Chair’s comments – March 08

Chair’s comments

As part of its ongoing campaign on housing issues the Scottish Tenants Organisation has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling asking him to write off all of Scotland`s council housing debt ( £2.2Billion ).

Conveners Comment – July 07

A State of Independence

Tenant Participation or Tenant Manipulation?

The new SNP Executive has recently issued ten edicts on housing and regeneration to kick off its first term in office. Number 9 on this list is the statement that they “will formally establish 9 registered Tenant Organisation Regional Networks by March 2008 to provide effective participation structures for engagement between the tenants movement in Scotland and the Scottish Government, and have involved the networks in national policy development during that period.”

Forgive me for being blunt, but it is not up to the Scottish Executive to “establish” tenants organisations – especially ones that may be participating with them on national housing policy. It is up to the tenants movement to do its own establishing, independently of government, local or national.

Politicians at top level in the new government may be forgiven to some degree for a lack of understanding over how tenants organise, given that they do not have regular contact with the Scottish tenants movement, but the most likely scenario that would explain their bold assertion is that they have been extremely badly advised by their civil servants in the Scottish Executive and the other monstrosity, which we were promised would be abolished, Communities Scotland.

This is of major concern to those of us who do not wish to be established by Communities Scotland or the Scottish Executive and who wish to see a totally independent Scottish tenants movement which organises on its own terms.

Of major concern in all of this is that the tenants movement will be the subject of divisive split between those who have been ‘established’, or directed by Communities Scotland and those who have chosen to stick to our traditional ways of organising and agreeing our own agenda. No government would want to be guilty of that, would they?

Even more worrying is the statement from Communities Scotland that tenants will be subjected to “training” on the issues that tenants will participate on with the government. We don’t live in a totalitarian state yet, do we?

It is unacceptable that staff from Communities Scotland are ever present at tenants meetings. It is unacceptable that staff from Communities Scotland are ever present when tenants are taking decisions. It is unacceptable that staff from Communities Scotland write up notes and minutes and produce reports of so-called tenants conferences. It is unacceptable that staff from Communities Scotland run and manage ‘national engagement’ processes, while claiming that the process is “tenant led, inclusive and representative.” It is unacceptable that tenants caught up in all this do not communicate freely with other tenants elsewhere because it is Communities Scotland that does all the communicating. It is unacceptable that so-called national engagement is neither tenant led, inclusive or representative.

Communities Scotland claim that they have a mandate from some tenants to manage this process. This claim is false and

ludicrous. Tenants can not hand a mandate on behalf of other without their consent to anyone. None of it is binding on any tenants group and does not represent the views of other not present or not in agreement. Remote tick-box exercises by consultants are not representative.

The original remit of the Tenant Participation Development Team at Communities Scotland was to ensure landlord compliance with the 2001 Housing Act. Politicians should extricate them from the mess they have created and get them back to the very important task of ensuring tenants get genuine participation with their landlord and on tenants terms.

Local tenants would not put up with their landlord behaving in the manner of Communities Scotland.

What we need, as Jim Murphy MP readily put it, is “delivery not institutions.” We want dialogue on our terms!

John Carracher

Conveners Comment – April 07

Scottish Tenants Organisation

Convenors Report

In the wake of the stock transfer No votes in Edinburgh, Stirling, Renfrewshire and the Highlands, the S.T.O. launched the next part of its campaign – SCOTLAND’S FOR COUNCIL HOUSING in defence of public sector housing.

SCOTLAND’S FOR COUNCIL HOUSING has three main demands.

1. Writing off the historic housing debt.
2. Direct public investment in council housing – with immediate help for the 4 No vote areas.
3. No cheap of free disposals of public land- land to be retained in public ownership for future affordable, rented housing.

It was agreed at our monthly meeting in March that we would produce a newsletter with contributions from across the country to reflect the demands from different areas. This will be used to carry our message to politicians in the run up to the Scottish Elections on 3rd May. We hope to post this on our webside or on the STO blog but you can get your own copy by requesting it. (email the STO at contact_us@scottishtenants.org.uk)

Also we will be supporting and helping to organise a series of Hustings in different areas where questions can be asked of politicians on housing and related matters.

Housing, it seems, is the issue that all political parties dare not mention for fear of having to justify why so many people are without a home or are languishing on waiting lists with only Hobsons choice on offer.

We want to know why so many are homeless, and why the government will not provide the necessary investment through the public sector to ensure that the scandal of homelessness is eradicated. We also want to know why it is that,with housing being a devolved matter, Westminster still decides policy for Scotland. Futhermore, why is debt write off only available to councils which give away their housing stock to the private sector?

2

These are questions that beg answers, but it seems that the media also are not interested, as we struggle to get publicity on these vital subjects.

Corrupt or what?

The Scottish Executive is in affect running it`s own transfer campaign through providing the funds and all the while claiming impartiality.

That is why the S.T.O has also recently asked the Communities Committee of the Scottish Parliament to investigate the role of the Scottish Executive in chanelling money for the establishment of shadow potential recieving Registered Social Landlords which have the express purpose of campaigning for stock transfers. In this practice the Executive sits in judgement of the process and the outcome.

Corrupt or what?

The Communities Committee have turned down our request for an investigation on the grounds that they have a full programme of issues to deal with. This does not equate with what we were promised of the new Parliament.

The Audit Commission tell us that £62Million has been spent promoting housing stock transfer. We won`t let this matter lie.

Demanding an independent into GHA Ltd “ fiasco”

The demand has also been made for an independent inquiry into the Glasgow Housing Association Ltd “ fiasco” .

Following the resignation of Michael Lennon, Chief Executive of GHA Ltd and the revelations that the financial calculations for secondary stage transfer to smaller housing associations had not been included in the original Business Plan, the Scottish Tenants Organisation wrote to Malcolm Chisholm and subsequently his successor Rhona Brankin, demanding an independent inquiry into the whole affair. Her reply was to feign misunderstanding of what we were asking for in the pretence that we were concerned that second stage transfer was not proceeding fast enough. We have no wish to see SST progress, as we want the GHA Ltd returned to public ownership.

3

Missing millions

The Glasgow Housing Association Ltd has been a `bottomless pit` for money from the beginning. Apart from the costs of transfer, there have been repeated `handouts`from the Scottish Executive to bouy up the GHA Ltd. Estimates fot the `missing` cost calculations second stage transfer vary between £196Million and £507Million, plus v.a.t. !

The Scottish Tenants Organisation believes that public money should be spent first in the public sector. The costs of the Glasgow transfer alone would have paid for essential improvements in large numbers of council houses across Scotland.

John Carracher.