Chamber and committees

Does the minister recognise, however, what the shipyards have been telling us, which is that, to win commercial work, they need social value weighting and patient finance? The Scottish National Investment Bank does not really offer any shipbuilding finance products that are competitive with other countries. Can we address that fundamental issue?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I wonder whether the minister is familiar with the B-Neatpump project, which has been developed by the Malin Group and Star Refrigeration in Glasgow. It would be a massive industrial opportunity for Scotland if we could manufacture at scale those river-based heat pumps, which can be not only used along Scottish coastlines but exported around the world. If the cabinet secretary observes that the pricing signal is correct, will she encourage that kind of manufacturing opportunity in Scotland as best she can?

Will the minister consider investigating making further use of section 45 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022? There have now been two incidents of the Russians sabotaging undersea cables around the Northern Isles. In the case of the Northern Isles ferry, there is a strong rationale for considering the national security implications and making that a direct award—or, at least, a UK-only competition. Will he look into that case?

The figures that I mentioned might reflect some complacency since the law changed. People might think that it is a done deal unless they feel specifically motivated to rule themselves out, but clarifying which organs or tissue we wish to donate would avoid any ambiguity in the traumatic situation of dealing with the death of a loved one. It is good to address that matter, and I encourage members of the public and colleagues to do so.

I recently visited the anatomy school at the University of Glasgow, where staff raised similar concerns about the drop in the number of people donating their bodies to medical research. The five Scottish universities that teach medicine desperately need people who are willing to donate their bodies for research. It is still an opt-in system, and a generous one, and it is something else that people might want to consider this week.

We should use organ donation week to recognise that much more work is needed if we want organ donation to serve the people of Scotland as well as it can. We can no longer rest on our laurels; we must get people proactively registering, and we must reduce the stigma and silence by actually talking more about the end of life. We do that more in Scotland than we used to. We do talk about hospice and end-of-life palliative care, and people should be happy to discuss with their friends and family what they want to do at the end of their lives and whether they wish to donate their organs.

I reiterate my thanks to the member for lodging the motion, and I am happy to support it in the hope that today will be the start of a new Scotland-wide conversation about a vital topic.

The member is making a very important point about the capital investment that is required to get the shipyard infrastructure up to scratch. The investments at both Govan and Rosyth demonstrate visionary capacity growth through bringing more shipbuilding indoors—Scotland having a very rainy environment. Does the member agree that that is needed at Ferguson Marine, too, and that the commercial yards also need investment to get their facilities up to scratch?

I associate myself with the sentiments in the minister’s statement, and in particular her commendation of the Maryhill Integration Network, which does excellent work in Glasgow—I think that its annual general meeting will be held this afternoon. It also provides the secretariat to the cross-party group on migration, which has been a fantastic addition to the Parliament in recent years.

Does the minister agree that this is fundamentally a question of housing supply, that we cannot allow a housing crisis to translate into an issue of social cohesion and that we need to build out housing and expand cities such as Glasgow, which has plenty of latent capacity? Does she also recognise that we need to have measurable outcomes from the new Scots integration strategy, in particular around skills? We have heard Ukrainians and others who have settled status say that they are struggling to access skills-appropriate work. We have had dentists cycling around delivering for Uber in Glasgow—

—when they could be training at pace. Can we get that sorted?

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in the context of providing ostensible neutrality, bigger housing associations will inevitably dominate smaller ones and that positive protections should be in place?

I declare an interest, as I am a recently co-opted committee member of Reidvale Housing Association, which is a community-based housing association in Glasgow.

The purpose of amendment 101 is to bring housing legislation into alignment with sections 109 to 113 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. Doing so would mean that registered social landlords can transfer engagements only if two thirds of tenants vote in favour of a special resolution.

Currently, a simple majority of tenants in favour is required for the process to proceed. However, section 111 of the 2014 act, which governs shareholder voting and takeovers of societies, and is legislation that applies across the UK, stipulates:

“A resolution is a ‘special resolution’ if—

(a) the resolution is passed a general meeting by at least two-thirds of the eligible members who vote.”

I was motivated to lodge amendment 101 because of what happened at Reidvale Housing Association last year. Had the measure in amendment 101 been in place at that time, the tenant ballot to transfer the association’s housing stock would not have reached the required threshold for the proposal to proceed to a special general meeting of shareholders, at which the two-thirds majority requirement to transfer the engagements was not met. That was achieved only after a last-ditch local campaign against a well-resourced propaganda effort by Places for People Scotland to try and seize control of housing stock that was under community ownership.

In December 2023, Reidvale Housing Association proposed to transfer its housing stock of around 900 properties—with a market value of approximately £180 million—to Places for People Scotland. In a tenant ballot that was open for 32 days and in which 73 per cent of tenants cast their vote, 62 per cent voted in favour of the proposal. However, had the two-thirds majority rule been in place, the proposal would have fallen at that point because it did not meet the threshold of 66.6 per cent.

As members might know, Reidvale Housing Association was one of Scotland’s first community-based housing associations. It was formed after the seminal Housing Act 1974, which is now celebrating half a century of community-based housing.

The Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing has highlighted that it has serious concerns about the pattern of transfers and engagements involving community-based housing associations over the past few years.

Transfers of engagements that have taken place have largely had the support of more than 90 per cent of tenants. The only one that fell below the 90 per cent threshold—the Pineview Housing Association and Kendoon Housing Association transfer—was unusual. Clearly, it is of concern when support from tenants of housing associations falls below the threshold.

When transfers of engagements are sought, they should enjoy the support of the vast majority of tenants for the proposition to be reasonable. With yes votes in transfers normally exceeding the 90 per cent threshold, it was clear that there was concern about the Reidvale case, because almost 40 per cent of voting tenants opposed the transfer, despite the enticing offer of a five-year rent freeze in return for handing over the £180 million of housing stock that they collectively owned. That was hardly a resounding vote of confidence.

The requirement for a supermajority—one that would require support from two thirds of the tenant body—would make it clear that there is a settled majority view. In the Reidvale case, that is about what is the best future for one of Scotland’s community-based housing associations. After all, it is a one-way road from being a community-based association to joining one of the large national housing groups. There has never been a case in Scotland in which a large national housing group has spun out a small community-based housing association. Therefore, the amendment is important in protecting the sector.

It is important to note that, once the required approval of the transfer by tenants was in place, by a small majority, Reidvale Housing Association went on to hold a special general meeting of its shareholders on 16 January last year in order to seek ratification. The proposal was then voted down.

At the time, the chair of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations said that, as an obvious supporter and promoter of community-based housing associations, they welcomed the shareholders’ decision and recognised the concerns of members, including their concern about the impending loss of community assets and the inevitable disappearance of local decision making.

That is why I think that amendment 101 is reasonable and coherent. It proposes the prudent measure of bringing the voting threshold for tenants and shareholders of housing associations into alignment, with a two thirds threshold being required for both. That would serve to provide an extra layer of protection for community-controlled housing associations against what are often cynical and insidious attempts to railroad through irreversible takeovers of community-controlled assets that risk pitting tenants against the member shareholders. That has been a worrying trend in Scotland’s housing sector in the past few years, of which the situation at Reidvale Housing Association is only the latest and most egregious example.

It would be particularly fitting for the Parliament to support amendment 101—