The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-761, in the name of Margaret Curran, on improving Scotland's homes. There are three amendments to the motion.

I am pleased to speak on such a critically important topic and I am sure that that feeling is shared throughout the chamber.

In "A Partnership for a Better Scotland", we committed ourselves to working for a Scotland in which everyone has a decent quality of life. I am sure that no one would disagree with that. Fundamental to that is good-quality housing, which is so important for family life, the quality of the environment and the promotion of public health. That is why the partnership agreement made it clear that we want everyone to have a decent home and that we will aim to deliver good-quality, sustainable and affordable housing for all.

Much of the emphasis to date has, quite rightly, been on the social rented sector. We introduced major changes through the community ownership programme and the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, and we are building on those initiatives with the further reforms proposed in our recent consultation, "Modernising Scotland's Social Housing".

We must also recognise that some 70 per cent of housing in Scotland is now privately owned, the great majority by owner-occupiers. The number of home owners has increased rapidly in recent years and may expand further if more people achieve their aspirations to home ownership. Therefore, the condition of privately owned housing and the arrangements for its long-term maintenance are of critical importance and are, rightly, the focus of this afternoon's debate.

Members who were in Parliament in the previous session will recall the establishment of the housing improvement task force to investigate the problems of private housing in Scotland and to make suitable recommendations for us to take forward housing into the 21^st century. The task force and its sub-groups included a wide range of members from outside government with specialist knowledge and expertise in private sector housing, so the task force represents a good example of evidence-based policy making, developed with the close involvement of relevant stakeholders.

I thank the members of the task force and co-opted members for their hard work and for giving up their time. They worked extremely well and did the Parliament and the Executive a great service. We have considered carefully all of the task force's recommendations and we have made it clear in our partnership agreement that we will build on them.

As I said, the task force has been with us for a wee while and its first factual report, in spring 2002, was the subject of a debate in Parliament. Since then, we have also had the benefit of the 2002 Scottish house condition survey, which largely confirmed the earlier analysis. Much of the privately owned housing in Scotland is in good condition, but around a third of private sector homes suffer from what is classified as urgent disrepair. That does not mean that a third of private sector homes in Scotland are falling down, but that the nature of the disrepair is such that, if the problems were not tackled, they would cause the fabric of the building to deteriorate further or place the health and safety of the occupiers at risk, or both. Examples of such disrepair include damage to the flashings on a roof or missing tiles, which if not repaired, because of their location might lead to much greater problems in the future, such as extensive wet and dry rot in the roof timbers. Disrepair of that nature need not be expensive to rectify, but it is vital that the work is tackled as soon as possible.

We share the view of the task force that responsibility for the upkeep of houses in the private sector lies first and foremost with the owners. Many home owners in Scotland are first-generation owners and may have little experience of organising repairs for themselves. Many home owners may be thinking of moving on or trading up as soon as possible. Whatever their background and aspirations, there is a need for awareness among and acceptance by owners of their responsibility for maintaining the fabric of the building, particularly in shared properties.

I take Margaret Curran's point about the need for owner-occupiers to repair their houses, but surely part of the problem is in our council stock, as local authorities no longer carry out planned maintenance programmes and instead respond only to repairs, which is exactly the same attitude that we find among owner-occupiers.

I will not get into an argument with Tricia Marwick about the precise figures or the balance between maintenance and repairs, and I am sure that what she says is not true on all occasions. She will know that we have a comprehensive policy for delivering and improving standards in the social rented sector. I am about to say more about standards in general across the sectors, which I think is part of the answer.

As we move towards ensuring that we think proactively about the need to tackle repairs at the earliest opportunity, there must be a culture of property maintenance in both the private sector and the social rented sector. Indeed, the task force said that we needed to change the culture of home ownership so that owners place more importance on maintaining and improving the fabric of their homes. We agree with the need to change the culture and that must start with the buying and selling process.

Buying a house is usually the single biggest investment that people make in their lives, yet too often the purchase is made with only limited information about the condition of the property. Currently, only 10 per cent of buyers in Scotland have a fuller survey done when buying their home. Most of the other 90 per cent rely on what is, in effect, a valuation report, which is a brief report designed to help a lender decide how much it is prepared to lend the buyer and which identifies whether the property is structurally sound and points out only major defects. It does not give detailed information about the condition of the property.

We would like to move to a situation in which more buyers have a greater awareness of and more information about the condition of their future house. That would encourage a market premium for well-maintained houses and a market penalty for houses in poor condition, which would act as an incentive to keep property in good condition, because people would be rewarded for that.

As I am sure many members know, the task force recommended that the Executive should pilot a single-survey system, whereby a comprehensive survey and valuation would be commissioned by the seller and paid for by the successful buyer. That would provide much more detailed information about the condition of the house to both buyers and sellers than is usually available at present.

It is not too long since the Parliament debated fuel poverty. I hope that insulation levels and other matters that impact on fuel poverty will be issues that the Executive explores with regard to the condition of properties.

Yes. A great deal could be said about that across the work of the task force in general. On the single survey specifically, the pilot that I will talk about soon will include a basic assessment of energy efficiency, which will assist buyers in taking that issue into account when considering whether to buy a particular property. We will consider those issues when we have the opportunity to debate the standards.

We also want to help to tackle the long-standing Scottish problem of multiple surveys and valuations. I am sure that members have all had experience of the frustrations caused by that process. The partnership agreement contained a commitment to introduce a single seller's survey, and I announced last November that we plan to implement later this year in four areas of Scotland the pilot that the task force proposed. We have also appointed a project management team to oversee the work and we will take that work forward. I want also to make it clear that we intend to legislate to take reserve powers so that we can require the use of single surveys if the pilot shows that that is required.

Where poor housing conditions impact on the wider community, there is a case for targeted public intervention and I recognise that local authorities will have a key role to play in that. Each local authority is now required to prepare and keep under review a local housing strategy for its area. We look to local authorities when they next draw up their local housing strategies to include plans to address problems with private sector housing stock in their areas.

To assist local authorities in carrying out their strategic role, I intend to introduce a private sector housing bill during this session of Parliament. The bill will include new powers of intervention to encourage, and where necessary compel, owners to maintain their properties. However, there is no question of encouraging the nanny state—before anyone suggests that, which David Davidson might do—with local authority officials telling all private owners how to look after their homes. Any compulsory powers would be used only as a last resort where there is a clear public interest. I have no doubt that there are circumstances—

Will the minister give way?

Yes. I tempted that intervention, although I am running out of time desperately.

If the minister is going to take those powers and intervene, does that mean that she will purchase the property—taking it away from the private individual who owns it for rental—and reinvest in it, or will she offer a grant system?

The minister has about another five minutes.

I am just about to explain what I intend to do. It does not need to be as absurd as David Davidson suggests—there are other options.

I should explain to colleagues who have not witnessed Mr Davidson and I debating together that we like to be quite rude to each other because we think that that is more entertaining.

There are circumstances in which powers are required: when dwellings are a threat to public safety; when owners cannot progress with common repairs because they are being blocked by a minority; when tenants are living in poor conditions because landlords do not keep their houses in satisfactory repair; and when neighbourhoods are in need of renewal and some owners are unco-operative.

There is also a need to provide help to owners with very limited resources. We provide private sector housing grant to local authorities to help with the costs of such assistance. We are increasing the resources available to local authorities through private sector housing grant from £50 million in 2003-04 to £60 million in 2004-05. However, policy in this area can never be simply about providing indiscriminate financial assistance to owners—that would be inappropriate. There are too many other priorities and we know, from past experience, that simply providing grants to owners does not work.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I had better press on.

Such money as local authorities have available to assist owners will need to be carefully targeted to those owners who are most in need and to the right types of work. Building on the task force recommendations, we intend to work with local authorities to develop a wider and more cost-effective range of tools for them to assist owners in carrying out repairs and maintenance on their homes. In particular, we note the task force's view that many owners—even those on modest incomes—may have significant equity in their houses which, with the right advice and funding mechanisms, could be used to help to fund repairs. Therefore, we would like to see greater promotion of such equity loans and we will encourage local authorities to extend the range and scope of their care and repair schemes, which target the elderly and disabled people in particular.

A range of other things can be done. In some cases, owners may have both the money and the will to maintain their homes, yet they are inhibited by difficulties in securing reliable contractors or in knowing enough about how to organise repairs and keep other owners involved. We recognise the need to introduce a range of information for people.

As well as recognising the need to develop better means for local authorities to assist home owners, the task force identified the need to modernise the powers that are available to local authorities to encourage and, where necessary, oblige owners to maintain their properties. It recognised that the current powers date from well back into the past century and that they were designed to tackle a slum housing problem that does not exist now as it did then. We accept the need to modernise the powers that are available to local authorities.

There are many recommendations in the task force report and many constructive ideas, and we will want to consider how we take those forward. The task force has also pointed out that the current mandatory entitlement to grant for owners who are subject to statutory notices cannot be justified. We agree with that. There is no reason why owners who neglect their properties or have the resources to carry out the necessary works should automatically get grant assistance.

We will shortly introduce the tenements bill, which will modernise the law relating to the responsibilities and rights of owners in tenements in relation to the upkeep of communal property. The tenements bill will make it easier for owners to undertake common repairs and maintenance of their shared properties. We intend to build on that legislation and further assist owners in meeting their repairing obligations. We recognise the value of owners associations and we will work to support them. We are also developing a national accreditation scheme for property managers to help owners to choose a suitable property manager or factor, should they need one.

The current tolerable standard was introduced following the last major review of the private housing sector by the Cullingworth committee in the 1960s. The tolerable standard is intended to identify properties in the worst condition and where action is required to ensure appropriate standards of public health and safety. I accept the task force's recommendation that we should update the tolerable standard so that it is relevant for the 21^st century. Accordingly, we will update the tolerable standard to include two new elements: a basic provision of thermal insulation and electrical systems that are adequate and safe in use and an improved specification of the existing provisions relating to dampness and a wholesome water supply.

As the task force pointed out, in the past, houses that failed to reach the tolerable standard usually required rehabilitation or demolition. In the future, there might be a need for more targeted action to deal with specific failures. As well as amending the legislation in relation to the tolerable standard, I intend to set up an expert working group to draw up detailed technical guidance to ensure that the interpretation of the new standard is uniform and transparent.

I wanted to discuss a range of other issues in relation to private landlords, but I am sure that Mary Mulligan will pick them up at the end of the debate. The task force's report was comprehensive, so our response is comprehensive and I have not covered it all.

I conclude by thanking the task force for its work, by committing ourselves to legislating in this field and by welcoming the debate.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the report of the Housing Improvement Task Force and believes that its adoption will make a major contribution to the delivery of good quality, sustainable and affordable housing for all in Scotland.

I welcome the report of the housing improvement task force, which was published last March. I have some concerns about the time that it has taken for us to get to this point, given the fact that the task force was established back in January 2000 and that its draft report was available in January last year. Although I accept that some progress has been made with the single seller's survey, it seems to have taken an awfully long time for us to have this debate on the report.

Nevertheless, we are where we are and today we are here. There is a lot to commend in the housing improvement task force's recommendations. They are certainly badly needed, given the challenges that Scotland faces in ensuring that adequate, affordable housing is available; in radically improving standards in the private rented sector; and in resolving the many problems that are faced by owner-occupiers and private tenants. As the minister said, more than 70 per cent of Scotland's housing is privately owned, yet the sector contains some of the poorest-quality and worst-managed housing in Scotland.

I say in a spirit of co-operation that I am slightly disappointed that the amendments from the Tories and the Scottish Socialist Party seem to miss the point of today's debate. The private rented sector and the private sector generally are important areas for the Scottish Parliament to discuss. It is not too much to expect that we should focus our attention on those areas in the debate.

The third Scottish house condition survey, which was published last year, reaffirmed the fact that many of Scotland's homes are in a poor condition. The Executive should be concerned about the fact that, in this day and age, 360,000 homes in Scotland are affected by dampness or condensation and 34 per cent of all houses have at least one problem with urgent disrepair. The problems are mainly concentrated in the private sector. Shelter estimates the total repair and improvement bill for Scottish housing to be in excess of £10 billion, so there is a big challenge ahead of us. The impact of poor housing conditions on our nation's health is well documented. If damp is present in a dwelling, there is a greater chance of at least one member of the household having respiratory problems.

The Scottish National Party supports the main thrust of the task force's report. However, we want to highlight areas in which we believe the Executive should go further. It is right to encourage home owners and private landlords to maintain and repair their properties. However, where they do not, local authorities should have powers to oblige them to do so. Only then will we see the improvement that we require.

We are pleased to support the updating of the tolerable standard to improve further housing conditions. We agree that the introduction of statutory guidance is important to ensure a consistent approach to the interpretation of that standard. However, we have sympathy for the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland's view that serious disrepair should also be included in the updated tolerable standard. We urge the Executive to consider that.

We also welcome the introduction of the cross-tenure Scottish housing quality standard to help raise the overall quality of the stock. The question is whether that should be extended to involve the passing or failing of individual properties within the private sector. I understand the difficulties in doing that, but it could be done at the point of sale. It would certainly encourage owners to take responsibility for the upkeep of their property. Again, that is something for further consideration.

As the minister said, improving the information that is available to buyers and sellers is important, particularly information about the condition of a property and the associated responsibilities for common or shared maintenance. The single seller's survey will be important in achieving that. As the minister said, people have had to rely on a valuation report in the past. I am pleased that Dundee will be one of the pilot areas for the single seller's survey.

A key issue that the task force addressed was how to get agreement among owners about what work requires to be done. Owners associations are a good forum for making decisions on common maintenance and management issues. However, such associations will not happen by themselves. Local authorities have a key role in supporting and encouraging the establishment of owners associations.

The tenements bill, which was first mooted back in 1999, should focus on establishing majority voting on repairs and maintenance and giving more effective powers to co-owners to pursue costs against owners who refuse to contribute towards repairs or property management. I look forward to the introduction of the tenements bill as soon as possible. We agree with the task force's view that there is a case for public intervention to compel owners to undertake works and to provide assistance to them in doing so. My colleague Tricia Marwick will focus on what form such assistance should take.

The role of local authorities is crucial and we support the recommendations for additional powers to address the physical disrepair of houses within their area, including powers to tackle problems arising from abandoned properties or absent owners. We also welcome the proposal to establish a new private rented housing tribunal to support tenants in enforcing their landlords' repair and maintenance obligations and, where necessary, to apply sanctions to landlords who do not maintain their properties. We should remember that there are many good private landlords, who carry out regular repairs to maintain their properties. However, there are a significant number of bad landlords who do not do so and who are responsible for giving the private rented sector its poor image. Therefore, we support the proposal for a new statutory repairing standard that will set out private landlords' obligations.

On the important subject of private rented sector regulation, we feel that the task force does not go as far as it should. We welcome the work to develop a national framework for local accreditation schemes for landlords, but we believe that there is a strong case for going further by introducing mandatory regulation through a national self-certification scheme for all private landlords, to tackle bad landlords, to help the good landlords to follow best practice and to ensure that tenants' rights are upheld. The ultimate sanction that would be available to deal with landlords who failed to meet a minimum operating standard would be their not being permitted to continue trading.

In conclusion, we need to know how and when the recommendations are to be implemented and what level of resources is to be committed to ensure that that happens. The Executive has said that it will publish a private sector housing bill in the current parliamentary session, but we need more detail on the time scale for that—we do not want to wait another two or three years for the bill. Shelter has called on the Executive to publish immediately an implementation plan for the task force's recommendations to ensure that there is no further slippage in the time scales. The Scottish National Party supports Shelter's call for an implementation plan, and that is the purpose of the SNP amendment.

If the recommendations are implemented and enhanced, that could result in a thriving and well-managed private housing sector, and we hope that there will be no delay in introducing the measures to improve the state of Scotland's housing.

I move amendment S2M-761.3, to insert at end:

"and calls on the Scottish Executive to bring forward a timetable for the implementation of the task force recommendations and to ensure that the necessary resources are made available for their implementation."

I welcome the debate on improving Scotland's homes. The Conservatives will support the Executive motion on the basis that the housing improvement task force's report is an excellent basis for debate and discussion, and we will also support the SNP amendment that calls for a timetable and resources.

No member could deny the transformation of council estates throughout Scotland that have benefited from the tenants' right to buy, which gave council tenants the opportunity to own their homes, which many could not afford to buy at the market price, and to move to private housing, which many could not do because they were locked into paying high rents. The aspirations of 360,000 people in Scotland have been fulfilled, and we look to the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition to continue to encourage, support and work with councils to extend stock transfer to give tenants greater rights and responsibilities.

I accept that the right to buy is popular and that people exercise it, but does Mary Scanlon accept that, because of the Tories' rush to sell and the lack of schemes that encouraged people to take up their responsibilities for repair and maintenance as well as their rights, we are now left with a real and serious problem within the private sector?

After that lengthy intervention, I must say that, instead of the Tories' rush to sell being the problem, it was the tenants' rush to buy—we cannot have a market unless there is a buyer and a seller.

Will Mary Scanlon give way?

No. I apologise to Linda Fabiani, but I must cover quite a few points.

Recent figures from Highland Council showed that it has the highest council house debt in mainland Scotland—at around £11,000 per house—with 47p in every pound of housing revenue going to service that debt. That raises the point that Tricia Marwick raised. The problems of care, maintenance and investment in the housing stock become serious issues. I hope that Highland Council and councils throughout Scotland will vigorously pursue the transfer of housing stock to local associations.

I ask the minister to commit to keeping in touch with the Ministry of Defence regarding properties throughout Scotland. It is important that the Scottish Executive be informed of the proposals for military bases in Scotland. In Inverness and Ardersier a considerable number of MOD properties are linked to Fort George. Any changes in personnel at and the use of Fort George would have an enormous impact on the need for local housing and it would be senseless to allow good homes to become empty and fall into disrepair when they are desperately needed for rent.

My next point concerns the confusion in councils about the selling of homes to pay for care of the elderly, although I realise that the issue is a health matter as well as a housing one. I was recently approached by a middle-aged lady who had lived with her mother all her life and who received a letter from Highland Council saying that their home would have to be sold to pay for care. When I looked at the regulations, I found that the home could have been passed on if the lady was over 60, under 16 or a carer, but instead she was faced with having to take out a mortgage for half the value of the property. We must re-examine the guidelines on such cases, because that was not my understanding of the legislation when it went through the Health and Community Care Committee. I ask that the appropriate ministers give local authorities clear and consistent guidance on the issue to save people from the trauma of losing their homes.

The Scottish Conservative party welcomes initiatives to improve the housing stock and to give people the freedom, choice and opportunity to own or rent the property of their choice.

The housing improvement task force report seems to concentrate on common repairs to and maintenance of flats. It does not seem to acknowledge the problems that are faced by owners in private housing estates throughout Scotland, and I have spoken to the minister about that. Recommendation 58 states:

"The Scottish Executive in consultation with the Law Society ... should prepare good practice guidance on the inclusion of common repair and maintenance burdens in title deeds for new developments".

I live in Inshes Park in Inverness, where I set up a local residents association and, more recently, a community council to try to sort out the common factoring and ground maintenance of the large open spaces. I say to the minister that the problem is still not resolved. Owners have not received a bill for ground maintenance for two years and those who refuse to pay are not being pursued. Those who pay end up paying for the non-payers, and people who buy a house on the estate will be faced with a bill for ground maintenance for the two years before they moved in. In addition, the house's title deeds might not specify an obligation to pay for ground maintenance, as that depends on the phase of development in which the house was built. I am pleased to pass that information to the minister again and to ask for her advice.

I ask the minister to meet Andrew Bradford, the chairman of the Scottish Landowners Federation's rural housing committee, who has said that savings of up to 25 per cent on current subsidy levels could be made by including the landowning sector in the provision of affordable housing in rural areas, given that that sector receives less than 2 per cent of public funding.

We look forward to the outcome of the pilot study for the single survey, which will be conducted on a voluntary basis. We also look forward to receiving further information about surveyors' duty of care and professional indemnity insurance. We entirely agree with point 165 of the report, on page 39, which says:

"it would be advantageous for single surveys to be developed as a market-led, voluntary initiative".

Finally, although we welcome the chapter about strengthening the rights of private tenants, we want those rights to be balanced with a responsibility to keep houses in good repair and to have common respect for the peace and privacy of neighbours.

I move amendment S2M-761.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"notes the report of the Housing Improvement Task Force; recognises that housing stock transfer to community-based housing associations gives tenants far more say in the way their housing is run, giving tenants greater rights and responsibilities, and therefore believes that, to improve the standard of housing for everyone in Scotland, it is necessary to step up the process of devolving control of housing from local authorities to community-based housing associations, housing co-operatives or a range of other providers to give tenants a real choice of landlord and a real say in the management of their homes."

I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of Frances Curran. Today's debate is about the housing improvement task force's report. As the report contains some valuable and important recommendations, I will support the Executive motion even if the amendment is not agreed to. The debate is, however, also about sustainable and affordable good-quality housing for all. I make no apology for the fact that Frances Curran's amendment attempts to fill a major gap in the debate in relation to the social rented sector.

The task force's report contains a number of radical and important measures. We need the Executive to give a commitment on time scales and resources. I hope that the minister will accept that and, although I welcome her comments on the need to update the tolerable standard, improvements could have been introduced several years ago when we debated the matter in relation to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We should have raised the tolerable standard then but, unfortunately, the Executive rejected that option.

Does the member remember that at the time of that debate, the majority of people felt that it was important to allow the housing experts to consider all the issues that related to the private sector, rather than just the tolerable standard? The issue is much wider and it is better to have all the facts in front of us before we make decisions.

The housing experts who at that time were calling for improvements to the tolerable standard were people who were living in homes that were below tolerable standard; for example, homes that had no insulation, double glazing or central heating. Unfortunately, the updating that the minister announced today may not be sufficient to determine that such people are living in homes that are below the tolerable standard.

The tolerable standard for the 21^st century has to be much higher than that which was developed in the 1960s. What the minister has developed so far does not meet that. The point about the Scottish Executive's failure in the past four and a half years is borne out—in that period we have had a loss of some 128,000 social rented homes. That is a net figure that takes into account the extra housing association homes that have been built in that period. The truth is that 132,000 local authority homes have been sold off but have not been replaced. Between 1997 and 2002, when those homes were sold off, only 668 homes were built across 32 local authority areas in Scotland to try to tackle the loss of 132,000 homes. Even if we take into account the 29,000 homes that have been built by housing associations over that period, there has still been a net loss of 103,000 homes.

We must be clear about the terms that we use, if I may put it that way. We are not talking about a loss of homes, but a transfer of homes from one sector to another. There is an issue about affordable housing, which it is proper to deal with, but it is wrong to suggest that we have lost all those homes from the housing stock, because we have not; people continue to live in them.

The point that I made in my opening remarks was that I want to concentrate on the social rented sector. The homes that I mentioned have been lost to that sector. That point must be emphasised. In 2001-02, 17,984 homes were lost and 51 new ones were built. The problem is that we are losing those homes from the social rented sector.

According to Shelter Scotland's website, in the last quarter there was a drop of 28 per cent in new housing starts in the social rented sector, including the housing association sector, compared to the figures of a year ago. We are not addressing, as we should, the woefully inadequate supply of good-quality homes for rent.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has condemned the figure that has been revealed in the survey that 66,000 homes are still unfit for human habitation. The federation makes the point in its material that the greatest threat to the supply of good-quality affordable housing is the right to buy, because it is leading to a massive haemorrhaging of homes from the social rented sector when there is no ability to replace them.

Frances Curran's amendment makes a couple of serious suggestions that the Executive should take on board. Let us replace the right to buy with a right-to-rent discount scheme.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I am in my final few seconds. I hope that the Deputy Presiding Officer will take into account the interventions that I have taken.

Homes that were built with public money for public use are disappearing into the private sector. Would not it be better to have a rental discount scheme that rewards long-term tenants—particularly pensioners—and which makes it more affordable for them to live in the rented sector while protecting the public sector stock for the long term?

Finally, we also argue in Frances Curran's amendment for the SFHA's target of 10,000 new homes a year to be built. Deputy Presiding Officer, in the 1920s one of your heroes, John Wheatley, presided over a target of 50,000 new homes a year being built in Scotland.

He might be one of my heroes, but he stopped in time. You have to stop now, Mr Sheridan.

Surely, almost 100 years later, it is not too much to ask for 10,000 new homes a year to be built.

I move amendment S2M-761.2, to leave out from "will" to end and insert:

"and implementation will make a contribution to the delivery of good quality, sustainable and affordable housing for all in Scotland; notes, however, the net loss of 103,000 homes from local authority housing stock since 1997; believes that such ongoing loss is unsustainable, and calls for a replacement of the right to buy scheme with a right to rent discount scheme to reward long-term tenants while protecting local authority and housing association stock and for the implementation of a programme of sustained investment in local authority housebuilding to build at least 10,000 new units a year to reverse the disastrous decline in the availability of affordable social housing."

My first involvement in Scottish housing was in 1972 when, as an enthusiastic newish councillor I, along with my Liberal colleagues, voted for Robin Cook, instead of a Conservative, to become chairman of housing in Edinburgh. I do not know how much I contributed to his subsequent career, but he did not do badly.

The report is, in general, welcome. The only criticisms that I—along with other members, no doubt—have received are from groups that think that the bill will not go quite far enough. I have also heard from people who would like speedy action to implement the report. I hope that the promised bill will come as soon as possible.

For many years, what we might call the David Davidson doctrine obtained, whereby private owners had the right to neglect their property in any way. Like other members who have been councillors, when people complained to me that their house was being seriously disadvantaged because the person next door was neglecting their house, I used to tell them that they had to see a rat because the health people from the council would then do something about the situation. Latterly, even people who saw rats got no action, so that panacea failed. However, the idea that people have a right totally to neglect their property has changed gradually, and I am glad that the report takes us further away from it.

We must get the balance right: individuals have rights that must be observed, but they do not have the right to foul up life for other people. The report contains good ideas; for example, owners associations, equity-based loans, the single-survey system and the bringing of houses up to a tolerable standard. On that issue, the minister said that there is a way forward without going from one extreme to another. It will be interesting to see what is proposed, because it will be difficult to lay down precise rules under which neglectful owners must bring their houses up to a tolerable standard. One issue that my friend Robert Brown is enthusiastic about—I support him, but I will leave him to explain the issue in more detail—is that of building reserve funds, of which he is a great champion.

We must sort out the minority of bad landlords and not discourage good landlords. Many housing bodies think that the report does not go quite far enough on accreditation: they think that we should have a mandatory national certification scheme. Such a scheme should be light-touch regulation, but it should have teeth and it should cover not only buildings, but management standards. In the end, people are more important in life than things are. Management standards and the quality of the people are key issues. It is worth exploring whether management standards might be introduced through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. A lack of good management standards can lead to a lot of trouble.

I welcome the idea of private rented housing tribunals, which could consider more than simply rent, unlike the rent assessment committees. We must also consider building quality. To return to antisocial behaviour, better noise insulation would help on that problem. There is a better prospect of work being done on noise insulation than there is of councils buying more expensive noise measuring machines and enforcing the rules on people not making too much noise. Greater noise insulation, along with other improvements, would remove a great deal of hostility between neighbours.

If we introduced more thermal insulation at the same time, we would improve health and people would save money on their heating bills. Housing is a key factor in health issues, which is why more money should go from the health budget into housing, for example to tackle dampness. The Executive has made some efforts on insulation and so on, but we should take improvement of housing more seriously. I know things are not the same now but, in the Victorian period, improvements in housing did far more than anything else to improve public health.

The task force's report is welcome and I hope that one or two bits of it can be taken further. The Executive must produce a bill as soon as possible. I might not have heard properly: I am not sure whether we are to have two bills—a tenement bill and a private housing bill.

Yes.

Thank you very much. I was going to ask a question about that later, but I do not need to now. I welcome what is being done, but let us have real action.

We now come to the open debate. I have to be very strict with time. I give members a tight five minutes each.

We very much welcome today's debate and the proposals that have been made so far. The minister might recall that, three years ago, I devoted a debate in my name to warm homes, and she may be aware that I am having some proposed legislation developed at the moment. If the Executive's legislation is adequate for the purpose, I will—hopefully—not have to pursue my own legislation. That remains to be seen.

Introducing quality standards for private housing and modernising the tolerable standard by extending it to include thermal insulation are extremely welcome. The proposal to provide in a single survey information on the condition of a house, on its accessibility and on the extent to which it is energy efficient is equally welcome. However, simply to give a national home energy rating to a house, for example NHER 7, would not necessarily mean an awful lot to a buyer or tenant. I hope that more detailed information will be given in the single survey, when that is required. That information could allow the tenant or buyer to see exactly how much it would cost to keep the house heated to a tolerable standard—say 65° Fahrenheit throughout the year.

The new single survey should also make recommendations for improvements, but I would not like the provisions in this area to be set as the general standard for housing in Scotland. As the minister is well aware, we have the lowest building standards in northern Europe. It is not enough for us to sit back complacently and say that we have better building standards than those that exist south of the border; we have the lowest thermal efficiency standards in northern Europe, even at present. Everything must be done, even in the forthcoming housing legislation, to drive up standards. That is why I would like energy efficiency surveys to become very much more detailed than just one line. Perhaps they could be issued as separate certificates, rather than as a paragraph at the end of a single survey.

The task force's recommendations contained a point about time scales for the eradication of housing that fails the tolerable standard. That is positive, in that it includes powers to carry out works to bring houses up to the tolerable standard without acquiring them, which is excellent. To go back to an observation that was made by Sarah Boyack earlier today, we need to think across the board. If the effect of the new legislation is to be that certain houses will have to be demolished, then we should be thinking about how we will dispose of their materials.

I draw the minister's attention to the mention in the report that

"Significant numbers of houses have problems such as lead in the water supply (9% total) and poor energy efficiency (15%)".

That is probably a serious underestimate of the number of houses in private occupation with poor energy efficiency. The estimate depends on the standards that we use. If we were to use northern European standards, I suggest that it might be 30 to 40 per cent of houses that have poor energy efficiency, which we need to bear in mind.

I would also like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that, despite the Executive's efforts so far, there is a view that an increasing proportion of people in fuel poverty are single pensioners, a proportion of whom live in rented accommodation. I do not have detailed suggestions to make on how the minister should address that problem, but I refer her to the proceedings of the Edinburgh affordable warmth summit, which was a conference that took place in November last year and which began to address those problems. I recommend that the minister request a copy of those proceedings because they contain quite a few ideas.

I would have liked to have given the minister a longer list, but I am afraid that I am required to finish there.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate. Members of the housing improvement task force have given a great deal of their time to the subject in examining all aspects of private housing. I acknowledge the scale and volume of their work. It is pleasing that we have got this far, given the reminder in the report that it is the first such review of private sector housing since the Cullingworth report back in 1967.

I must make one negative comment about the Shelter Scotland paper, which was one of the many briefings that we received from organisations. Shelter said that housing was not high on the Government's policy agenda because the Executive had taken a few months to get round to debating the report. I just do not believe that. Those of us who have been involved in housing issues in the previous session of Parliament and in this one know that housing is taking its rightful place on the political agenda.

Although I broadly support the task force's report, I believe that in a few areas its recommendations are soft and do not go far enough. We have not the time this afternoon to discuss all of them, but I am sure that the Communities Committee will have the opportunity to give detailed consideration to the Executive's response to the report. [Interruption.]

I must stop you for a minute while I ask everyone to check that their mobile phones are switched off.

I hope that I get extra time for that, Presiding Officer.

I welcome the minister's commitment to introduce a private sector housing bill, but I note that the commitment was that she would do so within the lifetime of the current Parliament, which has another three years to run. I hope that that bill will be introduced sooner rather than later, because I know that local authorities certainly need increased powers to tackle some of the chronic housing conditions within the private sector.

I have a particular constituency interest in the regulation of private sector landlords, so I want measures to be introduced now that would require landlords to be licensed and to register all properties that are for rent. I would like such legislation to be introduced as soon as possible. Although the vast majority of private landlords take proper responsibility for their properties and for the behaviour of their tenants, there is a growing problem of antisocial behaviour in the private rented sector. That is a problem for neighbours who suffer and for local authorities and the police who try to track down and identify who the private landlords are.

Irresponsible landlords are making life a misery for people in Cumbernauld as, I suspect, they are in constituencies throughout Scotland. I believe that we have an opportunity now to license and regulate the private rented sector. It is obvious that the Scottish Executive believes that too, given the measures that are contained in part 7 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which will provide a means of ensuring that landlords take reasonable steps to manage or alleviate antisocial behaviour in the properties that they let. I strongly support that proposal, which shows that the Labour-led Executive is committed to listening to what communities throughout Scotland are saying. That part of the bill is very welcome.

However, the Executive's proposals in part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which would introduce designated areas for registration, will not help. In fact, they might even make the problem worse. Good and responsible landlords will register, but the rogue landlord who takes no responsibility now will not take any responsibility then. He will simply move outwith the registration area. That will just take the problem "to another street near you", as I suppose we might say. I discussed the matter with residents in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth area who told me that the legislation does not go far enough. As things stand at the moment, they are right. The minister knows how strongly I feel about the matter and I urge her to reconsider the Executive's position.

I also give notice that, if need be, I am prepared to lodge amendments to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill to ensure that all landlords are properly licensed and that all properties are properly registered. The idea of self-certification that was proposed by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which was supported by the SNP today, simply will not work. Again, the good landlords will certify their properties but the rogue landlords will not.

I will move on quickly to address repair, maintenance and general upkeep of private sector properties. I agree with the minister that responsibility lies with owners, but we must consider the introduction of measures, perhaps in the proposed law of the tenement bill. I hope that Robert Brown will be able to speak a bit longer on that subject. He and I agree that measures are required to ensure that owner-occupiers take responsibility for repair and maintenance of their properties. Responsible owner-occupiers, who are unable to maintain their properties because a neighbour does not want to get involved, have asked us for that measure.

I welcome the debate on improving Scotland's homes. A speedy improvement of our homes would have an impact on the confidence of Scots in the work of the Scottish Parliament. It would also be a measure of the effectiveness of the Government that has made the proposals that are under debate today.

I can say bluntly that in my part of Scotland the availability of affordable and warm housing can make the difference between families and single persons staying in the area to make a contribution to community life and our local economy, or emigrating. Progress must be measured regularly and carefully in order to sweep away the constraints on improvement and on provision of 21^st century homes. Although 70 per cent of Scots are owner-occupiers and owner occupancy is the aspiration of the majority, we must ensure that the development of mixed tenure and various types and densities of housing are enabled by the Government's plans.

I participated recently in the local structure plan process in Easter Ross. It is clear to me that encouragement of owners to undertake regular maintenance of their homes is critical. That is especially the case given our aging population. Older people are sometimes unable to deal with the rapids of the house improvement process. I hope that the Government will make it possible for local authorities to create one-stop shops that could help to reduce the bewilderment and fear that some older people have of the house improvement process. Closer scrutiny needs to be given to that issue.

Many of the materials that were used in the 1970s and 1980s for building houses were of poorer quality than those that are used today. Many of the materials that were used in private homes were of poorer quality than those that were used in building council housing stock. Any election canvasser can see the difference in quality between council houses that have been maintained, and private houses that have not. The report highlights that matter; it is an issue on which we are keen to see progress.

The recommendations of the housing improvement task force in respect of the responsibility for the upkeep of houses are most welcome. If we look at the guidelines for improvements, extensions and new build, we see that there is an urgent need for national guidance to encourage positively the use of local materials, high insulation factors and new designs that are fit for this century. I am delighted that planning advice note 67 on housing quality concentrates on those areas.

When one visits places like Shetland, however, it is possible to see the Scandinavian-style houses that were built for public housing needs. We could do with a Viking invasion of the mainland, which would ensure that we get that quality of insulation in the houses that are built in our areas. Unfortunately, in the Highland Council area, we are faced with planners who state in planning policy guidelines about housing in the countryside:

"Design, siting and material finishes must respect the traditional vernacular architecture and adhere to the objectives of national guidance."

We need national guidance that encourages the use of materials such as timber, which is readily available. Timber construction has become a major issue in many rural areas because planners are turning down time and again the kind of innovative designs that would provide houses with high insulation value that we require in this century.

The availability of land for creating modern settlements and appropriate housing for families, the disabled, single parents and pensioners is a major equal opportunities issue. Moreover, given that access to a wholesome water supply is the second largest category in the below-tolerable-standard surveys, we must ask the minister to ensure that Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are both fully on board in the drive to modernise our housing stock. In many rural areas, those agencies currently have a veto over new house building, over solutions to the obvious need to minimise the costs of supplying wholesome water and over the best means of removing and treating sewage. Housing is very much tied up with those issues and the private sector is as much involved as the public sector.

My final point links to my previous remarks about Scandinavian levels of insulation. The biggest group of homes in the below-tolerable-standard survey are those with poor standards of thermal insulation. The 1920s stone-built council houses in the Caithness area of Highland Council are being reclad to include cavity walls and roof insulation. Moreover, the council will ensure that, by the end of the year, many of those houses will also have double glazing. However, we really need a lead from the Government to improve quality and make our homes in the north the envy of the country, rather than their being its tail-end. That is why the time scale and the necessary resources that the SNP amendment calls for are expected by the public and should be welcomed by the minister.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to support Margaret Curran yet again in her policy objectives. In particular, I want to thank her for the last phrase of her motion, which refers to

"the delivery of good quality, sustainable and affordable housing for all in Scotland."

I might be wrong, but I think that this is the first Executive debate that has expressed that objective. It gives the chamber the very rare opportunity—which Rob Gibson, Tommy Sheridan and I are delighted to have—to debate the question of housing supply.

The Executive's record on housing supply is respectable. For example, figures that the Executive released this week in its social justice indicators show that between 5,000 and 5,500 new houses have been completed in each of the past four years in the housing association and public sectors. Moreover, the Executive's objective is to build 6,000 houses a year over the next three years.

However, I recently asked the minister about the basis for her confidence that those objectives were sufficient to provide for housing need in Scotland in the early 21^st century. She very kindly referred me to research by Professor Glen Bramley of Heriot-Watt University, which I have now found on the Communities Scotland website and on which I will base a few points this afternoon. In fact, Professor Bramley's research is highly qualified. He identifies a need in Scotland for an annual building figure of 7,500—not 6,000—units and makes it very clear that that element of undersupply relates only to the need that is emerging in a number of councils because of household formation. He also makes it clear that his figure does not include any need anywhere else for the refurbishment of empty homes, nor does it allow for the development of houses to meet specific shortfalls in individual communities, categories of special needs or imbalances in house sizes across Scotland in the light of the rapidly reducing size of average households.

Professor Bramley clearly admits that his figure of 7,500 units significantly underestimates what he believes to be the real level of housing demand in Scotland. Indeed, there are substantial needs even in councils that, in crude terms, show that they have a surplus of houses. Bramley does not only acknowledge that his figure represents a crude beginning; he puts it in heavy print in his paper and repeats the point on several occasions.

My intervention will be brief, because I know that time is very limited. Does the member agree that the SFHA's demand for 10,000 units a year is based precisely on that type of research and unmet need?

I do not think that that demand is statistically as well founded as Professor Bramley's figure, but it is in the same line of country.

Although I cannot agree with much of Mr Sheridan's earlier analysis, I am happy to indicate in broad terms that I think there needs to be a revision of the target. Ten thousand may be the figure that is needed. Bramley's research produced some stunning figures. East Dunbartonshire Council needs 725 new houses per year in the next five years. City of Edinburgh Council needs 1,205 new houses, East Renfrewshire Council needs 400, East Lothian Council needs 700, Moray Council needs 450 and South Ayrshire Council needs 400. Those figures are significantly in excess of current or projected building levels.

Bramley showed something else. I refer to research that he did for the Executive in 2001, as well as his most recent document, in which he identified a number of council areas in which local members will think that there are serious shortfalls, such as Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council. David Davidson, who gave way for me to speak in this debate, picked out Aberdeenshire. Those are areas that Bramley's previous research showed as having significant housing shortfalls. His current research shows that they have surpluses, which he admits is startling.

The point that I am making—basically, I am agreeing with Mr Sheridan—is that there is a need for much more statistical work. There is a clear presumption, which I share, that the targets and resources are insufficient and that we need to get to grips with the quite significant shortfalls in housing that exist, perhaps on a patchy basis, in parts of Scotland.

In the time that is available to me, I do not have the opportunity to touch on some of the planning matters that are highly germane to this issue or on the infrastructure issues that are equally relevant. However, if we are to fulfil the objective in the Executive motion—which I share entirely—of achieving affordable housing for all in Scotland, we must recognise that more work needs to be done, greater resources need to be committed and further progress needs to be made, building on the excellent work about which the minister has spoken this afternoon.

The recommendations of the housing improvement task force are an excellent piece of work on the part of the Executive. I have no concerns about the delay in implementing those recommendations, because I recognise that the work that is needed, including changes to civil law, and the resources that are required will take a long time to put together. As Cathie Craigie said, this is the first report of its kind since the 1960s.

As Shona Robison pointed out, this debate is about the private sector, although I have much to say about demands that I would like to be made on the social rented sector. I am not sure why the Conservative and SSP amendments have been accepted for debate, but I will concentrate on issues in the private sector, especially in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, as it tends to buck some national trends but draws out some of the important issues for the housing improvement task force.

Nineteen per cent of tenants in Glasgow Kelvin are in the private rented sector, compared with the national average of 7 per cent. Less than half of residents are owner-occupiers, compared with the national average of about 63 per cent. Historically, that is a result of the high need for student accommodation close to universities and colleges. However, it presents us with particular issues to address. Crucially, there is a large number of single parents and unemployed adults in the constituency who have not been able to secure social housing and cannot afford to be owner-occupiers, but who have particular problems in the private rented sector.

I will talk about some of the positive recommendations of the housing improvement task force, starting with the single sellers survey. That must be welcomed, although I see from the report that it is not as easy to construct as it might first have seemed. I welcome the fact that the west end of Glasgow is one of the pilot areas for the single sellers survey. Many members will know that people have suffered because of market trends in the west end. Many first-time buyers have paid 50 or 60 per cent over the asking price or have made several bids to secure a property. They have had to pay for a survey two, three or four times and have been put off the housing market by their experiences in the west end. For that reason, this is a very important piece of work.

As Margaret Curran said, surveys are often for valuation and provide very limited information on the condition of a property. That raises some serious issues. People who have purchased houses on the basis of valuation surveys are sitting on properties that are in disrepair that they do not know about and cannot face up to addressing. I am worried about what will happen to those people if we move to a new system. That is why it is important to point out that the funds that used to be available for repair grants and which people used to access dried up in the 1990s. Now hardly anyone addresses the maintenance of their properties. In my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, 89 per cent of people live in tenements and maisonettes. This is a big issue for my constituents.

One issue that I want to bring to the attention of ministers is that I get the impression that most people do not have enough technical information about their properties and do not like to face up to the issue. They do not see their roofs, so they do not think about them. We have got to change the culture and get people to realise that, when they take on a property, other things go with that. That is why it is right that the Government is concerned about people in the private sector. Although ministers are right to say that the buck stops with the owner, if we leave it to owners alone massive amounts of accommodation will be in a serious state of disrepair, and somebody somewhere will pay the price of that. It is a social responsibility.

I am a student of feudal tenure and leasehold casualties, and I look forward to the law of the tenement when it comes along.

To address a point that Cathie Craigie made, I mention that constituents of mine in Anderston who rushed to buy their houses in the 1980s have found that the banks will now not lend on their properties. They are casualties of the rush to buy homes. Some of them find themselves in blocks of four homes, perhaps half of which are occupied by Glasgow Housing Association tenants, and they are outvoted on issues and forced to come up with money that some of them cannot afford. That is why I welcome the outcome of the report—for the first time in nearly 15 years, money will be available for those homeowners to tackle such problems.

In my last minute I will mention houses in multiple occupation, a matter that relates to private sector accommodation. For years I have exchanged letters with ministers on HMO legislation, which I have supported from the outset, but there are unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Landlords are facing onerous fees in Glasgow, and the good landlords who opt to pay are paying the price for those who do not. Students are reporting that with the licensing reduction to a threshold of three tenants, a fourth student either has to lie and say that they are not living in a place or they are evicted. We have to re-examine how the legislation is being interpreted. I know that implementing the legislation is a matter for local authorities, but we must ensure that there are no unintended consequences of remarkably good legislation.

I welcome Margaret Curran's announcement that the tolerable standard will be updated. I recall that during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill last session, I moved to include the tolerable standard and I was disappointed that the minister did not accept my amendments. Now, a few years later, we are moving towards that position and it is important that we do that as quickly as possible.

There is no dispute that Scottish housing is in bad condition. The very worst of the housing stock is in the private sector. That is why I welcome the report of the housing improvement task force, and the opportunity to debate that report today. Tommy Sheridan and Murray Tosh are right that there needs to be a debate in Scotland about the supply side and the need for new housing. That will be an important debate when it happens, but it is not the debate that we should be having today; it is a debate for the future.

I will deal first with owner-occupiers. No one denies that some owners spend money on new bathrooms and kitchens, and not enough on repairs and maintenance. Of course that is true, but what is needed—as Pauline McNeill rightly said—is a culture change. If owner-occupiers are to be cajoled and encouraged to carry out regular repairs and maintenance, we must ensure that local authorities do the same. I recall that Glenrothes Development Corporation had planned maintenance programmes, under which the windows of houses were painted regularly—perhaps every three years. Few local authorities do that now. We should ensure that as well as expecting owner-occupiers to do such maintenance, we expect the same from landlords in other sectors.

At the extreme end of the scale of disrepair are houses that are dilapidated and which are nuisances in neighbourhoods. Local authorities must take action on such houses far more quickly than they are doing at present. I am not convinced that that is a matter for legislation. It is possible that local authorities could use the power of well- being, which was introduced by the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, to ensure that dilapidated and dangerous houses are dealt with under existing legislation. The minister may wish to consider that and issue some guidelines.

Pauline McNeill raised the issue of grants to private owners. Before 1996, the Government told local authorities how much they were allowed to borrow to spend on private sector repair and maintenance grants. Until then, local authorities routinely spent more than £100 million a year on such grants. In 1996, that ring fencing was removed at the behest of the local authorities and the amount of money that was available for repair and improvement grants plummeted to as low as £29 million in 2000-01. Twenty years ago, £167 million was available in grants for private sector repairs and improvements, but in 2000-01 only £29 million was available.

Shelter estimates that, if local authority spending on repair and maintenance grants for private houses had remained at the level that it was set at before the ring fencing was removed in 1995-96 and had increased in line with inflation, £667 million more than has actually been spent would have been spent on private housing by now.

I accept that, as the minister said, money should not be used indiscriminately, but we should, at the very least, ensure that the care and repairs scheme, which is such a success, is funded and expanded to ensure that elderly people in particular have access to it, regardless of where in Scotland they live.

The worst housing conditions are in the private rented sector, which houses some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland. I welcome the Executive's intention to explore a national registration scheme, which it announced in December. Like Cathie Craigie, I am firmly of the view that the condition of a property must be of a certain quality before any registration is permitted and that private landlords must take responsibility for dealing with tenants who indulge in antisocial behaviour. Many communities are being damaged by unregulated and unprincipled landlords; action is needed and it is needed quickly.

Tommy Sheridan and, to a lesser extent, Murray Tosh called for sustained investment in local authority house building, which would enable 10,000 new homes to be built per annum. That laudable scheme could be completely self-financing, after an initial input by the Scottish Executive. We are looking at a win-win situation.

The 32 councils in Scotland should be challenged to produce slightly more than 300 new homes each year—that would amount to 10,000 units in total. That could be done by enlisting the help, on a part-time basis, of some of the thousands of retired tradesmen from all the various disciplines that are involved in house building—bricklayers, joiners, electricians, plasterers, tilers, plumbers and so on. With the help of full-time council tradesmen, those senior citizens would undertake to train apprentices in all the disciplines that I have mentioned. They would train them not in the manner in which they are trained in college, but in a hands-on manner, whereby they would build houses from start to finish.

Ideally, those houses would be detached two-bedroom bungalows. Fifty per cent of every 10 houses completed could be sold on the private market; the rest could go towards alleviating the social housing problem. That would make the whole scheme self-financing. Out of 300 homes, the selling of 150 at an average price of £80,000 would bring in an income of £12 million.

The overall benefits for the whole country are so obvious that I am amazed that such a scheme has not been undertaken in recent years. The peripheral benefits would be a boost to the economy; an on-going supply of well-trained apprentices in all the disciplines throughout the country, which would meet growing demand; the chance for fit and able senior citizens to augment their meagre pensions and pass on their traditional skills before they are lost for ever; and the provision of new, affordable housing units all over Scotland. Such a scheme would produce a self-financing win-win situation.

We move to wind-up speeches. Tommy Sheridan has six minutes.

I hope that the fact that I will not need six minutes will provide more time for other members; it was mentioned that Robert Brown might want to sum up on an issue that Cathie Craigie referred to.

As I indicated in my opening speech, today's debate is about not just the private sector or the housing improvement task force's report; as Murray Tosh said, the motion makes it clear that the debate is about

"the delivery of good quality, sustainable and affordable housing for all in Scotland".

Therefore, it is perfectly understandable and laudable that amendments have been lodged to beef up the Executive motion and to try to address the absolute crisis that is developing in the supply of good-quality, affordable housing in the social rented sector.

I am a bit worried that when we leave the chamber today the sky might have fallen in, because it is not often that Murray Tosh and I agree on anything. However, we have agreed today on the basic fact that we have a crisis in the supply of social rented accommodation. We cannot deny that basic fact.

I accept that the social rented sector is important, but does the member not agree that the matter is more complex than that? People's attitudes have changed and young people who we all know do not see social rented houses—no matter how good their quality—as their first choice. They aspire to own their homes and the housing sector has to reflect that.

We also have to confront the fact that, in cities such as Glasgow, we have housing in the social rented sector that people do not want. The figures that the member presents do not represent the substance of the debate and they cannot help us to address the difficulties that we have to deal with when developing housing policy.

Johann Lamont was in danger of taking advantage of my good nature with the length of that intervention. I hope that she accepts that her point can be turned back on her. We are in danger of restricting the choice for young families. We are restricting the choice for those who wish to get involved in housing because they have no choice of good-quality, affordable rented accommodation. Rents in many Scottish local authority areas are so high that it is cheaper to have a mortgage. As a result of the progressive withdrawal of housing association and other grants, we are forcing young couples to get involved in the ownership of housing, even before they have started—

As someone who supports people's aspirations for owner occupation, it is clear to me that, for many people, although ownership is an aspiration, it is not one that they can achieve realistically. It is therefore essential that we analyse need and that we look at income levels and household information within those quartiles or deciles—whatever the expression is—of the population who cannot meet their aspirations. That is the justification for looking at the numbers that are needed for the construction of social housing.

That is one of the points that must be emphasised when we address the situation. We are not just talking about producing a nation in which everybody owns their own hoose. If everybody wants to own their own hoose, they are perfectly at will to purchase a house from the private sector. We are talking about providing a choice for those who want to live in a good-quality, socially rented home.

While we retain the right to buy—this is where Murray Tosh and I will disagree—we are constantly losing the public supply of housing and not replenishing it. That is what the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and Shelter are telling us.

The right to buy has been mentioned a lot. Does the member agree that it is a specific tool of housing policy and not a right?

I could not agree more. I do not accept that it is a right in the sense of the human right to freedom or a decent income. I do not accept that someone should have an inalienable right to purchase a home that was built with public money. That is why I want the policy rescinded and replaced with a scheme that rewards those who are long-term tenants.

If we look at the figures in the Help the Aged report, we will see that more than a third of pensioners live in local authority homes. Interestingly, however, 47 per cent of people between the ages of 60 and 74, and 51 per cent of people who are 75 years and older have lived in their local authority home for 20 years or more. They are not the ones who are benefiting from the right to purchase their home, because they do not have the wherewithal to do so, but they would benefit from a right-to-rent discount scheme that would reward long-term tenancy but secure and maintain the public housing stock. In the longer term, the revenue that was generated from retaining that stock would make such a scheme self-financing. If we accept the target of 10,000 units a year, such a scheme would address the absolute crisis that exists, but which the Executive is ignoring, in the supply of social rented housing.

As well as supporting and encouraging the quickest possible implementation of the housing improvement task force's recommendations, particularly in relation to the private sector, it is perfectly acceptable for us to make the point that the problem will remain on the same side of the overall equation if we do not get the public social rented supply of housing sorted out too. That has to be sorted out, or else the whole of Scotland's housing will remain in crisis.

I feel slightly tentative following the outbreak of fellow feeling between the Conservatives and the SSP. However, I think that we should return to the housing improvement task force's report, which is really what the debate is about.

It is to the credit of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive that during the first session of the Parliament there were major, radical and effective strides to improve Scotland's housing and the rights of home owners and tenants—the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001, the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, the feudal reform legislation, the ground-breaking free central heating scheme and the moves to community ownership. Those examples of legislative and administrative action are bearing more fruit as we move into the Parliament's second session.

As members have said, the emphasis in the first session was rightly on public sector stock, but the work of the housing improvement task force brings private housing, both owned and rented, to the fore. Many issues have been raised, but I want to concentrate on tenemental housing in particular. I am bound to say that this is the first debate in which the contents of my speech have been anticipated by three members before I have got to my feet. That is very gratifying.

We will be completing the legal reforms with the tenement and private sector bills that have been announced, but we will still not, in my view, have workable mechanisms to encourage or require private owners to bring sufficient resources to the basic maintenance of their houses to eat into the £10 billion backlog of repairs that the housing improvement task force has identified. Margaret Curran had better be saving up the pennies in her piggy-bank if we are to meet the requirements in that area; the issue is as huge as the red sandstone redevelopment and rehabilitation that took place in the 1970s and 1980s.

The situation has been made worse by the right-to-buy difficulties, because people have been encouraged to buy houses at the limit of affordability, without any requirement for or interest in the question of whether they can afford the maintenance costs thereafter.

Will Robert Brown address the problems caused when people in mixed-tenancy buildings wish to introduce community heating schemes?

No, I will not. We have only a short debate today and I want to speak specifically about mechanisms for dealing with disrepair in tenement buildings.

We will require more public money and I do not think that what has been announced today, welcome though it is, should be the end of the story. The problem is not solvable unless owners, particularly tenement owners, spend more on their houses. The key to that is the encouragement of owner groups. I have been battering on about that theme for a long time and, although I was pleased to see proposals on the matter contained in the task force's recommendations, I have some concerns about the emphasis on new housing. It is, of course, important to get the arrangements for new housing schemes right at the outset, so that people know where they stand when they move in.

However, the key problem is with older properties, where maintenance issues are more immediate and more intractable. The housing improvement task force might perhaps have been a little more radical in that direction. I do not think that we need to go as far as imposing compulsion across the board, but we can lead by example, set standards and do pilots. There is much that we can do to make progress.

I have been in receipt of a statutory repairs notice and a bill from the City of Edinburgh Council for a statutory repair to my Edinburgh flat. As a lawyer, does Robert Brown agree that such statutory measures are already in place and that we should perhaps examine the definition of what constitutes a statutory repair?

Those measures are in place, but the problem lies in the routine situation where decay sets in over time. I have long argued that long-term maintenance funds built up by monthly payments along with the mortgage, for example—with the owner's share saleable as an asset to new purchasers—have a lot of potential. However, such arrangements would need encouragement and support and incentives would probably have to be provided, because it is difficult to move from current budgets to larger ones. An opportunity was perhaps lost when interest rates and mortgages were going down and budgets were therefore going down; a similar opportunity will not occur if there is an increase in interest rates and therefore mortgage payments.

The proposal for local authorities to have power to require the institution of maintenance schemes is good as a last resort, but it is much more important to get effective and innovative tenement owner groups up and running. Those groups should perhaps be the equivalent of housing associations, from which they could learn many lessons. They should build up and introduce over time proper maintenance standards for roofs, guttering and roughcast. They should develop a list of reputable builders and other trade firms who can do a job in the area and involve people in improving their building and the local environment. They should also develop mechanisms, perhaps in association with a building society, for the proper investment of the maintenance fund.

The Scottish Executive has an exceedingly good record on capacity building in the voluntary sector since 1999. It will reap dividends if it supports tenement owners in a similar way, not primarily by imposing duties, but by helping to release their dynamic. A mechanism is also required to spread good practice—perhaps a Scottish home owners trust could be created, although various mechanisms could be used.

I would like the minister to give a commitment to move forward with vigour and to provide capacity building and support. She should back that over time with increased resources for private sector improvement grants, which will definitely also be needed. The longer the Executive takes to grasp the nettle, the more a time bomb will await the public purse—the funding required would dwarf the funding requirement for the tenement rehabilitation of the 1970s and 1980s.

Finally, I make a plea to our friends in the press gallery—I think that only the representative of the Sunday Post has been with us throughout the debate. Let us hear no more of the idea that the Parliament lacks vision or radical ideas and does not take action to improve the well-being of the nation. This has been a high-quality debate about important issues, but it will probably barely merit a peep in tomorrow's press although it is far more significant than the trivia and scandal stories that so often dominate the media. I challenge the media corps to tell Scotland what the Parliament is really doing and how we are acting to improve Scotland's homes and contributing thereby to the health, education and opportunity of our people. I welcome the HITF report.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that we also recognise that the Press Association is represented in the press gallery.

That is obviously not a point of order.

Like other members, I welcome the housing improvement task force's report and the wide-ranging debate today about improving Scotland's housing. There is clearly a consensus on the report in the chamber.

Who would have thought in the late 1970s that within 25 years home ownership in Scotland would have almost doubled from 35 per cent to nearly 70 per cent, satisfying the aspirations of many Scottish households who had previously only dreamed of owning their own homes? The increase in home ownership has led to the upgrading of many properties that were previously in the public sector, but there is still considerable room for improvement, particularly in private rented properties and in the communal areas of privately owned tenements—there are many extremely attractive and well-maintained flats within buildings whose maintenance leaves a lot to be desired. I welcome the private housing and tenements bills that the Minister for Communities proposed earlier in the debate.

The task force's report is timely in identifying the responsibilities of owners and the standards that they should be striving to achieve. It offers a challenge to all those who have an interest in private sector housing.

Owner-occupiers, private landlords and housing professionals all have a role to play in encouraging and achieving investment in private sector properties. One particularly welcome proposal, which Shona Robison and other members have highlighted, is for the provision of better information to buyers and sellers through a single detailed survey.

Local authorities have a responsibility to engage with the private sector at a local level to achieve better housing quality. The Scottish Executive must provide a statutory framework to encourage good stewardship of the private sector housing stock and support it with effective funding mechanisms to help owners to achieve the desired standards.

I was pleased to hear of the Executive's practical response to the recommendations in the report and I was pleased to hear the minister detail the measures that are being taken. However, I have two specific areas of concern. The first is our aging population and the difficulties that many older people face—both financially and practically—in maintaining their properties to an acceptable standard on a reduced income. That will become an increasing problem as the Scottish population continues to age and more people remain in their homes into their 80s and 90s and sometimes even into their 100s. I hope that suitable grant funding will be put in place to help those people with such problems.

The second area of concern is rural housing, which Mary Scanlon touched on. In rural areas, the private sector accounts for 56 per cent of the rented stock. The current issue of Landowning in Scotland—the journal of the Scottish Landowners Federation—contains an interesting interview with Andrew Bradford, the chairman of the federation's housing committee, who goes into significant detail about the barriers to the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. Nearly all of Communities Scotland's budget goes to housing associations, but a mere 2 per cent of rural rented properties are provided by housing associations. Indeed, Mr Bradford points out that Kincardine Estate, which he manages in the heart of rural Aberdeenshire, provides as many rented houses as all the housing associations in the three local settlements of Aboyne, Ballater and Braemar.

Many estates are ideally placed to provide housing and, with a little financial assistance from the Government, they could cost-effectively deliver affordable rural housing where it is not currently available. I ask the minister to meet Mr Bradford and to consider the vital part that landowners play in providing affordable housing in rural Scotland and the further action that they could take to help people in their areas with just a little assistance from the Executive.

Tommy Sheridan and Murray Tosh outlined the researched need for housing, which is, at present, substantially unmet across Scotland. I hope that, as Murray Tosh suggested, further work will be done on that and that targets will be put in place so that demand can be satisfied at the earliest possible opportunity.

The task force's report makes some important recommendations, but its impact will depend on how those recommendations are implemented by the Executive. I look forward to hearing how the proposals are progressing in the months ahead. I am happy to support the SNP amendment, which calls for a timetable for the implementation of the recommendations, and I also support the amendment in the name of Mary Scanlon.

I declare an interest in the subject as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland. The report of the—excuse me; I have got new glasses and I cannot read with them on, but I keep forgetting to take them off. My colleagues all look a lot clearer when I have them on.

The report of the task force is excellent. I was very pleased when I read it. The recommendations that it contains are those that have many of us have called for over the years, before and after the establishment of the Parliament, especially during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. However, I have concerns about one thing that the minister said—the fact that we are to have yet another working group on the tolerable standard. I would be glad of some clarification on that when the deputy minister responds.

The private sector has been a huge issue for decades and I am pleased that the task force has given it such a level of attention and that the report is of such a high standard. In fact, the issue goes back a couple of centuries, but a particular milestone was the creation of the housing action areas during the 1970s, with local authorities in the driving seat, particularly in Glasgow. That measure dealt with landlords in the private rented sector and owner-occupiers in areas where houses were falling into disrepair.

The minister spent much of her speech talking about the home ownership aspect of the private sector. She said that the level of home ownership is increasing because of people's aspiration to own their homes. That cannot be denied, but I suggest that that aspiration has, over the past few decades, been forced by a lack of decent housing in the private rented sector and a lack of houses in the social rented sector—it has really been forced by the lack of choice. Somebody—perhaps Tommy Sheridan—mentioned the fact that young couples have no choice any more except to get on to the owner-occupation ladder.

Mary Scanlon spoke about the wonderful right to buy and the rush to purchase. I suggest that that was more about the huge discounts that were given to promote the aspiration to home ownership than it was about people fundamentally wishing to get on to the property ladder. I was a bit surprised that a Labour member—I cannot remember who it was—defended that position. Indeed, Labour extended the right to buy in the previous session to housing associations. Therefore, Labour has not helped in that area.

I am interested to know what the SNP policy is on the right to buy. Does Linda Fabiani acknowledge that, during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 2001, the Labour-led Executive, by accepting amendments proposed by the Social Justice Committee, radically changed the right to buy and the discounts that were available?

I welcomed the changes and the cut in the discounts. However, I did not welcome the extension of the right to buy to the housing association sector, which—morally—should be a sector for affordable, social rented housing; it should not be a step on the property ladder.

The private rented sector requires a general housing standard. I was glad to hear the minister acknowledge that the report's recommendation on that would be accepted. Will she clarify whether that will cover individual properties in the private rented sector and whether the Executive will actively promote such a move?

That brings us back to the role of the local authorities. Earlier, I mentioned housing action areas and I notice that the task force's report recommends the introduction of housing renewal areas to equip local authorities with the ability to plan and promote better housing quality. Local authorities have, as an Executive publication noted, little systematic information on the private rented sector in their areas and tend not to concentrate on that sector, apart from in relation to revenue and housing benefit. Local authorities do not have a written strategy for the private rented sector. I want such strategies to be actively promoted. We should equip local authorities with the ability to deal properly and globally with all houses in their areas.

The minister also referred to encouraging and compelling owners. That must cover all owners, including owner-occupiers, private landlords and absentee owners, who are an important element of the private sector. Huge problems are often caused because absentee owners have either left their house vacant or rented it out to someone who just pays their rent every month but does not know who or where the landlord is. We must have firm processes in place and it is essential that local authority powers are beefed up for that.

We sympathise with Cathie Craigie's point about private landlords and the different elements of antisocial behaviour. Shona Robison said that she would like some aspects of the issue to be taken further. We look forward to the Communities Committee's proposals in that regard and we will monitor the situation closely.

Robin Harper and Rob Gibson firmly expressed their belief, which I share, that housing standards should be considered across the board. We should look at materials and specifications. We must stop saying—I am always going on about this—that the initial capital cost is what it cost to build a house. We must move away from an attitude that says that we can get 40 houses if we go down the cheapest route; we should say, instead, that we will have 36 properly equipped houses, because we have beefed up and implemented the standards. We must consider whole-life costs. Again, we should look at the example of Scandinavia.

Rob Gibson and Nanette Milne referred to planning and statutory agencies and the barriers that prevent the promotion of housing development in rural areas. That is a huge issue; people are not working together for the benefit of those who need the houses.

Tricia Marwick referred to the reduction in housing repair grants over the years. There is a big discussion about whether those grants should be means tested and whether they should be for the benefit of the individual or for the benefit of the greater good and of good housing stock for the future.

A couple of members referred to the elderly. It is sad that so many elderly people live in private sector properties that they cannot afford to keep up properly. That is where the great care and repair initiative comes in. Again, I hope that we look at that in the round.

We must be ambitious about the tolerable standard. The report contains some marvellous recommendations and an integrated approach is required on all fronts. There is an opportunity to be grasped, and we should grasp it with both hands. However, we need a timetable and a commitment of resources, so, although the SNP supports the Executive motion, we also ask that members support the SNP amendment.

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate, because we have heard some thoughtful and positive speeches, which confirms that housing is an important area of policy. The debate has also demonstrated that the issues are complex, with many interwoven strands. The task force has had to disentangle the issues and consider how they can be influenced, and it has managed to produce a coherent package of proposals that balances differing views and competing interests. That is the value of the task-force approach and we owe a debt of gratitude to the members of the task force and its sub-groups for carrying out a substantial and, at times, difficult task.

We have not accepted all the task force's recommendations in every detail. We consulted widely on the recommendations and some stakeholders felt on reflection that a different approach would be more appropriate in some instances. We have also taken account of other policy considerations. Nevertheless, I am pleased to say that we have concluded that we should accept the majority of the task force's proposals without modification, which is a tribute to the quality of the work that it has done. During the debate, a number of areas that I would like to try to cover have been raised. My colleague Margaret Curran discussed the tolerable standard and I will try to clarify how far the tolerable standard will go, because I think that there was some misunderstanding. The current tolerable standard was introduced during—[Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much noise in this room. Please continue, minister.

The current tolerable standard is intended to identify those properties that are in the worst condition and on which action is required to ensure appropriate standards of public health and safety. We will update the tolerable standard to include two new elements—a basic provision of thermal insulation and electrical systems that are adequate and safe to use—and improve the specification of the existing provisions on dampness and a wholesome water supply.

Will the minister give way?

I will finish on the tolerable standard and then I will answer Linda Fabiani's earlier question.

As well as amending the legislation on the tolerable standard, I intend to set up an expert working group to draw up detailed technical guidance to ensure that the interpretation of the new standard is uniform and transparent. That answers the question that Linda Fabiani raised earlier. The working group will work to ensure that what is carried out is appropriate.

Will the minister also consider consulting on whether other areas in the tolerable standard should be beefed up?

I have a similar question. I am worried about the use of the term "basic" for the thermal insulation. Will the minister consider going further than that? Would it not be better if we had a far higher standard than basic?

I will not say that we will continue to consult on the tolerable standard, because we had a thorough consultation process, which is how we arrived at this stage. In addition to updating the tolerable standard, we will bring in a cross-tenure Scottish housing quality standard, as recommended by the task force and in line with our partnership agreement to introduce a decent-homes standard. Whereas the tolerable standard identifies properties with major failings, the quality standard will set out benchmarks for monitoring standards in the private sector, to help the Scottish Executive and local authorities to define objectives for intervention. The detail of that standard is still to be finalised, but I hope that we will be able to announce further details shortly.

Many members have continued to make comments about private landlords. The private rented sector plays a relatively small part, but it is nevertheless crucial in meeting housing needs. Indeed, with the expansion of various buy-to-let schemes, its importance has been growing. We know that the poorest conditions are found in the private rented sector, although the sector is diverse and there are many good-quality houses available for let. I am therefore giving detailed consideration to how best to manage the sector. We are already developing a national framework for local accreditation schemes, in line with our partnership agreement commitment. The framework will provide quality assurance by setting out specified standards for private landlords and their properties. In addition, we will explore the possibility of a national scheme for registration of all private landlords, which Cathie Craigie referred to.

We accept the task force's recommendations on the need to revise and extend the statutory repairing obligations on private landlords. To complement that, we will explore the scope of adapting the current rent assessment committee to become a type of tribunal to handle complaints about landlords who do not meet their repairing obligations.

Further work that we anticipate on the private rented sector includes building on the current legislative framework for houses in multiple occupation and developing a model tenancy agreement. I hope that that work will respond to some of the points that were made by members, particularly Cathie Craigie, on the private rented sector. Again, the matter will be picked up in the housing bill. For the benefit of Donald Gorrie and the others who asked about bills, it is our intention to progress with both a tenements bill and a private sector housing bill.

Although this afternoon's debate was specifically on private sector housing, it was obvious that housing supply would be brought up. Murray Tosh was the first to raise that issue, but other members raised it later. As I announced at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations conference in November, the Executive intends to have further discussions with housing stakeholders and with planners—I am sure that Murray Tosh will be pleased to hear that—to ensure that we consider the varied interests in housing supply. We need to consider what the specific housing needs are and the kind of housing that needs to be provided. We should not think that every house will suit every person. Also, we need to consider where the housing is, because statistics tell us that 17 of the 32 local authorities have surpluses. We need to decide what we mean by "affordable"—does that refer to property to rent or to property that is affordable to buy?

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry; I am in my final minute so I am unable to take the member's intervention.

We recognise that the issue is complex and that we need to take it further. We are in the process of doing that.

This has been a good-quality debate, despite Mr Sheridan and Murray Tosh wanting to form some kind of alliance in the chamber this afternoon. Unfortunately, we were faced with amendments that we do not accept because they refer back to ideology. The Conservatives want to support only people who buy their houses—only they are worth considering. We have tried that approach before and, as Cathie Craigie said, it left people in inadequate, poor-quality housing without the knowledge or the means to maintain their homes, so we will not support the Conservatives' amendment. Nor will we support the amendment from the Scottish Socialist Party—at the other end of the spectrum, it wants to concentrate solely on the public rented sector. The Executive will defend people's rights to good-quality rented accommodation. However, we must also recognise the situation as it is: 70 per cent of people are owner-occupiers and we need to consider their rights, too.

We will continue to respond to people's desires. The Executive is concerned with the provision of housing across all sectors that responds to people's individual needs and is of the highest quality. The Executive will ensure that the people of Scotland have choice and quality, even if the Conservatives and the SSP do not do so.