Chamber and committees

Between 1 January 2006 and 31 May 2010, the number of local authority large scale voluntary stock transfer proposals (i.e. over 500 units) that have been a) subject to a ballot, is five and b) not subject to a ballot, is zero.

Further details of the five areas that were balloted are given in the answer to question S3W-33795 on 2 June 2010. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

River Clyde Homes is the only Registered Social Landlord in Scotland that has been involved in housing stock transfers in terms of actually taking ownership of transferred stock. Another four organisations were involved in stock transfers at the time of each ballot but never took on any of the stock due to the failure of each ballot. Of these, only Ferguslie Park Housing Association was a Registered Social Landlord. The other three organisations were Renfrewshire Housing Association, Highland Housing Association and Housing Stirling but all three were never actually registered as social landlords due to the negative ballot results.

The results of each of the five stock transfer ballots since 1 January 2006 referred to in my answer to question S3W-33794 were as follows:

Council Area	Whole/Partial Transfer	Votes for Transfer (Number, %)	Votes Against Transfer (Number, %)	Turnout (%)
Renfrewshire	Whole	4,214 (49.7%)	4,250 (50.2%)	8,474 (54.8%)
Renfrewshire (Ferguslie Park)	Partial	117 (46.6%)	134 (53.4%)	251 (47.5%)
Inverclyde	Whole	3,258 (71.3%)	1,306 (28.6%)	4,570 (71.0%)
Stirling	Whole	1,511 (31.9%)	3,220 (68.1%)	4,731 (67.2%)
Highland	Whole	4,097 (40.1%)	6,060 (59.9%)	10,179 (63.3%)

 

These ballot results mean that only a majority of tenants in Inverclyde have voted for a stock transfer proposal since 1 January 2006. In common with the answer to question S3W-33794 on 2 June 2010, this table only lists stock transfers of 500 properties or more. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

The five stock transfer proposals listed in my answer to question S3W-33795 on 2 June 2010 were balloted upon on the following basis:

Council Area	Value of Stock Transfer Bid (£ million)
Renfrewshire	-£73.3 million
Renfrewshire (Ferguslie Park)	£0.0 million
Inverclyde	-£39.9 million
Stirling	+£16.4 million
Highland	+£13.4 million

Note: In broad terms, these figures are the projected value of rental income in the 30 years after transfer minus all projected investment, management and maintenance costs expected over the next 30 years all expressed in today''s prices i.e. adjusted downwards for future interest rates and inflation. This method of calculating the value of the bid is known as a Net Present Value calculation. Where the value of the bid is negative, a larger payment to the landlord is usually required (to reflect expected future interest rates and inflation) than that indicated here as the subsidy is usually paid over a number of years rather than being paid in advance of need.

This table excludes stock transfer proposals which involved under 500 properties and only covers stock transfers where ballots took place after 1 January 2006.

All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-33275 on 5 May 2010. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-33277 on 5 May 2010. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency is a member of the Scottish Working Group on Non-Native Species which promotes effective policy co-ordination and practical implementation of invasive non-native species policy in Scotland.

The Invasive Non-Native Species Strategy for Great Britain provides a comprehensive policy framework to guide management response to invasive non-native species. This is based on the approach advocated by the Convention on Biological Diversity which prioritises prevention. Once invasive non-native species are well-established, complete eradication is rarely possible or cost-effective.

I am not aware of any requests from British Waterways for discussion with Scottish Government ministers or officials on this specific topic.

British Waterways carries out routine management and conducts surveys of aquatic plants to maintain a navigable channel and enable early response. British Waterways also carries out prioritised control of bank-side invasive non-native species where these are a problem including Japanese knotweed, knotweed hybrids, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed on the Crinan, Caledonian and Lowland Canals (the latter includes the Forth and Clyde, Union and Monkland Canals).

Where invasive non-native species downgrade the ecological status of a waterbody, the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Planning process  (co-ordinated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency) may identify additional measures for British Waterways to take.

A brief summary of actions being taken by these three bodies in relation to Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed is as follows:

(a) The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is responsible for co-ordinating River Basin Management Plans required under the Water Framework Directive. The plans are required to identify measures which will prevent deterioration or which will improve the ecological condition of a waterbody and may therefore include measures for management of invasive non-native species where these are or are likely to become deleterious to ecological condition. SEPA may also fund projects including control of bankside and instream plant species (where these impact on morphological aspects of the waterbody) through their restoration fund. In addition, SEPA have produced guidance for waste management operators on the on-site management of Japanese knotweed and associated contaminated soils.

(b) Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) takes action to control Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed and other invasive non-native plants in National Nature Reserves. Where designated land (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)) is affected by these species, particularly where the effects are such that the site is in consequence classified as being in unfavourable condition, SNH seeks to encourage land managers to put in place appropriate management to control or eradicate these species. In addition, SNH supports other actions to control invasive non-native plants thorough awareness raising and training events, including the Sharing Good Practice programme, as well as working closely with other agencies, utilities managers and the construction industry.

(c) Scottish Water aims to deal with Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed in carrying out capital projects as well as in the course of undertaking operational and maintenance work.

This is a matter for individual local authorities. The information requested is not held centrally.