councils have any role to play in this regard, but that is an open argument.
A number of members, including Rob Gibson and John Home Robertson, talked about rural housing. If we apply the proposed procedures to rural housing—which has genuine problems—we require to give them time. In rural areas there are by definition logistical difficulties, and a lack of skills that will take time to overcome; although I am sure that they can be overcome.
The bill contains a number of genuine attempts to improve Scotland's housing and we look forward to the legislation being enacted, provided that there are one or two amendments at stage 2. The main issue that divides us is that of the single seller survey. I rush to reassure Colin Fox that David Davidson, Mary Scanlon and I are not moonlighting by selling houses and doing surveys in our spare time. However, we have the right to raise the matter.
As Scott Barrie pointed out, while adhering to his firm view that the single seller survey is the way forward, the scheme is not without some difficulty. We recognise the genuine problems and the superficial attractions of the proposal. We have all heard the horror stories about multiple surveys, if indeed we have not been involved in them. There can be nothing more discouraging to a young person attempting to get a foothold on the property ladder than to have to pay through the nose for a survey time and again in an unsuccessful effort to obtain a property.
The committee received some interesting evidence. If we leave aside the general acceptance that the plug was pulled on consideration of the single seller survey pilot project far too early, other issues still require to be addressed and I was encouraged by what the minister said about that.
We must look at the evidence submitted by the Glasgow Solicitors Property Centre, which highlighted that in the halcyon days of high house turnover up to a third of buyers were affected, but that that number is now much smaller. We also have to look at the potential adverse effects of the proposal. The fact that someone who attempts to obtain their first home could be faced in certain instances with an additional cost of £400 for a purchasers information pack must be looked at. The evidence is clear that the majority of people who purchase houses prefer to have their own survey done, and that is proper and correct. Anyone would be ill-advised to go down the single seller survey route, bearing in mind the possible difficulties of to whom a surveyor owes a duty of care and of the surveyor's professional indemnity insurance not coming into play.
In general, we will enthusiastically sign up to the bill today, but we point out that a number of issues require further attention.
I welcome what the minister has said about progress following evidence taking by the committee. That shows the value of a committee that takes its task to heart.
I will deal first with the single seller survey. I have always had reservations about the proposal, but that does not mean that I do not think that there is a place for it. However, as the evidence unfurled, many colleagues who do not have a legal background began to see some flaws in the proposal, including problems with shelf-life and the reasons for such a survey, that I think I was aware of from the beginning. It is fine to have something that is equivalent to a scheme 2 survey, but attaching a valuation to it can cause difficulties.
We also need to think about the cost of the survey. As Colin Fox pointed out, introducing the survey will impact on people who do not have much money. The survey will probably have to be paid for up front, it will certainly cost more than £400, and sellers might simply not have that money to spare. As no small or medium-sized firm will carry outlays for the single seller survey and the other documents that are required for the purchasers information pack, the survey will put a severe burden on a house seller who has no capital whatever. On the other hand, rich people will be fine. Such a problem might stop people moving on.
In that respect, I commend to the chamber the evidence submitted by the Glasgow Solicitors Property Centre, which seems to offer remedies for the timing of the single seller survey. I know that the minister has taken cognisance of the evidence that we received. In any case, I am not convinced that such a measure will end multiple surveys. I suspect that, notwithstanding the introduction of such a survey, building societies, banks and other lenders will demand that prospective purchasers obtain their own valuations.
Karen Whitefield, Donald Gorrie and other members mentioned the private rented housing panel. The committee wanted the panel's remit to be extended; as Donald rightly pointed out, housing matters centre mostly on people versus property, not on one or the other aspect, and I am glad that we recommended that the panel's remit should cover mediation and the separate function of adjudication. I note from Citizens Advice Scotland's evidence that, according to the mediation service at Edinburgh sheriff court, 20 per cent of cases dealt with between November 2004 and April 2005 related to disputes between landlords and tenants. Moreover, as Linda Fabiani pointed out, one in 10 issues that are dealt with in citizens advice bureaux concern housing. As we know, the sooner intervention happens, the happier people are and the less expense everyone incurs.
At this point, I should say that the rent deposit scheme is an excellent idea that was endorsed by almost all, if not all, committee members. I also commend Citizens Advice Scotland's submission, which suggests that, in any such scheme, "all deposits" should be
"held by an independent third party";
that any dispute should be referred to
"an independent alternative dispute resolution service",
which is what we have suggested with regard to the private rented housing panel; and that there should be a
"sanction for landlords who charge deposits but fail to pay them into the scheme".
Many of us have anecdotal or other evidence of students and others in houses in multiple occupation who, when they try to get back their deposit of, say, £350, find that repairs to the property such as wallpapering and carpet cleaning magically appear from nowhere. They do not get that deposit back and most of them give up trying to do so. The current system is very unfair.
Patrick Harvie, Maureen Macmillan and Nora Radcliffe dealt with energy efficiency very well. I like Nora's suggestion that a thermal photograph should be taken of a property, although I should point out that the thermal photograph that was taken of this building got us into trouble. I suspect that, given the heat in the building, very interesting thermal photographs could be taken of some members. The issue is certainly important. Maureen Macmillan made the very good point that there is no tradition of valuing energy efficiency in Scotland. I hope that, given the Scandinavian example, the issue becomes much more essential to new build in Scotland.
John Home Robertson focused on the housing shortage in Scotland and David Davidson mentioned rural proofing. I should say to Rob Gibson that the issues that he highlighted also arise in the Borders. I assure members that we received comprehensive evidence from the Scottish Estates Business Group and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association and listened carefully to what they said. Some committee members know about the special costs of repairing, bringing up to standard or even adapting properties in rural areas. They cannot even be insulated because they have solid stone walls or special roofs or because Historic Scotland will not allow the windows to be changed. The committee understood all that, which is why we recommended that there must be local flexibility within the national framework. Moreover, other members have mentioned the cost to rural and remote communities, such as those on the islands, of bringing across materials and tradesmen in order to repair properties. The committee was well aware of all those matters.
On disability issues, which Sandra White, Donald Gorrie and others highlighted, I welcome the review of means testing. Having ring-fenced funding would be excellent; I am not always in favour of such a measure, but it has its place here. I also look forward to the minister's answer to the question whether there will be an upper limit to grants.
Members have not really touched on resources. The committee raised concerns about whether the financial resources and the personnel were available to allow, in particular, local authorities to carry out repairs, to monitor the schemes and to do everything that they are required to do. As always, it will cost more than the Finance Committee's report suggests. I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in that report, which concluded that the financial aspects were okay.
I see you twitching, Presiding Officer, so I know that I have a minute—
You have one minute.
I was ahead of you.
The SNP supports the bill's principles, subject to the caveats that are set out in the committee's report and to an assurance that consideration of amendments at stage 2 will be paced sensibly and that we will have fewer amendments at stage 3, which will allow us more time to consider and debate them and the substance of associated regulations. I share Donald Gorrie's concerns on that last point. I realise that that is quite a list of caveats, but the Parliament has a habit of passing legislation in haste. In that respect, the lesson for the minister is, "Legislate in haste, sue at leisure."
I call Johann Lamont to wind up. Minister, you have 10 minutes.
I hesitate to take the advice of a lawyer about when I should or should not sue and will simply leave Christine Grahame's last comment where it is.
I thank the members who have spoken in today's debate and, once again, the Communities Committee for all its hard work in considering the bill. To begin with, I should address some members' general points about making legislation. We must recognise that there is a high demand for legislation, no matter whether it relates to charities, planning or housing, which this bill covers. Given the Parliament's commitment to fill certain legislative gaps, it would be hard to decide which of those matters should not be given priority.
Our friend at the back of the chamber, Colin Fox, made a sweeping statement about the major scandal of housing. However, we make legislation in the Parliament by recognising that certain problems exist and then drilling down into how they manifest themselves. We have seen that from members' speeches this morning. The work of organisations and groups such as the housing improvement task force has given a hard reality to some of the difficulties that have been seen at a local level. Those groups must be commended on their very detailed work. Although such work might in some respects have produced an anoraky bill, the legislation will, if it is effective, address many of the serious concerns that people have.
Linda Fabiani said that the legislation was far-sighted and that it would require a culture change. Such a change has two elements, the first of which relates to our own irrational approach to buying homes. We tend to give less attention to such a significant investment than we do to the colour of our next car; indeed, someone mentioned patio doors in that respect. It is difficult to use legislation to give people a row for being irrational about how they spend their own money, but there is no doubt that our housing market reflects that irrational behaviour.
I acknowledge Linda Fabiani's comments about good landlords and the role of the private sector. However, some private landlords see their property not as a business but as an investment and expect to get money out of it without putting anything into repairs, how they treat their tenants or how they deal with tenants who are causing difficulties for people round about them. That is why we should welcome the bill's important commitment to the registration of landlords. Moreover, the level of disrepair currently amounts to about £5 billion and there is a consensus in the chamber that we need to change attitudes in that respect.
Some members mentioned energy labelling, but I am concerned about investing too much hope in that. After all, we have only to look at the car market to realise that even though people know that something is incredibly energy inefficient they will still buy it—or aspire to buying it. Simply describing a house's energy condition will not change people's attitudes when it comes to buying it, because a determining factor in buying a house is not even its current condition but its location.
On the question of resources for local authorities, I should point out that they have already been increased significantly. For example, there has been a 40 per cent increase in funding and the Minister for Communities has reflected on the question whether funding should be ring fenced, which we need to discuss with COSLA. We must, however, recognise that there has been massive investment in housing. We are also considering how resources can be used better and addressing the issue of individual owners' responsibilities to maintain their homes.
I welcome the minister's comments about her discussions with COSLA. Does she agree that Colin Fox was wrong to suggest that every council tax payer should pick up the tab for the disrepair in private housing in Scotland? Does she agree that a clawback is required from owner-occupiers who use local authority resources to repair their properties?
This bill is about people taking responsibility for their own property. In the 1980s, there were examples of people receiving 90 per cent grants to improve their properties and then walking away with a huge benefit. There was an infrastructure benefit to the local community, but it was certainly not the same as the benefit to the owners.
Disability issues are very important. The Executive has committed itself to discussing those issues further with the Communities Committee, with members more broadly, and with disability groups as the bill progresses. We are always delighted to have the opportunity to work in partnership with Westminster. I assure members that detailed and positive discussions are taking place on the points raised by Scott Barrie.
I would be concerned if any organisation felt that it had not been appropriately consulted. Karen Whitefield raised that issue. However, significant consultation took place with disability groups, including the Disability Rights Commission. Ownership Options was given early insight into the bill through a reference group. Despite that, I acknowledge that some people felt that they were not consulted appropriately. Nevertheless, the processes of the Parliament ensured that issues of key concern to those groups were highlighted.
I want to clarify a number of points to do with capping and means testing. I do not want people with disabilities in Scotland to be treated unfairly in comparison with people with disabilities in England. In England, there is an absolute cap of £25,000 for the cost of works that will be supported by grant; in Scotland, the proposed grant when costs are more than £20,000 has to be referred to the Executive. The bill will now remove that control, although I stress that the grant is normally approved.
Means testing is a separate issue. There is means testing for any grant in England or Scotland. In Scotland, the grant is more generous, with a minimum level of 50 per cent. As the Minister for Communities has said, we intend to review the means test and change it as necessary through secondary legislation.
We have retained the right for grant for standard amenities. There is currently a right for grant for other adaptations; that is entirely at local authorities' discretion. We believe in working with the Communities Committee and with members more broadly so that we can address some of the anxieties over this issue. We do not want a postcode lottery. There will not be a diminution of rights.
I do not think that it is news to anybody that the pilot scheme for single seller surveys was not successful. I said that it was not successful, so for others to say that it was not successful was not a very strong line of attack. We have to acknowledge what the single seller survey was about. Listening to Mary Scanlon, one might imagine that the market was operating perfectly as it is. However, we know perfectly well that there are irrationalities and frustrations. We also know that the stakeholders group that was involved at an earlier stage is still working with the Executive, wrestling with the issues and looking for solutions.
For many people, the current system is frustrating and expensive, with multiple surveys, deliberately low upset prices, and a lack of reality about what people are buying. The Scottish Consumer Council has said that people are virtually blind in the purchase of a huge asset. Those issues remain compelling in relation to single surveys. The devil is in the detail and we will have to get things right. It has been clear from discussions with stakeholders that some people feel that the market itself will manage some of the practical problems. However, we are happy for the concerns raised to be pursued further.
Mary Scanlon spoke about people not having early notice of our decision to move to a mandatory scheme. The announcement on that was made in response to a parliamentary question from Mary Scanlon. I am sure that she would not have thought it appropriate if advance warning of that answer had been given to people who are not in the Parliament. However, stakeholders were contacted as soon as the question was answered.
I understand some of the concerns that have been expressed about the right to buy and the single seller survey. However, we should acknowledge that right-to-buy purchases from first base are not being sold on the open market. It is really important that people have the right information, but that information will not necessarily be provided by the single seller survey in that situation. However, later, when houses are sold on again, it would be a different matter.
Interesting suggestions have been made on energy efficiency and fuel poverty. Those suggestions go far beyond the scope of this bill; it will be important that they are fed into the appropriate places.
In the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the tolerable standard is a condemnatory standard. We should not necessarily put other standards into the bill, because that would then involve statute in relation to repairs to a property that has gone below the condemnatory standard. I hope that people will recognise that point.
On the issue of the private rented housing panel, we want to build on what we have. We first want to ensure that the measures in the bill bed in. We acknowledge the role of the panel; at a later stage, we might be able to consider some of the points that have been made. Work is being done on housing dispute resolution. Once that work is complete, we will be able to look further at other points.
John Home Robertson spoke about housing problems, which are different in different places. The issue is not just about private sector repair schemes and so on; it is about planning, it is about the release of land, it is about the planning advice to do with 25 per cent of housing being affordable, it is about re-establishing the credibility of the rented sector, it is about addressing homelessness, and it is about considering how the market can operate in all its exotic ways.
It is easy to say that many problems have come from the right to buy. Colin Fox again talks about publicly owned housing but we know that the housing association movement and the housing co-operative movement have been central in re-establishing the credibility of high-quality social rented housing in some places.
I acknowledge that issues to do with rural housing have been raised often and, again, they are different in different parts of Scotland. My own family history is one of movement because of a lack not just of affordable housing but of any housing at all in a rural setting. I understand the problems. A significant amount of funding has gone into rural housing. It is important to work with local people to find out how housing needs can be addressed. Those needs are linked to economic activity in rural communities and to the way in which the planning and economic development systems operate across Scotland.
Nora Radcliffe raised the issue of Gypsy Travellers. Significant issues arise to do with the housing needs of Gypsy Travellers. Some issues to do with mobile homes are being addressed. However, because of the cultural and ethnic background of Gypsy Travellers, this is not just about our definition of what a house or a home is. From the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee, we know that some of the really difficult issues to do with Gypsy Travellers will not be solved using such definitions. The Executive has expressed a commitment to addressing those deeper problems.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not know how much longer I have.
You have enough time.
So it was not 10 minutes then.
You can go on till 12 o'clock.
I fully accept what the minister says about the wider issues that affect Gypsy Travellers. However, we are talking about one small, practical thing that can be dealt with in the bill. I recommend that it should be and I hope that it will be.
There would be huge implications for housing legislation in general if we redefined a house as a home. However, I make a clear commitment. We recognise that issues of housing need and homelessness are very particular for people from Gypsy Traveller communities.
Rob Gibson asked about eco-housing standards. As I have said already, the bill is firmly committed to driving up standards in private sector housing. The eco-standard is interesting but, as I have suggested, it is not necessarily in this bill that the standard should be addressed for statutory intervention.
On the cost of disrepair, the figure of £5 billion comes from work that was done by the Scottish house condition survey.
Rob Gibson raised a very technical point about self-invested pension funds and the potential impact on rural communities. Self-invested pension funds are a very small part of the market. The vast majority of pension funds are already able to invest in private housing. The changes that the Chancellor has made are intended to simplify pension rules and not to encourage investment in any particular sector. The assessment published by HM Revenue and Customs makes it clear that changes are not expected to have any major impact on the housing market.
Bill Aitken spoke about the council being the lender of last resort. There is a plethora of lenders and yet the people who need the most help with the cost of putting their houses right still find it impossible to get a commercial loan other than from a loan shark. Therefore, the power for local authorities to lend is a sound policy that reflects our commitment to social and financial inclusion.
You could finish now, minister.
The debate has been interesting. We will reflect on the headline issues that members have addressed in relation to disability and the single seller survey, but also on the more detailed points that have been highlighted. I look forward to working with members in the interesting process during stages 2 and 3.