Scottish Parliament, 28 October 2004

427 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 28 October 2004

Housing

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1898, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on improving the quality and availability of Scotland's housing, and three amendments to the motion.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

A quality home for everyone has long been a central aim of the Executive, not just because a quality home should be a right rather than an aspiration, but because the aim goes straight to the heart of quality-of-life issues. Good-quality housing is central to supporting families in all their diversity and is vital for health, regeneration and economic growth.

We have come a long way since I last took up the reins as minister responsible for housing in May 1997. Then, public rented housing was in decline, fuel poverty was extensive and rough sleeping was widespread. There were high mortgage rates, repossessions and increasing child and family poverty. That has all been turned around and we are now in the middle of a bold and exciting period of housing progress.

We have introduced the Scottish housing quality standard, which is a very ambitious target to ensure that warm, dry and decent homes become the norm in Scotland in the 21st century. Alongside that, we have put in place a new framework of options for councils to raise the funding that is required to deliver the new quality standard by 2015, be it through prudential borrowing, the use of receipts or transfer to community ownership.

Transfer to community ownership is one of the most effective means of achieving the standard. We have already transferred nearly 100,000 houses to community ownership. That alone is expected to deliver nearly £2 billion of housing investment over the next 10 years. I remain firmly committed to supporting further stock transfers under the new community ownership programme and we aim to transfer a further 70,000 houses by 2006.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I am happy to welcome the improvements in housing quality that are mentioned in the minister's motion. However, does he agree that such improvements could also be possible if councils' debts were paid off in order to allow them to retain housing in that particular form of community ownership and thus improve the quality of their stock?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Obviously, we have diversified the funding options through the prudential borrowing regime, but it is clear that what Elaine Smith proposes, irrespective of the other benefits of community ownership through tenant participation, would cost a great deal more in public expenditure terms. That would obviously have an effect on housing and other budgets.

To tackle fuel poverty, we introduced the warm deal home insulation programme and the central heating programme. Through those programmes, more than 200,000 homes have been insulated and more than 40,000 heating systems have been installed. By 2006, all pensioners and social tenants will have central heating. Recent research on the first year of the central heating programme showed that of the people who were fuel poor, nearly nine out of 10 were lifted out of fuel poverty after benefiting from the programme. In addition, the central heating programme and the warm deal are saving people money on their fuel bills and helping to reduce carbon emissions.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that, as a result of the rises in fuel prices, more people will go into fuel poverty and that the figures that he quotes are now out of date?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The rises in fuel prices are entirely regrettable and we shall certainly look at the action that we can take, particularly to protect those people who are most affected by the rises.

We legislated through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 for a strong single regulatory framework and established Communities Scotland, whose role includes driving up standards in housing quality and housing and homelessness services. Registered social landlords and local authorities are now working to a common set of performance standards so that tenants can expect the same high standards of service, regardless of who their landlord is.

The 2001 act is a landmark act in other ways, too. Through it, we introduced a modernised single tenancy in the social rented sector and gave tenants greater rights in respect of succession, joint tenancies and exchanges. We also introduced a statutory framework for effective tenant participation and backed that with a team of tenant participation development officers and £4 million to support landlords throughout the country to put tenant participation strategies in place.

As I said to Elaine Smith a moment ago, tenant participation also goes hand in hand with transfer of housing stock to community ownership by giving tenants a greater say in the management of their homes. For councils that are looking to transfer, tenant involvement will be a key criterion for registration. I was keen to emphasise that when I spoke at the Tenant Participation Advisory Service conference in Dundee on Sunday.

For home owners, we have introduced the mortgage-to-rent scheme and supported the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001 to give families that are at risk of repossession a breathing space to sort out their affairs. We have also introduced the private sector housing grant to support investment in private sector housing. As a result, investment now is 30 per cent higher.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I must make progress, as I have already taken two interventions. I will take the member's intervention in a few minutes.

Measures such as the better regulation of shared houses, the registration of private landlords, the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and tenant participation have aimed not to middle-manage our housing system, but to get us closer to our vision. We want to ensure good-quality, warm, sustainable and affordable housing for all.

Before I take John Swinney's intervention, I want to make progress on the issue of affordable housing. This year, we carried out a wide-ranging review of affordable housing. We analysed the Scottish housing market, considered its impact on affordability and assessed requirements throughout the country for affordable housing. We also consulted widely and listened carefully.

We concluded that the long-term house price trend in Scotland does not point to a chronic problem with overall housing supply, but the review has provided strong intelligence on the very real affordability and supply problems in particular localities and the problems of housing market failure and surplus houses in other localities. Those problems range across private housing, subsidised low-cost ownership and social rented homes. The review has informed our investment plans to 2008 and the wider measures that we will take in future.

Over the next three years, we will spend a massive £1.2 billion on affordable homes for those who need them most. By 2008, our investment in new housing will be 46 per cent above this year's level, which is an annual increase in real terms of more than 10 per cent. That will tackle the acute demands for affordable housing in pressured areas and replace and refurbish housing in poor-quality neighbourhoods.

We have raised our sights to a new three-year target for the supply of affordable homes—up from 18,000 to 21,500—to ensure that people have the choices that meet their needs and to support economic growth. We will fund more than 16,500 social rented homes over the next three years—the biggest social rented programme for many years. It will take hundreds of homeless people out of temporary accommodation into a permanent home, move us towards giving all homeless people the entitlement to a permanent home by 2012 and give people on housing waiting lists a far better chance of getting the house that they want.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I welcome what the minister says about affordable housing. However, does he accept that one of the practical issues facing any development of affordable housing in my constituency is the chronic lack of capacity in the water and sewerage infrastructure to deliver such developments? In the interests of joined-up government, does the minister have anything to say about representations that he has made to his ministerial colleague, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and Scottish Water about expanding capacity to cope with the welcome plans that he is announcing?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

In my first three weeks, I have certainly become aware of the issue that the member raises. Last week, I had a meeting with Shelter Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which raised that point. Of course I am taking up the issue with Ross Finnie.

Our plans include nearly 5,000 homes for low-cost home ownership by 2008 to help to meet the aspirations of hard-working families and essential workers who aspire to own a home of their own. Traditionally, those people would have been first-time buyers, but they currently find themselves priced out of particular areas of the market and cannot pursue their ideal job because of a lack of affordable housing.

The expansion of affordable homes will see the introduction of an innovative new programme and a range of initiatives to help people to get started on the property ladder, all based round the idea of shared equity, which will help people to enter the property market by buying a part share in a property that would otherwise be unaffordable. Communities Scotland will launch shortly proposals on the detailed application of the shared equity programme.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

As the minister has spoken about privately owned homes, which we all agree are an important part of our housing stock, will he say what percentage of housing stock he would like to see in private ownership? Does he think that we should aspire to 100 per cent home ownership or is a lower target sustainable and viable in the long term?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We have to be guided by the needs and aspirations of the communities that we serve. I do not have an ideal figure in the way that Patrick Harvie suggests.

How long do I have left, Presiding Officer?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

About another six or seven minutes.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Thank you.

Our partners are crucial to realising our plans and our investment sets challenges for them. We will be looking to lenders in the private sector to boost public funds for affordable housing with more than £500 million of private finance, and private finance generated by the community ownership programme will further raise that sum.

We expect local authorities to complement our investment with additional income raised by local authorities from reduced council tax discounts on second homes.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister clarify whether the Executive has accepted the recent Glen Bramley research exercise and, if so, will he clarify whether the Executive accepts Bramley's analysis of housing need by housing market areas or by a council-by-council breakdown? The minister will appreciate that a significant statistical difference is posed depending on that choice.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will say something about housing market areas in the next section of my speech, but certainly Bramley was fundamental to the conclusions that we came to in our affordable housing review.

The investment of £1.2 billion in affordable housing is a massive programme. It is vital that we allocate those resources in the optimum way across pressured markets and regeneration areas in both urban and rural contexts. It is also vital that we manage and deliver the programme in ways that secure maximum impact and efficiency. We are therefore consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and housing providers on improved arrangements for making investment decisions and managing our funding programmes.

We are looking at possible options that include a re-examination of the current policy on the transfer of the management of development funding and the potential of housing market area boards as a vehicle for giving local authorities greater influence in strategic decisions on investment priorities across housing market areas. We aim to complete that consultation for the new year.

The measures that we have taken and the huge boost in housing investment to 2008 demonstrate that we are serious about improving the quality and supply of affordable housing in Scotland.

Looking ahead, delivery of our homelessness agenda and the supporting people programme remain key priorities. We have already put in place the most progressive homelessness legislation in Europe to ensure that every homeless person is entitled to temporary accommodation at least. That explains the increasing figures that the Scottish National Party highlights in its amendment—we want the hidden homeless to come forward and to have rights.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have already taken five interventions. I will take the member's intervention if I have time, but I will probably test the Presiding Officer's patience if I take any more.

It is our aim that, by 2012, every homeless person will have the right to a permanent home. We have invested in tackling the most extreme forms of homelessness. We are working to tackle rough sleeping and to close the large, outdated hostels in Glasgow. Every local authority has a homelessness strategy and every national health service board has a health and homelessness action plan in place. I was pleased to be able to drive forward those strategies over the past two years.

We will continue to deliver the full range of homelessness task force recommendations and implement the legislation at a steady but manageable pace. This year, we have been working with local authorities, COSLA, the homelessness monitoring group and organisations such as Shelter to ensure that families with children are provided with suitable temporary accommodation. We are now in a position to legislate with an order that will come into force in December. That is an important development and, although it affects small numbers of people, it is essential that, where families are housed in temporary accommodation, the accommodation meets appropriate standards for the care and security of children.

Many members want to hear about the supporting people programme, which is a key programme for vulnerable people. It enables frail, older people or those with physical or learning difficulties to live independently in their own homes and communities. It helps people to deal with a range of difficult personal problems from domestic abuse to homelessness to drug and alcohol rehabilitation and it supports them through crucial transition periods in their lives to help them to achieve a better quality of life.

The Scottish Executive is investing significant resources in that vital programme—£1.2 billion over three years to help at least 80,000 people a year. Funding per capita will be double that in England and we should also remember that the new funding is double what it was two years ago. Funding needs to be better tied to need throughout Scotland. The old funding arrangements, based on transitional housing benefit, created huge anomalies with funding that varied from £235 per capita in one local authority area to only £19 per capita in another.

The allocations announced by Margaret Curran on 1 October reflected the need to get better value for money for the taxpayer and to provide a fairer distribution of those crucial resources throughout Scotland. The funding package announced included £16 million of transitional support for those most affected by the redistribution process. The desire to improve value for money and to provide a fairer distribution of resources over time stands. However, I am in discussions with COSLA and others about the pace of change to ensure that it is more manageable locally. Several different options are on the table and I hope shortly to make an announcement on the matter that will satisfy most parties.

My time is up now so I will draw to a conclusion. Today I have outlined our progress since devolution and set out the direction for housing policy in Scotland: a continuing drive to improve the quality of the housing stock across all tenures; a major boost for investment in social housing with a clear focus on the needs of homeless people, those on housing waiting lists and the support required for those who are most in need; a step change in support to help essential workers, families and other first-time buyers to own their own homes; and wider measures to enable the housing system as a whole to respond to Scotland's needs. Taken together, those measures are a major step towards the aim of having a housing system that delivers an adequate supply of good-quality, affordable housing for all. They are another major example of devolution working for Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the Scottish Executive's commitment to a 30% increase in affordable housing provision by 2007-08 in order to increase the availability of social rented accommodation for homeless people, reduce pressure on waiting lists and help first-time buyers on to the housing ladder; welcomes the introduction of the Housing Quality Standard and the improvements in housing quality that are resulting from substantial community ownership and fuel poverty programmes; recognises the major achievements flowing from devolution for housing in Scotland, such as a modernised and single tenancy in the social rented sector, progressive homelessness legislation and the development of tenant participation and rights, and looks forward to the forthcoming Housing Bill which will raise standards in the private housing sector and strengthen the rights of private sector tenants.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I welcome the minister's return to this portfolio. As I look around the chamber this morning, I feel rather anxious to see to the back, the right and the left of me people who have a great deal of housing experience. I feel like the swimmer at the shallow end of the swimming pool with rather a lot of water wings and rubber rings holding me up. However, I intend not to sink but to learn to swim very quickly and to go straight into the deep end of the debate.

To that end, I thought that I would familiarise myself with some housing issues by referring to a debate from 13 January 2000 to see what the coalition parties were saying at that time and to compare that with where we are five years later. One finds some interesting nuggets in that debate. At that time, Wendy Alexander was the Minister for Communities and had responsibility for housing. During the debate, she said:

"Change is needed. The old ways have failed."

She went on to say:

"We will confront homelessness. People sleeping on our streets was the enduring symbol of so much that was wrong about the social and economic priorities of the Tory years. Young people curled up in sleeping bags gave the lie to trickle-down economics."

She then spoke the crucial words:

"The partnership promises that no one should need to sleep rough in Scotland by 2003."—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol 4, c 66.]

I do not think that that has happened.

Further on in the same debate, Wendy Alexander said:

"There should be no second-class tenants in the new Scotland."—[Official Report, 13 January; Vol 4, c 69.]

There are lots of second-class tenants, many of whom are in the private sector. They have little protection, they find that their housing is inadequate, but they are frightened to speak up because they think that they will lose their tenancy.

There are second-class tenants who think that they are tenants but who are not tenants—they are the sofa surfers, who stay on friends' couches. If the friend were to say to them tomorrow, "Get off my couch and get out the door", they would have to go because they have no legal right to be there. They are and continue to be the hidden homeless.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does the member not agree that the Executive has introduced one of the most radical housing policies ever? I refer to the homelessness legislation, which will entitle everyone to a home. Does she not recognise that, in the short term, of course there will be a rise in the homelessness figures, but that in the long term, there should be a decrease in those figures? Will she not congratulate the Executive on taking that action?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have no problem with people taking actions if they are effective and funded. The problem is that, in the five years since the statements that I have just repeated were made, the level of homelessness has gone up. I do not want to litter my speech with statistics—I will come to the figures later—but a vast number of young people and people in their mid-30s do not even have a tenancy; they live on sofas in shared accommodation. Indeed, they live the life of students into their 30s, which has a huge impact on their lives, the economy and so on.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will make a bit of progress and then let the member in.

In the January 2000 debate on housing, the Executive promised to build each year

"7,000 new and improved homes"—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol 4, c 71.]

At the time, Fiona Hyslop pointed out that the difference between SNP and Labour is that

"we believe that, in a single social tenancy environment, the right to rent is imperative"—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol 4, c 76.]

We have lost the right to rent because the amount of social rented accommodation has been driven down. I will deal with that when I address the issue of the right to buy. Although a notional right to rent might exist, the properties are just not available for renting. Simply to have somewhere to live, young people and people in the 30s are having to take out mortgages that are four or five times their joint income with the result that homes are being repossessed, couples are deferring having families and so on.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will give way soon if I can make some progress.

In the January 2000 debate, Robert Brown made an interesting comment about rough sleeping. He said:

"The commitment that no one should have to sleep rough by 2003 is important and challenging. ... Indeed, it is not too much to say that the reputation of the minister and of the Executive depends on it."—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol 4, c 86.]

It was good of Robert Brown to make that comment; he might not feel the same way now that I have quoted it. If he does, perhaps he will call the Executive to account, given that some people are still sleeping rough in Scotland's cities and countryside.

In the same debate, Robert Brown also said:

"I must say to the minister that the right to buy is not a housing strategy. There are a variety of reasons to support it, ranging from populism to fears of social engineering and dislike of socially rented housing."

In fact, I would say that there is a stigma attached to such housing.

Robert Brown went on to say:

"Right to buy involves a transfer of assets—provided by public investment—from the public to a smaller group of individuals at the expense of the community at large."—[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol 4, c 90.]

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I hope that I will get time for taking all these interventions. I do not know who wanted to come in first.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I very much appreciate Christine Grahame's commitment in the Parliament and do not want to put her on the spot. However, the other day I noticed that she said that we should end the right to buy to protect housing stock. Does she support that policy?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Yes, absolutely. However, I should point out that we feel that those who already have the right to buy should retain it. After all, retrospective legislation is an anathema. As for new builds, members on this side of the chamber have absolutely no problem in supporting the stance that Mr Sheridan has outlined. If people retain the right to buy, investment in housing by housing associations or local authorities would be like putting the taps on full blast and leaving the plug out. They simply will not make that investment because they will lose their stock.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Okay.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I seek some clarification from Christine Grahame about her response to Tommy Sheridan's intervention. She said that there should be no right to buy for people in new builds. Would she extend that to new tenancies in existing builds?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Absolutely. I thought that I had made that clear in my response. It would be a victory for common sense in the chamber if that policy were accepted. There is no doubt that the right to buy has decimated socially rented housing and has driven many other economic factors in this country.

I am only halfway through my speech, so I will need to time things better. At this point, I want to quote some statistics that highlight areas in which there has been no movement. In 1999, 19,400 new private sector dwellings were completed and the figure was about the same in 2003. However, over the same period, the number of new housing association dwellings fell from 4,911 to just under 4,000. The amount of new public sector housing is, of course, negligible; only 81 new dwellings were built in 1999 and 59 in 2003.

There are now 2,031 households with children in temporary accommodation, which is a rise of 52 per cent since 2002. Members will have seen from the Shelter briefing that such a situation impacts on those children's education, health and so on. In fact, it affects their whole life. They are born to fail and the Liberal-Labour Government in Scotland has failed and continues to fail them. It is no wonder that one in five children continues to live in poverty.

I should also point out that 192,320 applicants are either on the waiting list or the transfer list for housing. That is an enormous number of people. The impact of the Executive's measures will be a drop in the bucket and will not change what is happening.

I think that I have a few minutes left.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have three minutes.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh, grand.

Almost 4,000 children are in bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation. I should also point out to Elaine Smith that there has been a record number of applications from homeless people to local councils; indeed, there has been an almost 20 per cent increase on the 1999 figures. Everyone would support any effort to reduce homelessness; however, the measures that have been introduced over the past five years have simply not worked.

I want very briefly to examine the budget's impact on this matter. As I have been making my way through the shallow end of the swimming pool, I have looked very carefully at what has been happening. When the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland considered the Executive's announcement on funding additional affordable housing, it said:

"Today's announcement will not help the Scottish Executive to address the backlog of housing need in Scotland. In 2003 there were over a quarter of a million households on local authority and housing association waiting lists who cannot get a home because of a shortage ... An investment programme of an average 5,500 houses per year will do little to help them.

It is also looking like the Scottish Executive will not meet its current target of delivering 18,000 new and improved homes by 2006. We estimate that it will miss ... by well over 2,000 homes ...

It will not be able to give all homeless people the entitlement to a permanent home by 2012—one of their flagship policy"

initiatives.

Shelter has pointed out that the overall housing budget is being cut by 1.3 per cent in real terms while the Scottish budget generally is rising by more than 10 per cent through to 2008. It concludes that the extra £100 million pledged for affordable housing must be the result of cuts elsewhere in housing.

I am out of time. We might quote figures and statistics; however, we all know that we are talking about individuals who are suffering. Children are being deprived in a rich country simply because they do not have warm, secure and affordable housing. Quite frankly, in the five years that Labour and the Liberals have been in power, they have not changed a thing.

I move amendment S2M-1898.1, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"recognises that it is a basic human right to have the comfort, security and stability of a warm affordable home and that decent suitable housing is crucial to the individual's quality of life, whether young or old, and crucial to healthy, thriving communities and the economy at large; notes that, after five years of the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, homelessness has increased substantially and that the right to buy has seriously damaged the socially rented sector; therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to revisit its right to buy policy, to utilise the proposed planning and housing legislation to facilitate the provision of affordable housing and to ensure that Scotland's people have access to the homes they deserve across tenures and that the scourge of rooflessness, bed and breakfast and "sofa surfing" is consigned to history."

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I, too, welcome the minister to his new remit. I am sure that he and our communities spokesman, Mary Scanlon, will have a most enjoyable and constructive time debating with each other in the months ahead. Mary is not here today because she is the principal speaker at a conference.

Although we have before us another Executive motion—another welter of self-congratulatory words—there has been an absence of any real progress since the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 was passed. Let us be clear: Scotland does not face a housing crisis of the kind that faces south-east England, where there is a very real difficulty in providing homes for everyone who wants them. Indeed, the last time I looked, there were more public sector houses available in Scotland than there were people who wanted a home. Of course, there are several reasons for that situation.

However, I make it clear at the start that we would prefer the private sector to provide housing.

Although we have high aspirations in that regard, we acknowledge that there are perfectly justifiable reasons why everyone cannot own their home, and when people are reliant on the public sector, it is essential that good-quality and economically reasonable housing is provided. The Conservatives have always followed that policy in this Parliament. To be fair, I should say that a number of provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 will make a significant difference to public sector tenants, but progress has been desperately and disappointingly slow.

We welcome the transfer of Glasgow City Council's housing stock to the Glasgow Housing Association. One of the most pleasing aspects of post-war Scottish housing has been the success of the housing association movement. Although the odd association has gone belly up, there can be no doubt that, when given a greater degree of responsibility for their housing conditions, tenants respond positively and responsibly. There are many examples—in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland—of how associations have worked to the benefit of all concerned.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Mr Aitken accept that that level of involvement, control, responsibility and rights can also be achieved within council ownership—for example, through the co-operative model that Glasgow City Council used some years ago?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will discuss such issues later in my speech, but the fact is that council housing failed council tenants over many years. The Executive eventually recognised that.

If people are given responsibility for their own living conditions, they will respond positively. Over the years, the dead hand of Glasgow City Council's housing department has impinged adversely on the lives of hundreds of thousands of council tenants in Glasgow.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that people taking responsibility for and being involved in the homes in which they live can be achieved at a community level—through housing associations, for example—and not only at an individual level?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Absolutely—that is the point that I am making. I am full of praise for the way in which the housing association movement has succeeded. I am sure that he already knows them, but I could show Patrick Harvie many classic examples of housing associations in quite poor areas of Glasgow that have worked tremendously well and have made a real difference to the housing conditions of their tenants.

If the dead hand of Glasgow City Council's housing department is to continue impinging on the operation of the GHA—and many of the same people are still involved—we will not progress as quickly and effectively as we would like to. We have to break down the large monolithic housing blocks into small, more manageable, locally accountable units. If we do not do that, much worthwhile momentum will be lost.

The main difference between ourselves and the left-wing parties in this chamber is that we are prepared to trust people. There is always reluctance—especially on the part of the Executive—to let people really stand on their own feet. The new minister should ensure that the umbilical cord is cut as quickly as possible and that Glasgow, for example, has a significant number of small, manageable and accountable housing associations in place by the end of next year.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member talks about trusting the people and he castigates Glasgow City Council for its handling of its housing stock; so will he congratulate Aberdeenshire Council for its handling of its housing stock? The council tenants of Aberdeenshire voted to remain within local authority housing.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

That, of course, is their democratic right; I would not question that in any way. I do not think that such a course would have been the way forward for Glasgow, but different conditions might well apply elsewhere. That is what giving people responsibility is all about. The experiment in Glasgow—which I am convinced will work—has not been emulated elsewhere to any great extent. If progress is to be made, we have to give more power to the people.

Unfortunately, housing providers are being disadvantaged in a number of ways. The problem of antisocial behaviour has always bedevilled public sector housing. The vast majority of tenants seek only to lead reasonable lives. The provision in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 for housing providers to be forced to rehouse antisocial tenants—who, in some cases, have been evicted by other providers before—for wilful fire-raising and for drug dealing is causing considerable concern in some communities in Scotland. A much more robust approach is required. I have said it before and I make no apology for saying it again: if people are not prepared to live in a civilised manner and are prepared to make life hell for their neighbours, they must be taken out of mainstream housing altogether until they can demonstrate that they are fit to live with those whose lives they have consistently and persistently made a misery.

The Executive is to introduce a housing bill and we await its proposals with interest. However, we serve notice now that, if the Executive is not prepared to take action against the antisocial minority, we will seek to amend the bill in order that it does so.

I turn now to the private sector. There is general concern about the way in which property prices have escalated in recent years, prejudicing the young buyer and the first-time buyer. We must see what can be done and we must certainly encourage more use of brownfield, inner-city sites in vacant land, much of which has lain derelict and unused for decades. I understand that some 10,846 hectares of derelict urban vacant land were recorded in 2003. We must acknowledge the miserable failure of the post-war peripheral scheme solution to bad housing; and we must seek to build inner-city communities that are close to employment opportunities, shopping and recreation. I am interested in what the minister said about equity sharing and co-ownership. Such plans could be a way forward and we will certainly consider any concrete proposals.

It is depressing that 42 per cent of rural derelict land has been lying unused since 1981. That land is crying out for development, although much of it cannot be developed for the reasons that John Swinney articulated—namely, that Scottish Water has manifestly failed to get its act together. Until the minister and his colleagues are prepared to take appropriate action in that respect, we will not make much progress towards ending the depopulation of some of our country areas. We will certainly raise the matter forcefully with the minister's colleague, Ross Finnie, in the months ahead.

I agree that progress has been made, but that progress has been largely as a result of the implementation of Conservative policy. Who would have thought that the provisions of the Tenants Rights etc (Scotland) Act 1980 would have been built upon by Labour? Who in their wildest dreams would have thought that the Conservative policy of transferring council homes to housing associations would be implemented by Labour? It is to the Executive's credit that it has recognised the abysmal failure of its colleagues in Labour-controlled councils.

We will create more homes in Scotland once we simplify the planning regulations and speed up the process and we look forward with interest to what the Executive will do in that respect. Needless to say, if the Executive requires any advice or assistance on housing or planning matters, I and my colleagues—particularly Mary Scanlon—will be delighted to provide it with draft policy proposals. In accordance with its usual practice, the Executive will initially deny those proposals, and then implement them.

I move amendment S2M-1898.2, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"recognises that housing stock transfer to community-based housing associations, a policy introduced by the Conservatives, gives tenants greater rights, responsibilities and input into the way their housing is run; believes that, to improve the standard of public housing for everyone, it is necessary to step up the process of devolving control of housing from local authorities to local community groups; further believes that, to improve the standard and supply of private housing for rent or purchase, a review and modernisation of the Scottish planning system is required to simplify and speed up the development process, and notes with concern the restraint on new housing construction currently imposed in Scotland by the inadequacies of Scottish Water's sewerage network."

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Scottish Green MSPs welcome this important debate on housing; we also welcome the minister to this important portfolio. If he makes the right decisions in communities, he will have a major impact on health and justice for the people of Scotland.

Our amendment acknowledges the notable efforts in housing by the Scottish Executive since devolution and we have welcomed recent Executive commitments to improve the quality and availability of Scotland's housing. However, our message to the minister is clear: the housing agenda has come far, but not far enough.

Many challenges lie ahead and Scottish Greens call on the Executive to extend its effort in two key areas. We note the Executive's commitment to increase the provision of affordable homes from around 6,000 this year to 8,000 in 2007-08; but what does the Executive have to say about ending the right to buy? The housing market is out of balance because of real shortages of good-quality and affordable rented housing. Although the Executive will provide new affordable homes on the one hand, around 18,000 homes a year are lost through the right to buy.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I agree with Shiona Baird in that I, too, want to see the right to buy go. However, does she acknowledge that the Executive has reduced the discounts on right to buy?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

We seek to extend policies to deal with the issue, which is fundamental to the problem that the Executive faces. The Executive must acknowledge that its attempts to increase the provision of affordable homes will continue to be undermined by the loss of houses through the right to buy.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

How are those houses lost? If people buy them, they continue to live in them. The houses might not be being rented, but they are not lost—people are still living in them. The roofs over people's heads are not lost. The point is that the right to buy is one of a number of tools in a toolbox of housing measures. When the Social Justice Committee considered the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we radically changed the provisions on right to buy, to limit its take-up but to allow it to continue where it provides a solution.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The fundamental issue is that if the right to buy is affecting people's right to have a roof over their heads, something is out of balance.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is not affecting that right.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

It patently is, because if that were not the case, there would not be a housing need and we would not be having this debate; everything would be worked out. We need to debate that fundamental issue.

In a recent poll by Shelter, 93 per cent of respondents thought that it would be more difficult for the next generation to find housing and 84 per cent of them thought that more affordable housing was needed in their area. That begs the question whether MSPs are listening. What does the Executive have to say to those people?

If the Executive is serious about addressing the backlog of housing need in Scotland, it will agree with me that the right to buy's time is up. We hope that the review of the right to buy in 2006 will be informed by an open and comprehensive consultation on future options, including the abolition or restriction of the right to buy. I stress that the Executive must listen carefully to calls from many housing agencies to abolish the right to buy for new homes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I think that I have taken enough interventions.

It is vital that the review of the right to buy takes place.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have a point of clarification.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I will carry on.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have about two and a half minutes.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Oh flip!

Between 1994 and 2000, the average number of winter deaths each year in Scotland was 4,000. That rate is worse than that of the coldest European countries. The winter 2002 rate was higher than the normal rate by about 2,500 deaths.

Our homes not only have a direct impact on our health and well-being, but are a major contributor to global environmental problems such as climate change. Our energy inefficient homes are losing heat and losing their occupants money.

Last week's publication of WWF's "Living Planet Report 2004" showed that Scotland has a disproportionately large ecological footprint: it consumes resources at three times the rate at which the planet can renew them. We support WWF's call for the provision of 10,000 new or refurbished sustainable homes by 2012. Rising oil prices will adversely affect improvements in fuel poverty figures. I believe that we can bring people out of, and—most important—keep them out of, fuel poverty only if we address energy efficiency in a serious and concerted way, but that is not happening. There is no national target for energy efficiency in Scotland.

The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 required local authorities to make substantial improvements in domestic energy efficiency, which could have meant a 30 per cent improvement in such efficiency over 10 years. However, in Scotland some local authorities have managed to negotiate that target down to levels as low as 9 per cent. The act must be amended to include mandatory local authority energy efficiency targets, to ensure that local authorities provide sufficient resources to meet them. The resources are there; all that is necessary is a bit of joined-up thinking. Warm homes dramatically reduce winter hospital admissions, which cost millions of pounds.

Scotland is facing a housing crisis because of poor housing conditions and a lack of affordable new homes. The Executive has achieved some successes, but there is a long way to go before all the people of Scotland secure the quality and choice of housing that they deserve. I hope that the minister can assure us that the Executive will report, at appropriate intervals, its progress on meeting the challenge of satisfying the basic human right to a well-insulated, affordable home.

I move amendment S2M-1898.4, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"acknowledges the Scottish Executive's commitment to increase affordable housing provision and the beneficial consequences that this will have for a range of people in Scotland; notes that the welcome increases in the provision of new affordable housing may be offset by a loss of affordable housing stock through the right to buy; requests that the Executive's review of right to buy in 2006 under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 is informed by an open and comprehensive consultation on future options for right to buy; recognises the Executive's efforts to improve standards in housing quality, especially with the introduction of the housing quality standard, fuel poverty programmes and the forthcoming Housing Bill; further recognises the contribution that poor quality housing and lack of environmental awareness in housing design make to Scotland's disproportionate ecological footprint and number of winter deaths; supports WWF Scotland in its call for the Executive to set a target for 10,000 new or refurbished sustainable homes by 2012; believes, therefore, that whilst there have been notable achievements flowing from devolution for housing in Scotland, many challenges lie ahead, and calls on the Executive to report at appropriate intervals on its progress on improving the quality and availability of housing."

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I, too, welcome the new team of communities ministers. I have dealt with Malcolm Chisholm and Johann Lamont with satisfaction—if not always with agreement—in different contexts. I also pay tribute to the members of the previous team, who did a good job and with whom I worked happily.

The motion is one of the Executive's better motions: it is not too self-congratulatory, it touches on many of the varied aspects of housing and it reflects the greater priority that has been given to housing since devolution. For many years, housing languished down the political scale. It is now more of a priority and more money is being promised for the building of new houses. Although it must be admitted that that increase will start from a low base, it is a step in the right direction.

It is encouraging that all the amendments say a few things that are worth saying. In other words, there is quite a lot of common ground in our efforts to deal with the remaining issues in housing. The exploration of different ways of providing housing, whether through community housing associations, co-ownership or different methods of funding, is welcome. We should also consider tenants' co-operatives, on which I wrote a pamphlet about 30 years ago. Times have moved on, but the co-operative philosophy is still relevant to housing and to other matters.

Planning and sewerage problems will be dealt with in the proposed planning bill. It is vital that the Executive and the Parliament get the right balance between promoting new development and allowing communities to have more say about what development goes ahead. I know that Ross Finnie will deal vigorously with the issue of sewerage—[Interruption.] Not personally, I hasten to add. The last time that the Executive held a consultation on such matters, the emphasis was on clean drinking water, beaches and so on. No one mentioned sewerage, which we must deal with. That shows that issues can arise quickly in politics.

Another issue that we must deal with is how to be fair to those people who are on the housing waiting list. It is right that we have produced good legislation for tackling homelessness. Tenants' right to buy has good and bad points, which we must balance out. I have received representations from councils, both during meetings and in writing, about the great difficulty that they experience in finding houses for people who are on the waiting list, because of the priority that is given—rightly—to people who are genuinely homeless and because of the right to buy. I agree with my colleagues who say that the right to buy does not mean that the house disappears and that it is still a valuable asset, but—

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the member believe that houses that are bought under the right to buy are still valuable assets to the community when they are owned en bloc by private landlords or when family members have bought them for holiday homes, for example?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Second homes are a thorny issue, but the Executive is tackling it—rather too slowly, to my mind—by having a fairer tax system on second homes, which will provide more money for housing.

The right to buy is a thorny issue. We must address carefully how to provide the right houses for homeless people while still being fair to people who are on an ordinary waiting list. I welcome the fact that the Executive is putting in more money to help councils and housing associations to build more houses for social renting, but I suggest that it, the Parliament, COSLA—many councils feel strongly on the issue—and the bodies that provide housing should discuss and determine whether it is possible to create the proverbial level playing field and to give slightly more support to people who are on the ordinary housing waiting list. That might mean reducing the right to buy or changing it in some way, such as removing it from new houses. We should at least have a genuine discussion about the matter. In the chamber, we have a sort of yah-boo argument; if we could get in a room and have a sensible argument, we might come to a reasonable solution. It is a difficult matter, and we will not make everyone happy overnight.

We have a two-stage objective: to provide decent-quality, well-heated homes for everyone—the Executive has been doing good work on that; and to provide people with homes under whatever system of ownership they would like, whether joint ownership, tenanting or something else. The latter is a longer-term objective, and we must keep it in mind, but in the first place we must provide more homes so that people of all sorts can have homes. That would be a step in the right direction. The Executive is moving in that direction, but I suggest that it should discuss with local authorities and others how to deliver all that as well as possible.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Like other members who have spoken, I welcome the two ministers to their new roles.

Since the Parliament's inception in 1999, I have taken part in numerous debates on housing and, as a member of the Social Justice Committee, I was also involved in the passing of the two key pieces of housing legislation that the Parliament has produced: the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003. Those, and other housing-related pieces of legislation, such as the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004, demonstrate that housing has been a key priority for the Parliament.

It is entirely right and proper that housing should have been such a priority for the Parliament during its first few years, and it is also proper that it should continue to be a key priority of the Parliament and the Executive. Housing is as basic a human need as they come. Everyone should be entitled to live in a secure, warm and comfortable home, but there are still too many people in Scotland who live in poor housing conditions and who find it difficult to obtain decent social rented accommodation. There is also a growing number of people who find it increasingly difficult to get on to the first rung of the property ladder.

That is why I welcome the recent investment announcement that is contained within the comprehensive spending review. The three-year plan aims to provide almost 22,000 affordable new homes, comprising more than 16,000 homes for social renting and around 5,000 for low-cost home ownership, which says something about the Executive's commitment to the social rented sector. The provision of those additional homes is vital if we are to fulfil our aspiration to provide decent affordable homes to all who need them and is a crucial part of the effective implementation of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003. We can move people out of temporary accommodation only if we have sufficient houses available and, similarly, housing lists can be reduced only if there are sufficient numbers of good-quality houses for rent in the locations in which people want them. However, the notion that simply abolishing the right to buy will solve all Scotland's housing problems is complete nonsense. Before we had the right to buy, when people such as my parents got married and started to look for a home, the reality was that they had to continue to live with their own parents or go into the private rented sector.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not think that Karen Whitefield's parents are much younger than mine were, and I am old enough to remember a generation that aspired to a council house in a decent area and got a decent council house in a good area. That is what the right to buy erodes, because the good houses in the best areas have been bought up under the right to buy, in some cases by the grandchildren of those who lived there for years on end. The picture that Karen Whitefield paints is certainly not the way that I remember things being.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You are making an intervention, not a speech.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am terribly sorry, Presiding Officer.

Does Karen Whitefield agree that decent council housing was much more available to generations before ours?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

It was not available to my parents. Many people want to live in the social rented sector, which is what many of my constituents do. For example, 68 per cent of those who live in the social rented sector in North Lanarkshire live in council housing, while many more live in housing association houses and are happy to do so. My point is that simply abolishing the right to buy will not solve all our problems. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 attempted to address the problems of the wide-scale right to buy by reducing the levels of discount available, increasing the cost floor rules so that tenants had to wait much longer before they were entitled to use their right to buy and allowing the right to buy in pressured areas to be suspended where appropriate. Those measures, not trying to pretend that things will be all right if we abolish the right to buy, will make the difference.

I also welcome the plans to introduce a housing bill to improve the quality of housing in the private sector. Having improved the rights of tenants in the social rented sector through the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, we must ensure that those who rent from the private sector enjoy similar levels of protection. The forthcoming bill will build on the housing improvement task force's recommendations and attempt to address the problems of poor-quality housing in the private sector. I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues in the Communities Committee during the process of developing and scrutinising that bill.

The introduction of the prudential borrowing regime has opened up further investment opportunities to those councils that have manageable housing debt levels. I am pleased that, in North Lanarkshire, many of my constituents will benefit from receiving new kitchens and new bathrooms. Indeed, all council stock will benefit from that investment over the next few years and, in line with the Executive's commitment to tenant participation, North Lanarkshire Council is giving the tenants an opportunity to choose their own kitchen and bathroom styles.

Also, in Petersburn in my constituency, Link Housing Association Ltd has totally transformed an area of what was once some of the worst housing I have ever seen. Many of the tenants there have lived there for more than 30 years, renting from the council and a housing association, and now show off their houses with great pride. I say to Christine Grahame that they believe that there is no stigma to renting from a housing association.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I never said that there was.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Christine Grahame did say that.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will Karen Whitefield give way?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

No, I am sorry, but I am nearly finished.

Since its inception, the Parliament has done much to address the major housing issue in Scotland, but there can be no denying that problems still exist and that existing legislation is not sufficient to address them. That is why we must push on with increased investment and reform and ensure that the planning framework enables local housing need to be met. We must also ensure that the housing supply complements local and national economic development and that the complex problems that are faced in the private housing sector are addressed effectively. I am sure that the Parliament looks forward to meeting that challenge.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Apparently, in days gone by, there was an aptitude test for secret service entrants that involved a problem with a toilet flooding due to gushing taps. The entrants were asked to deal with that problem. Some reached for the mop and bucket, which is what the Executive does, and others turned off the taps.

The Executive's inability to deal with the very serious crisis in housing supply is clearly illustrated by the fact that we are losing far too many more houses than we are building. That is the central problem that must be confronted. More than 50 per cent of local authority council homes have been lost since 1979. We have figures showing that, in 1999, 81 new council houses were built. Last year, 59 new council houses were built. The gap caused by the loss of several hundred thousand homes cannot be plugged by building 81 or 59 new ones.

That is why the misnamed right to buy has to be ditched. It is unfortunate that none of the amendments before us call for that, as my amendment was not accepted for debate. In 1999, we campaigned for the right to buy to be ditched. In 2003, we campaigned for it to be ditched. We will continue to campaign for the right to buy to be ditched, because there should be no right to privatise public housing. That is what the right to buy means.

Instead of the right to buy, why not have a right-to-rent discount? Why do we not reward tenants in that way? If we are prepared to reward tenants by giving them a discount to buy their homes, why do we not reward them with a discount to rent their homes after a 10-year rental period? What would the difference be? The difference would be that, if a tenant lived in a property for more than 25 years, they could have a rent-free existence in that property. When they move or when they die, that property would return to the public pool, and would return to being a public asset.

A home that was a public home remains a home for the person who buys it, and no one should blame anybody who takes the opportunity to buy their home—they are staring a gift horse in the mouth. They are getting a home worth several thousand pounds more than they have to pay for it, so we should not blame the individual for taking up the opportunity. The point that Karen Whitefield fails to grasp is that that home, which used to be there for the public, is now a private home. That is the difference. The Parliament should not be providing public subsidies and building public homes for them to be sold to private individuals who then make a profit either renting them out—as is happening now, particularly with grandparents' homes—or selling them on quickly, generating a tidy profit.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I find the concept of a "public home" rather curious, as if anybody could walk into the thing. Could Tommy Sheridan give us an indication of his vision for the balance—in terms of numbers, percentages or whatever—between different forms of tenure in Scotland? That is what underlies the debate, but he has failed to recognise that in his speech.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

First, let me discount Robert Brown's stupid comment: he knows what I mean by a public home, as does everybody else. A public home is a home built by public money for public provision. That is what council houses and housing association homes are, and it is those homes that are being sold off through the right to buy. There should be no right to buy. If we are to introduce any right, it should be a right-to-rent discount to reward tenants. That would be imaginative and radical, and it would provide stability in the housing market.

On Robert Brown's point about the balance, every single individual should of course have the right to purchase a home. That is why private house builders build homes. Whatever balance is arrived at, that is the one that we will live with. The problem is that the balance is being skewed towards private ownership, instead of towards public ownership. That is the difficulty. We are artificially skewing the housing market towards private ownership by removing public homes. Those individuals who want to get on to the property ladder should be able to purchase a private home, not one that was built with public money.

Karen Whitefield says that that will not solve the problems. Of course it will not solve the problems but, like turning off the tap in the flooding toilet, it will certainly help. Allied to that, we need a massive investment programme. The Executive's ambition in this regard is woefully inadequate. The Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless point out that 12,000 new social rented homes a year is the absolute minimum that is required. Today, the Executive is announcing that it might increase its target from 6,000 to 8,000. However, not all those homes will be for social rent. That is woefully inadequate.

If we are going to have any housing strategy that will tackle the lengthening of waiting lists, the rise in the number of homeless people and the inability of the public sector to provide good-quality, affordable rented homes, then we have to ditch the right to buy and replace it with a right-to-rent discount scheme to reward tenants, and we will have to increase massively expenditure on the provision of social rented homes.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

In the Perth and Kinross Council area, there is currently a combined waiting list of 4,639 applicants. That follows a rigorous review and, even if the 700 to 800 who are seeking a housing transfer are stripped out, there are still about 3,800 new applicants on that waiting list. I know that the figures might well be higher in other parts of Scotland, but housing need is experienced individually, not collectively. Every one of those 3,800 households is in need right now, with precious little likelihood of that need being met. There is virtually no chance now of somebody getting a council house unless they are actually homeless. I think that that is what Donald Gorrie might have been referring to in some of his comments. In Perth and Kinross there have been 1,500 applications from homeless people this year alone. It would be very helpful if, in her closing remarks, the deputy minister could give some indication of how the global spending figures will break down.

The Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland is already concerned that the Government's intentions to build just 5,500 affordable houses per year will result in a continuing shortfall. The figure of 5,500 suggests an average of only 75 houses per constituency per year. Even if every constituency got those 75 houses, it would take about 25 years to clear the current waiting list in Perth and Kinross. The population in our area is growing, so the figures are likely to go up. The assumption is also made that we can find the land to build those houses on.

I make no apologies for repeating in the chamber what I, my colleague John Swinney and others have already said about the new player in the housing game: Scottish Water. It does not matter that it is not Scottish Water's role to be a player in housing and it does not matter that it does not want that role. The fact is that, right now, Scottish Water is having as great an impact on housing in Scotland—if not greater—as anything that the Minister for Communities might wish to do. Embargoes on development are in place all around the country. Huge swathes of Scotland are blocked for any kind of house building, because of sewerage and drainage constraints.

A written answer made by one of the minister's predecessors in August indicated that, of the capacity to accommodate 230,000 houses, which is currently a theoretical figure in local authority plans, half the sites that have been identified are affected by water or drainage constraints. In theory, we could build 230,000 houses in Scotland; in fact, 115,000 of those are blocked because of the problem with Scottish Water. It is a colossal problem, which needs to be dealt with. For a short while, there was a complete development embargo for the whole city of Perth. Luckily, that has now been lifted, but there is still a problem in my constituency and in others.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

That is a serious issue, and the Finance Committee has taken an active interest in it. Does the member recognise, however, that the £47 million a month run rate of investment is tackling that issue? Does she agree that any new entrants from the private sector who wish to be connected to the water supply should contribute to that?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

There are many different ways in which it could be tackled. I would like to see evidence of concrete results for the investment that is being made. By concrete results I literally mean houses that can now be built that could not be built before. That is an important issue that needs continually to be brought to the chamber.

Current drainage constraints have blocked development of more than 1,200 potential open-market housing sites in Perth and Kinross; worse, that includes more than 250 sites that would have been earmarked for the development of affordable housing. We need to remember that the lack of affordable housing can be particularly detrimental in rural areas, where transport and distance issues are a far greater problem than in the cities. I need to hear far more detail about how the minister hopes to counter the negative effect of sewerage and drainage constraints on housebuilding.

My second concern is one that has been reiterated today, which is the impact that the tackling of right to buy is having on the situation in Scotland. Karen Whitefield's logic is bizarre. Unless we undertake a wholesale review of the way in which housing is provided, we have to accept that the right to buy has not only contributed to the problem in the past and present but will contribute to it in future. In The Herald yesterday, Alastair Cameron of the cross-denominational group, Scottish Churches Housing Action, described the extension of the right to buy as being like

"filling a bath without putting a plug in".

I could not put it better myself.

The right to buy needs to be tackled. We must remove it from new tenancies and from new build, and we need to put the plug back in, at least until the situation in Scotland is resolved. We will have to move on the issue soon. It is not helpful of the Tories to introduce some new concept of "mainstream housing". I am curious about what non-mainstream housing would be in the Tories' world view. In truth, people will have to be housed somewhere, regardless of their situation. The lack of affordable housing in the public rented sector and in the owner-occupied sector is starting to have a serious negative effect on development in huge areas of the country. Let us not wait until someone decides to make an updated version of "Cathy Come Home" before we move on this.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mainstream housing is a well-known term in the affordable housing sector. It means housing that is not special needs housing.

I begin my speech, as Donald Gorrie began his, by reflecting on the contribution to the debate of the previous ministerial team, which did a lot to move housing issues up the agenda. Much of that was reflected in Malcolm Chisholm's speech—I welcome him back to this brief. I would like to refer particularly to the points that he made about the supply of affordable housing. I listened closely to what he said and I welcome the recent increase in funding for affordable housing, which, unusually, was more significant than the Executive spin-doctors made out at the time. That increase in funding has been widely welcomed.

The context in which we need to assess that, however, is the very high standard that has been explicitly set by the Executive and by the Parliament in passing the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, in which there is a target of 2012 as the date by which we would expect everyone to be properly and adequately housed in Scotland. That is a target that I am happy to endorse, and I very much hope that we can achieve it. The question, though, is whether we have put in place a regime that is adequate to achieve that objective.

Earlier, I asked Malcolm Chisholm about the role that the Bramley research had played in guiding the Executive to its current level of resource commitment in that area. While I do not think that he answered the question that I put to him—I will read the speech carefully later, but I think that there is still a bit of information that I want—he did confirm that the Bramley research was central to the Executive's decision about what resources to allocate in the current three-year period. That is an interesting point, because it begs quite a significant question, which is the purpose of the 32 local housing strategies that were submitted this year by Scotland's local authorities. A central part of those strategies was to quantify the outstanding need for social housing spatially throughout 32 council areas.

Unlike the Governments in Wales and England, the Scottish Executive has not laid down a template for rigorous measurement of need through a local housing strategy—essentially a variety of strategies have been allowed—and that is probably reflected in the varying quality and rigour of the analysis that has come back from the local authorities. I suggest that, if we are to achieve our targets, and if we are to lift our game further, one of the things that we must do in this governance unit in the United Kingdom—this devolved Scotland—is to consider the next round of local housing strategy and ensure that councils are sufficiently guided to come up with findings that are robust and rigorous.

We should then consider the match between planning guidance and housing legislation—both of which fall within the minister's remit. The current guidance suggests that local authorities should use their local plans to inform their local housing strategies and vice versa and we must ensure that that guidance is strengthened so that the local plans follow the local housing strategies. If Perth and Kinross Council identifies a need for 2,500 new houses—or whatever the target might be in the forward five to 10 year period—the local plan must allocate land for that, and the infrastructure, including the resource level, must be there to ensure that those houses can be built.

The resource level provided by the Executive is extremely important. There is ambiguity about what it means when it says it accepts the Bramley findings. Bramley conducted his research to identify a need from household formation. All the figures that he projects are in addition to the regeneration requirements. The Executive's response does not make that differentiation. Its targets include rebuilding houses and new houses, but Bramley was talking about the net need for new houses. On that basis alone, Bramley is pointing at higher targets than the Executive is accepting.

The choice of which version of Bramley to operate on raises a fundamentally important point relating to the volume of housing and the spatial distribution of the new units. If we accept that housing should be provided on the basis of private sector housing market areas, which is one of the Bramley options, the projected need is very much lower than it would be if we accept the other Bramley option, which is to assess the need on a council-by-council basis. There is a risk for the Executive in going for the housing market area approach. The attraction is that if the Executive builds 4,000 to 5,000 new houses, it will be able to say, "Look, we have committed the resource to that. We have met the bottom line provided by Bramley." However, the risk is that the Executive will not meet local needs. If the Executive goes for housing market areas it is effectively saying that people who need to be housed in St Andrews do not count because there is supply available in Lochgelly, and that people who need housing in East Renfrewshire do not count because there is a surplus of housing—derelict and boarded up, perhaps—in South Nitshill.

In the private sector, there is a commitment in planning guidance to driving down research into settlement strategies to ensure that each settlement is analysed and that local needs are met. Mobile allowance is then made to allow for the fact that people who can buy housing can choose from a variety of places. If there is to be equity in the treatment of that section of our community that is unable to afford the market sector and requires one form or another of rented housing, there must be a commitment to try to provide housing in the communities where they live and have grown up, and work or are seeking work. I am afraid that the objectives set by the Executive in the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 are not capable of being realised until there is a rigorous approach to the assessment of need, and the meeting of that need in land release and infrastructure terms. Although I welcome the increased resources—as Donald Gorrie said, it is a step in the right direction—we would be fooling ourselves if we believed that it was an adequate step to meet the 2012 targets, which we should all share and strive to achieve.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the Executive's approach to improving the quality and availability of housing. It is probably the biggest challenge to the Executive's programme, and the Executive has done a great deal across the board.

I do not agree with Christine Grahame that there is a stigma attached to public sector housing—Karen Whitefield is correct on that point. I realise that public sector housing is usually chosen by those on the lowest incomes, but I also recognise—as the Executive has recognised in the past—that the vast majority aspire to become home owners at some point in the future.

Malcolm Chisholm was right to say, in response to Patrick Harvie's question, that the balance of private housing and public housing depends on the aspirations of the people whom we represent. I particularly welcome the targets to reduce the pressure on waiting lists, so that targets are not just about tackling homelessness. It is important to consider what the Executive is achieving across the board.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Very briefly.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does the member accept that those aspirations are, to a large extent, the result of what is available? If people see that social rented housing does not meet their aspirations, they will naturally drift towards a desire for home ownership, but we could have a different formulation.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will move on to the issue of choice and availability in a moment, because it is important. I believe that most people would like to have that choice at some point. Perhaps that was not the case for my parents, but now people like to think that they have the choice to be property owners even though they might choose to remain in the rented sector.

Like Karen Whitefield, I recognise that, as we stand here and discuss the matter, there are tangible results of housing stock transfer in Glasgow: kitchens and bathrooms are being installed now in places in my community. I have been present when people have chosen their kitchens and bathrooms and the fact that they are able to do that is a completely new concept to them. It is important to recognise that progress is being made.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Very briefly, because I have a lot to say.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The member mentioned kitchens and bathrooms in accommodation. Does she agree that because of the GHA stock transfer many more thousands of people are sitting in abject poverty in houses that have not been improved?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Well, okay. If the member wants to play that game, she can play that game. I say to her that the point of the strategy is that we want to improve the quality of housing across the board.

In response to Bill Aitken's speech, I point out that there is tangible progress—I have seen it. I have some criticisms, and I ask ministers to consider that there is unfinished business in relation to the housing stock transfer. As an elected member, I think that it is part of my job to oversee some of the policies that go into community ownership. For example, we are moving to second-stage transfer faster than we were told when we debated it. I just want to be kept informed on that. One of my communities is going to ballot in May and I was not informed about that. If ministers want to carry us all along with the discussions that we are still to have with the GHA and the local housing organisations, they should keep elected members informed—that includes local councillors too. We are the primary people in the matter.

The Bank of Scotland survey showed last year that the average age of first-time buyers is 36 and the average deposit is £11,000. We can see that there are vast changes in the pattern of living. A declining population with a dramatic increase in the number of households is the key trend and it poses a massive challenge to the Executive. It is a sad fact that many of my constituents who were born in the west end of Glasgow, which is known for being an affluent area where houses have a high market value, cannot afford to buy property and are stuck because there is a shortage of public-sector housing. That is why the reduction in waiting lists is important to me. I have constituents who are waiting for three, four or five-bedroom apartments for as long as seven, eight or nine years with no hope of moving on because of the non-availability of public-sector housing: the variety of sizes that is required does not exist. I do not oppose the right to buy, but—Tommy Sheridan raised the issue in part—there has to be proper supply and assessments in particular areas of whether we have the proper requirement of public-sector housing. It is a question of supply.

Housing associations in my area are concerned about what will happen when the 10-year prescription period kicks in—the SNP does not seem to understand that that will not happen for 10 years. Pressured area status has not worked and it is not being used. I ask the minister to consider whether the planning legislation should include a duty on strategic housing bodies to ensure that there is a mix of housing tenure in an area—that would certainly help the area that I represent. Quotas should be attached to developers when they build new houses. Some authorities are already doing that, with quotas of 10 or 20 per cent. We must debate what is realistic, but in my book it is no longer acceptable for 2,500 houses to be built on the harbour in my constituency with not a single public-sector house or even some kind of alternative. We are working on that important principle.

I think that I have about 30 seconds left. I want to mention houses in multiple occupation because such accommodation is an important aspect of the private rented sector. We have good, tough legislation on HMOs. I have asked for a meeting with the Deputy Minister for Communities and I hope that she will agree to meet me. I know that she shares my concern about HMOs, having worked on the report with the Communities Committee. Glasgow City Council has been quite successful, with 70 prosecutions, but it says that in some cases the fine is so small that it is less than a month's rent and it has no power to close properties that repeatedly fall below the standards. Good landlords are frustrated about the £1,700 registration fee that they have to pay, as they think that that figure is too high, and there are still 900 landlords in Glasgow who have not registered at all. There are distortions as a result of the legislation; when there are four students in a property they have to lie because three is the level at which landlords have to apply for a licence. The legislation is good, but I hope that ministers will agree that with a bit of adjustment it could be more effective.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am sorry that the new SNP spokesman is not in her seat because I wanted to commend her for her candid confession that she does not have expertise in housing matters. If any members doubted that at the beginning of her speech, there was certainly no doubt at the end of it. I do not want to belittle any member's commitment to housing or the seriousness of the issues that we as a Parliament face. I have consistently raised housing issues in the chamber since I was elected last May, as it is the single biggest issue in my constituency mailbag. I am grateful for this further opportunity to raise issues that are important not only to the sector as a whole in Scotland but to my constituents.

I will focus my remarks on two principal areas—first, the need to ensure that we have a sustainable supply of social housing, particularly for new entrants, and affordable housing for home buyers. Local young people seek stable, affordable rented homes as starters as they begin family life and they may have an aspiration to buy. Secondly, I will focus on how we move ahead with environmentally sustainable housing, where there are new builds in the public sector, and the need to ensure that we spend money in a way that is as environmentally sustainable as possible. In particular, we should ensure that such builds are sustainable and economically efficient and that, ultimately, there are lower bills in the social sector, particularly to reduce the scourge of fuel poverty for elderly tenants.

The minister is also not in the chamber—my reputation obviously precedes me—but I welcome him and the deputy minister to their new portfolio. I am sure that in his brief he will be as diligent and as committed to providing solutions to the myriad issues that face housing in Scotland as his predecessor, with whom I enjoyed a good working relationship. At my invitation she visited the Borders and met the local housing association, the council and others who have an interest in taking forward the housing debate in my area. It was a productive meeting and I extend an invitation to the new ministerial team to visit the Borders and discuss with the local agencies and tenants how well partnership working is taking forward the local housing strategy and what support we need from the Executive to address some of the problems.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sure that the member is aware of the detailed tables in the Bramley research, which is central to the Executive's planning. He will be aware that both tables show that the Scottish Borders has, according to the research, a substantial surplus of housing. Does he agree that that demonstrates the need to assess and measure housing need on a settlement-by-settlement basis?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I agree, and I will expand on that in a moment.

One depressing fact that we told the former minister when she visited the Borders, and which we followed up with evidence, is the impact that land price inflation has on the ability of the building of housing units in the social sector to keep pace. During the past five years, the housing association grant for the Borders has grown steadily from less than £4 million to just over £4 million, but the number of homes that it has been possible to build has halved in the same period. I represent the area with the highest proportion of rented accommodation. The Borders is an area of major land price inflation: in certain areas of my constituency and Euan Robson's constituency inflation has nearly doubled in one year.

An indicator of cost was in a report that the Bank of Scotland gave me in the summer, which showed that the average house price in my constituency in June 2004 was £139,000. That represented a one-year change of 44 per cent and a five-year change of 94 per cent. Of course, those figures do not mean an equivalent growth in the wages of my constituents, who earn on average slightly more than the national average income, or an equivalent growth in construction industry costs, although those are a factor. The major driver in the change to unit cost is land price inflation. It is difficult to determine the precise proportion of the change that that forms, but the increase is without doubt present. I have had meetings locally with housing associations and members of the construction industry. At the latest meeting, which took place just last week, I was told that land price inflation is the major driver.

It is inevitable that that situation has a major social impact. First, it increases the age of the average first-time buyer. The age in my constituency was 27 in 1998; it is now 30. I am that tender age, but I bought my first house locally when I was 28, so I did not exactly reduce the average.

The second impact, which I mentioned at the opening of my speech, is the reduction in the number of housing units for social housing, even when the budget has grown and will grow considerably, as the minister said. I commend the former Minister for Communities for reacting positively to the situation by announcing an initial £1.5 million for housing in the Borders and a commitment to support land banking.

I agree absolutely with Mr Tosh that where we use public sector investment, how flexible it is and how local we can be are crucial. For example, the £1.5 million of additional expenditure will allow land banking by Eildon Housing Association on behalf of all the housing associations to focus on areas with the greatest need, such as Peebles, which is in my constituency, and not necessarily Selkirk, because Peebles has had the biggest land-banking difficulties.

All Executive departments need to give greater consideration to sustainable housing. Barriers are preventing investment in environmentally sustainable measures and we must tackle all such matters. My area has an abundant supply of energy from wind power, whether it is from a wind farm or from local small-scale turbines. The use of such energy and of combined heat and power can reduce the scourge of fuel poverty for many people in the social sector. I would like a much greater proportion of new investment and more original ideas as we develop the agenda to focus on sustainable and environmental good practice in our new social housing build.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I remind members that they have six minutes, not six minutes and 20 or 40 seconds, for their speeches.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will do my best to stick to the six minutes.

Mr Purvis protests too much. Perhaps having a majority of only 500 in the Borders makes him a wee bit feart of Christine Grahame, who I am sure can stick up for herself, as he no doubt knows.

I draw attention to the motion's title, which is "Improving the Quality and Availability of Scotland's Housing". That is a worthy aim and I congratulate the Executive on producing a worthy title. The motion is also worthy. It talks about increasing the availability of social housing, including rented accommodation for homeless people, and about community ownership and fuel poverty. Perhaps in his summing-up speech, the minister could say whether the central heating programme, which the Eaga Partnership is providing, will be extended to people of all ages who have partial central heating.

When I looked closely at the motion, nowhere did I see a single mention of the flagship policy of the Tories and the Executive: housing stock transfer. I acknowledge that the minister said that stock transfer was marvellous, but the motion does not mention how wonderful it is. As we know, stock transfer has been undertaken in Glasgow and is being rolled out throughout the country.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member cared to read our amendment, she would see that it contains the words "stock transfer". Bill Aitken talked about that in his speech.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I referred not to the Tories' amendment but to the Executive's motion. I said that the Tories and the Executive were as one on stock transfer. I made it clear that they agree on wholesale stock transfer.

We have all mentioned the serious effects of bad housing on the Scottish people. Dampness affects seriously the health of our people and of our children in particular. We have pledged to protect and nurture children, but some of them live in the worst housing conditions. As we all know, children who live in damp conditions and in bad housing develop bronchitis and asthma and have long-term illnesses in later years. We have not managed to eradicate such conditions.

The motion raises issues of temporary homelessness and temporary accommodation, which are created by the lack of secure rented tenure, which other members have mentioned. I acknowledge the commitment in the motion to increase the provision of rented accommodation by 2008, but that is four years away. In the past two years, the number of children who live in rented accommodation for homeless people has risen from 263 to 539. That is unacceptable in this day and age. I think that Linda Fabiani mentioned in an intervention the effect on those kids of being shunted from place to place and of having no permanent home. That is worrying. I acknowledge the commitment in the motion, but four years is too long. The aim must be achieved more quickly.

As for GHA and stock transfer, if the Executive had embarked on a plan of care and repair and of new build, instead of demolition in some areas, we would not lack affordable housing or have a shortage of public rented housing.

Wholesale housing stock transfer has taken place in Glasgow. I do not apologise for raising that, although I have mentioned it time and again. I go out and meet tenants and I attend public meetings. My postbag is full of mail from people who are concerned about GHA and the way in which matters are developing. I admit that some tenants have benefited from investment because of the stock transfer, as has been said.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does Sandra White agree that the level of investment in Glasgow since stock transfer has shown no marked increase from the level that would have existed if the council had retained the stock?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If the council had retained the stock and the debt had been written off, the level of investment would probably have been higher.

We are leaving some people in limbo. GHA is conducting an option appraisal, which in layman's terms means a decision on whether somebody's house will be demolished. The people who are involved do not know what will happen. While they are under the threat of option appraisal, which could take six months to a year, they live with houses that will have no improvement, houses that are lying empty and houses that are boarded up. Communities are scattered throughout such areas. That is not good enough for the people of Glasgow. We need only go to places such as Sighthill and Scotstoun—I think that Pauline McNeill mentioned flats there—to see evidence of the wholesale deprivation as a result of stock transfer.

I will ask the minister several questions about stock transfer. Will he confirm for me and the people of Sighthill and other areas that meetings have taken place between a firm called LPG Living and GHA with a view to selling the high-rise flats in Sighthill, Ibroxholm Oval and the Gorbals? That firm has bought council houses in Manchester and Leeds and sold each as private housing for between £60,000 and £100,000. I have been told in good faith that those meetings have happened and I would like the minister to say whether that is true and to tell tenants what is happening.

Will the minister also tell me about the timescale for secondary stock transfer to local housing organisations, which has been mentioned? That has not happened. A flagship policy of GHA was new build, which has not happened much either. What is the timescale for new-build proposals?

I do not want gentrification of Glasgow, but that is happening through the housing stock transfer. We have had wholesale housing stock transfer and we are now experiencing the wholesale transfer of citizens out of the city. That is no way to improve lives or housing in the city. I would like the minister to answer my questions in his summing-up speech.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Like other members, I welcome Malcolm Chisholm and Johann Lamont to their new positions. I wish them all the best and look forward to working with them.

I am proud of the Labour-led Scottish Executive's record on housing and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to serve on the committee that was charged with scrutinising what became the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003. The legislative changes that we have made and the difference that the legislation is making on the ground have led to the Scottish Parliament being rightly recognised as one of the most progressive institutions in Europe on the issue. It was about time that the changes were made. As Malcolm Chisholm highlighted, when Labour came to power in 1997, housing had practically fallen off the political agenda. The Tories' housing legacy in Scotland and throughout the UK was one of neglect, underinvestment and disrepair. It has taken a huge investment from the Scottish Executive to turn that round.

One of the immediate priorities in the first session of the Scottish Parliament was homelessness. We have made vast progress on homelessness and people now have many more rights. They are aware of those rights and are presenting to housing authorities in greater numbers. The difference is that they are now being counted in the statistics instead of being ignored and forgotten, and their needs are being taken into account and met. It will, of course, take a long time to address all the problems and provide the housing that is required, but we are on the right track and have in place fair legislation that will make a difference to individuals and families throughout Scotland.

Members of the Scottish Parliament are forward thinking enough to realise that, in matters of basic housing requirements, we should not be satisfied with the idea of everyone having a roof over their head. Every Scot should be entitled to a warm, dry and secure home. It is not acceptable that the health of children who have asthma is put at further risk by damp housing, that the elderly should be afraid to turn on their heating for fear of the bill at the end of the month, or that older children do not have decent accommodation in an environment in which they can study. It is also not right that families have to stay in private rented accommodation with no guarantee of tenure beyond a short-term lease. I know that the Labour-led Executive agrees with me, which is why it has introduced the warm deal and the central heating programme and why it has pledged a £1 billion investment to ensure that 21,000-odd new affordable homes are built over the next three years. It is important that we keep to that target.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Is Cathie Craigie aware that the Executive's research shows that North Lanarkshire Council has a surplus of housing and that, following the logic of that research, it would not provide any more money for new housing? Does she agree that it is important that we look at the housing needs of individual settlements and look at all the areas where there is a shortfall in housing and aggregate them?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Murray Tosh is right to point that out. It is important that we meet the housing needs of every local area. I am sure that the Executive will take that into account.

I want to see homeless people getting out of temporary accommodation, more people getting off waiting lists and into secure housing, and more first-time buyers and essential workers being given a leg-up on to the first rung of the property ladder. I also want to see more purpose-built housing for elderly people, especially those with disabilities. The Executive has to be challenged to set aside some of the money that it has announced over recent weeks to ensure that people with specific housing needs have their needs addressed and that the unsuitable conditions in which they live are dealt with.

SNP members think that our housing problems are easy to tackle. Judging by some of the comments that we have heard today and the timescales in which they think that we can achieve that, I think that it must be Lego houses that they would build. However, most of us know that it is not easy to tackle housing problems, which mean many things to different people. Some people think of homelessness or problems with damp or heating; for others, it is about the problems of their community or the fact that they live in a communal building that is falling into disrepair. That is why it is vital to tackle all those areas. The Parliament has recognised that by passing not only the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, but the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. Like others, I anticipate the improvements that can be made in the private sector when the proposed private sector housing bill is introduced.

Housing is about much more than people having a roof over their heads; it is about their having a home in which to live in comfort and without fear—a place in relation to which they know their rights, whether they are tenants or owners, and a place where they can live in peace with their neighbours, free from fear of what is going on outside. We require our local planning authorities to look strategically at the housing needs of their communities—Murray Tosh's comments about that were well made. Local authorities are looking at the needs of their communities at the moment and are preparing their plans to comply with the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.

However, what people want is not just the provision of housing in one tenure; they want good-quality, affordable housing and a choice that will suit them, whether that is in the rented sector or the private sector. They want housing that is not only affordable, in respect of the level of their mortgage, but energy efficient, easily maintained, affordable to run and situated in a pleasant environment.

I thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to run a few seconds over my time. In short, we want to work with the Executive to ensure that we meet the challenges ahead and provide affordable housing for the people of Scotland.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I welcome the minister to his new portfolio of housing. I wish to make some specific suggestions that I believe could tackle a chronic shortage of affordable housing in many parts of rural Scotland—not least, in my constituency. In many parts of my constituency, such as Badenoch, there is a complete blockage of development because of the lack of access to water and, especially, sewerage. As John Swinney pointed out in an intervention, that problem is not going to be solved for around three years or, in many areas, possibly a decade.

I recently read the published reports of Scottish Water Solutions, which showed that the company is ahead of target by, I think, 170 per cent. It follows logically that one solution that the minister will investigate—he has said that he is speaking to Mr Finnie about this—is to accelerate the programme, which is currently set under quality and standards II, and to bring forward Q and S III. Unless that happens, the shortages in places such as Newtonmore simply will not be addressed—they cannot be.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I wonder whether Mr Ewing is aware that, in many areas, private developers and housing associations have been willing to fund private sewerage solutions—septic tanks, reed beds and so on—but have found that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will not provide the discharge consents. Does he feel that the minister should look, in a cross-cutting way, across the range of the Executive's activities to address that aspect of the problem?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I always thought that Presiding Officers must be mind-readers—that was precisely the point that I was about to make. It has been made so well by Mr Tosh that there is no point in my repeating it. Housing officials in my constituency have told me privately that septic tanks and small-scale sewerage works can be used to solve the problem. I invite the minister, in response to a point that has now been made by two parties, to intervene to ensure that smaller-scale sewerage works, which can work, will be part of the solution that we all want to the chronic shortage of affordable housing. The problem in rural Scotland is not the fact that there are too many second homes; it is the fact that there are not enough first homes at affordable prices.

I invite the minister to read the report that was produced in the Parliament's first session by the Rural Development Committee under the excellent convenership of Alex Fergusson. The report made specific recommendations on how farm buildings and unused buildings on private estates might be brought into the housing market. In addition, it recommended a total rethink of our approach to planning in rural Scotland. Frankly, the romantic idea that the vast acres must be left as a wilderness belongs to a century other than the current one. Without a sea change in our approach to housing in rural Scotland, we will be simply unable to tackle the problem.

I also urge the Minister for Communities to work closely with his colleague who has responsibility for forestry to encourage the use of wood in construction. Scottish building companies have taken a lead on that, but much more needs to be done.

Before my five minutes are up, let me read from a letter that I received last month from an English couple—the gentleman is a bricklayer—who wrote:

"We are a married couple with a child coming up to 3 years old. We heard on Westminster Hour on Radio 4 last year that the Minister for Scotland said he wanted people to move to the Highlands. Having worked in the area, we thought, as there are no work opportunities for us ... in Doncaster that moving to Inverness seemed a good opportunity."

It seemed a good opportunity for them to make a new life. The SNP welcomes new citizens to Scotland, including those who come here from England. However, people are currently unable to move here because of our chronic shortage of affordable housing. There is a will across the parties to tackle the problem, but we need to provide specific solutions, some of which I hope I have outlined in this speech.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I join others in welcoming the new ministerial team to its new role. I also applaud the efforts of the outgoing team, and those of its predecessors since 1999, for making tremendous progress on a wide range of aspects of housing policy.

Today's debate has confirmed that the shortage of affordable housing is, without question, one of our nation's biggest challenges, which many of us face profoundly at a local level. I take the opportunity to congratulate all those who have pushed the issue up the political agenda, especially the cross-party group on affordable housing and its conveners, Sylvia Jackson and Murray Tosh. Sylvia Jackson has asked me to record her regrets at being unable to attend today's debate due to a funeral.

My constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh epitomises the nature and extent of the problem that exists in Edinburgh and the Lothians. On the one hand, it is virtually impossible to move for the new build that is taking place. As soon as an old school is demolished or an old garage disappears, developers move in to start constructing flats. However, those flats are inaccessible for the people who come to my office and tell me with frightening regularity how they are required to live in conditions that would not have been necessary in this area even just a few years ago. Elderly, disabled and sick people can be marooned upstairs for want of a ground-floor flat. There are situations of overcrowding, as teenage boys and girls are required to share bedrooms. Sometimes their parents sleep in Z-beds to avoid that, but both those situations can also occur. Victims of domestic abuse can live in bed and breakfast accommodation for months on end.

One thing that I particularly notice in my constituency is that, whereas people would have refused until recently even to contemplate moving into certain areas, they now say, "Please give me anything anywhere—you must surely have accommodation available in this street or in that block of flats." That would never have occurred even a couple of years ago.

The situation has changed rapidly for a range of reasons, so it is a gross distortion to suggest—as some do for party-political ends—that it is due to action or inaction on the part of Government. Several factors have changed very quickly, including three that I will focus on that are specific to Edinburgh and the Lothians. First, the population growth in Edinburgh and the Lothians makes the area quite distinctive. Over the past 10 years, the city's population has risen by 7 per cent. Over the next 10 years, Scottish Executive figures project a 10 per cent rise in the number of households in Edinburgh. That is a significant issue, which is at variance with the position in most other parts of the country.

Secondly, house price inflation is particularly profound in Edinburgh and has been higher here than in any other part of the United Kingdom. At the beginning of the debate, Bill Aitken said that the situation in Scotland was different from that in the south-east of England. Arguably, Edinburgh is the one area where there are extreme similarities with the south-east of England. Between 2000 and 2003, house prices in the city increased by 55 per cent. The average house price in Edinburgh is now £150,000, but average earnings in the city are only £25,000 a year. Indeed, a bus driver earns around £17,500, while a staff-grade nurse who is on the mid-point of her scale earns around £19,500. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that, even when lending is allowed at a rate of three or even four times a person's salary, there are huge swathes of citizens for whom virtually any house on the property ladder is inaccessible. The social consequences of that situation are obvious, but it also has potentially dramatic and worrying economic consequences—which I will return to—for the Edinburgh and Lothians economy.

The third thing that distinguishes Edinburgh's situation from that of the rest of Scotland is that land is at a premium. At around £2 million an acre in some cases, land is simply not available and accessible to registered social landlords. The City of Edinburgh Council's affordable housing policy has had some success in its attempt to tackle the problem through the planning process. However, the evidence is clear that additional subsidy is required if land is to be attained to meet social housing need. I ask the minister to consider urgently whether the distribution formula that Communities Scotland uses in its investment programme could be adjusted to include a weighting for the undersupply of affordable housing.

If we fail to tackle those issues in Edinburgh and the Lothians, we will be unable to tackle homelessness in Scotland's capital, to meet the social and medical needs of a large number of our citizens or to recruit and retain key workers for many important sectors within the city. The consequences of such a failure could threaten not only the economic success of Edinburgh and the Lothians but by extension—given the significance of the area's economic contribution—that of Scotland as well. I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of tackling the issues that face us in this part of the country, although I acknowledge that many other issues elsewhere must also be addressed.

In the first parliamentary session, it was right that one of the Executive's most ambitious and boldest efforts was to tackle Glasgow's profound housing needs. I make a genuine plea that, in the second session, we should now tackle Edinburgh's housing needs.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to wind-up speeches. As we are about three minutes over our time, I ask members to keep their speeches tight and to save a little bit. I will allow each speaker about five and a half minutes.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will do my best to remain within my time, Presiding Officer.

I thank members for an interesting debate. I add my voice to that of others in welcoming the new minister and deputy minister to the communities portfolio. I am sure that we will have some interesting exchanges.

Malcolm Chisholm's speech contained a list of the Executive's past achievements and aspirations for the future, many of which we can warmly welcome. We can endorse the minister's comments on community ownership, but we agree with Elaine Smith that transfers should be proposed without strings attached. In general, there is much to be proud of in the Executive's record on housing, but big problems nonetheless remain. Fuel poverty is decreasing, but it is subject to the whims of fuel prices due to the lack of progress on reducing the need for energy consumption though increased energy efficiency. Targets are being set for the supply of new affordable homes, but there remains a steady drain on homes for social rent through right to buy, and home ownership is still promoted as a social aspiration in a way that does not happen in every other European country. As a result, the right to rent is being steadily lost.

As WWF Scotland has made clear, and as my colleague Shiona Baird highlighted, housing contributes to the problem of Scotland's ecological footprint, which is appallingly high; I argue that the social footprint is also too high. Homes that are below tolerable standard are still in use and development is skewed towards the luxury end of the market. I could give many examples of that from Glasgow, but I am afraid that I do not have time. The overall situation in Scotland is one of rising levels of home ownership and rising property prices, but there has been a loss of rented stock and a consequent loss of expectation that anything other than home ownership can meet most people's aspirations.

I welcome what Christine Grahame said in her speech and can support, in general, what is contained in the SNP's amendment. Christine Grahame was the first to mention the right to rent in this debate. The right to rent cannot exist as a mere principle; the homes have to be there and they should not be only the most basic homes but ones that people want to live in. Without that availability, the principle is meaningless. Earlier this year, I became a first-time buyer when—due to the quite comfortable salary that I have acquired—I moved from a tiny, freezing-cold room-and-kitchen into a comfortable, centrally heated flat. However, the home was what I wanted, not the tenure; I wanted a place to live, not mortgages and solicitors' fees. I suspect that many people of my generation want the same as me and would be happy—as I would be—to rent that flat from a social landlord or a similar source.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Patrick Harvie agree that, regardless of all the talk about the right to buy being about choice, people in his position have ended up having no choice except to become home owners?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Absolutely. I am sorry that Pauline McNeill is not here, because I would have liked to point out to her that choice does not mean only the right to choose what is commonly agreed to be the best option, whether that means home ownership or anything else. Something similar applies to the right to choose public transport. If public transport is dirty, grim, expensive or unreliable, people will choose to travel by private car. We should offer them real choice.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The situation is a bit more complex than that. In Glasgow, people can choose to take rented accommodation but they do not want to because that accommodation requires investment. That is an important aspect. It is wrong simply to say that there are no houses.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but, if someone in my situation applied for a social rented house, they would have quite some time to wait.

Bill Aitken said some supportive words about housing associations, with which I can agree, but he implied repeatedly that social rented housing is the option of last resort and that home ownership is the ideal state. If any policy has shown that home ownership is not always the best option for everyone, it is the right to buy. Bill Aitken's call for ever-more evictions from mainstream housing flies in the face of the reality, which is that the experience of repeated eviction and rehousing makes problems such as antisocial behaviour worse in the long run.

I do not have enough time to respond to all the members to whom I would like to respond, but I want to mention Tommy Sheridan's speech. I am sorry that our amendment is not as explicit as he would like, but it is in the nature of this Parliament to consult widely on major changes and that is what our amendment calls for. I hope that Tommy Sheridan will support the amendment, because if the proposed change is put out to consultation, he and I and many housing experts will be calling for much the same thing. Tommy Sheridan pointed out, rightly, that the right to buy has depleted the stock of public assets and that many homes that were previously available for social rent are now being rented privately at three times the price.

Only the Green amendment—and I am sorry that this is the case—mentions the ecological issues of this policy area. It is not only transport, industry, energy generation and food production that contribute to our appallingly large ecological footprint; housing does so as well. We want to have a balanced housing stock and to ensure that the sustainability of our housing stock is at the forefront of our thinking.

We wish the minister well in resolving the contradiction, which I spoke about in the debate on the legislative programme, between the housing renaissance that the First Minister identified and the housing crisis that his back benchers identified.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I join others in welcoming the new ministerial team and congratulating its predecessors on their achievements. I knew Johann Lamont when she was a mere convener of a committee and it is nice to see her in a high ministerial office.

It is highly appropriate that one of the first debates since the recess should be about the question of housing, which was long neglected under previous Governments. The major, significant and lasting housing reforms of the first session of the Scottish Parliament have been hailed, rightly, as giving Scotland the most progressive housing legislation in western Europe, as a number of members have said today. Although the process has been led by a succession of able Executive ministers, the legislation is also the product of the effective input of civic Scotland—through the housing improvement and homelessness task forces in particular—and of the Parliament's Social Justice Committee, which did a good job in the previous session of scrutinising and moulding the legislation and administering the work involved.

The Social Justice Committee made a great difference in the realm of the right-to-buy policy, in that it turned what could have been a damaging and backward move and extended it into something that resulted in a genuine instrument of social policy. One of the concessions that ministers had to make at that time was to agree that there should be an evidence-based review in 2006 of the effects of the right-to-buy policy; that concession was made in response to an amendment that I lodged. Amazingly, we are now only two years away from 2006 and I urge the minister to take the opportunity that will be presented by the review to consider the issue broadly.

I do not subscribe to the extreme view that says that the right-to-buy policy is all bad. The policy has helped to rebalance housing tenure patterns to a more sensible European level of ownership. I do not accept the rather ludicrous argument that houses are lost through the right-to-buy policy. The houses are not empty and are not surplus to requirements. They are occupied, for the most part, by lower-income families and are helping to meet housing need.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does Robert Brown accept that those lower-income families might well be paying far more because they are renting their houses from a private landlord who bought them rather than from a council or a housing association?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There are such instances, but that is not the normal pattern.

There are many areas in which the right to buy has long been increasingly damaging. I think that Pauline McNeill talked about that in connection with the west end of Glasgow. In all areas—not least in pressured and popular parts of cities and in rural areas—we need to ensure that there are enough affordable houses for rent to meet the demand. Families young and old have the right to be housed in their own areas if they want to be. That is what the local housing strategies, which were an important part of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, require and support. Murray Tosh said, quite rightly, that the local housing strategies were an important driver in that area.

The 2001 act allows a natural end to the right-to-buy policy in areas such as the west end of Glasgow and rural Aberdeenshire. The minister must not be afraid to recognise that reality and to embrace it as an opportunity. It would be outrageous if innovative housing developments such as the Crown Street redevelopment project in Glasgow, which was designed with a balance of tenures, should be at risk of yuppification and the loss of opportunity for social rented housing applicants because of an insensitive and damaging extension of the right-to-buy policy that threatens to arise some years down the line.

Shiona Baird touched on the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. I welcome her support for the efforts that I have been making to try to make that a more prominent issue for the Executive. The act has operated in an understated way in Scotland. It is important to ensure that, as well as reducing fuel poverty, we reduce the ecological footprint of housing. It is important that the Executive considers mandatory targets in that area. However, it was difficult even to get the Executive to publish the individual council figures for the first part of the process.

I remind the chamber that this debate is about the quality of life of individuals and communities. Bricks and mortar are vital to that, of course, but other issues too are important, such as ensuring that there is a balance of facilities in an area and that leisure space, such as parks and green areas, is protected. I urge the minister to keep that in mind when he considers issues such as the reform of land-supply regulations, the planning system and other matters that he will have to grapple with in his new portfolio. The loss of leisure facilities and green areas is becoming a serious problem in some of our cities. The minister must deal with that when he deals with important issues such as identifying land-supply facilities, which Susan Deacon talked about.

I support the motion, but I remind the chamber that there are a number of issues that we have to deal with along the line.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been a low-key and, perhaps, disappointing debate during which many political prejudices have been aired rather than constructive speeches being made.

The minister made a fair fist of his speech, but it told us nothing that we did not already know; as a result, the nature of the debate changed. Of course, there have been some achievements and the Conservative party welcomes them, where they are genuine. It must be remembered that many of those achievements have come about because Conservative policies have been continued with, which refutes Cathie Craigie's accusation that Labour inherited a bad Tory record.

Because there was nothing new in the debate, we quickly descended into an empty parade of socialist dogma, which was mostly targeted on the right to buy, although I noticed that pejorative mention was also made of owning second homes. There were one or two exceptions. Murray Tosh, as ever, was thinking constructively ahead; Fergus Ewing tried to pick up on some of the difficulties in local areas; and Susan Deacon brought out the difficulties that are faced in a city such as Edinburgh, which I have to say are not dissimilar to the difficulties in areas such as Dunblane, which, because of its proximity to Glasgow and Edinburgh, faces the same problems with the high cost of housing.

Although those members tried to debate the difficulties, there has been a lot of talk about the shortcomings of right to buy. When I started to study architecture in 1976, 33 per cent of Scottish housing was owned. Nothing would have changed had it not been for the halting of devolution in 1979; it is clear, from listening to members speak today, that if we had had devolution in 1979 the right-to-buy legislation would not have been passed and 360,000 tenants would still be renting, instead of owning, their property. We must recognise that the nature of housing in Scotland has changed. There are problems, but they are different problems from those that were faced 25 years ago.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the member give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I must make progress, because my time has already been cut. I will see whether I can let members in later.

Roseanna Cunningham asked what the point of running a bath is if the plughole is left open. Any physics teacher could show us that it is entirely possible to run a bath and fill it up with the plughole out, so long as the flow of water that is going in is greater than that which is going out. The issue on housing is clearly that the build needs to be greater than the sell. It is possible for us to debate that matter.

We have had on display the old think of Tommy Sheridan, Christine Grahame and Roseanna Cunningham, but we have also heard the new think from Pauline McNeill, Robert Brown and Susan Deacon. That is welcome if we are to have a genuine hope of solving Scotland's housing problems. We also had the doublethink—or should I say the double-speak—of Jeremy Purvis, who belittled Christine Grahame's contribution after saying that he did not seek to do so; if ever there was an example of the Liberal Democrats' double standards, that was it.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That young man never fails to disappoint me.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The key to making housing affordable at any level is to remove the burdens that drive up the costs. We must look at how we can stop land prices rising so quickly and at how planning restrictions and delays put up the value of land, which forces up the value and cost of housing. We must consider the restrictions that Scottish Water is placing on development, which make housing either unaffordable or impossible, and the restrictions that SEPA is placing on development. We must also consider the transport infrastructure, so that houses can be built in areas where jobs can be accessed; it is not possible to keep on building only in Edinburgh or in city centres. Of course, we must find solutions and the Conservatives will support the Executive if it produces constructive suggestions. However, we will not turn back the clock and fight the wars of 25 years ago.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I declare an interest as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Housing.

There have been three main themes in the debate: homelessness; the right to buy; and new builds and infrastructure.

First, I will refer to the minister's speech. There is a commitment to increase the provision of affordable houses, amounting to 21,500 houses over the next three years, but 5,000 of those houses are for ownership. In Scotland, where ownership levels are rising higher than they are anywhere else in western Europe, we keep on going down the ownership route. At one point—it seems like many years ago—Wendy Alexander declared a housing ownership target for Scotland. Is that one of the few targets that the Executive has not abolished in the past few weeks?

I understand that there are people who want to own their own homes and I understand that that choice should be there. There is a need for low-cost home ownership initiatives, but I would like to see an initiative to ensure that low-cost home ownership properties would remain in perpetuity as low-cost home ownership properties, rather than the initial subsidy being lost and those houses ending up being sold at full market value. That can be done if the will is there. I look forward to seeing the fine detail of the minister's shared equity plans.

What finer example is there of the initial subsidy being lost than right to buy. That policy has been with us for some time and the provision of 5,500 affordable rented homes a year must be set against the on-going loss of 18,000 homes a year through right to buy. I find it interesting that Labour members are proud of the fact that they decreased the discounts for right to buy. That was quite good, but those members are the same people who extended the right to buy to take in post-1989 housing association tenants. The landlords that successive studies have shown to house the most vulnerable people have their stock reduced, so waiting lists rise and affordable housing stock for rent reduces: 5,500 houses have been built, but 18,000 have been lost.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does Linda Fabiani accept that, at least in the community where I live, second-hand council homes are a major source of supply for families who have modest incomes and that such properties are one of the principal ways of keeping people off council house waiting lists? The houses are not lost; they are in the system.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Murray Tosh accept that, in the area where I live, ex-right-to-buy houses are owned by private landlords who charge rents of above full housing benefit levels, while people are told that they have no chance of getting a council house for 15 years?

For housing associations there is, of course, a 10-year delay and there are pressured areas. There is also a rush of housing associations applying for exemption through charitable status. It would have been far easier not to have extended the right to buy in the first place.

Given that there are fewer decent affordable rented houses, it is obvious that there will be increased homelessness. I welcomed the Executive's legislation on homelessness because it has admirable intentions, which I think that we all share. However, giving someone the right is not the same as giving them a house. Such aspirational rights must be resourced and I do not believe that that is happening adequately. Members have mentioned examples of that.

Two planks of Executive housing policy have an implementation date of 2012—that is eight years away. First, under the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, every unintentionally homeless household will be eligible for permanent accommodation. Secondly, housing association tenants who did not previously have the right to buy will be given that right. I am concerned about the impact of those policy planks on the supply of affordable housing in Scotland in the long term. Is on-going research providing any steer on that? Is the target date of 2012 in the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 likely to be met? After all, there are still families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation even though the previous Minister for Communities pledged regulation to end such use of B and Bs by the end of this year. Is that pledge on target?

Many members have discussed the infrastructure difficulties—and whether they are real or imposed—that are a strategic element of housing provision. I agree with Murray Tosh's view on the importance of housing market areas rather than reliance on local authority areas. We can all give examples of little pockets in those wider areas where the problems are huge.

Murray Tosh and Fergus Ewing raised the issue of funding infrastructure provision. They are right to say that we require strategic direction on that, as well as on the planning system in general. Although, as Murray Tosh said, housing associations and developers may sometimes fund, for example, sewerage provision beyond the needs of their own project, that should not be taken into account in the unit cost because it would have a direct impact on rents, which would rise very steeply to meet the costs of that infrastructure. I ask the minister to give full consideration to all those matters.

We are pushed for time, so I quickly mention the amendments. We cannot support the Conservative amendment, which talks about housing association tenants having "greater rights"; that is a basic error, because housing association tenants do not have greater rights. The Conservatives seem to be calling for an end to council housing and a full-scale stock transfer. We cannot cope with the current speed of transfers, let alone an acceleration.

We like most of the content of the Green amendment. We are a wee bit concerned about the amount of encouragement and praise that the Greens are piling on the Executive, but we agree with the broad thrust and ecological element of their amendment and we are minded to support it. I ask members to support the SNP amendment.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Members might notice that although I am delighted to wind up the debate in my new position as Deputy Minister for Communities, I am growling at them more than usual, because I have a problem with my throat. The minister has agreed to take over if my voice goes altogether—I think that that would be the first recorded occasion in history on which I allowed a man to speak on my behalf.

The housing debate is an interesting debate. When we reflect on our lives, housing tells a story about our families, histories and priorities at different stages. As members know, I come from a crofting family and I was brought up in the west end of Glasgow when it was still Anderston. My family was not allowed a council house because my father was at sea, so we lived in the private rented sector, which was not a comfortable place to be. People in such circumstances have a better chance of securing good housing now than they did in those days, although a great deal more remains to be done.

The communities portfolio understands that we must consider access to mainstream services. Just as we understand that education is not just about providing schools and that it is difficult for some young people to access education, we know that the same thing is true in housing. Some people regard housing as a simple matter of supply and demand. I think that all members welcome the Executive's commitment following its review of affordable housing. A number of points have been raised about that and I cannot go into much detail. However, significant money has been spent in rural areas to deal with the problem of affordable housing and there is significant understanding of the way in which the housing market has developed in different places. Susan Deacon and Pauline McNeill highlighted that point.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I want to make progress.

Pauline McNeill made an important point about the possibility of using the planning legislation to set quotas for affordable housing. We can draw on our research and learn from the approach in Ireland and we will bring forward the matter at a later stage.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I want to progress a little more.

Housing is not simply about bricks and mortar. Those of us who attended a Scottish Women's Aid event yesterday understand that housing need in certain circumstances is about far more than the provision of a home. Women's organisations made that point in the past when they discussed refuges with local authorities and argued that women should be provided not just with a place to stay, but with other support. Safe, warm, desirable homes are not just about putting bricks on bricks. In my own city, we know that it is not just about investment. Historically, there were cycles of investment in Glasgow that did not stick.

One of the elements of the Executive's housing policy of which I am most proud is that the Executive understands what people in communities understand: if people are given power over their lives in relation to housing, they make decisions that make a real difference. I did not recognise Sandra White's description of the GHA. One of my first engagements as Deputy Minister for Communities was an event last week. The room was packed with 200 tenants, who were talking about what they would do in their communities as part of local housing organisations. As a famous person once said, there was a buzz about the place that suggested that we were transforming housing in that area.

I want to talk about the debate on the impact of the right-to-buy policy on homelessness. There is no simple correlation between the two. Two thirds of homelessness applications are made in areas where there is surplus housing, so the situation is more complex. Shelter Scotland and others have persuaded us that as we legislate we must support people, rather than just offer them a home. There is a clear commitment to review the right-to-buy policy and we will do so. However, we must be clear. The brass neck of the Tories never astounds me too much. We all know that in the context of Tory cuts, underfunding, rises in rents and repairs problems people were driven by economic logic to buy their homes. However, we must also be honest and recognise that there was no golden age of council housing. Not only did people in some circumstances feel forced to buy their own homes, but people voted with their feet out of a sector that did not match their aspirations.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The member has made his contribution.

The problems of the social rented sector are not simply about the right-to-buy policy. However, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 recognised that the right to buy must be restricted. Because of the right-to-buy policy, the reality in some localised areas might be that there is no opportunity to rent housing and people cannot move from one area to another. The review of the policy can address such matters. It is equally true that, in other areas, the right-to-buy policy has not caused such problems and offers opportunities for communities to enjoy more stability through a positive process, because people are buying into communities for the first time, rather than being sent to those areas because there are no good houses left.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The idea that the right-to-buy policy causes homelessness is simplistic in the extreme. As I indicated, the majority of homelessness applications are made in areas in which there is surplus housing. That is why investment in making communities safer is as important as straightforward housing investment. It is why action on antisocial behaviour is so important. It is outrageous that the Tories talk about problems with public sector tenants in the face of clear and mounting evidence that there is a significant problem in the private sector. Landlords who have no regard for tenants or their neighbours are moving into potentially fragile communities and destroying those communities. Despite evidence of such activity, the Tories refuse to support any legislation that would attempt to regulate that sector.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Linda Fabiani talked about people's aspiration to move into good housing in good areas, so by implication, there must be bad areas.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

That is why it was so important that cities such as Glasgow drove investment into all areas so that people would have a say in decisions. People did not have to move to get a good house; they could find one in their own area. That sent a strong signal to people that, as Patrick Harvie said, the public social rented sector is a reasonable housing choice. We are investing in that sector, rather than destroying it.

I notice a significant change in Scottish Socialist Party's approach. In the debate around stock transfer, the SSP told us that that would represent privatisation, but now when we talk about the balance between the public and private sector the SSP tells us that housing associations are part of the public sector. Of course housing associations are part of the public sector; the idea that they have anything to do with what happens in the private sector is bizarre.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We want to ensure that the social rented sector is reasonable—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way? This is just a lecture.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order, Mr Sheridan.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is bizarre that Tommy Sheridan wants to give anyone a lecture about debating in this chamber.

I want to mention a number of points. Pauline McNeill mentioned HMOs. I would be delighted to meet her and people from her area, because one of the big issues that we need to discuss is the law of good intentions and the consequences of laws that might not achieve what we want them to achieve.

We need to discuss issues around homelessness. I find it odd that members who argued for tenants' rights complain when those rights become reality. The Scottish National Party's approach is precisely the one to take if we want to encourage Government to be timorous and not to be radical. The SNP says that we should give people rights, but when people, naturally, want to exercise those rights, the SNP kicks the Government that gave them those rights. The reality is that major activity is going on. The homelessness monitoring group, on which Shelter Scotland, the SFHA, COSLA and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless are represented, agrees that making homelessness more visible is a key indicator of success.

The Scottish Executive strategy, taken as a whole, understands the complexities and recognises the importance of investing significant amounts of money in addressing how housing problems develop throughout Scotland. The power of the Scottish Parliament is that it can discuss how housing issues are expressed differently in different places, without calling for a one-size-fits-all policy on housing. I urge members to support the motion in Malcolm Chisholm's name.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On behalf of—I think—most members, I wish John Kerry every success in his attempt next week to remove the warmonger from the White House.

I ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1144)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We may enjoy quoting that comment back at Nicola Sturgeon during the next four years, should Mr Kerry win next week.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that George Bush will take great heart from the First Minister's support.

A letter that the First Minister sent to me yesterday states that a woman who spent 11 hours on a hospital trolley and then 12 hours in an assessment unit before being moved to a general ward, all in a hospital that is 30 miles from her home and her three disabled children—to which she would never have had to go if his Government had not allowed the emergency surgery unit at her local hospital to be closed—was

"probably looked after as well as any other patient".

The First Minister might think that that is acceptable, but I do not.

When will the First Minister stop spinning like a top and start listening to and acting on the real-life experiences of patients such as Marion Kyle?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Earlier this year, I made a big mistake in deciding not to accept an invitation to the D day commemorative ceremonies in Normandy. On that occasion, I was big enough to change my mind and apologise within 24 hours. The issue that Nicola Sturgeon raises is very serious. In a letter that is not from me, any other politician or Lothian NHS Board, but from the three key medical consultants and other staff who were involved in the provision of services to Marion Kyle, those staff, on behalf of all health care staff at the royal infirmary of Edinburgh, ask Miss Sturgeon to apologise for the unfounded, and—to use their word—disgraceful statements that she made in the Parliament three weeks ago. I realise that Nicola Sturgeon is still new in her job, but is she prepared to accept that, on this occasion, she was wrong and should apologise to Parliament and, more important, to the health care staff of the royal infirmary of Edinburgh?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is the First Minister who should apologise—to Marion Kyle.

For the First Minister's benefit, I will repeat what I said on 7 October: national health service staff do their level best and I pay tribute to them. The pressures under which they work and the experiences of patients such as Marion Kyle are caused by one and the same thing: the failure of his Government to get to grips with the NHS. I am criticising the First Minister, not NHS staff, and I will not stop criticising him until he stops failing patients and the staff who look after them.

The chair of NHS Lothian told me that when any patient feels that they have had as bad an experience in the health service as Marion Kyle feels that she had, the health board has lessons to learn. If the chair of the health board accepts that lessons can be learned, why will the First Minister not accept that?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have said before that if genuine cases are brought to me, in the chamber or outwith it—as are brought to me by members from all parties—I take them seriously, even when the cases are exaggerated by the politicians. I believe that people deserve the best possible care from the health service and that they should be supported accordingly by the Government.

The request for an apology has come not from me or from the chamber, but from the staff of the hospital, and it is important to state clearly what they have said for the Official Report. Contrary to what was said in the chamber three weeks ago, they say that Mrs Kyle did not request any pain-killers during her first 24 hours in hospital, despite being prescribed the pain-killers that Nicola Sturgeon said that she was denied. They say that Mrs Kyle was not on a trolley, but on a state-of-the-art mobile bed—[Interruption.]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will quote what the consultant surgeon and the consultant physician said. They said that she was on a mobile bed

"to enable easy access to diagnostics with as little disruption to patients as possible."

The same letter from the consultants—that letter was not written by me or by any politician, but by the health staff who were involved—states:

"She was in the assessment unit because this is the way that modern 21st century healthcare is delivered.

They state that the assessment unit is now being

"copied as a model by other hospitals throughout the UK"

and beyond, that the allegations are

"entirely unfounded and disgraceful"

and that

"It is outrageous that these allegations have been made in such a public way, which are completely misleading and unresearched."

They state:

"We certainly expect an apology to all healthcare staff at The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh who provided Mrs Kyle and the other patients in the combined assessment unit with the very best care possible."

Will Nicola Sturgeon apologise today not to us, but to those staff?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I say to the First Minister that Marion Kyle's experience—[ Interruption. ]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Marion Kyle's experience for 11 hours on her mobile bed felt pretty genuine to her. If I were the First Minister, I would think twice before suggesting that he knows more than she does about the pain that she was in. I suggest to him that Marion Kyle is not alone and that there are patients out there who feel as aggrieved about their experience of the health service as she does. The First Minister has a cheek to try to lecture anyone else about the health service in a week in which it has been revealed that there are health boards in massive debt and in which doctors—the people who work in the NHS—are warning of disaster ahead because the First Minister is not recruiting enough staff. I know that he is rattled, but I suggest that he takes a few deep breaths, calms down and gets on with his job of delivering a health service that patients and staff can be proud of.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will not quote the consultants this time; I will quote Nicola Sturgeon. In her most important and significant speech on health since she was elected to the chamber back in 1999, she said:

"It is a fact of life that, from time to time, things will go wrong in the health service. When they do, what is important is not to apportion blame but to make sure that complaints are dealt with quickly."

The difference between such a set of circumstances and what has been described to us by the consultants who are involved in this case is that, in their view, things did not go wrong. Even in a situation in which things have not gone wrong, is the choice being made not to recognise the hard work of the staff, but instead to try to politicise the issue?

The issue is straightforward. Regardless of what the consultants might now say, I accept that if Marion Kyle thought that her treatment in Edinburgh royal infirmary required lessons to be learned, the system should be able to deal with that, and there are ways and proper procedures for dealing with such matters. The truth is that the circumstances of her case were exaggerated in this chamber for political ends. That is not my view and it is not the view of the other members who heard Nicola Sturgeon that day; it is the view of the medical staff at Edinburgh royal infirmary.

Medical staff at Edinburgh royal infirmary will be watching First Minister's questions today. What they want to know is whether Nicola Sturgeon is big enough to admit that she got it wrong on that one occasion. Is she big enough to put those staff ahead of party politics? Is she big enough to apologise and say that the medical staff at Edinburgh royal infirmary did an excellent job in the circumstances of modern health care and that they deserve to be praised rather than condemned?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will tell the First Minister who else is watching today—Marion Kyle. It is her view that, in the First Minister's so-called patient-focused health service, something went badly wrong in her case. What she—the patient—asks the First Minister to do is to admit and take responsibility for that failing, and to say sorry to her.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I reiterate my one very simple point: it is not this chamber, or me as First Minister, that demands an apology from Nicola Sturgeon; it is the staff at the hospital, who have described the allegations that were made about them as unfounded, misleading and disgraceful. They deserve an apology, they should have got one and I hope that, in the years to come, Nicola Sturgeon will learn to give one more readily than she has today.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Having spent almost seven hours as a patient in Edinburgh royal infirmary yesterday, I echo Ms Sturgeon's comments and ask the First Minister to listen to the voices of patients. My experience was very different from that of the patient quoted by Ms Sturgeon, but I caution the First Minister against condemning or congratulating an entire system on the experience of one patient, even if, as was the case, I experienced the care of the same nursing staff and the same consultant physicians and surgeons as Mrs Kyle. I ask him to ensure that, in future, the staff of the Edinburgh royal understand the difference between politics and the genuine and excellent work that they do.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said in earlier answers, which I hope Margo MacDonald heard in full, I take seriously not just the cases that come to me in my local constituency, but the cases that come to me from throughout Scotland. I take those cases seriously, I am prepared to see them investigated, I am prepared to act where lessons need to be learned and I insist that health boards and local health management do that, too.

We should all in this chamber be committed to improving the quality of our national health service locally and nationally. It is unfortunate that, sometimes, party politics gets in the way of serious discussion of the issues. I hope that today we have seen the potential for a turning point, to avoid that happening again.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1145)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Among the many issues that we will discuss next Wednesday will be our plans for reducing reoffending in Scotland and our plans to refresh our successful strategy for a smart, successful Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

One thing that the Cabinet might also like to discuss is the concerns that the First Minister has expressed publicly about the proposed merger and abolition of Scotland's six historic regiments. Given the concern that he has expressed publicly about the matter, will the First Minister tell us today what representations he has made to his colleagues at Westminster to prevent those Labour cuts from going ahead? Has he now written to the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Geoff Hoon, as his spokesman indicated yesterday and, if so, will he publish that letter?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is not normal practice for us to publish all ministerial correspondence between Edinburgh and Whitehall, but I will check the arrangements that we have to see whether that would be possible. However, I believe that the majority of the text from the letter has already been put on the public record. Not only have I written to Mr Hoon, but the Deputy First Minister wrote to him in the summer when the review was first announced. We believe strongly that whatever arrangements are put in place for the management and organisation of the British Army to ensure that we have a modern force for a modern world, the identities of the six Scottish regiments should be preserved, because they are important for Scotland and for local communities throughout Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. We certainly look forward to reading his correspondence, if he can make it available to us. However, is not all this discussion of identities simply playing with words? The key question that has to be answered is straightforward: does the First Minister—or indeed the Deputy First Minister—support the retention of the six separate Scottish regiments? In other words, is he in favour of having six real regiments or is he in favour of simply having a collection of cap badges within a single regiment? Which is it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I would not want to speak for the Deputy First Minister about military organisation, because our parties might take different approaches to the matter nationally. Indeed, we might have different personal opinions on it in Scotland. Of course, these are reserved matters that are determined elsewhere. That said, we in Scotland must state clearly and with a unified voice that we wish to be involved in any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about its review, in the widest sense, and about its implications for employment and Scotland's communities; and that not just the regiments' identity but the identity of Scotland that they contribute to is important for this devolved Government and the Scottish Parliament. We will defend those identities strongly. We ask the Ministry of Defence and others who make these decisions to take that point of view on board.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Yes, the First Minister will defend the regiments' identities, but the simple question is: will he defend their existence? Could we please have a straightforward answer?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that I gave Mr McLetchie a straightforward answer at the very beginning of my first response. Although it is right and proper for the management of the UK armed forces to consider the structure of the modern Army in order to meet the challenges that it faces, an important point of principle for us in Scotland is to preserve, defend and fight for the identities of the six existing Scottish regiments. I believe that those identities can be accommodated in whatever structure is agreed to be most appropriate and to allow our armed forces to be most effective in the modern world, no matter whether that means retaining the six regiments or amalgamations, which might be involved in finding more effective ways of dealing with the challenges of the modern world.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I will take one urgent constituency question from Paul Martin.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Does the First Minister support the call for an inquiry into the circumstances of the tragic murder of Mark Cummings by child sex offender Stuart Leggate? Does he also recognise that there is a need for a wide-ranging review of how we deal with convicted child sex offenders and does he think that such a review should examine whether people such as Stuart Leggate should have been housed alongside young families such as Mark Cummings's family?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

All of us who have been or who are parents and everyone else in this chamber share Paul Martin's concerns about this case and about any case in recent years that might be described as similar. One of the reasons why the Parliament has taken its devolved responsibilities with respect to sex offenders seriously and has made a number of significant changes to improve the legal framework and the management of offenders in and out of custody is to ensure that Scotland's communities are safer. However, Scottish ministers—and I am sure members of all parties—certainly share a continuing community concern. As a result, we must ensure that the current arrangements are continually reviewed to improve them further if possible. I will certainly ask the Minister for Justice to discuss with Paul Martin how he might take forward some of his ideas in relation to this matter.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister whether he will accept the invitation from Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle, killed in Basra on 28 June 2004, to attend the demonstration on 30 October in support of British soldiers being brought home from Iraq. (S2F-1159)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Clearly, I want first to take the opportunity to express once again my condolences to the Gentle family on Gordon's death, but I will not be attending the rally on Saturday.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I would like the Parliament to welcome Rose Gentle to today's proceedings.

On several occasions last year, the First Minister argued in Parliament in favour of sending troops such as young Gordon to Iraq. Tragically, he and 67 other soldiers, and 19,000 Iraqi citizens, are dead. What in the First Minister's diary is so important that it prevents him from coming to Pollok on Saturday to justify his position?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I echo Tommy Sheridan's remarks in relation to Rose Gentle. I do not think that any of us in the chamber can imagine the level of grief that she has experienced. My own son is of a very similar age to Gordon Gentle, and I would think that all of us feel deep sympathy for the family at this time.

That said, as elected politicians, we have a duty and a responsibility to take these matters, in the widest policy sense, very seriously indeed. The work of the Black Watch and other British soldiers in Iraq should be supported by everybody in this Parliament and by all parties; I hope that some day that will be possible. It is important that we recognise that the work that the soldiers are carrying out is in extremely difficult circumstances, up against terrorists and those who were associated with the appalling regime that existed in Iraq. The people of Iraq want to have democratic elections in January next year and if soldiers from Scotland and the rest of Britain can help to ensure that democratic elections take place in January, they deserve the full support of those of us in this democratically elected Parliament.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I asked the First Minister what he was doing on Saturday that was so important that it would prevent him from coming to Pollok. The letter inviting me to attend Saturday's march and rally asked me to come and either support the call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq now—a call that I support—or explain why I do not support the call. Does the First Minister not agree that it is the duty of politicians to have the courage to stand up for their views, instead of being like Mr Blair and having the courage only to fight until the last drop of somebody else's blood? Is it not about time that politicians came to working-class communities such as Pollok and explained why the sons and daughters of the working class should be sacrificed for illegal wars and illegal invasions?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have already said that I cannot attend the rally on Saturday. I deeply respect the work of those soldiers from Scotland and elsewhere who currently face difficult circumstances in Iraq but are defending what I believe are the interests of the people of Iraq in ensuring that there are democratic and free elections in January. I passionately do not believe that it would be in the interests of the people of Iraq or of the democratic elections in January for British troops to pull out of Iraq at this time. I have defended that position on many occasions, as Mr Sheridan knows.

I only wish that, in our debates on these issues, Mr Sheridan would show as much passion in condemning the terrorists and those who blow up not only British soldiers but their own Iraqi policemen and soldiers as he shows in condemning the elected Government of Britain.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the First Minister what action is being considered to address concerns surrounding the increase in knife crime in Scotland and, particularly, in the Strathclyde region. (S2F-1137)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are deeply concerned about the incidence of knife crime and its contribution to violent crime more generally. We are examining how the current laws on the sale and carrying of knives can be strengthened further and are considering what form of tougher licensing system to restrict the sale of non-domestic knives could be feasible and effective. We are also looking at how police powers to deal with these issues might be strengthened and we will legislate as soon as we are in a position to do so.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The First Minister will be aware of the serious concerns about the tragedy two weekends ago of four murders in my constituency. One of the key problems is that people are able to carry knives or to make knives of their own. I have here a copy of a document showing how people can put knives together using broom handles and scissors. We need a deterrent. I would like the Sentencing Commission for Scotland, which is in the east end of Glasgow today, to consider how it can strengthen sentences. Does the First Minister agree that we must consider how to strengthen sentences to address the difficult problem of people being prepared to use such lethal weapons?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I share Frank McAveety's concerns. It is important for us to act as quickly as we can to improve the deterrents that are available in the system. To do that, it would be wrong to hand the matter over to the Sentencing Commission because, given its work programme, it would almost certainly take longer to act on the sentences and the other provisions on knife crime than the Parliament would expect. That would certainly take longer than our devolved Government would expect, so Scottish ministers will take action as quickly as we can, without taking advice from the Sentencing Commission. The Minister for Justice is considering the provisions that might be available to us in progressing the issue.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware that, in the past year, 7,500 people in Glasgow and the west of Scotland have been victims of knife crime? Will he give to members and the people of Glasgow and the west of Scotland a commitment that he will meet Strathclyde police, instigate an urgent investigation into the causes of knife crime and tell Strathclyde police to put more police officers on the beat?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are putting considerably more police officers on the beat throughout Scotland. In Strathclyde, the change in prisoner escort arrangements, for example, has already put well over 100 members of the police force back on other operational duties. That measure was opposed by the Scottish National Party on some sort of ideological ground.

There need to be improvements not only in the legislation that tackles knife crime, but in the operational effectiveness of our police forces across Scotland. There also needs to be a change in the culture, which is one of the reasons why I am delighted that today we are bringing into force the important provisions in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. As well as helping to change the culture in communities throughout Scotland, they will allow the police to act properly. Those important measures will help us to change the culture, to bring respect back into communities and to deal with matters that are significantly more serious, such as knife crime.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

To ask the First Minister what role the Scottish Executive will play in decisions about how many more casinos there should be in Scotland. (S2F-1153)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Whatever the United Kingdom regulatory framework might be, the position of this devolved Government is clear. Any new casinos in Scotland will be agreed to only if they are licensed by Scottish licensing boards and regulated by conditions that are set by Scottish ministers.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

But the Prime Minister has expressed the clear view that he wants around 40 more Las Vegas-style casinos to be established as a form of economic regeneration. Does the First Minister share that view? Does he have a vision of the Scotland of the future as a sort of Nevada of the north with one regiment but umpteen casinos? Does he share the concerns that have been expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, which are highlighted in today's Scottish Daily Mail , that supply will create demand and that casinos will become part of everyday life?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have great sympathy with the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and I believe that the position that it has taken—which is that we have a strong regulatory system in Scotland that should be maintained regardless of whatever new arrangements are put in place by the UK Government—is valid. If the UK Government decides to go in the direction that has been proposed, we will insist not just on the retention of the current strong system in Scotland, but on its improvement.

My view on the way in which we promote Scotland is clear and is different from Mr Ewing's. I do not want this country to be an insular, negative little country that hides from the rest of the world, does not accept its international responsibilities and cuts itself off from the rest of Britain, including the British Army, which Mr Ewing, through his amazing ability to deal with issues in two different directions at once, on the one hand seems to support, but on the other hand wants to break up. My view of Scotland is as a country that advertises itself, promotes itself and regenerates itself on the basis of our clean, healthy environment, our fantastic landscape, our wonderful cities, the character of our people and the quality of our education system, rather than on the basis of any nasty culture that might be encouraged by those people who are in favour of more gambling.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive is satisfied with the adequacy of funding provided to NHS Argyll and Clyde. (S2F-1160)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

By 2007-08, health spending in Scotland will have doubled since devolution. That funding is equitably distributed, by formula, across all health boards.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sure that the First Minister is aware that the Auditor General for Scotland has issued a section 22 certificate in respect of the 2003-04 accounts for Argyll and Clyde NHS Board under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, because of a projected deficit of £100 million in the board's accounts by 2007-08. The Auditor General has withheld qualification of the accounts because of an assurance from the Scottish Executive that the health board will have access to cash to meet its liabilities during that period as and when they fall due. For the avoidance of doubt, will the First Minister clarify that, in that period, Argyll and Clyde NHS Board will not be required to cut any services through lack of finance and that such sums as the Executive makes available to retrieve the deficit will constitute a write-off of debt, not a loan that obliges the health board to deal with repayment in future years?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will make three things clear. First, in any decisions that are made on the matter, the interests of patients will be primary. Secondly, no public organisation gets a blank cheque from the Executive to spend on whatever it likes; public organisations must manage their finances, and Argyll and Clyde NHS Board is no different from any other in that respect. Thirdly, the worst possible thing that could happen for the patients of Argyll and Clyde in the next 12 months is not a report from the Auditor General for Scotland, but the election of a Conservative Government that would cut the health budget of Scotland and put patients in an even more precarious position. I give an absolute guarantee that the levels of spending that we have set out will be adhered to, that the interests of patients will come first and that we will insist that the management of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board, just like that of any other public organisation in Scotland, must look after its finances.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — Environment and Rural Development

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what investigation it has carried out into the spreading of sewage sludge on land and the environmental implications of such operations. (S2O-3744)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency will register activities involving the spreading of sewage sludge on land only if it is satisfied that doing so will not harm either the environment or human health.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer. To preface my next question, I recently visited such an operation in Breich and was pleasantly surprised at how successful it was. However, juxtaposing that with all the publicity that there was about Blairingone, does the minister agree that one of the main problems is that people do not understand the distinctions, are not being told about them, are worried about planning consents and have a suspicion about health? Would it not be better if SEPA, the Scottish Executive and councils were much more proactive in letting people know the differences between schemes and what exactly is going to be put into their area?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Anyone who makes proposals has a responsibility to do that themselves. SEPA's responsibility is to grant an exemption only if it is satisfied that there is no implication of harm. In the cases of which I am aware, I believe that that has been done.

It is a pleasure to begin my stint as a minister responsible for the environment by answering a question on a subject that addresses recycling as well as other matters.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the deputy minister remember the question that I asked of Mr Finnie on 30 September with reference to sludge dumping? At that time, the minister advised me that dumping had not gone ahead on the Beoch site because of SEPA's diligence. Does the deputy minister now accept that, at that very moment, dumping was proceeding? Will he now advise what tests have been done on the sludge that is being dumped at Beoch and whether those tests cover bacteria and viruses as well as metals?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am not familiar with all the details of the Beoch case, but I am familiar with the current testing of land, which involves taking core samples to test for metals in the soil. Before it grants an exemption from the application of regulations, SEPA will satisfy itself that there is no threat either to human health or the environment. I have no doubt that SEPA will follow that procedure in the case to which the member refers.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it has in place to reduce greenhouse gases, in particular by reducing energy consumption. (S2O-3699)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Executive has a number of measures in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency, as detailed in our Scottish climate change programme. We are reviewing the programme and will consult on that soon. We will publish a revised programme in the first half of 2005.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

In reviewing the climate change programme, I ask the minister to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency and to put in place a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy to help Scottish businesses, the public sector and individuals. What part will the £20 million that he has allocated to energy efficiency play in that process?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for that question. We are promoting a number of schemes across the Executive. The public sector energy efficiency initiative is a fund available to all Scottish local authorities and health boards, Scottish Water and others to allow them to implement capital investment and other measures. Loan action Scotland provides interest-free loans to small and medium-sized enterprises, and the regional business manager network provides local access to support business resource efficiency.

Measures are in place but, as I indicated in my first answer, we are reviewing those measures in the context of the climate change programme for the United Kingdom, which will require Scotland to make further revisions.

On the moneys that we recently allocated, I do not wish to make commitments in advance of revising the strategy. I assure Sarah Boyack that energy efficiency will play a large part in the programme's revisal.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Many people in Scotland who believe that we need increased energy efficiency are calling for green heating targets and energy consumption figures for Scotland so that we know where we are starting from. The absence of such figures and targets seems to be a huge gulf in the Government's strategy. Does the Executive have any plans to produce them?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

In the context of the review of our climate change programme, I am conscious of the wide debate on how to measure the targets and figures to which Mr Lochhead referred. I am also conscious that although a large number of environmental non-governmental organisations wish us to have specific Scottish targets, others recognise that the point at which one measures energy emission is the transmission of energy rather than usage. Scotland is a net exporter of electricity, so difficult calculations are involved in assessing energy efficiency. However, I certainly have an open mind on the issue as it might be better—or easier—to say precisely where we are trying to get to. I emphasise that I have cited only one example of the complications of getting the figures, but I am certainly considering the matter as part of the review.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the best long-term way of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland is to develop further the nuclear power industry? Will he join me in welcoming the positive comments this week from the MP for Edinburgh Central—the Secretary of State for Scotland—on the potential for future development of nuclear power in Scotland?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Executive has made its position clear on the subject. We are keen to develop renewable sources, particularly in relation to wind, wave and tidal power. To that end, as the member knows, we have made considerable investment in research stations in Orkney and in the intermediary technology institute for energy in Aberdeen. We do not necessarily agree with Mr Mundell's point, because the issue of the cost of nuclear power must come into play. We must balance the cost of production with the costs at the end of a nuclear power station's life. We must view that not only in economic terms but in environmental terms.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware that the Prime Minister has clearly stated that he wants the G8 summit in Scotland next year to focus on climate change, which he—not me—describes as

"a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically human existence."

The minister might regard that as more green rhetoric, but will he give us an assurance that the Executive's review of its climate change policy will be completed before the G8 countries gather in Scotland in June next year to discuss climate change? Does he agree that it would be a national embarrassment if the G8 summit were held in a country that did not have its own target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No, I do not necessarily agree with Mr Ruskell that that would be an embarrassment. As I explained in my response to Richard Lochhead, it is not easy to define the United Kingdom targets. I have indicated clearly, not just today but previously, that I am keen to have targets if I can see a means of calculating them. On the timing of the review, I am anxious that the Scottish review, which will place significance on the impact of Scottish elements in the climate change review, should be available before the G8 summit. I certainly agree that that would be preferable and helpful in the context of that international debate. However, there is a huge amount of work to be done in putting the review together and we will try to do it in a co-ordinated way with the UK Government. I take Mr Ruskell's point—I, too, would like the review to be completed before the G8 summit.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it plans to meet fishing industry representatives in advance of the December meeting of the European Union agriculture and fisheries council. (S2O-3736)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Executive maintains close contact with fishing industry representatives throughout the year. We expect to meet regularly in the run-up to the December council and we have planned a dedicated stakeholder conference for 15 November.