Chamber and committees

Renfrewshire Council has submitted written correspondence to the committee, highlighting some of the difficulties with enforcing the powers in the 1997 act. I have had similar correspondence from Glasgow City Council, which said:

“We note that although the Planning Authorities (in Scotland) have powers to act where a designated heritage asset has deteriorated to the extent that its preservation may be at risk - in practice such powers are rarely utilised due to the significant cost, complexity and uncertain outcomes in light of constrained resources and significant competing demands”,

such as using a compulsory purchase order to obtain a building.

One of the absurdities of the current legislation is the compensation requirements if the building has received consent for restoration, even though it is derelict. There is a rarely-used provision under section 45 of the 1997 act that directs minimum compensation to offset cases where the building has deteriorated, and the cost of restoration can be recouped, but it has only ever been used once in the act’s history.

On that basis, do the witnesses agree that, after more than a quarter of a century, the legislation is ripe for legislative review, and that the committee could perhaps consider in its recommendations asking the Government to undertake a review of the 1997 act and how effective its provisions are in that regard?

That is helpful. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

I thank the witnesses for coming. Sir Gregor has hinted at the theme of some of my questions. The module 1 report highlighted the importance of data and research when we are responding to a pandemic. Professor Patrick Vallance told the UK inquiry that there was a paucity of data, and I think that Sir Gregor just echoed that point. In Professor Patrick Vallance’s words, the UK Government and devolved Administrations

“were flying more blind than you would wish to”.

Issues were identified around the lack of formal structures for the Office for National Statistics to contribute to preparedness planning, as well as a lack of compatibility in data systems across the four UK countries. At paragraph 4.75, the report identifies that

“This means that, despite England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland being at risk of the same health emergency, the data and health systems were so different that they were a barrier to effective preparedness.”

Could members of the panel comment on that paucity of data, which the UK Covid inquiry identified as a weakness? What work is specifically under way to establish countermeasures to those weaknesses so that we have appropriate and reliable data systems across the UK?

You have given us a helpful and encouraging insight into Scotland’s underlying data picture. Inevitably, however, I want to focus on areas of development. What work is being done specifically to improve the data systems? What projects are being commissioned? How will new systems be tested? Are there exercises in the pipeline? Is there a timescale for when data systems are likely to be tested in a pandemic simulation exercise? Will that happen in the next few years? What new hibernated studies or existing studies are being developed? It would be good to get a more specific indication of what work is under way in the light of the learning from the Covid-19 pandemic.

I thank the panel members for joining us today. I want to touch on the wider issues regarding key challenges to mental health services. The convener touched on some of the complex cases and asked how services can be better able to deal with those. What measures do—[Inaudible.]—to improve care in Scotland’s mental health system for individuals with complex needs, including autism—

Apologies, convener. I am keen to know what measures the witnesses feel should be taken to improve care in Scotland’s mental health system for those with complex needs, including autism, acquired brain injuries, personality disorders and dual diagnoses.

You mentioned health and social care partnerships and integration joint boards. It seems that, every financial year, decisions are made at that level that militate against the creation of long-term value in mental health services. I could rhyme off a number of recent decisions in Glasgow, such as the decisions on Flourish house, the Notre Dame Centre and the Sandyford clinic, that do not chime with the objectives that have been set nationally. There seems to be fragmentation and a lack of accountability across the system when it comes to designing services that are focused on the needs of patients.

With regard to recommendations, what do we need to do to improve a structure that leads to poor data collection, a lack of co-ordination and a lack of accountability?

There will be themes that you gather from people’s experiences, and there will be a level of commonality that perhaps drives you instinctively towards certain recommendations. Aggregating patient experience, do you have any insights on common trends or common relationships that enable you to identify what needs to change? Could you at least offer some personal insight on that?

It seems that fundamental problems have been identified in relation to resourcing. In its 2023 report “Adult mental health”, Audit Scotland noted that limited and short-term funding across many mental health services is creating additional challenges in addressing staff recruitment issues. That makes it difficult to fill vacancies, because funding is often provided only on a fixed-term basis, which is undesirable to applicants. We have seen that play out in relation to not only third-party services, but core services such as those that are provided at Skye house, where a culture of high staff turnover and a lack of leadership was identified as a key causal factor in the poor performance of that unit.

What long-term strategies are needed to address that short-termism and to deal with the resultant issues with staff recruitment and retention that are currently being experienced across pretty much all aspects of Scotland’s mental health system?

The purpose of amendment 440 is to bring the legislation on housing into alignment with sections 109 to 113 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. That would mean that registered social landlords could transfer engagements only if two thirds of tenants vote in favour of a resolution to do so. Currently a simple majority of tenants in favour is required to proceed through the process.

Section 111 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, which governs shareholder voting and takeovers of societies and is legislation that applies across the UK, stipulates that a special resolution must be passed at a general meeting by at least two thirds of the eligible members who vote.

I was motivated to lodge amendment 440 by what happened at Reidvale Housing Association in 2023 and 2024. Had the measure in amendment 440 been in place then, the tenant ballot would not have reached the threshold required for the proposal to proceed to the special general meeting, at which the two-thirds majority requirement to transfer engagements was not met.

In December 2023, Reidvale Vale Housing Association proposed to transfer its housing stock of 900 properties, valued at around £180 million, to Places for People Scotland. In a tenant ballot, which was open for 32 days and in which 72.9 per cent of tenants cast their vote, 61.8 per cent of tenants voted in favour of the proposal. Had a 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 you may know, Reidvale Housing Association was one of Scotland’s first community-based housing associations and was formed after the Housing Act 1974. In 1975, it had around 900 homes in the Dennistoun area of Glasgow. There had been significant concerns about its governance and investment, and the board had decided to seek a transfer partner to take over the association—its tenancies, properties and staff. However, there were significant concerns about the process being railroaded through with coercion, and the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations resisted the proposal.

The forum highlighted concerns about the tenant ballot. At the time,

“GWSF director David Bookbinder said the 61.8% ‘Yes’ result”

in favour of transferring the housing stock

“must be viewed in the context of previous transfer votes, most of which have generated positive results by at least 90%.”

Indeed, if we look at the transfers of engagements of housing associations over the last few years, we see that they have largely had the support of over 90 per cent of tenants. I think that only one fell below the 90 per cent level, which was for the Pineview Housing Association and Kendoon Housing Association transfer, and the support for that was 88 per cent.

Clearly, in instances in which transfers of engagements are sought, they should enjoy the support of the vast majority of tenants for the propositions to be reasonable. With yes votes in transfer ballots normally exceeding the 90 per cent threshold, it was clear that there was a concern in Reidvale’s case, as almost 40 per cent of voting tenants opposed the transfer, despite the offer of a five-year rent freeze. That was hardly a resounding vote of confidence.

The requirement for a supermajority, which would require support from two thirds of the tenant body, would make it clear that there was a settled majority view on what would be the best future for a community-based housing association. After all, it is a one-way road from being a community-based association to joining a large national housing group. There has never been a case in Scotland when a large national housing group has devolved or spun out a small community-based association, so I think that my amendment 440 is important in order to protect the sector.

Once it had the required tenant approval of the transfer, which was in place by a simple majority, Reidvale Housing Association went on to hold a special general meeting of its shareholders on 16 January 2024 in order to seek ratification of the transfer of engagements to Places for People. At the meeting, 138 shareholders, or 66.3 per cent, voted to reject the takeover and backed continued community ownership, with only 70 shareholders, or 33.6 per cent, supporting the transfer. It was clear that that was a huge victory for community-based ownership, after a grass-roots campaign that was fighting against an overwhelming narrative that there was no alternative but to transfer to a large national housing group. Presenting a counter-proposal was very challenging but, nonetheless, the proposal cut through and was able to win the support of shareholders. The chair of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, John Hamilton, said at the time that, as an obvious supporter and promoter of community-based housing associations,

“GWSF welcomes the 2 to 1 decision of Reidvale’s members not to ratify the outcome of the tenant ballot. We recognise many of the concerns expressed by members, including the impending loss of community assets, and the inevitable disappearance of local decision making. The relative closeness of the separate tenant ballot, with less than 62% in favour, compared with the usual 90+% yes vote in previous transfers, was a clear sign of the anxiety and uncertainty felt by many tenants despite the promise of a five-year rent freeze.”

That is why I think that amendment 440 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. That would serve to provide extra protection for community-controlled housing associations against what are often cynical attempts to railroad through irreversible takeovers of community-controlled assets and risk pitting tenants against member shareholders, which has been a worrying trend in Scotland’s housing sector in the past few years. It would be particularly fitting for the committee to support the amendment now, because this year marks the 50th anniversary of Scotland’s first community-based housing associations being established. The proposal has the backing of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations.

I move amendment 440.