Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In December 2023, Reidvale Vale Housing Association proposed to transfer its housing stock of 900 properties, valued at around £180 million, to Places for People Scotland. In a tenant ballot, which was open for 32 days and in which 72.9 per cent of tenants cast their vote, 61.8 per cent of tenants voted in favour of the proposal. Had a two-thirds majority rule been in place, the proposal would have fallen at that point because it did not meet the threshold of 66.6 per cent.

As you may know, Reidvale Housing Association was one of Scotland’s first community-based housing associations and was formed after the Housing Act 1974. In 1975, it had around 900 homes in the Dennistoun area of Glasgow. There had been significant concerns about its governance and investment, and the board had decided to seek a transfer partner to take over the association—its tenancies, properties and staff. However, there were significant concerns about the process being railroaded through with coercion, and the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations resisted the proposal.

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

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

in favour of transferring the housing stock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move amendment 440.

I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not see the logic in having amendment 440. The fact that the Reidvale case was so unique demonstrates the need for the extra safeguard of having a settled majority of tenants. In the case of Reidvale, there was a significant level of discord in the community about contentious transfer; the way to deal with that is to have a settled majority.

As the cabinet secretary highlighted, in every other example of a transfer of engagements in Scotland, there tends to be a supermajority in support of that transfer of engagements. I would like to see a supermajority requirement in the bill. It would be a good safeguard and a demonstration that we have learned the lessons of what happened in Reidvale. In one of Scotland’s most-deprived communities, the loss of more than £100 million worth of community-owned assets would have been devastating.

I would like to work to build support for amendment 440. Therefore, I will not press it now but will look to return to it at stage 3. Given that there is agreement on the sentiment behind the amendment, we could perhaps discuss whether there could be more appropriate wording or an appropriate measure to provide for the extra threshold for tenants, which would bring it into alignment with what is required for shareholders. The reality is that a two-thirds majority is required with shareholders, so why not increase the threshold for tenants as well? That would bring everything into alignment. It would be a neat and logical process.

Amendment 440, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 30—Scottish secure tenancies etc: keeping pets

Amendment 263 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

I thank colleagues who have spoken so eloquently about their respective amendments so far. I am here primarily to speak to amendment 477. The intention behind it, as the minister suggested, is to address long-term dilapidation in privately let property.

The synopsis of the amendment is that, if a property in private let is deemed to be substandard by failing to meet the repairing standard or the tolerable standard for a period of longer than 12 months, the tenant would have a right in statute to apply to the local authority to initiate a compulsory purchase order process or an escalation to a compulsory purchase order for the property and, therefore, to transfer it to an appropriate local registered social landlord, whether that be the local authority itself or a third-party housing association. The Scottish Government could underwrite that procedure and recover the costs of the purchase over a reasonable period—for example, 25 years from the receiving social landlord’s taking ownership of the property—which would have the effect of making the policy effectively cost neutral for the Government. It would allow for established best practice of using CPOs to take over long-term vacant housing stock to be expanded to housing stock that is in generally poor condition, although habitable—which already happens in Glasgow in areas such as Govanhill—and for the approach to be accelerated and scaled up.

Glasgow has been at the forefront of using CPOs to tackle problems of long-term vacant properties, which has increased affordable housing supply and ensured the upkeep of pre-1919 tenements, of which there are around 70,000 in the city, with an estimated repair backlog of £3 billion. The CPO process has been a way of responding to the blight that has been caused by derelict, abandoned flats and homes that have been left vacant for a variety of reasons, or properties that have previously been let out but are now below the tolerable standard.

Glasgow’s promotion of CPOs has sent a message that the local authority is active in taking steps against private landlords or other individuals who fail to address problems with their property. Although that is a last-resort measure, 52 homes across Glasgow have been pursued for compulsory purchases since 2019, and 34 of those processes have been concluded. In the other cases, 13 owners opted to sell voluntarily to housing associations, and a further two properties were sold to or occupied by family members, which means that the planned CPOs were not continued. In all cases to date in which the CPOs have been confirmed, once Glasgow City Council has invested in the property, it has entered into a back-to-back agreement with a local community-based housing association, which has carried out the necessary repair works to bring the property up to a tolerable standard and back into active use in order to provide affordable housing for those who need it. Given the housing emergency in the city, the need is particularly acute.

Some of the properties that have been targeted have been lying empty for more than 14 years, while other properties have been designated as being below the tolerable standard for more than five years. All those empty properties, because they are generally tenement stock, create environmental blight and affect neighbours and the wider community. The benefit that is derived from bringing those and other homes back into use is significant, particularly for tenants and owners who live in close proximity and have suffered as a direct consequence of abandonment.

However, given budgetary constraints, there is a limit on how much any local authority can achieve through CPOs alone. The steps in making and obtaining CPOs are complex, time consuming, costly and resource intensive. In Glasgow’s case, they are also dependent on establishing a partnership with a housing association, because the city does not itself manage social housing. The housing association must be willing to take on the property after the council purchases it, because, without that, there is a risk that the council would be paying money to acquire assets, which would cost further sums to repair and still be left on the council balance sheet.

Even with back-to-back purchases, the cost and resource implications of seeing CPO cases through to confirmation limits the number of CPOs that the council can promote. The council has indicated that its preference would be to expand the process to compulsory sales orders, which I know that the Government has been considering. The officers of Glasgow City Council consider that that could address the situation relating to up to half of the long-term empty homes in Glasgow. However, that is not on the horizon—indeed, I do not believe that the Government has published timescales for that—and the bill provides us with an opportunity to put in place a potential remedy that would create a proper demand signal and a system of escalation in statute.