I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this serious debate.
It is important to build consensus, but it is simply wrong to suggest that that has not been done in the past, because there is huge evidence that it has been done.
The Minister for Community Safety said in his statement to the Parliament last week that there was a concern because of the terrible health inequalities that afflict Scotland.
Of course, the bigger challenge is the inequalities that exist within Scotland.
We know that many young people experiment with drugs, but the reality is that communities that experience disadvantage and deprivation lose their children to drugs and the accompanying death toll disproportionately.
Those communities understand that.
Yes, we have to have a person-centred approach, but we also have to have a community-centred approach.
We cannot simply say that that is what happens in such communities; we must listen to people in those communities who suffer as a consequence of drugs being taken and we must take account of the impact on the broader community.
Regardless of whether people in those communities take drugs themselves, they see the impact on their schools, health centres and the very fabric of their neighbourhoods.
The life chances of their children can be determined by our inability to address the consequence of drugs.
It is therefore important for the minister to reaffirm that the Scottish index of multiple deprivation will remain a key driver in distributing resources across a range of services in order properly to meet need.
Of course, there are always those who wish to create the impression that the debate around drugs is somehow about opposites—that it is either maintenance or abstinence—but I acknowledge that the minister confirmed that the Government's strategy does not seek to come down on one side or the other in that way.
However, I believe that talking about targets drives action by those who are charged with the responsibility for supporting people who have a drug problem.
In that regard, will the minister consider setting one target in particular, on the level of methadone use?
Does he accept that meeting such a target would indicate the success of the strategy?
There are huge challenges around the issue of hidden harm.
It is a scandal that the torch is shone on the lives that some of our children live only by those who are raising issues about antisocial behaviour in their communities.
Only then do we learn about some of the experiences that too many of our children have, and that is wrong.
We have a strategy for young carers, but we do not say often enough that too many of those young people are caring for adults who have addiction problems and that that is inappropriate.
I urge the minister to confirm that he will place the drug strategy in the broader context of the Administration's policies on education, housing, employment, justice and enforcement.
I know that there are anxieties locally about projects that support people into work and which work by addressing those problems.
I note the strategy document on drugs.
However, if the minister resources families that have experienced a problem with drugs to talk about what needs to be done in our communities to address the broader problems that are faced there, there will be a large return for that effort.
Therefore, I want to know what support there is for family support projects.
Further, I want to know that schools will not only provide education, but will be places in which the teachers and staff identify children who are in need; schools should be the first place in which it is seen that a child is not being nurtured.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has described the skills strategy as demand led—does it still have a place for those with drug and addiction problems, for whom employment is an important bridge?
I ask the minister to respond to the comments that were made about the power of Crimestoppers to use proceeds-of-crime money in the communities in which it was harvested to give people a voice.
I know constituents who whisper on the telephone in case people hear them and think that they are talking to the police.
I urge the minister to support Crimestoppers and other initiatives that give a voice to those who are most intimidated by the consequences of drug problems in our communities.
7.6.08
31.5.08
Speech on Fuel Poverty, Scottish Parliament 22nd. May 2008
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that her statement represents a significant shift in the Scottish Government's approach?
I suspect that a civil servant somewhere might even have described it as "brave".
It appears to fly in the face of the First Minister's commitment when he was challenged last year over whether the universal central heating programme was going to end.
He said that it was not going to end, and that it was going to be enhanced.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government's position is now that the central heating programme and its availability to all pensioners are now at an end?
Although I welcome the establishment of the fuel poverty forum under the wise chairmanship of Graham Blount, will the minister confirm that the forum's job is to consider how to target, that it is for her Government to decide whether it should target, and that that decision has already been made?
The statement tells us about a lot of things that the Government cannot do, but I want to ask about the things that it can do.
Given the difficult circumstances with rising fuel prices, why has the Government flatlined the budget for the central heating and warm deal programmes rather than increasing it?
The Government hands out £165 million per year to small businesses without attaching one condition, so why has it taken the view that the only way to target those who are in fuel poverty is to remove the entitlement from pensioners in general?
Finally, I have to ask about an issue of detail.
Will the cabinet secretary clarify two small points about what happens now with the programme?
What is the difference between a pensioner who is currently on the list and someone whose application is in the post and will be received tomorrow?
What is the difference between a tenant who lives in a private sector flat whose central heating system has finally conked out and someone who does not have a central heating system at all, and what is the difference between how cold those two pensioners will feel?
I suspect that a civil servant somewhere might even have described it as "brave".
It appears to fly in the face of the First Minister's commitment when he was challenged last year over whether the universal central heating programme was going to end.
He said that it was not going to end, and that it was going to be enhanced.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government's position is now that the central heating programme and its availability to all pensioners are now at an end?
Although I welcome the establishment of the fuel poverty forum under the wise chairmanship of Graham Blount, will the minister confirm that the forum's job is to consider how to target, that it is for her Government to decide whether it should target, and that that decision has already been made?
The statement tells us about a lot of things that the Government cannot do, but I want to ask about the things that it can do.
Given the difficult circumstances with rising fuel prices, why has the Government flatlined the budget for the central heating and warm deal programmes rather than increasing it?
The Government hands out £165 million per year to small businesses without attaching one condition, so why has it taken the view that the only way to target those who are in fuel poverty is to remove the entitlement from pensioners in general?
Finally, I have to ask about an issue of detail.
Will the cabinet secretary clarify two small points about what happens now with the programme?
What is the difference between a pensioner who is currently on the list and someone whose application is in the post and will be received tomorrow?
What is the difference between a tenant who lives in a private sector flat whose central heating system has finally conked out and someone who does not have a central heating system at all, and what is the difference between how cold those two pensioners will feel?
Speech on Housing Needs, Scottish Parliament 8 May 2008
As ever, it is a privilege for me to open the debate on behalf of the Labour Party.
It follows on from last week's woeful performance by members on the Government front and back benches.
That housing debate was marked by their refusal to answer any of the key questions or to give any indication that they had any awareness of the range and importance of the issues that need to be addressed. [Laughter.]
If the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change finds that amusing, I suspect that he will not find anybody from the housing sector to join him.
The lack of time for that previous debate allowed ministers to equivocate.
It was evident to us that the Government was unwilling to address the issues.
It would not even provide any time to debate the matter, despite the empty, stretching prairie of time—peppered by stopgap debates and marginal issues—that forms the Government's business programme.
We have had three Government debates or statements on housing.
On 21 June 2007, the announcement of the housing supply task force came with a huge fanfare, only for us to discover later that the body will not report; that it was not being consulted on the budget; that, remarkably, it would not even shape planning policy, which is designed to address the relationship between planning and the provision of affordable housing; and that it was not being consulted on the revision of Scottish planning policy 3.
On 26 September 2007, a debate on the Glasgow Housing Association was initiated and important issues about the inspection report were addressed.
The Government indicated that it would progress second-stage transfer.
Nicola Sturgeon said that ministers would
"review the current suite of grant agreements that are in place".—[Official Report, 26 September 2007; c 2089.]
Will the minister say, in summing up, when we will get a report on that?
The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Nicola Sturgeon): Will Johann Lamont join me in welcoming the fact that, after one year of this Scottish National Party Government, there has been more progress towards second-stage transfer than there was during the entire time when she was housing minister?
Johann Lamont: I hope that the cabinet secretary does not live to regret that.
The issue is really difficult.
I do not support the SNP amendment—although I will be interested to hear the Minister for Communities and Sport speak to it—but I welcome its commitment to scrutinise the Mazars report using an independent process.
I urge that that should be done by people with expertise in valuation and adjudication in order for confidence to be restored.
I am delighted that rent-a-quote Alex Neil's notion of a black hole is refuted by the report.
It is incumbent on ministers to ensure that such issues are scrutinised properly.
On 31 October 2007, we had the spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing being refused the option of sharing with the Parliament her approach on "Firm Foundations" because, unhappily, she had already shared it with the press.
That has been the Government's approach in a nutshell.
It overclaims and underdelivers; it seeks headlines rather than solutions; and, rather than engaging in consensus building on the big issues, it settles for either silence or playing games.
It is impossible for me to cover the huge number of issues that have been raised, but I will touch on some that I think are significant.
I thank all those people who have taken the time to treat the debate on this subject sufficiently seriously and to provide us with briefings, particularly on the issues around the specialist provision of housing, which I believe merit a debate on their own.
The motion seeks to capture the challenge of any strategy on housing.
Indeed, it could have included more on energy efficiency and building standards.
For me, however, the key lesson that even laying out those issues confirms is that, although housing policy must be about bricks and mortar, it cannot only be about that.
That is why many people are anxious about the Government's approach.
In effect, the Government has boiled down its aspirations to building 35,000 houses without thinking through the range of needs that must be met, with no target for social renting and not even a commitment to build as many homes as we did in the past eight years; with no thought on how to sustain that investment by putting in place and supporting community regeneration; with nothing to say about meeting housing need in a way that goes beyond the house itself—with support for the elderly in the community, for people leaving care, and for those who wish to move on from women's refuges; and with nothing to say about funding decisions, which creates uncertainty at best for those who wish to support, for example, adults with learning disabilities to live independently.
Our history tells us that, although national house building programmes might provide houses, they do not necessarily do the rest.
How will the Government support the delivery of the homelessness target?
How will it protect programmes to prevent homelessness?
What expectations does the Minister for Communities and Sport have of the single outcome agreements?
Are there any compulsory elements in meeting special and particular housing needs and in supporting progress towards the homelessness target?
How will the Government act if there is evidence that supported accommodation, such as that for adults with disabilities, has to end because of the end of ring fencing for supporting people?
Members: Oh!
Johann Lamont: I only ask the question.
The minister has said in the past that, if there were problems, we could always resume ring fencing. How is that being monitored? What action will he take?
We understand the pressure to support first-time buyers, although we are no clearer about what support will be available.
What does the minister have to say not just about new build, but about the raising of standards through the Scottish housing quality standard?
What does he have to say about the need to support people who might face repossession and about emphasising the target for social rent?
What does he have to say about programmes such as ours that were introduced for mortgage to rent?
How will the Government support councils with high levels of debt, which will not be able to take advantage of their tiny share of the tiny £25 million for council house building?
The figure for the money that is being released through stock transfer to housing associations is staggering.
The GHA's investment programme for 2006-07 was £137 million, which is about one third of the total affordable investment programme that the SNP projects for the whole of Scotland for the year ahead.
The provision of GHA new build—6,000 new homes over the next five years—makes a stark comparison with Ms Sturgeon's announcement, which would mean at most 50 houses for Glasgow in the next five years.
Members: In addition.
Johann Lamont: The money is top-sliced off housing association grant, so it is not additional.
It takes a particular kind of cowardice and recklessness for people to encourage others to vote against their own interests when they do not have to live with the consequences.
That is compounded by a Government that refuses to accept its responsibility to find solutions. For the absence of doubt, the Stewart Maxwell solution is to raise rents, sell off assets and seek efficiencies, which could be the very expenditure that protects effective housing management.
I urge the minister to look to his Cabinet colleague John Swinney for guidance on how he should fulfil his responsibilities.
John Swinney, in discussing his decision to be pragmatic in relation to the collection of rates in the context of local loop unbundling—members really do not want to know the detail—said that ministers were operating within a framework in which the Government was constrained in the policy areas that it was able to take forward.
He explained that his pragmatism was justified, because the Government's priority is to maximise the resources that are available to local authorities for delivering front-line services. How much pragmatism should we expect from the Government in acting creatively to access the funding that stock transfer would deliver, when the only other option on offer to tenants is a shrug of the ministerial shoulders?
The Government's only big idea, "Firm Foundations", is significantly flawed, and the objections to it—as argued by a range of organisations—are not so easily silenced as by deleting part of a parliamentary motion.
I urge the minister not to dig himself into a trench on the issue.
There are genuine anxieties that the only real outcome of his approach will be to bring to an end the very things that made our housing policy so effective. [Laughter.]
Does that reaction mean that ministers are mocking the housing associations' record?
They might be interested to know that.
Such an outcome would put at risk the innovative approaches in estate management, the support for tenants and the specialist provision that has been developed by those who need it.
It must be an anxiety for the Government that equality groups did not even respond to its consultation.
The problem with "Firm Foundations" is compounded by the consultation document, "Better value from Housing Association Grant".
The documents reveal a lack of understanding about effective housing provision going beyond build; they lack evidence on efficiencies; and they are predicated on a process that will squeeze out community-based housing associations to the advantage of the asset-rich big boys.
They are also predicated on rent rises, a claim that the minister has denied in the past, although his own documents indicate that the policy depends on rent increases at the level of the retail prices index plus 1 per cent every year for the next 30 years, and that the private finance factor in development must increase from 18.14 per cent to 21.76 per cent, which is a push to the private market at a time of credit crunch.
That is further compounded by the flat-lining of funding on wider action that might support tenants as they go into training or provide money advice, and by the flat-lining of—if not a cut in—community regeneration funding.
It is significant that there was overwhelming support for a national specialist housing function to provide expert support on the range of housing needs.
The peremptory decision to abolish Communities Scotland to meet other political commitments seems to have been counterintuitive and against the addressing of housing need.
On "Firm Foundations", I urge the minister to have the grace to listen to those who understand what needs to be done.
On stock transfer, I urge the minister to stop being in denial and instead to be creative in how that money can be released to transform local communities.
On meeting homelessness and housing needs, I urge him to take responsibility.
The minister should stop outsourcing his responsibilities and tell us what he will do to ensure that the target is met and that the resources are available, not just to ensure supply but to provide the kind of softer-end supports that prevent homelessness in the first place—the kind of things that support people when they come out of care or are in crisis.
Above all, I urge the minister to shift from his year-zero approach and to acknowledge the significance of what has already been achieved—not by the previous Executive alone, but by it being willing to work with people in our communities and in the housing sector who understand how one can transform communities and make real change.
I seek support to secure continuing investment in change—rather than settling for the easy headline that will make no difference to the lives of people across Scotland who deserve to have their needs met.
That should be part of a serious debate on housing and a broader housing strategy.
Last week, we heard the reiteration of marginal, tokenistic—symbolic perhaps for some members—and dishonest claims about what the Government is doing in respect of council housing and right to buy.
Now is the time for the Government to take responsibility and work with members throughout the chamber and beyond to develop a proper housing policy that will bring about change rather than simply make headlines.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the broad range of issues that must be tackled in meeting the diverse housing needs of people across Scotland; confirms that the Scottish Government must act to address these issues, including continued work to prevent and reduce homelessness, the further development of housing to meet particular and specialist need, dealing with the blockages to the supply of housing, providing affordable housing to buy and within the socially rented sector, ensuring higher quality and better managed housing for rent in the private sector, seeking solutions to the problems facing local authorities where tenants voted against stock transfer and recognising the distinctive challenges in rural areas, regeneration areas and areas of high demand; notes that the consultation responses to the Firm Foundations document exposed significant flaws in the Scottish Government's approach; urges the Scottish Government to address these flaws and bring forward a coherent strategy for all of Scotland's housing needs and, in particular, agrees that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing should ensure that the Mazars report into second stage transfer issues in Glasgow Housing Association is subject to open, transparent and independent scrutiny.
It follows on from last week's woeful performance by members on the Government front and back benches.
That housing debate was marked by their refusal to answer any of the key questions or to give any indication that they had any awareness of the range and importance of the issues that need to be addressed. [Laughter.]
If the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change finds that amusing, I suspect that he will not find anybody from the housing sector to join him.
The lack of time for that previous debate allowed ministers to equivocate.
It was evident to us that the Government was unwilling to address the issues.
It would not even provide any time to debate the matter, despite the empty, stretching prairie of time—peppered by stopgap debates and marginal issues—that forms the Government's business programme.
We have had three Government debates or statements on housing.
On 21 June 2007, the announcement of the housing supply task force came with a huge fanfare, only for us to discover later that the body will not report; that it was not being consulted on the budget; that, remarkably, it would not even shape planning policy, which is designed to address the relationship between planning and the provision of affordable housing; and that it was not being consulted on the revision of Scottish planning policy 3.
On 26 September 2007, a debate on the Glasgow Housing Association was initiated and important issues about the inspection report were addressed.
The Government indicated that it would progress second-stage transfer.
Nicola Sturgeon said that ministers would
"review the current suite of grant agreements that are in place".—[Official Report, 26 September 2007; c 2089.]
Will the minister say, in summing up, when we will get a report on that?
The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Nicola Sturgeon): Will Johann Lamont join me in welcoming the fact that, after one year of this Scottish National Party Government, there has been more progress towards second-stage transfer than there was during the entire time when she was housing minister?
Johann Lamont: I hope that the cabinet secretary does not live to regret that.
The issue is really difficult.
I do not support the SNP amendment—although I will be interested to hear the Minister for Communities and Sport speak to it—but I welcome its commitment to scrutinise the Mazars report using an independent process.
I urge that that should be done by people with expertise in valuation and adjudication in order for confidence to be restored.
I am delighted that rent-a-quote Alex Neil's notion of a black hole is refuted by the report.
It is incumbent on ministers to ensure that such issues are scrutinised properly.
On 31 October 2007, we had the spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing being refused the option of sharing with the Parliament her approach on "Firm Foundations" because, unhappily, she had already shared it with the press.
That has been the Government's approach in a nutshell.
It overclaims and underdelivers; it seeks headlines rather than solutions; and, rather than engaging in consensus building on the big issues, it settles for either silence or playing games.
It is impossible for me to cover the huge number of issues that have been raised, but I will touch on some that I think are significant.
I thank all those people who have taken the time to treat the debate on this subject sufficiently seriously and to provide us with briefings, particularly on the issues around the specialist provision of housing, which I believe merit a debate on their own.
The motion seeks to capture the challenge of any strategy on housing.
Indeed, it could have included more on energy efficiency and building standards.
For me, however, the key lesson that even laying out those issues confirms is that, although housing policy must be about bricks and mortar, it cannot only be about that.
That is why many people are anxious about the Government's approach.
In effect, the Government has boiled down its aspirations to building 35,000 houses without thinking through the range of needs that must be met, with no target for social renting and not even a commitment to build as many homes as we did in the past eight years; with no thought on how to sustain that investment by putting in place and supporting community regeneration; with nothing to say about meeting housing need in a way that goes beyond the house itself—with support for the elderly in the community, for people leaving care, and for those who wish to move on from women's refuges; and with nothing to say about funding decisions, which creates uncertainty at best for those who wish to support, for example, adults with learning disabilities to live independently.
Our history tells us that, although national house building programmes might provide houses, they do not necessarily do the rest.
How will the Government support the delivery of the homelessness target?
How will it protect programmes to prevent homelessness?
What expectations does the Minister for Communities and Sport have of the single outcome agreements?
Are there any compulsory elements in meeting special and particular housing needs and in supporting progress towards the homelessness target?
How will the Government act if there is evidence that supported accommodation, such as that for adults with disabilities, has to end because of the end of ring fencing for supporting people?
Members: Oh!
Johann Lamont: I only ask the question.
The minister has said in the past that, if there were problems, we could always resume ring fencing. How is that being monitored? What action will he take?
We understand the pressure to support first-time buyers, although we are no clearer about what support will be available.
What does the minister have to say not just about new build, but about the raising of standards through the Scottish housing quality standard?
What does he have to say about the need to support people who might face repossession and about emphasising the target for social rent?
What does he have to say about programmes such as ours that were introduced for mortgage to rent?
How will the Government support councils with high levels of debt, which will not be able to take advantage of their tiny share of the tiny £25 million for council house building?
The figure for the money that is being released through stock transfer to housing associations is staggering.
The GHA's investment programme for 2006-07 was £137 million, which is about one third of the total affordable investment programme that the SNP projects for the whole of Scotland for the year ahead.
The provision of GHA new build—6,000 new homes over the next five years—makes a stark comparison with Ms Sturgeon's announcement, which would mean at most 50 houses for Glasgow in the next five years.
Members: In addition.
Johann Lamont: The money is top-sliced off housing association grant, so it is not additional.
It takes a particular kind of cowardice and recklessness for people to encourage others to vote against their own interests when they do not have to live with the consequences.
That is compounded by a Government that refuses to accept its responsibility to find solutions. For the absence of doubt, the Stewart Maxwell solution is to raise rents, sell off assets and seek efficiencies, which could be the very expenditure that protects effective housing management.
I urge the minister to look to his Cabinet colleague John Swinney for guidance on how he should fulfil his responsibilities.
John Swinney, in discussing his decision to be pragmatic in relation to the collection of rates in the context of local loop unbundling—members really do not want to know the detail—said that ministers were operating within a framework in which the Government was constrained in the policy areas that it was able to take forward.
He explained that his pragmatism was justified, because the Government's priority is to maximise the resources that are available to local authorities for delivering front-line services. How much pragmatism should we expect from the Government in acting creatively to access the funding that stock transfer would deliver, when the only other option on offer to tenants is a shrug of the ministerial shoulders?
The Government's only big idea, "Firm Foundations", is significantly flawed, and the objections to it—as argued by a range of organisations—are not so easily silenced as by deleting part of a parliamentary motion.
I urge the minister not to dig himself into a trench on the issue.
There are genuine anxieties that the only real outcome of his approach will be to bring to an end the very things that made our housing policy so effective. [Laughter.]
Does that reaction mean that ministers are mocking the housing associations' record?
They might be interested to know that.
Such an outcome would put at risk the innovative approaches in estate management, the support for tenants and the specialist provision that has been developed by those who need it.
It must be an anxiety for the Government that equality groups did not even respond to its consultation.
The problem with "Firm Foundations" is compounded by the consultation document, "Better value from Housing Association Grant".
The documents reveal a lack of understanding about effective housing provision going beyond build; they lack evidence on efficiencies; and they are predicated on a process that will squeeze out community-based housing associations to the advantage of the asset-rich big boys.
They are also predicated on rent rises, a claim that the minister has denied in the past, although his own documents indicate that the policy depends on rent increases at the level of the retail prices index plus 1 per cent every year for the next 30 years, and that the private finance factor in development must increase from 18.14 per cent to 21.76 per cent, which is a push to the private market at a time of credit crunch.
That is further compounded by the flat-lining of funding on wider action that might support tenants as they go into training or provide money advice, and by the flat-lining of—if not a cut in—community regeneration funding.
It is significant that there was overwhelming support for a national specialist housing function to provide expert support on the range of housing needs.
The peremptory decision to abolish Communities Scotland to meet other political commitments seems to have been counterintuitive and against the addressing of housing need.
On "Firm Foundations", I urge the minister to have the grace to listen to those who understand what needs to be done.
On stock transfer, I urge the minister to stop being in denial and instead to be creative in how that money can be released to transform local communities.
On meeting homelessness and housing needs, I urge him to take responsibility.
The minister should stop outsourcing his responsibilities and tell us what he will do to ensure that the target is met and that the resources are available, not just to ensure supply but to provide the kind of softer-end supports that prevent homelessness in the first place—the kind of things that support people when they come out of care or are in crisis.
Above all, I urge the minister to shift from his year-zero approach and to acknowledge the significance of what has already been achieved—not by the previous Executive alone, but by it being willing to work with people in our communities and in the housing sector who understand how one can transform communities and make real change.
I seek support to secure continuing investment in change—rather than settling for the easy headline that will make no difference to the lives of people across Scotland who deserve to have their needs met.
That should be part of a serious debate on housing and a broader housing strategy.
Last week, we heard the reiteration of marginal, tokenistic—symbolic perhaps for some members—and dishonest claims about what the Government is doing in respect of council housing and right to buy.
Now is the time for the Government to take responsibility and work with members throughout the chamber and beyond to develop a proper housing policy that will bring about change rather than simply make headlines.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the broad range of issues that must be tackled in meeting the diverse housing needs of people across Scotland; confirms that the Scottish Government must act to address these issues, including continued work to prevent and reduce homelessness, the further development of housing to meet particular and specialist need, dealing with the blockages to the supply of housing, providing affordable housing to buy and within the socially rented sector, ensuring higher quality and better managed housing for rent in the private sector, seeking solutions to the problems facing local authorities where tenants voted against stock transfer and recognising the distinctive challenges in rural areas, regeneration areas and areas of high demand; notes that the consultation responses to the Firm Foundations document exposed significant flaws in the Scottish Government's approach; urges the Scottish Government to address these flaws and bring forward a coherent strategy for all of Scotland's housing needs and, in particular, agrees that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing should ensure that the Mazars report into second stage transfer issues in Glasgow Housing Association is subject to open, transparent and independent scrutiny.
4.5.08
Speech on Housing Scottish Parliament 1 May 2005
The intention of my amendment is to get the Government to focus on taking responsibility for its actions and delivering a housing strategy worthy of the name.
It is most unfortunate that the Government makes assertions with no evidence whatsoever.
We should be focusing and developing policy on a huge range of housing issues, such as affordability, homelessness and the needs of disabled people, but we are stuck with a Government that is more interested in spinning headlines than taking action.
Over the past eight years, we built a real consensus around the key issues and built 36,000 houses for social rent, but we now have a minister who will not even tell us what his target is, and who claims that his £25 million will go some way to addressing need.
It is depressing that with this Administration we get assertion rather than action and headlines rather than creative solutions.
Despite being instructed to do so, it cannot even say whether the £2,000 first-time buyers grant is in or out—it cannot say yes or no to that.
Perhaps the minister will address that in his summing up.
What is the Government's strategy? Despite the spin, Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged the role of housing associations in providing affordable houses, which will remain central.
I am therefore at a loss to understand the distinction that the Government makes between council housing and housing that is built by housing associations and co-operatives.
It is meaningless to say that we built only six council houses, given that we built 36,000 houses of a high standard for social rent.
Despite what the Government says about supporting housing associations, the evidence is that there are going to be significant cuts to HAG.
There is uncertainty in the sector because the minister will not even tell us what the allocations are. Housing associations are fearful of the consequences.
They will have to borrow more at a time of volatility in the private markets, they will have to put up rents, they are unable to plan and they fear that development programmes will be halted.
At the same time, the key strategy of the Government's "Firm Foundations" document, which has been widely criticised, is to drive efficiencies into housing associations—with no evidence about where the inefficiencies are—with a single developer model, which I am sure the minister will acknowledge has been criticised by the people who responded to the consultation.
The minister has managed to create the impression that the sector that has been most successful in terms of housing strategy for the past 30 years has been living off the fat of the land.
The Government is attacking the key element of the housing association movement, which is community ownership.
I understand that the Government needs to address the discomfort of its own back benchers, given that £260 million is going unconditionally to businesses and that the Government is going to drive efficiencies into the housing association sector.
We hear all the nonsense about the £25 million. In the last year of the previous Executive, £501 million was spent on addressing affordable housing issues.
The £25 million is a nonsense.
It cannot go to the local authorities that the SNP urged to vote against stock transfer, because of housing debt.
The money is going to be top-sliced off HAG and redistributed to areas that do not have the greatest housing need.
The reality is that the Government is committed to not addressing the key issues of affordable housing and to keeping its own back benchers sweet.
A moment's scrutiny shows that it is not doing what it is claiming to do on the right to buy.
At the same time, it is flat-lining budgets for community regeneration and wider action.
The Government is paralysed when it comes to making the hard decisions and addressing the real problems.
It is settling for easy headlines that a moment's scrutiny shows to be nonsense.
I move amendment S3M-1812.3, to leave out from "the failure" to end and insert:
"that, following the parliamentary debate on 20 March 2008, ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on the future of the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, despite the Parliament agreeing that they should, regrets that ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on how the Scottish Government plans to respond to the consultation on Firm Foundations which identified serious criticisms of the Scottish Government's approach to housing; notes the critical role of housing associations and housing co-operatives in delivering affordable homes for rent; condemns the Minister for Communities and Sport for not yet announcing the allocation of Housing Association Grant, and reaffirms its view that the Scottish Government has no coherent housing strategy."
It is most unfortunate that the Government makes assertions with no evidence whatsoever.
We should be focusing and developing policy on a huge range of housing issues, such as affordability, homelessness and the needs of disabled people, but we are stuck with a Government that is more interested in spinning headlines than taking action.
Over the past eight years, we built a real consensus around the key issues and built 36,000 houses for social rent, but we now have a minister who will not even tell us what his target is, and who claims that his £25 million will go some way to addressing need.
It is depressing that with this Administration we get assertion rather than action and headlines rather than creative solutions.
Despite being instructed to do so, it cannot even say whether the £2,000 first-time buyers grant is in or out—it cannot say yes or no to that.
Perhaps the minister will address that in his summing up.
What is the Government's strategy? Despite the spin, Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged the role of housing associations in providing affordable houses, which will remain central.
I am therefore at a loss to understand the distinction that the Government makes between council housing and housing that is built by housing associations and co-operatives.
It is meaningless to say that we built only six council houses, given that we built 36,000 houses of a high standard for social rent.
Despite what the Government says about supporting housing associations, the evidence is that there are going to be significant cuts to HAG.
There is uncertainty in the sector because the minister will not even tell us what the allocations are. Housing associations are fearful of the consequences.
They will have to borrow more at a time of volatility in the private markets, they will have to put up rents, they are unable to plan and they fear that development programmes will be halted.
At the same time, the key strategy of the Government's "Firm Foundations" document, which has been widely criticised, is to drive efficiencies into housing associations—with no evidence about where the inefficiencies are—with a single developer model, which I am sure the minister will acknowledge has been criticised by the people who responded to the consultation.
The minister has managed to create the impression that the sector that has been most successful in terms of housing strategy for the past 30 years has been living off the fat of the land.
The Government is attacking the key element of the housing association movement, which is community ownership.
I understand that the Government needs to address the discomfort of its own back benchers, given that £260 million is going unconditionally to businesses and that the Government is going to drive efficiencies into the housing association sector.
We hear all the nonsense about the £25 million. In the last year of the previous Executive, £501 million was spent on addressing affordable housing issues.
The £25 million is a nonsense.
It cannot go to the local authorities that the SNP urged to vote against stock transfer, because of housing debt.
The money is going to be top-sliced off HAG and redistributed to areas that do not have the greatest housing need.
The reality is that the Government is committed to not addressing the key issues of affordable housing and to keeping its own back benchers sweet.
A moment's scrutiny shows that it is not doing what it is claiming to do on the right to buy.
At the same time, it is flat-lining budgets for community regeneration and wider action.
The Government is paralysed when it comes to making the hard decisions and addressing the real problems.
It is settling for easy headlines that a moment's scrutiny shows to be nonsense.
I move amendment S3M-1812.3, to leave out from "the failure" to end and insert:
"that, following the parliamentary debate on 20 March 2008, ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on the future of the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, despite the Parliament agreeing that they should, regrets that ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on how the Scottish Government plans to respond to the consultation on Firm Foundations which identified serious criticisms of the Scottish Government's approach to housing; notes the critical role of housing associations and housing co-operatives in delivering affordable homes for rent; condemns the Minister for Communities and Sport for not yet announcing the allocation of Housing Association Grant, and reaffirms its view that the Scottish Government has no coherent housing strategy."
25.4.08
Trump planning application Speech in the Scottish Parliament 24 April 2008
I shall try and restore some calm to the chamber, because there are significant issues to address.
I shall do that by starting with a concession to the SNP back benchers: the committee does not believe that there is evidence that Alex Salmond should be huckled off to the pokey.
I do not know whether that is a terribly strong position for the Government to be in, but no one is pretending that the law has been broken.
The issue is the quality of the judgment of the ministers involved in the process and the consequences that that has had.
Members can rubbish the debate as much as they wish, but the fact is that serious people outside the chamber regard these matters as being of national significance and as having serious consequences.
We must listen to those people.
It was important for the committee to take on this job.
We know that we have a First Minister who plays the person rather than the ball.
We also know that we have a First Minister who resists answering any questions and is keen to blame everyone else for everything that happens on his watch.
However, it is deeply depressing that that now seems to be elevated to a Government strategy.
The role of committees in scrutinising the work of the Executive is a crucial part of Parliament's work and ought not to be rubbished as a waste of time.
The day may come when SNP back benchers find themselves a spine and discover that a committee is a place to hold the Executive to account, even if it is their own Government.
Can members imagine the hyper-outrage of the SNP if, in previous years, there had been any suggestion that we ought not to ask questions or hold inquiries?
However, that was then, and this is now.
The reality is that the public are interested in the inquiry. Kenny Gibson welcomed it, and who could forget Alex Salmond bouncing into the committee to claim how delighted he was to be there?
He was slightly less delighted when we suggested that perhaps his judgment was being called into question and he is slightly less happy now that he has discovered that he has to respond to a serious report about his behaviour.
The Government likes administrative devolution and hates parliamentary scrutiny; it does what it can without accountability to the Parliament.
It refuses to make statements, even when instructed to do so by the chamber.
Government ministers are serial offenders, but I say to them that accountability goes with the territory.
The performance by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in responding to a serious report gives me grave cause for concern.
The central charges of the report are that the actions of the First Minister were "unwise and inappropriate" and that the actions of Mr Swinney were in danger of imperilling the development.
Taken together, their actions send out the message to big business that it can have preferential access, that planning is for the little people and that the normal rules do not apply to it.
I will not allow others in the chamber to misrepresent this issue as a divide between those who are pro-development and those who are against it or between those who are pro-business and those who are not.
It is about how our planning system works and how it can support, develop and acknowledge the role of local communities in shaping those developments, which is clearly not easy.
The key issue, which the First Minister himself accepted, is that the action of ministers has to pass the perception test.
The feature of the challenges that the First Minister accepted was about the perception of his role. As has been alluded to already, our former First Minister was challenged on the perception of his role in this development—indeed, he was challenged on the perception of who he chose to go on holiday with.
Everyone accepts that the perception test applies, so let us apply the perception test, as proposed by Nicola Sturgeon in the past.
Imagine a First Minister—who accepts that he has never done such a thing in his life before, and who was not on ministerial business and was not in his constituency—arriving somewhere in a ministerial car to meet, at short notice, following a decision of the local authority, representatives of the Trump Organization.
He discusses matters with them, phones the chief planner and hands the phone over.
A meeting is set up and, subsequently, a one-in-a-million decision is made.
I have to say that, by this point in the imaginative exercise, Nicola Sturgeon would have been in the stratosphere.
However, that was then; this is now.
The First Minister's defence is that he was taking a precautionary approach.
If that is the First Minister being cautious, heaven help us when the day comes when he decides to be reckless.
Everyone on the Government benches says that that is okay, because we are open for business.
However, it is plain that the First Minister was acting without thinking of the consequences and, terrified that Trump was going to walk, pulled out all the stops and helped a group of developers who would not use the powers and routes that were available to them.
The Deputy Presiding Officer: One minute.
Johann Lamont: In the past, SNP back benchers chided us for not supporting the third-party right of appeal.
Indeed, Jim Mather chided me during the passage of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, saying that, by not supporting a third-party right of appeal, we were not supporting communities.
We resisted the third-party right of appeal because of its consequences for development.
However, now we have a Government that thinks that people do not even need to exercise the first-party right of appeal.
How far have we come? Where is the balance now?
John Swinney told us that the issue was of national significance, which was not an argument that was deployed later.
The one thing that he did not do—this man who knew everything about the planning system—was act before the decision was made, when the process that resulted in that decision was on-going.
That would have solved the problem.
Instead, however, he chose to do it later.
I shall do that by starting with a concession to the SNP back benchers: the committee does not believe that there is evidence that Alex Salmond should be huckled off to the pokey.
I do not know whether that is a terribly strong position for the Government to be in, but no one is pretending that the law has been broken.
The issue is the quality of the judgment of the ministers involved in the process and the consequences that that has had.
Members can rubbish the debate as much as they wish, but the fact is that serious people outside the chamber regard these matters as being of national significance and as having serious consequences.
We must listen to those people.
It was important for the committee to take on this job.
We know that we have a First Minister who plays the person rather than the ball.
We also know that we have a First Minister who resists answering any questions and is keen to blame everyone else for everything that happens on his watch.
However, it is deeply depressing that that now seems to be elevated to a Government strategy.
The role of committees in scrutinising the work of the Executive is a crucial part of Parliament's work and ought not to be rubbished as a waste of time.
The day may come when SNP back benchers find themselves a spine and discover that a committee is a place to hold the Executive to account, even if it is their own Government.
Can members imagine the hyper-outrage of the SNP if, in previous years, there had been any suggestion that we ought not to ask questions or hold inquiries?
However, that was then, and this is now.
The reality is that the public are interested in the inquiry. Kenny Gibson welcomed it, and who could forget Alex Salmond bouncing into the committee to claim how delighted he was to be there?
He was slightly less delighted when we suggested that perhaps his judgment was being called into question and he is slightly less happy now that he has discovered that he has to respond to a serious report about his behaviour.
The Government likes administrative devolution and hates parliamentary scrutiny; it does what it can without accountability to the Parliament.
It refuses to make statements, even when instructed to do so by the chamber.
Government ministers are serial offenders, but I say to them that accountability goes with the territory.
The performance by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in responding to a serious report gives me grave cause for concern.
The central charges of the report are that the actions of the First Minister were "unwise and inappropriate" and that the actions of Mr Swinney were in danger of imperilling the development.
Taken together, their actions send out the message to big business that it can have preferential access, that planning is for the little people and that the normal rules do not apply to it.
I will not allow others in the chamber to misrepresent this issue as a divide between those who are pro-development and those who are against it or between those who are pro-business and those who are not.
It is about how our planning system works and how it can support, develop and acknowledge the role of local communities in shaping those developments, which is clearly not easy.
The key issue, which the First Minister himself accepted, is that the action of ministers has to pass the perception test.
The feature of the challenges that the First Minister accepted was about the perception of his role. As has been alluded to already, our former First Minister was challenged on the perception of his role in this development—indeed, he was challenged on the perception of who he chose to go on holiday with.
Everyone accepts that the perception test applies, so let us apply the perception test, as proposed by Nicola Sturgeon in the past.
Imagine a First Minister—who accepts that he has never done such a thing in his life before, and who was not on ministerial business and was not in his constituency—arriving somewhere in a ministerial car to meet, at short notice, following a decision of the local authority, representatives of the Trump Organization.
He discusses matters with them, phones the chief planner and hands the phone over.
A meeting is set up and, subsequently, a one-in-a-million decision is made.
I have to say that, by this point in the imaginative exercise, Nicola Sturgeon would have been in the stratosphere.
However, that was then; this is now.
The First Minister's defence is that he was taking a precautionary approach.
If that is the First Minister being cautious, heaven help us when the day comes when he decides to be reckless.
Everyone on the Government benches says that that is okay, because we are open for business.
However, it is plain that the First Minister was acting without thinking of the consequences and, terrified that Trump was going to walk, pulled out all the stops and helped a group of developers who would not use the powers and routes that were available to them.
The Deputy Presiding Officer: One minute.
Johann Lamont: In the past, SNP back benchers chided us for not supporting the third-party right of appeal.
Indeed, Jim Mather chided me during the passage of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, saying that, by not supporting a third-party right of appeal, we were not supporting communities.
We resisted the third-party right of appeal because of its consequences for development.
However, now we have a Government that thinks that people do not even need to exercise the first-party right of appeal.
How far have we come? Where is the balance now?
John Swinney told us that the issue was of national significance, which was not an argument that was deployed later.
The one thing that he did not do—this man who knew everything about the planning system—was act before the decision was made, when the process that resulted in that decision was on-going.
That would have solved the problem.
Instead, however, he chose to do it later.
20.4.08
Speech on Housing Scottish Parliament 20 March 2008
It is a privilege to lead this housing debate on behalf of the Labour Party.
We in the Labour Party are proud of what was achieved in the first eight years in the Parliament.
Much of that work was recognised as groundbreaking, but we acknowledge that there is much more to do.
It would be foolish for anyone to say that everything that we did was perfect, but it is equally foolish for the current Administration to say that there was no consensus and no agreement and that what we did was a complete disaster, because that is simply not true.
Labour's charge against the Government is that the running thread of our experience of it is that it overclaims and underdelivers, favours spin over substance and, at its very best, produces more broken promises.
If the minister has been effective at anything, it has been at creating the impression of action and perhaps securing some positive headlines.
However, the truth behind the headlines is a little less substantial.
The much heralded housing supply task force will not produce a report or recommendations for action; it was not involved in shaping the budget; it was not part of developing the document "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland"; and at least one member of the minister's group has expressed grave concerns about the budget allocations in relation to the social rented sector.
The Government is consulting on Scottish planning policy 3 on affordable housing at the same time that it has set up a body to consider how to unblock the planning system.
The "Firm Foundations" document does not even mention Scottish planning policy 14, which looks at setting a benchmark for 25 per cent of units in a new development to be affordable housing.
The minister wants the world—or at least his own back benchers—to think that the right to buy has ended, but of course the change that he has introduced has been so narrowly defined that it will affect very few people.
It undermines the balance that was struck in the modernised right to buy, which was supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which recognised the need for flexibility in regeneration communities, where ownership can make a difference, and suspension of the right to buy in hot spots where there is pressure.
The Minister for Communities and Sport (Stewart Maxwell): Is the member saying that the Labour Party's position is that it is opposed to the abolition of the right to buy on new-build properties?
Johann Lamont: The Labour Party's position is that we recognise the strength of the right to buy and we want to see the difference that the modernised right to buy has made.
That position is supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.
We are told that local authorities will build council houses, but the reality is that very few of them will be able to do that.
On the other hand, the Administration is completely silent on how it will support those local authorities that have debt and voted against stock transfer on the advice of the Scottish National Party.
On low-cost home ownership, the Administration is following what has already been done, but with no sense that action is needed in areas other than economic hot spots or that there needs to be equitable access to first-time-buyer support.
On what else is the minister silent?
On homelessness, he asserts that he supports the target, but he removes certainty by outsourcing all responsibility to local authorities.
Given that tax cuts are this Administration's one key priority, what pressure will there be on local authorities to provide the bricks and mortar, where possible, while removing or reducing the advice, support and specialist provision that helps prevent homelessness?
What will be demanded of single outcome agreements in relation to homelessness?
The Administration says nothing about the needs of areas of regeneration.
Indeed, Communities Scotland's expertise is to be removed from the community planning partnership table altogether.
There will be no access to community regeneration funding and the wider action budget will be flat-lined—those are the very things on which community housing associations have built their credibility.
The minister is silent on the Scottish housing quality standard when community organisations are telling us that they will have to deliver it by increasing rents.
Then there are the two big ideas of this Administration. Its first target is, "We will build more houses than the last lot did."
Secondly, it claims that it will drive efficiencies into the affordable housing market by opening it to competition.
If there is a spine on the Government back benches, it should prepare to feel a shiver down it now. On 28 November 2007, the minister said:
"My intention is not to be nice to one particular part of the sector or another; it is to ensure that we deliver more homes for people. That is the fundamental point. ... That is why we have suggested some changes and why I think that competition is important. I think that who eventually owns and manages properties is of less importance than the fact that we have them."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 November 2007; c 300.]
That flies in the face of every lesson of housing history in Scotland.
Given that we know that community ownership has delivered changes in our communities, it is not credible to say that ownership does not matter.
At a time of turbulence in the housing market and a credit squeeze, is it wise for the Administration to be vague on the proportion of houses for social rent?
Given that the Administration's own figures show that construction inflation has increased by 35 per cent, is it credible to pretend that its target of building 35,000 houses a year by the middle of the next decade is achievable?
The challenge for SNP back benchers is to confront their front-bench's agenda.
The Administration has a strategy on efficiencies—who could be against that—but it is predicated on higher rents, and on the presumptions that bigger is better, that competition delivers change and that building houses is the same as having a housing strategy.
We know from experience that that is not the case.
We know that the Administration is undermining community-controlled housing associations.
Would it not be an irony if the legacy of the SNP was to lure cross-border raids from big, asset-rich, English housing associations to take over the work that local housing organisations have done?
History shows that the disastrous consequence of national building programmes that distribute funding from the centre with no priority for wider action is houses that no one wants to live in and which we have to demolish.
The minister has to understand that asserting his love of the housing association and co-operative movement is not the same as delivering for it and that asserting his commitment on homelessness is not the same as delivering on it.
I turn finally to the first-time buyers grant of £2,000—the great promise.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, is non-committal on it and would like us to be her alibi for not delivering it.
If she believes in it, she should argue for it. If she does not, she should say why not. The First Minister said:
"The SNP is going to work through all of its manifesto commitments over the four-year term of this Administration."—[Official Report, 6 September 2007; c 1493.]
The Administration should stop dodging and tell us whether the first-time buyers grant of £2,000 is a broken promise, a promise yet to come or a cynical election promise made with the collective fingers of the SNP firmly crossed behind their backs?
We deserve to know. That is why the motion includes a demand for a statement.
The fundamental charge against the Administration is that it spins, rather than recognises, our history.
It should come clean, understand that a housing strategy is about more than building houses and begin to talk about targets for social renting, the needs of the homeless and the role of community organisations as partners in change.
I move,
That the Parliament regrets the SNP government's lack of a coherent housing strategy; notes that the Housing Supply Task Force has no timetable or remit to produce recommendations for action; notes in particular the absence of robust evidence on funding and efficiencies in delivering its housing targets; further notes concerns about the impact of a single regional developer model, as outlined in the Firm Foundations consultation, on community-controlled housing associations and housing co-operatives; agrees that the Scottish Government should make a statement to the Parliament as soon as possible, clarifying its plans for the clear SNP manifesto commitment on a £2,000 first-time buyers' grant, and urges the Scottish Government to act to secure long-term improvements in housing rather than the short-term appearance of change.
We in the Labour Party are proud of what was achieved in the first eight years in the Parliament.
Much of that work was recognised as groundbreaking, but we acknowledge that there is much more to do.
It would be foolish for anyone to say that everything that we did was perfect, but it is equally foolish for the current Administration to say that there was no consensus and no agreement and that what we did was a complete disaster, because that is simply not true.
Labour's charge against the Government is that the running thread of our experience of it is that it overclaims and underdelivers, favours spin over substance and, at its very best, produces more broken promises.
If the minister has been effective at anything, it has been at creating the impression of action and perhaps securing some positive headlines.
However, the truth behind the headlines is a little less substantial.
The much heralded housing supply task force will not produce a report or recommendations for action; it was not involved in shaping the budget; it was not part of developing the document "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland"; and at least one member of the minister's group has expressed grave concerns about the budget allocations in relation to the social rented sector.
The Government is consulting on Scottish planning policy 3 on affordable housing at the same time that it has set up a body to consider how to unblock the planning system.
The "Firm Foundations" document does not even mention Scottish planning policy 14, which looks at setting a benchmark for 25 per cent of units in a new development to be affordable housing.
The minister wants the world—or at least his own back benchers—to think that the right to buy has ended, but of course the change that he has introduced has been so narrowly defined that it will affect very few people.
It undermines the balance that was struck in the modernised right to buy, which was supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which recognised the need for flexibility in regeneration communities, where ownership can make a difference, and suspension of the right to buy in hot spots where there is pressure.
The Minister for Communities and Sport (Stewart Maxwell): Is the member saying that the Labour Party's position is that it is opposed to the abolition of the right to buy on new-build properties?
Johann Lamont: The Labour Party's position is that we recognise the strength of the right to buy and we want to see the difference that the modernised right to buy has made.
That position is supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.
We are told that local authorities will build council houses, but the reality is that very few of them will be able to do that.
On the other hand, the Administration is completely silent on how it will support those local authorities that have debt and voted against stock transfer on the advice of the Scottish National Party.
On low-cost home ownership, the Administration is following what has already been done, but with no sense that action is needed in areas other than economic hot spots or that there needs to be equitable access to first-time-buyer support.
On what else is the minister silent?
On homelessness, he asserts that he supports the target, but he removes certainty by outsourcing all responsibility to local authorities.
Given that tax cuts are this Administration's one key priority, what pressure will there be on local authorities to provide the bricks and mortar, where possible, while removing or reducing the advice, support and specialist provision that helps prevent homelessness?
What will be demanded of single outcome agreements in relation to homelessness?
The Administration says nothing about the needs of areas of regeneration.
Indeed, Communities Scotland's expertise is to be removed from the community planning partnership table altogether.
There will be no access to community regeneration funding and the wider action budget will be flat-lined—those are the very things on which community housing associations have built their credibility.
The minister is silent on the Scottish housing quality standard when community organisations are telling us that they will have to deliver it by increasing rents.
Then there are the two big ideas of this Administration. Its first target is, "We will build more houses than the last lot did."
Secondly, it claims that it will drive efficiencies into the affordable housing market by opening it to competition.
If there is a spine on the Government back benches, it should prepare to feel a shiver down it now. On 28 November 2007, the minister said:
"My intention is not to be nice to one particular part of the sector or another; it is to ensure that we deliver more homes for people. That is the fundamental point. ... That is why we have suggested some changes and why I think that competition is important. I think that who eventually owns and manages properties is of less importance than the fact that we have them."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 November 2007; c 300.]
That flies in the face of every lesson of housing history in Scotland.
Given that we know that community ownership has delivered changes in our communities, it is not credible to say that ownership does not matter.
At a time of turbulence in the housing market and a credit squeeze, is it wise for the Administration to be vague on the proportion of houses for social rent?
Given that the Administration's own figures show that construction inflation has increased by 35 per cent, is it credible to pretend that its target of building 35,000 houses a year by the middle of the next decade is achievable?
The challenge for SNP back benchers is to confront their front-bench's agenda.
The Administration has a strategy on efficiencies—who could be against that—but it is predicated on higher rents, and on the presumptions that bigger is better, that competition delivers change and that building houses is the same as having a housing strategy.
We know from experience that that is not the case.
We know that the Administration is undermining community-controlled housing associations.
Would it not be an irony if the legacy of the SNP was to lure cross-border raids from big, asset-rich, English housing associations to take over the work that local housing organisations have done?
History shows that the disastrous consequence of national building programmes that distribute funding from the centre with no priority for wider action is houses that no one wants to live in and which we have to demolish.
The minister has to understand that asserting his love of the housing association and co-operative movement is not the same as delivering for it and that asserting his commitment on homelessness is not the same as delivering on it.
I turn finally to the first-time buyers grant of £2,000—the great promise.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, is non-committal on it and would like us to be her alibi for not delivering it.
If she believes in it, she should argue for it. If she does not, she should say why not. The First Minister said:
"The SNP is going to work through all of its manifesto commitments over the four-year term of this Administration."—[Official Report, 6 September 2007; c 1493.]
The Administration should stop dodging and tell us whether the first-time buyers grant of £2,000 is a broken promise, a promise yet to come or a cynical election promise made with the collective fingers of the SNP firmly crossed behind their backs?
We deserve to know. That is why the motion includes a demand for a statement.
The fundamental charge against the Administration is that it spins, rather than recognises, our history.
It should come clean, understand that a housing strategy is about more than building houses and begin to talk about targets for social renting, the needs of the homeless and the role of community organisations as partners in change.
I move,
That the Parliament regrets the SNP government's lack of a coherent housing strategy; notes that the Housing Supply Task Force has no timetable or remit to produce recommendations for action; notes in particular the absence of robust evidence on funding and efficiencies in delivering its housing targets; further notes concerns about the impact of a single regional developer model, as outlined in the Firm Foundations consultation, on community-controlled housing associations and housing co-operatives; agrees that the Scottish Government should make a statement to the Parliament as soon as possible, clarifying its plans for the clear SNP manifesto commitment on a £2,000 first-time buyers' grant, and urges the Scottish Government to act to secure long-term improvements in housing rather than the short-term appearance of change.
Speech on Housing and Regeneration Bill Scottish Parliament 19 March 2008
I welcome the opportunity to raise some issues on this legislative consent motion, which Labour members—who consider LCMs on the basis of the practical measures to which they relate and who judge each LCM on its merits—have decided to support.
We think that it is important that we take the opportunity to illuminate some significant issues for the Parliament—members know that my every instinct is philanthropic.
Members of the Local Government and Communities Committee felt that it was important for all members to receive an explanation from the Scottish National Party of why it is no longer opposed, in principle, to LCMs.
On numerous occasions in the past, SNP members voted against entirely rational and logical LCMs on the basis that it was a point of principle for them to do so.
Of course, that was then and this is now.
We can only surmise that the memory banks of SNP back benchers have been entirely wiped and that that point of principle has been forgotten.
The principle on which we operated was that, whenever possible, we would seek an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to legislate and that we would use the LCM process only if the prospect of new Scottish legislation was not imminent.
The problem for the SNP, of course, is that it appears that the prospect of legislation on anything at all is not imminent. That makes it even more bizarre that the minister claimed to the committee that use of the LCM process was
"a proportionate and efficient use of parliamentary time."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 5 March 2008; c 724.]
He might wish to talk to his business manager about that.
Of course, the broader question is why no suitable legislative vehicle is available.
A big decision has been made to abolish Communities Scotland and yet the bill before us relates to regulation in England.
There is no coherence on the issue of savings for Communities Scotland or how housing and regeneration fit into the community planning framework.
What will happen now that individual housing association grant decisions will be micromanaged from the centre?
How will the regulator fit into all of that?
We have had no discussion of those issues.
Given that we are going in an entirely opposite direction to that taken in England, it would have been nice for the Scottish Parliament to have been given an opportunity—whether in relation to legislation or otherwise—to have had that discussion.
We could have dealt with the issues raised in the LCM in that way.
In order to be helpful, I direct the minister to his own words.
In July last year, I asked him whether abolishing of Communities Scotland "would require legislation".
His reply was:
"Ministers are currently considering the most effective organisational structures for the future delivery of Communities Scotland's functions. That process will involve consideration of any legislation that might be necessary to support the transfer of Communities Scotland's functions, although legislation would not of itself be required to abolish Communities Scotland."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 July 2007; S3W-1797.]
Given that we do not need legislation to abolish Communities Scotland, it would have been helpful if the Government had looked for legislative opportunities that would have allowed the Parliament to debate what will now happen to Communities Scotland's functions.
The LCM is an indicator that the SNP has abandoned the principles that it used to apply.
It has not even applied the test that we used to apply.
The Government is unable to explain why it has not brought to the chamber a debate on the future of Communities Scotland.
Perhaps the minister will tell the chamber what other legislation might be necessary and what Communities Scotland's future is.
I welcome his interesting response.
We think that it is important that we take the opportunity to illuminate some significant issues for the Parliament—members know that my every instinct is philanthropic.
Members of the Local Government and Communities Committee felt that it was important for all members to receive an explanation from the Scottish National Party of why it is no longer opposed, in principle, to LCMs.
On numerous occasions in the past, SNP members voted against entirely rational and logical LCMs on the basis that it was a point of principle for them to do so.
Of course, that was then and this is now.
We can only surmise that the memory banks of SNP back benchers have been entirely wiped and that that point of principle has been forgotten.
The principle on which we operated was that, whenever possible, we would seek an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to legislate and that we would use the LCM process only if the prospect of new Scottish legislation was not imminent.
The problem for the SNP, of course, is that it appears that the prospect of legislation on anything at all is not imminent. That makes it even more bizarre that the minister claimed to the committee that use of the LCM process was
"a proportionate and efficient use of parliamentary time."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 5 March 2008; c 724.]
He might wish to talk to his business manager about that.
Of course, the broader question is why no suitable legislative vehicle is available.
A big decision has been made to abolish Communities Scotland and yet the bill before us relates to regulation in England.
There is no coherence on the issue of savings for Communities Scotland or how housing and regeneration fit into the community planning framework.
What will happen now that individual housing association grant decisions will be micromanaged from the centre?
How will the regulator fit into all of that?
We have had no discussion of those issues.
Given that we are going in an entirely opposite direction to that taken in England, it would have been nice for the Scottish Parliament to have been given an opportunity—whether in relation to legislation or otherwise—to have had that discussion.
We could have dealt with the issues raised in the LCM in that way.
In order to be helpful, I direct the minister to his own words.
In July last year, I asked him whether abolishing of Communities Scotland "would require legislation".
His reply was:
"Ministers are currently considering the most effective organisational structures for the future delivery of Communities Scotland's functions. That process will involve consideration of any legislation that might be necessary to support the transfer of Communities Scotland's functions, although legislation would not of itself be required to abolish Communities Scotland."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 July 2007; S3W-1797.]
Given that we do not need legislation to abolish Communities Scotland, it would have been helpful if the Government had looked for legislative opportunities that would have allowed the Parliament to debate what will now happen to Communities Scotland's functions.
The LCM is an indicator that the SNP has abandoned the principles that it used to apply.
It has not even applied the test that we used to apply.
The Government is unable to explain why it has not brought to the chamber a debate on the future of Communities Scotland.
Perhaps the minister will tell the chamber what other legislation might be necessary and what Communities Scotland's future is.
I welcome his interesting response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)