New Petitions

PE2150, which was lodged by Wilson Chowdhry—who I think is in the public gallery—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the mandate of the Scottish Housing Regulator or to establish a dedicated body to ensure that owners of ex-council properties receive the support and protection that they need to deal with significant structural issues.

According to the petition, the new or amended regulator should provide oversight and advocacy for owners of ex-council properties experiencing structural crises; monitor standards and safety through on-going inspections and the implementation of mitigation measures; maintain safety standards in homes, particularly when systemic issues affect multiple properties; co-ordinate, support and facilitate clearer pathways for owners of ex-council houses to access advice, financial aid or alternative accommodation where properties become uninhabitable due to structural risks and where local authorities may have a conflict of interest; and ensure transparency by requiring relevant authorities to disclose known structural risks and safety failures and to provide clear information on the hazards, such as reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, to owners of ex-council homes.

We have received two additional submissions from the petitioner, in which he provides a comprehensive view of the main issues around RAAC and similar structural defects affecting council-built properties before privatisation.

Members may recall that the petitioner has another active petition under consideration by the committee, which is calling for the provision of support to RAAC-affected communities. Our colleagues in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee have been undertaking on-going scrutiny of building safety and maintenance issues in Scotland, including consideration of RAAC. In providing evidence to the LGHPC, the former Minister for Housing and Local Government stated his continuing engagement with local authorities regarding support for RAAC-affected communities. I should say that there is also a members’ business debate taking place today in Parliament on recognising RAAC in council and former council housing.

Our SPICe briefing on this petition tells us that the Scottish Housing Regulator’s statutory objective under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 is to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are, or may become, homeless, tenants of social landlords or recipients of housing services provided by social landlords. The briefing further highlights that the SHR does not have any specific advocacy role, nor a statutory role, regarding owners of ex-council properties, as I think that most colleagues will have established when representing constituents.

The Scottish Government’s response makes it clear that it has no plans to amend the SHR’s objective, which is the regulation of social landlords. The response also reiterates the Government’s position that local authorities have a duty to ensure that housing in their areas meets the relevant standards. However, where ex-council homes were sold under the right to buy, there are no responsibilities incumbent on local authorities for the maintenance of those properties, which falls to the owner.

Finally, the Scottish Government states that home owners who require advice and information can access the scheme of assistance under which local authorities can provide financial and non-financial help for private housing.

That is a fairly brusque and clear determination from the Scottish Government, which I think limits our options. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we proceed? I should say that the RAAC issues remain part of an open, on-going petition. I recognise that there have been some further suggestions in respect of those issues in this petition, but at least it helps that there is continuing discussion of the on-going petition in relation to RAAC. However, in respect of the Scottish Housing Regulator, the Scottish Government seems to be fairly determined. I wonder what colleagues feel in the light of that.

Although the Government has said that it has no plans to address the issue that has been raised in the way that is suggested, it is one that we have all had experience of with those people who have found themselves in this situation. It is an important issue, but it will have to be addressed differently. I suspect that, given the position that we are in, we have no further course of action open to us.

The problem is that the standing orders of the Parliament do not allow us to have two petitions open in relation to the same thing at the same time, so I am afraid that we cannot do that.

It is important that we acknowledge that some of the issues here remain active in a live petition. In closing it, we accept that there is an issue here, but the Scottish Government—and, at this stage in the life of the Parliament, there is not much more that we can give effect to in that regard—has said that it is not prepared to pursue the suggested solution that is before us. I therefore do not think that we have any other course of action than the one that Mr Torrance has suggested to us.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

It may be a disappointment in some senses, but that is sometimes the way that these things fall, I am afraid.