Housing
Before we come to the next item of business, it is with some regret that I have to say that concerns that the content of this afternoon's statement has been covered in press reports this morning have been brought to my attention. Members will be aware that this is not the first time that such concerns have been raised.
The fundamental point is that we should not be reading in the press what is going to be said in the chamber; we should read what has been said. I object strongly to detailed pre-announcement of ministerial statements, which constitutes a discourtesy to this Parliament and, by extension, to the people of Scotland. Having made my position clear on such matters previously, I was somewhat surprised and dismayed to hear the trailing on radio and television this morning of the announcements to be made this afternoon. There can be no doubt that, by whatever means, information found its way into the public domain before being presented to the Parliament. The Scottish Government has to take full responsibility for that.
I have now had the opportunity to consider an advance copy of the statement, which confirms my view that information was put into the public domain before being announced in the chamber. I fully acknowledge that, during the course of the day, the Minister for Parliamentary Business has gone to some lengths to ameliorate the situation. It is therefore with some regret that I inform the Parliament that I intend to take the statement as read in its entirety, and to move straight to questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. In fairness to her, there are matters in the statement that were not covered in the press. I will therefore allow her some leeway in her responses to questions to allow those issues to be addressed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I make it absolutely clear that we are angry that some information about the statement got into the media. [Laughter.]
Order.
We do not know how that transpired. I make it absolutely clear that the Scottish Government did not brief the BBC. The permanent secretary has been asked to investigate.
I accept your ruling, Presiding Officer. However, I make it clear that the Government is very concerned that we are unable to go ahead with the statement. There are a good number of substantial announcements in the statement that the media did not cover this morning, such as a new funding regime for housing associations, a Scottish sustainable communities initiative—[Interruption.]
Order. I remind the Minister for Parliamentary Business that I will allow the cabinet secretary some leeway in her answers in order to raise those issues.
I understand that, Presiding Officer, but, in your ruling, you made reference to those points of information being made available. There are only two others that I would like to mention—
No.
They are the abolition of Communities Scotland and progress on Glasgow Housing Association.
I want to outline the action that we took to address the matter, as soon as we became aware that the information had been broadcast on the BBC. At 7.50 am this morning, business managers were notified that information would be made available as soon as possible. A hard copy and an electronic copy of the consultation paper were with all members of the Scottish Parliament by 11 o'clock this morning, and a copy of the cabinet secretary's statement was with each business manager by 11.55 this morning. At 1 o'clock, a copy of the statement was emailed, for circulation to all members, to the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Given your ruling, Presiding Officer, the cabinet secretary has made it clear that she is willing to answer questions for up to an hour to allow issues that are of the utmost importance to the people of Scotland to be addressed.
Thank you for allowing me to make this point of order.
I think that it will serve all purposes best if we simply move on to question number 1, which is from Johann Lamont.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Jackie Baillie has a point of order.
I welcome your ruling on the statement. In the spirit of generosity, I welcome the attempts that Bruce Crawford, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, made to ameliorate the situation, but—frankly—it should not have happened in the first place. Your ruling was absolutely correct.
My apologies. Question number 1 is from Margaret Curran.
My draft notes show that I was going to thank Kit Fraser of the BBC for notice of the statement. However, you have dealt with the matter, Presiding Officer. Whoever was at blame, what happened is grossly disrespectful to the Parliament. If it was the first time, perhaps there might be an explanation, but it is not. For a Government that is resting on such a fragile minority, I hope that lessons are learned. In the cabinet secretary's response to my questions, I hope that she will apologise and commit to never doing this again to the Parliament.
On housing—[Interruption.] I say genuinely that the Government does not appreciate the scale of the error that it has committed this morning. It is grossly disrespectful to the Parliament.
A question would be helpful around now. [Interruption.]
If I am permitted to do so by members of the Government party, I will put my question.
In the discussion document, the Government recognises the achievements over many years of the Labour-led Executive. [Interruption.] Members should read the document, which the cabinet secretary has signed off.
One of the big headlines that we learned about this morning is that the cabinet secretary has set a target of building 35,000 houses a year. How much resource will be committed to ensure that that target is met? What proportion of the 35,000 houses will be local authority build? Will all local authorities that have not transferred their stock be required to have a target for local authority build, and will they get support from the Scottish Government for that?
In the cabinet secretary's statement, she mentions the widespread aspiration for home ownership that exists throughout Scotland. I therefore ask her to explain a seeming contradiction: on the one hand, she tells us that the Government will stick to the Scottish National Party manifesto commitment to review the right to buy once we have a proper understanding of the effects of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which we introduced and which modernised the right-to-buy system; but, on the other hand, in her statement—and, it would seem, to any members of the press who would listen—she has made it clear that the Government will end the right to buy. Does she accept that that is the utmost in political hypocrisy? If the SNP planned to end the right to buy, it should have put that in its manifesto. It is at least disingenuous not to have put the measure in its manifesto and now to make it a key plank of Government policy.
I will summarise my questions. Will the cabinet secretary apologise? How many of the new builds will be in the local authority sector? Why did the cabinet secretary not tell the Scottish people that she would end the right to buy?
I reiterate that neither I nor any other minister in the Scottish Government authorised any release of information. That is why I have asked the permanent secretary to investigate the matter.
I am delighted to publish today "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland: A discussion document", which sets out the Government's ambitious and radical proposals to tackle Scotland's housing crisis—a crisis that the previous Administration signally failed to tackle. The fact that our action draws attention to that failure to act perhaps explains why some members do not want people in Scotland to focus on the substance of our proposals.
In response to Margaret Curran's questions, I confirm that, in the document, we set out an ambitious new target for house building. We think that the current rate of house building of 25,000 a year is simply inadequate, which is why we have set an ambitious target of 35,000 houses a year by the middle of the next decade. We want to increase the supply of housing across all tenures in Scotland. Given that, at present, 80 per cent of the houses that are built every year are built by private developers, it is clear that those developers will continue to have a significant role. However, we expect an increase in the number of social houses that are built.
Today, we lay out several proposals that will help to bring that about. First, we propose a new role for local authorities in house building, to reverse the 30-year rundown of their role. Secondly, we propose a new subsidy regime for housing associations so that, rather than simply spend more money on housing, we ensure that this Government, unlike the previous one, gets more houses for the money that it spends. Thirdly, I confirm that the Government will end the right to buy for all new-build social houses that are built by local authorities or housing associations. We think that it is right to safeguard new public social houses for the future of tenants in this country.
More generally in relation to the right to buy, we have said that we will review the policy overall, and we will do so when we have had an opportunity to see the impact of the reforms that were made in the 2001 act. [Interruption.]
Order. Members will have an opportunity to ask questions.
We have produced an ambitious and radical set of proposals that people who are on housing waiting lists throughout the country will warmly welcome. Finally, our spending plans will be laid out in the budget.
We have had a very comprehensive housing statement today, although the issue would have benefited from a debate, rather than a statement. Nonetheless, I commend Kit Fraser and the BBC's "Good Morning Scotland" for their premonitions about the statement and their thorough and accurate analysis of the content. I hope, as you do, Presiding Officer, that perhaps one day the Government will respect this Parliament by announcing measures here first.
I will try to limit my questions. First, the total debt of councils in Scotland is more than £9 billion. Of that, £2 billion is council housing debt. Given the new role of local government in building and managing more homes, how will the Government ensure that the debt will not continue to increase and that council tax payers in Scotland will not have to pay their share of even higher debt charges in the future?
Secondly, 480,000 families in Scotland fulfilled their aspiration of home ownership through being given the right to buy the homes that they lived in. The policy also increased labour mobility across Scotland. Why should future generations be denied that choice? There is no research base to prove that abolishing the right to buy will free up any more affordable housing. Is it really the aim of the Government to abolish the right to buy for all council homes in future?
Thirdly, why is there a need for the Scottish sustainable communities initiative to
"encourage local authorities and their partners to bring forward proposals for sustainable new communities"?
Does the Government think that local authorities are incapable of doing that without encouragement from an outside body?
Finally, why did the SNP campaign against council housing stock transfer in the Highlands, in the knowledge that £153 million of housing debt would be written off—as would more investment in homes as a result—given that Highland Council has sought exemption for 4,250 homes that will not meet the Scottish housing quality standard? Why should people in the Highlands live in substandard housing as a result of SNP campaigning and policy?
I agree that local authorities carry a large burden of housing debt, but I gently point out to Mary Scanlon that that is perhaps one of the worst legacies of successive Tory and Labour Governments in this country.
I want to encourage local authorities to continue and enhance their role in housing provision. That is why we have set out proposals today to encourage those local authorities that can to use prudential borrowing to build new houses. We have also set out proposals that will enable the Scottish Government to give local authorities financial incentives to do that. That eminently sensible proposal will be welcomed not only by local authorities but by tenants across the country.
The communities of the Highlands and Islands rejected stock transfer, and they had an absolute democratic right to do so. Stock transfer remains an option for local authorities if communities want it and vote for it. However, I think it wrong—I have always thought it wrong—that communities are, in effect, held to ransom with stock transfer. That is why my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, has written to the Treasury to ask in which other circumstances the write-off of debt could be considered.
If Mary Scanlon reads "Firm Foundations", she will see that we are making proposals for alternatives to stock transfer. Arm's-length management organisations—ALMOs—would allow councils to retain their stock but to outsource its management so that stock can be managed more effectively. That could make a real contribution towards meeting the housing quality standards.
I acknowledge that the right to buy has had a positive impact for many tenants who have been able to purchase their own homes. [Interruption.] However, in circumstances in which our social rented sector is under such enormous pressure, it is right to review the policy. It is a disincentive to local authorities and housing associations to build new houses if they know that the houses are likely to be lost through the right to buy. Therefore, I believe that it is right to consult on the ending of the right to buy for new-build housing. We will consult more generally on the future of the policy once we have had a chance to consider the impact of previous reforms.
I thank you, Presiding Officer, for your firm decision to plug the leak from whatever SNP source it may have emanated.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the discussion document. Aspects of it will find favour with the Scottish Liberal Democrats—no doubt we will return to them in the near future.
My first question focuses on the right to buy. The Liberal Democrats welcome the aim of giving councils greater local flexibility. However, I am concerned that the paper merely suggests that the Government may, at some indeterminate point in the future, re-examine the policy. Will the cabinet secretary give a commitment today to start such a review in January 2008?
In reviewing the right to buy, will the cabinet secretary consider the case for going much further on local flexibility? Does she agree with the Liberal Democrats that the full range of right-to-buy powers should be devolved to democratically elected local councils to help them meet local need? Will she consider our plans to give councils, not ministers, the power to vary discounts, introduce pressured area status for up to 10 years or even abolish the right to buy altogether, as long as tenants with an existing right are given at least five years to use it before they lose it? [Interruption.]
Liberal Democrats welcome the proposal to abolish the right to buy for new-build properties. However, does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that the policy could be undermined if too many tenants were moved from demolished or refurbished property to new build and then exercised their right to buy, given that many of the new-build schemes in future years will be replacements for existing poor-quality stock? Will the cabinet secretary commit to look in detail at all the available options to avoid undermining the policy and removing the incentive to build new social housing?
I am bemused by the lack of detail in the paper on the 2012 homelessness target. It discusses the role of the private sector in meeting that target—that sector clearly has a role—but the Government must ensure that it allocates sufficient funds in the upcoming comprehensive spending review for social housing to meet that need. Will the cabinet secretary take this opportunity to commit the Government to the homelessness target not as an aspiration but as a pledge?
I thank Jim Tolson for his questions. I also thank the Liberal Democrats for their support, albeit that it is no doubt subject to how our proposals on the right to buy are developed.
I say to Jim Tolson that I am persuaded—although we will consult on this—that ending the right to buy for new-build social houses is the right thing to do, and I think that we should move to that extremely quickly. Interestingly, I heard the leader of the Scottish Labour Party say just a couple of weeks ago that she would look at the proposal favourably. Clearly, that message did not reach the rest of her front bench.
On Jim Tolson's other general points about the right-to-buy policy, I have sympathy with some of the Liberal Democrats' proposals in this area, and I look forward to their contributing to the consultation exercise. It is clear that local authorities already have options, under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, to apply for pressured area status and the right to vary the discount. A number of local authorities already have pressured area status, but none has yet applied to vary the discount. We need to look at not only the operation of the existing flexibility, but what additional flexibility we might want to give. I can certainly give a clear pledge that, in the more general review of the right to buy, I will reflect carefully on Jim Tolson's points.
Jim Tolson referred to a lack of detail on the homelessness target. On my rough count, around four pages in the consultation document are about meeting the homelessness target. We have said that we want to give local authorities more flexibility to meet the target by using the private rented sector more. Not only would doing that give local authorities more flexibility, but it would give more choice and options to homeless people, which many of them want because the private rented sector can offer solutions that are more appropriate to their situation than are the solutions in the social rented sector.
I say categorically to Jim Tolson and to the chamber that we honour the 2012 homelessness target, not as an aspiration but as an absolute pledge.
I should explain to members that the interruptions to sound are due to a problem. Apparently, there is no sound in the gallery, and the technicians are trying to fix the problem.
I welcome the statement from the cabinet secretary, which I have now had the opportunity to scan—I was not listening to the radio this morning.
I welcome the proposal to end the right to buy for new-build homes. I agree that, at the time, the right-to-buy policy was a good idea, but its consequence over the decades has been that there is such a lack of social rented housing that people have been driven to buy, because they have no other option. I am delighted to see balance being restored.
My question on the right to buy relates to the "Firm Foundations" document, which says that the right to buy a new-build house might continue, as Jim Tolson mentioned, when a tenant is moved as a result of demolition or refurbishment of their existing house, for example. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider the position of an elderly couple who have secured the right to buy over a three-bedroom house, but who, for medical reasons, are required to move to a new-build one-bedroom house. In such circumstances, would their right to buy transfer to the new property? Perhaps a right of pre-emption for the housing association or local authority could be built in.
I thank Christine Grahame for her question. I note that she was not up early enough this morning to hear more about my statement. Unfortunately, I was up early enough.
I heard the point that she made on the right to buy. I apologise to Jim Tolson, because there was a point in his question that I meant to address. It is important to say that although we want to abolish the right to buy for new-build houses, we have to consider the situation of people who are in essence forced to move into new-build houses because of the demolition of their existing house. We would allow such people to continue to have the right to buy. The number of people involved is estimated to be around 10,000. We want to consider carefully the implications of that.
Christine Grahame mentioned other categories of tenant, which we will consider carefully in the consultation exercise. We have to ensure that more social houses are built—that is key. We have to incentivise local authorities and housing associations to do that. There are a range of incentives that we can give them. An important step is to remove the clear disincentive of losing new-build houses through the right to buy. I am proud to say that this SNP Government will remove that disincentive.
The minister has a very odd notion of ministerial accountability. What happens on her watch is her responsibility and, on that basis, we expected her to make an apology to the Parliament.
On the right to buy, it seems odd and inconsistent that, having acknowledged the need for flexibility and the fact that the right to buy is experienced differently in different communities, the SNP has plucked out one aspect and made a decision on it ahead of the review.
I ask the minister to reflect on the sentence in her statement:
"We will also consider further our proposed £2,000 First Time Buyers Grant."
That rather begs the questions what consideration the SNP gave its proposals before they were put to the electorate and whether the minister is unaware of the trenchant comments by a range of academics that the proposal is expensive, ineffective and meaningless without targeting. What further consideration does the minister intend to give? What form will it take? What is the timetable for coming back to us? Who will be consulted on the matter?
Surely the minister will recognise the suspicions that have been generated that that sentence in her statement is simply a cover for, on the one hand, her inability to defend the policy of the first-time buyers grant and, on the other hand, her reluctance to acknowledge that the promise that was made at the election was made simply to win votes and that, having been successful, it is now a broken promise. Will she give us a timetable for the consultation on the matter? Will she explain why she is not willing either to meet the promise or to justify the opposition to it?
I thank Johann Lamont for her questions. My comments on abolishing the right to buy for new-build social housing stand. I hear that the Labour members might have different views on the policy. Once they sort out their views, they are perfectly free to feed them into the consultation exercise, and we will give them due consideration.
On the issue of the first-time buyers grant, Johann Lamont cannot have it both ways. She cannot, on the one hand, lecture me for having no respect for Parliament—which is untrue, incidentally—and, on the other hand, criticise me because I am not willing to ignore the views that have been expressed in Parliament and elsewhere before coming to a definitive view on how we progress our manifesto commitment on the first-time buyers grant. The timeframe for consultation on that issue will be the timescale for consultation on the paper, and we will listen carefully to views that are expressed.
I direct Johann Lamont to the section in the consultation paper that makes a number of proposals that will be of assistance to first-time buyers—a group in our society that the previous Government did little, if anything, to assist. The Government will propose a low-cost initiative for first-time buyers. Through that initiative, we will expand assistance for first-time buyers through a mix of Government grants, shared equity schemes and mortgage-related products and services. We will fund that expansion by implementing our manifesto commitment to create a Scottish housing support fund. This year alone, we will assist 1,800 households to get their first foot on the housing ladder, with Government grants to subsidise low-cost home ownership schemes. We want to expand and improve that model. In addition, we want to attract private finance so that we can expand the model further. Also, yes, we will further consider our manifesto commitment on the £2,000 first-time buyers grant. In addition, another proposal in the paper represents a confirmation that—in contrast to the dithering of the previous Government—this Government will take forward the single seller survey, which will save first-time buyers £200 to £300 and ensure that all buyers have good and reliable information about the houses that they seek to buy. All in all, that adds up to a good deal for first-time buyers in Scotland.
I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the Minister for Communities and Sport on the work that they have done over the past six months to produce the most coherent and radical housing strategy in decades. Just as John Wheatley, a Glasgow MP, brought forward a strategy for housing in the first ever Labour Government, it has taken Ms Sturgeon, a Glasgow MSP, and the first-ever SNP Government to really tackle Scotland's housing crisis.
Will Ms Sturgeon tell us whether the proposal to establish a low-cost initiative for first-time buyers has found favour with mortgage lenders, and how many first-time buyers she hopes the scheme will support?
I thank Tricia Marwick very much for her comments. Of course, John Wheatley was the minister responsible for health in the first Labour Government. He also pioneered the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924, which was, I suppose, the first recognition of the close link between housing and health. I am proud to say that that is a link that this progressive SNP Government has restored.
Tricia Marwick asked about our proposals to assist first-time buyers. As I said to Johann Lamont, through proposals that we are already implementing, we intend to help 1,800 first-time buyers this year. We are looking to expand that through Government investment and through our efforts to attract private finance, which is important. We have had positive initial discussions with mortgage lenders and people in the financial industry. We will continue to have such discussions because this Government is determined to give, through a range of measures, the help that first-time buyers did not get from the previous Government.
The SNP has, at long last, recognised that John Wheatley saw the connection between health and housing, but it has not so far recognised that John Wheatley also saw the links between housing and other aspects of behaviour and problems experienced by communities.
Quite rightly, the minister's document makes much of the role of housing associations as housing providers, but it is notably silent on their wider role in many of Scotland's communities. Does the minister accept that housing associations have such a role and can she explain how her proposals will strengthen their role in, for example, helping to prevent antisocial behaviour? Does she accept that the role of a housing association is not only to build houses but to build and support communities? Can she guarantee that her proposals, particularly the proposal to change the way in which subsidies such as the housing association grant are distributed, will not diminish that role in any way?
I do not seek to embarrass the member, but that is the most pertinent and sensible question that has come from the Labour benches this afternoon.
I recognise not only the link between housing and health, but the link between it and other aspects of Scottish society. That is why my portfolio contains sport, regeneration, and anti-poverty strategies—we acknowledge those links. I agree with Patricia Ferguson that housing associations are not just housing providers, but have a wider role in the communities that they serve. I will use a housing association in my constituency as an exemplar of that model: Linthouse Housing Association not only provides good quality housing for its tenants, but does a power of work to improve the environment and cultural life of its community, and to tackle antisocial behaviour. My proposals will not undermine that approach—I passionately believe in it and want to encourage it as much as possible.
As other members have done, I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland". I recommend for the future the practice of the early issuing of such documents. I am intrigued by what the minister describes as a "national aspirational goal"—there is a clear distinction in the 2012 stuff between aspiration and pledge—for expansion in housing supply from 25,000 to 35,000 houses a year by 2015 or thereabouts. The cabinet secretary proposes to achieve that primarily by challenging local authorities, developers and builders, but is notably lukewarm about the role of housing associations, despite what she said about Linthouse.
The paper also specifically says that 500 to 600 houses a year could be delivered by expanding prudential borrowing. Will the cabinet secretary confirm—I refer to Margaret Curran's question—the number of socially rented houses that are included in the increased aspiration to build 10,000 more houses a year? Will she also confirm that the incentives for new council-house building will not be provided by reducing the amount of housing association grant—or HAG—that is available to housing associations? Will she tell Parliament whether—in broad terms, and subject to the spending review—the total funding for social house building is to be increased in real terms or not? In other words, is it substance or is it smoke and mirrors?
I thank Robert Brown for those questions. On the question of the target to build 35,000 houses, he said that that is an aspiration and not a firm pledge—
No—Nicola Sturgeon said it was.
Absolutely—the member was absolutely right to point out the wording in the document. In all seriousness, Governments cannot turn housing supply on and off like a tap. What Governments can do—and what this Government will do—is set the clear direction of travel and seek to create the political and financial climate for that house building to take place. Stewart Maxwell is already chairing the housing supply task force, which is looking to take down some of the barriers to more house building, such as land supply, and some of the barriers in the planning system. That is real practical action to create a climate in which more house building can take place.
On social housing and housing associations, if Robert Brown had had the benefit—it would have been a benefit—of hearing my statement, which I am sure that he has read, he would have heard me make it clear that, notwithstanding our desire for local authorities to have an enhanced role in provision of housing, we see housing associations as the lead providers of social housing. They will continue to build the bulk of social housing.
Regarding the amount of the money that we will invest, our spending plans will be published on 14 November—Robert Brown knows that I cannot go into more detail on that. On subsidy, let me make it quite clear that this is not about reducing the overall level of subsidy; our proposals are about getting more houses for the subsidy that we already invest. Subsidy levels in Scotland are some £30,000 per unit higher than in England and the rate of subsidy is rising at 8 per cent over inflation. To put it bluntly, that is not only not value for money—it is not sustainable. If we are to meet the ambitious house building targets, we need to reform the subsidy regime to get more for our money. I am determined to do that because it is in the interests not just of tenants but of people who want to be tenants but cannot at present.
I give an unqualified welcome to the announcement of an end to the right to buy, which is a long overdue change of policy. I am sure that most of us hope that it will result in new council house building and more building by housing associations, although we must accept that that will not happen overnight. I think that the cabinet secretary will agree that most councils have built very little, if anything, in the past 30 years.
What indications have there been as to how many councils will move to new build as a result of the policy? Have a variety of business models been considered or is that purely a matter for councils? What support does the cabinet secretary envisage councils such as Perth and Kinross Council will need to move back to serious house building? It is only serious house building that will have an impact on Scotland's housing situation.
I thank Roseanna Cunningham for her questions. Her comments on the right to buy will strike a chord with people throughout the country—they are in tune with what the public want. That is why I am proud to put forward the proposals today.
Roseanna Cunningham is right to point out that councils have built almost no new stock in the past 30 years. To be frank, that is thanks to the political climate that the Tory and Labour Governments created in those years. We want to reverse that and reverse the rundown of the role of local authorities, but Roseanna Cunningham is also right to say that that will not happen overnight. She asked me what response we have had from councils: we have had a welcoming and positive response, but we will continue to discuss with councils the role that they can play.
Many councils can make use of their prudential borrowing ability, but it might be that they need further incentives to encourage them to do so, which is why the paper makes it clear that we are willing to consider further financial incentives. We will discuss the matter further with all local authorities that show an interest in moving down that road. As well as provide incentives, one of the most powerful things we can do is remove the disincentive of the right to buy, which has put most local authorities off building any new houses.
I end with a point that I have already made. Councils have a role to play in the future, but housing associations remain central to our drive to build new social rented housing. That is why I encourage all members to read carefully the proposals on reforming the subsidy regime for housing associations. They represent a positive way forward to ensure, first, that we invest properly in housing and, secondly, that we get more from that investment.
What evidence does the cabinet secretary have that the single seller survey scheme is wanted in the market or has worked in trials? Will she admit that single seller surveys are an unnecessary interference?
Secondly, will she take action to streamline the grants process for rural property grants so that bureaucracy is reduced to a minimum and people are not deterred from applying for grants in our rural communities?
Thirdly, will she acknowledge that mistakes were made in the past in the development of large-scale council housing, which led to massive sink estates? Will she ensure that lessons have been learned and that local authorities and housing associations co-operate to achieve the smaller and more varied developments that have proved to be more successful?
What will the cabinet secretary do to ensure that delivery, as opposed to approval, of affordable housing units is achieved? Does she agree that there has been a mismatch between approvals for affordable housing and what has been delivered? Will the Government take responsibility for delivery of houses—
I think that that is enough questions for one member.
I am just finishing, Presiding Officer.
No—we will go straight to the minister.
First, Jamie McGrigor's point about the mismatch between approvals and houses actually being built is an important point and one that we need to address.
On his other points, I do not agree that the single seller survey "is an unnecessary interference". He asked about the response to the proposal. There was a consultation on the single seller survey and the response was overwhelmingly positive. In fairness to the Law Society of Scotland, I have to say that its response was not as positive, but the overall response was extremely positive. The single seller survey has huge potential benefits. That is the case not only for first-time buyers, but particularly for them because the cost—in most cases—of multiple surveys mounts and becomes a barrier to access to the housing market. It is a significant and positive proposal.
I am pleased to say that the rural property grant remains as part of our thinking on how to help people on to the housing ladder. It is one of the mechanisms that will enable us to help 1,800 first-time buyers this year alone.
I could not agree more with Jamie McGrigor's point about mistakes having been made in relation to the sale of council houses. That is one of the reasons why social housing has become discredited over the past few years. Social housing used to be varied and mixed, but now it is predominantly occupied by people in our most deprived communities. We must try to reverse that situation, which is why I stress the boosting of the housing supply in the social rented sector but not only in the social rented sector—we must boost supply across all tenures, so that we can encourage vibrant mixed communities in which people are pleased to live. That is the thrust of the proposals that I have published today.
I do not think that the cabinet secretary will dispute that the lowest and most stable interest rates for 40 years have helped thousands of first-time buyers, both here in Scotland and in the United Kingdom. We have not had the benefit of hearing her statement today, but I assume that in it she would have agreed that lack of supply drives house prices upwards and contributes to the financial problems that are faced by first-time buyers in Scotland.
How will the Government handle local authorities that want to reduce the amount of land that is available for house building? The population of Fife is growing. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware that as part of Fife Council's structure plan reappraisal, the SNP—which forms a large chunk of the administration in Fife—is seeking to reduce the amount of land that is available for house building in Fife. The council's proposal will mean less house building and higher house prices for house hunters in Fife. Can the cabinet secretary assure the thousands of people who are looking to get their foot on the housing ladder in Fife that, when the structure plan comes to the Government at the end of the year, the Government will reject any proposal that reduces new house building in Fife?
In the wake of what happened with Northern Rock and given the increasing numbers of repossessions, perhaps now is not the time to crow about the Labour Government's financial management.
We want to, and will, encourage increased supply of land by local authorities. The housing supply task force, which is chaired by Stewart Maxwell, is currently considering that matter. As we increase the supply of land, encourage more house building and, I hope, encourage new and sustainable communities—as outlined in our proposals today—we must ensure that we also have regard to the kind of communities that we want people to live in. That means that we must ensure that there is green space, good transport links and access to retail and leisure facilities—all the things that people want in communities.
Can you try answering the question? What about Fife?
Order.
In direct response to Lord Foulkes, who is heckling from a sedentary position, I can say that I will encourage Fife Council—as I will any other council in the country—to increase the supply of land so that we can ensure that the housing crisis, which was not challenged by the previous Administration, is tackled by this Government.
We have virtually no chance of getting in all the members who want to ask a question, so one question per member would be extraordinarily helpful.
I welcome the opportunity to ask a question and wish the Presiding Officer luck in his efforts to tackle the bad form, which we have seen from the previous Administration and this Administration, in relation to ministerial statements.
I will ask about the first-time buyers grant, which has come up before and will come up again. I am glad that open questions are asked in the document and that the Government seems to be willing to think again about the detail. However, why were more detailed options not outlined? One option would be to target the grant at measures on which first-time buyers might not otherwise spend money, such as improvements to the energy performance of buildings. That would not replace money that is already being spent, so it would not be inflationary. It would also cut people's fuel bills and achieve the environmental objectives that all political parties share. Would not that be a far better option for the cabinet secretary to pursue than a universal and untargeted first-time buyers grant?
I respect Patrick Harvie's views on the matter; unlike some members, he has always put forward a well thought out and rational point of view on the first-time buyers grant. The reason why we have not been definitive on it in the consultation document is that we recognise that there are several ways in which we might implement our manifesto commitment. Through the consultation, we want to hear views expressed inside and outside Parliament on the best way forward. I hope and expect that Patrick Harvie will feed his views formally into the consultation. That is what having respect for Parliament is all about, and it is what I will always do.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement, especially her announcement that the Government will proceed with the single survey. She will be well aware of the considerable costs that buyers can face in trying to buy a property. Often, first-time buyers run into double figures when instructing surveys to be carried out. How does the cabinet secretary intend to introduce the policy? Will it be phased in in relation to the cost of property, as happened down south? Can she also give us an idea of the timescale for the policy's introduction?
I echo Michael Matheson's comments: the single survey is a positive step forward that will help everybody who tries to buy a house, whether or not it is their first house. It will have particular benefits for first-time buyers, who often have to spend several hundred pounds on surveys while, in many cases, still being unsuccessful in buying a house.
We will introduce the single seller survey next year. A wealth of information will be publicly available about its content and operation. I hope that all members will play their part, as public representatives, in ensuring that the level of awareness and understanding of the new procedure is high.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on tackling the right to buy; however, I remind her that the objection to the right to buy was that the councils were unable to replace lost stock. I fear that much of what is in the consultation paper could lead to that mistake being made again.
Unlike Michael Matheson, I have great suspicions about the single survey. Has the minister looked at what is happening to the single survey procedure in England? It appears to be discredited.
Also, under the heading of "Direct Support for Home Ownership", reference is made in the consultation document to the Government working with lenders to develop "mortgage related products". What will those products be? Will their availability be selective or will they be a right for any category of buyer?
Also, will she consider—
I asked for one question per member, Ms MacDonald.
I will be brief. Will the minister consider suggesting to councils that they put their houses in trust so that, in the future, it will be much more difficult to take them out of council ownership? That would help if we are trying to keep a balanced supply of all different types of housing.
The idea that councils could put their houses in trust is interesting. I am more than happy to reflect on it.
Margo MacDonald asked pertinent questions and she is absolutely right that the fundamental problem with the right to buy was that councils were not allowed or were unable to replace the stock that they lost through the right to buy. We cannot replace stock that has already been lost, but I hope that she sees, throughout the consultation paper, the desire and determination of the Government to boost housing supply across all tenures, including the social rented sector. That is vital if we are to tackle the lack of available housing not just for those who want to buy—which is the majority of people in the country—but for those who either cannot buy or who would prefer to rent.
On the single seller survey, I recognise that people may be concerned about the experience in England. I understand that concern, but I stress that the single survey model that we will adopt will, in a variety of ways, be radically different from that which was adopted in England. Indeed, English ministers said recently that they wished that they had taken the road that we will take because they would have been able to avoid some of the difficulties they have run into.
On home owners and encouraging mortgage lenders to make more flexible products available, we have already had initial discussions with mortgage lenders and we will continue with those. In particular, we want to examine the possibility of developing for first-time buyers mortgage products that are designed to lower the cost of home ownership, particularly during the first years of a mortgage. I look forward to progressing those discussions—they could be fruitful.
Finally—and briefly, Presiding Officer, because I can see that you are looking at me with that look—we are also keen to talk to mortgage lenders about how to develop green mortgage products. That idea also has great potential.
Once I discover what "that look" is, I might use it more often.
Because we started late, I am going to take questions until 5 past 3.
I draw members' attention to my declaration in the register of members' interests.
As Mary Scanlon pointed out, the nationalists campaigned against stock transfer in the Highlands. That was not communities making informed decisions; it was party-political hoodwinking of Highlands communities. The cabinet secretary has a moral obligation to assist those communities. What help was offered to them in her statement? What comfort is there for tenants who are facing delays and repairs, coupled with rising rents? Given the scale of the Highland Council's housing debt, can it benefit from prudential borrowing? How many more houses will be built in the Highlands as a result of today's statement?
The SNP members who campaigned against housing stock transfer in the Highlands and Islands were members of the communities that would have been affected by the proposed stock transfers, so it was perfectly appropriate for them to make their views known, as it would be for any other member of any other community.
I recognise that local authorities bear a large burden of housing debt, but that is not the fault of this Government; it is the fault of previous Labour and Tory Governments. That is reality.
If Rhoda Grant thinks it unfair—as I do—that the only prospect of a local authority having its debt written off is if it agrees to transfer its housing stock, then perhaps she will encourage her members to back the approach that the Government has made to the Treasury to ask it to consider other circumstances in which housing debts could be written off.
Rhoda Grant asked me what is in our proposals for her constituents. For the first time, we have a housing strategy that focuses on building more houses across all tenures and which makes concrete proposals for bringing that about. We now have a raft of measures that are designed to help first-time buyers, which the previous Government totally failed to provide, and we have a Government that is prepared to stand up and say that the right to buy new-build properties is a disincentive to building, so we will remove it.
I welcome the proposals to end the right to buy for new social housing that has been built by local authorities and housing associations. The housing supply crisis should not be exacerbated, bearing in mind the legacy of the previous Labour and Liberal Executive. The right-to-buy policy has helped—
A question, please.
The right-to-buy policy has helped families in Scotland but it has also caused problems. Two hundred thousand people are on council house waiting lists—
A question, please, Mr McMillan.
Will the cabinet secretary ensure that the SNP manifesto commitment to reviewing the right-to-buy policy is fulfilled at the earliest possible opportunity? How long will that take?
I thank Stuart McMillan for his positive comments about our proposals on the right to buy. It gives me the opportunity to say that I think that they are in the interests of tenants throughout Scotland and will get widespread support. Perhaps the views that I hear from the Labour members will change when Wendy Alexander's views reach her colleagues.
Stuart McMillan made an important and accurate distinction between our proposals on ending the right to buy on newbuild property and a wider, more general review of the overall right-to-buy policy. Some changes were introduced by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. It is appropriate to see what effect those changes have had and to feed the experience into our wider review. However, I say to Stuart McMillan that we are determined to review the overall right-to-buy policy because we are now at a stage where we cannot put our heads in the sand—as previous Governments did—and pretend that we do not have a housing crisis. We do have a housing crisis and this Government is determined to tackle it.
I begin by congratulating Nicola Sturgeon on her private finance initiative. She said in her statement that the Government will attract private finance from mortgage lenders, investors and bankers—dear me, wicked people—to achieve more shared equity schemes for more first-time buyers. Will the cabinet secretary please tell us why she is so keen on using private finance when it comes to homes for our people to live in, but is so hostile to it when it comes to building schools for our children to be educated in and hospitals for our patients to be treated in? In short, will she tell us why she takes off the SNP's ideological blinkers when she wears her housing hat, but puts them back on again when she wears her health hat?
David McLetchie has just demonstrated ably that I am not dogmatic; I am prepared to look at things in the interests of the people of Scotland, and to make decisions based on what I think those interests are. He makes a serious point, however—PFI for schools and hospitals results in money being taken away from front-line services and used instead to line the pockets of people in the private sector. In "Firm Foundations", we propose to take money from private sector interests and use it to help others who would not get on to the housing ladder otherwise.
Whatever our ideological differences might be on some matters, I hope that David McLetchie will see the sense of the proposals in the document and give them a warm welcome.
Unlike Jamie McGrigor and the Tories and Margo MacDonald, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government proposal to progress the single seller survey. However, given the linkages between poor health, the environment, sustainability and poverty, I am a little disappointed that, in a 56-page document, there is only a brief reference to the possibility of the single seller survey containing an energy report.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that such a report will be slightly more than that and that it will be an energy performance certificate against which the individual citizen can measure performance and know that the certificate has Government-approved status? Allied to that, the Government has set up a panel to review and collect measures to improve energy efficiency. Will that review include reference to microgeneration?
Ross Finnie raises some extremely important points. It is important that the energy efficiency report will be part of the single seller survey. If Ross Finnie reads the chapter on energy efficiency in the consultation paper, he will see that ensuring higher standards of energy efficiency and sustainability in housing is an extremely important priority. Microgeneration is also extremely important and we will certainly seek to ensure that it is reflected in the energy efficiency report.
We have to build more houses and we are determined to do so, but it is important to stress that we have to build houses of the right quality in the right places. The proposals on energy efficiency and the inclusion of the energy efficiency report in the single seller survey will help us to ensure that that is the case in the future. Although Scotland already leads the way on energy efficiency as part of our building regulations, there is no room for complacency and we must continue to improve. Taken together, the proposals in the document will ensure that we do.
I will have a brief final question from Michael McMahon. I apologise to all members who pressed their request-to-speak buttons—I am afraid that time has run out.
Following the question from my colleague Patricia Ferguson, I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to support local authorities and housing associations that work well to support communities that experience antisocial behaviour. Will the cabinet secretary tell us what she intends to do to encourage local authorities and housing associations that do not provide adequate support in that respect? Will she tell us what future responsibility and role Communities Scotland will have not only in that but in all areas where she proposes to deliver on her policies?
I will say more about Communities Scotland's future role in a moment.
Michael McMahon asked an important question about housing associations. I believe that they should have a much wider role than simply providing housing; indeed, the best associations in the country already perform a wider role, and those which are not doing so should be encouraged in that respect. We all have a part to play in ensuring that they live up to their responsibilities, which are not simply about dealing with the negative aspects in our communities, although that is important. One very positive responsibility is to improve the environment in which our communities live. I am very keen for housing associations to step up to the plate on that, and will continue to encourage them in that in order to ensure that it happens.
One of the announcements that Parliament was deprived of hearing this afternoon was about the abolition of Communities Scotland by this Government. By taking the organisation's housing functions into core Government, we will satisfy two of our important objectives: first, we will simplify the public sector landscape and get rid of one of the plethora of quangos that Labour and the Tories have managed to create over the past few years and, secondly, we will ensure a strategic national capacity to drive forward our housing policy agenda. Although local authorities and housing associations are key partners in that extremely important approach, we need interventions that are above and beyond local authority boundaries, which is why we need capacity at national level.
Obviously, Communities Scotland's current role as the middleman in community regeneration will also be removed. As a result, there will be no middleman between the Government's national strategic direction with regard to regeneration and the very important work of local authorities and community planning partnerships in ensuring that regeneration takes place on the ground.
Communities Scotland's regulatory functions will continue to be carried out by a stand-alone agency, but we will reform those functions to ensure that they focus much more on outcomes for tenants and that they are completely independent of ministers, as recommended in Professor Crerar's recent review.