Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 17 November 2011
17 Nov 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Housing
The Scottish Conservatives might have changed their leader and reshuffled their front-bench team, but there is no evidence this morning of any profound change in their approach to housing policy. That might, of course, suit Alex Johnstone very well. He is on familiar ground, although he seems uncharacteristically shy about engaging in debate today. Perhaps that will change. It might even suit his new leader, who, sadly, has just left the chamber, if her priority is to emphasise old certainties rather than new departures.
It is a shame for those in housing need, however, because they want the focus to be not on the right-to-buy arguments of the 1980s and 1990s but on today’s need for social housing. The Tory motion highlights the record low levels of house building that are an issue in the public and private sectors and in both the owner-occupied and rented sectors. The failure of such a well-established and respected business in the construction sector as A C Yule and Son Ltd in the north-east shows an economy in serious trouble, as yesterday’s unemployment figures confirmed, and shows both the breadth and the depth of the crisis facing Scotland’s construction industry.
Responsibility for that lies in part at Westminster and in part with the SNP Government, not just for its plans to cut support for building new affordable homes but for the complete hiatus in the commissioning of new public sector buildings of every type between 2007 and 2010.
It would therefore have been useful if the Conservatives had chosen to seek a debate on what the Scottish Government should do now, which is not to get rid of existing social housing, but to find ways of building more. However, as Mr Johnstone has chosen to prioritise selling ahead of building, it falls to Labour to highlight the real issues that the housing sector faces. The SNP will claim that all is well—we have heard that from Keith Brown—but the reasons for its unwillingness to address directly some of the issues remain hard to fathom.
The minister’s amendment mentions the Scottish Government’s
“commitment to build 30,000 affordable homes during this parliamentary session”.
His problem is that that was not in his party’s election manifesto only a few months ago. The commitment that the SNP made in that manifesto was
“to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year.”
Mr Brown knows as well as anybody that a target for a total of affordable homes is very different from a target for a total of homes for social rent. That is why his amendment talks of investing
“in all types of houses to meet the demands and needs of the population.”
We are happy to support investing in all types of houses. In government, Labour was as keen as anybody to encourage mid-market rents and rent-to-buy schemes to support those on middling incomes to obtain housing at an affordable price, but mid-market and shared ownership or shared equity are not the same as social renting, and they are not what the SNP promised when it sought election in May.
This is the third time that we have offered ministers an opportunity to explain in the chamber why there is a difference between their commitment in the election campaign and their commitment in government. Labour members have asked the same question in committee, but Mr Brown and Mr Neil have so far refused to tell us why they do not intend to implement the SNP’s manifesto promise.
As I said in our previous debate, I am glad that Mr Brown has now conceded that 20,000 of the 30,000 new affordable homes will be for social rent. That is a distinct improvement on his previous refusal to say anything at all on the subject, but it is a little surprising that the 20,000 homes for social rent do not feature in the Government’s amendment and that they have not featured in the debate so far. Let us hope that Mr Brown is not having second thoughts about that commitment as well. Our amendment is positive about the SNP’s positive commitment in its manifesto and we have offered it another chance to tell us what it will do or if it will do what is needed to make that happen.
It is a shame for those in housing need, however, because they want the focus to be not on the right-to-buy arguments of the 1980s and 1990s but on today’s need for social housing. The Tory motion highlights the record low levels of house building that are an issue in the public and private sectors and in both the owner-occupied and rented sectors. The failure of such a well-established and respected business in the construction sector as A C Yule and Son Ltd in the north-east shows an economy in serious trouble, as yesterday’s unemployment figures confirmed, and shows both the breadth and the depth of the crisis facing Scotland’s construction industry.
Responsibility for that lies in part at Westminster and in part with the SNP Government, not just for its plans to cut support for building new affordable homes but for the complete hiatus in the commissioning of new public sector buildings of every type between 2007 and 2010.
It would therefore have been useful if the Conservatives had chosen to seek a debate on what the Scottish Government should do now, which is not to get rid of existing social housing, but to find ways of building more. However, as Mr Johnstone has chosen to prioritise selling ahead of building, it falls to Labour to highlight the real issues that the housing sector faces. The SNP will claim that all is well—we have heard that from Keith Brown—but the reasons for its unwillingness to address directly some of the issues remain hard to fathom.
The minister’s amendment mentions the Scottish Government’s
“commitment to build 30,000 affordable homes during this parliamentary session”.
His problem is that that was not in his party’s election manifesto only a few months ago. The commitment that the SNP made in that manifesto was
“to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year.”
Mr Brown knows as well as anybody that a target for a total of affordable homes is very different from a target for a total of homes for social rent. That is why his amendment talks of investing
“in all types of houses to meet the demands and needs of the population.”
We are happy to support investing in all types of houses. In government, Labour was as keen as anybody to encourage mid-market rents and rent-to-buy schemes to support those on middling incomes to obtain housing at an affordable price, but mid-market and shared ownership or shared equity are not the same as social renting, and they are not what the SNP promised when it sought election in May.
This is the third time that we have offered ministers an opportunity to explain in the chamber why there is a difference between their commitment in the election campaign and their commitment in government. Labour members have asked the same question in committee, but Mr Brown and Mr Neil have so far refused to tell us why they do not intend to implement the SNP’s manifesto promise.
As I said in our previous debate, I am glad that Mr Brown has now conceded that 20,000 of the 30,000 new affordable homes will be for social rent. That is a distinct improvement on his previous refusal to say anything at all on the subject, but it is a little surprising that the 20,000 homes for social rent do not feature in the Government’s amendment and that they have not featured in the debate so far. Let us hope that Mr Brown is not having second thoughts about that commitment as well. Our amendment is positive about the SNP’s positive commitment in its manifesto and we have offered it another chance to tell us what it will do or if it will do what is needed to make that happen.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01346, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on housing. I remind ministers and members that time...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con)
Con
It is nice to be here to raise the subject of housing once again. The Conservative party has a proud record on housing, but it is a feature of this Parliamen...
Nigel Don (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Alex Johnstone
Con
No. I will not take an intervention at this stage.East Lothian Council’s decision to buy back former council houses is simply a rehash of that old prejudice....
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Alex Johnstone
Con
No. I will not take an intervention at this point. Surely East Lothian’s action goes against everything that the Scottish National Party has said about suppo...
The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment (Alex Neil)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Alex Johnstone
Con
No, not at this point. Sadly, it is our neighbourhoods that are left to pay the price. The whole thing is a sham, and all the while the Government has done l...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Perfect timing, Mr Johnstone. I call Keith Brown, Minister for Housing and Transport, to speak to and move amendment S4M-01346.2—you have precisely seven min...
The Minister for Housing and Transport (Keith Brown)
SNP
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.First, I congratulate Alex Johnstone on his elevation to his new post, which I think gives him the title of the offici...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
I recognise the great difficulties that the minister faces because of the cuts in the capital budget from Westminster, but given that £200 million of capital...
Keith Brown
SNP
The member can rest assured that I will always argue for more funding for housing, but both housing and transport are central to the Government’s policy of e...
Gavin Brown (Lothian) (Con)
Con
Will the minister give way?
Keith Brown
SNP
I do not have time for more interventions; I apologise to Mr Brown.I look forward to working with Alex Johnstone and others on devising legislation that work...
Alex Johnstone
Con
Will the minister take an intervention?
The Presiding Officer
NPA
You have one minute, minister.
Keith Brown
SNP
I will take an intervention, although Alex Johnstone refused to take any.
Alex Johnstone
Con
I want to ask the minister whether the money used to buy back those houses would have been more effectively used to promote the building of additional houses...
Keith Brown
SNP
That would be true if it was an either/or situation. If the member went to speak to East Lothian Council, he would find that it is doing a great deal, despit...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
The Scottish Conservatives might have changed their leader and reshuffled their front-bench team, but there is no evidence this morning of any profound chang...
Keith Brown
SNP
The member mentioned election commitments. Is the Labour Party’s position that which has been put forward by a contender for its leadership, Tom Harris: that...
Lewis Macdonald
Lab
It is a shame that the minister rose to his feet to respond to my challenge to tell us what he is doing about his manifesto commitment and did not mention it...
Aileen McLeod (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to put on record once again my views on the housing situation in Scotland.In debating the motion, we need to consider the effects o...
Jim Hume (South Scotland) (LD)
LD
Will the member give way?
Aileen McLeod
SNP
No—I want to keep going.This Scottish Government has a proven track record not only of investment in housing despite the severe funding constraints—indeed, i...
Jim Hume
LD
Will the member give way?
The Presiding Officer
NPA
The member has no time, Mr Hume.
Aileen McLeod
SNP
The Scottish Government is doing everything that it can in very difficult financial circumstances to provide affordable, sustainable and original housing sol...
John Pentland (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Lab
Although we are all concerned about the dire state of house building, I think that we begin to part company over what should be done about the situation. I b...
Jamie Hepburn (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
SNP
If awards were given out for persistence and obstinacy, the Tory benches would be weighed down by bunting and medals. In every debate on housing, they return...