Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the witnesses for their attendance and their comments so far. You have all touched on the challenges for your sector, and you know the opportunities that you are trying to develop. There are probably three main issues that you have to contend with day to day: ensuring that people support you by attending your events and venues; managing the fabric of your buildings, which are very difficult to maintain and sustain at present; and managing staff costs and pay awards to ensure that you retain your staff. It is extremely difficult for you to progress without one or all of those areas having to be reduced in some way, shape or form in order to balance your books.

The sector continues to show real prospects, but it is a case of taking one step forward and then two steps back. I commend you all for what your organisations are trying to do to weather the storm and manage the decline in some locations, but there are real difficulties and you are now at the cliff edge, as we have talked about in reports in the past. The extra money is beneficial, but it will not solve the problem and save some of the institutions and organisations that you support and some of the individuals with whom you work.

I have a question for each of you. In the past, the Parliament, the Government and the committee have attempted to force agendas, because we must ensure that the sector is given the opportunities and status that it needs, but we are still far behind compared with other parts of the world and other locations that benefit through tax regimes and other ways of ensuring that funding is parallel to ambitions. We have ambition in Scotland, but, at times, we are not able to make things happen. How can we change that?

There seems to be a mixed view about the regulator, when it comes to trust. You have given a view this morning, and we have heard evidence from others. How do you deal with the impact, and how do you deal with working relationships for yourselves and for associations and individuals? How do you build and maintain trust if there is an issue? We certainly believe that there is an issue.

My second question was about smaller RSLs being nudged to become larger associations. There seems to be the perception of a merger culture.

Thank you.

My questions relate to the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations and Reidvale Housing Association, which you have touched on. Some evidence that we have received has been critical of the attitude towards community-based housing associations and the perceived merger culture. The forum gave the example of Reidvale Housing Association, which it said did not inform or consult tenants about an options appraisal process. It said that the regulator “simply let go” that breach of a regulatory standard. That was the perception.

First, do you agree that, in the case of Reidvale Housing Association, you let a regulatory standard on the options appraisal process be breached? Secondly, how do you respond to concerns that there is a regulatory culture that nudges smaller RSLs towards transferring to larger associations?

The forum’s view is that there should be greater acknowledgement of the consequences of losing a smaller community housing association to a larger one. Can you update the committee on how you would respond to its suggestion about how that can be achieved in practice?

When a smaller RSL moves to a larger one, how do you deal with any promises that are made or the checks and balances that are put in place to ensure that things have been fulfilled for the tenants from the smaller organisation? After all, when there is a transfer, there is a change; different dynamics might become apparent; and tenants need to know that things are being fulfilled. Indeed, what about certain improvements, such as, for example, tenants themselves being involved in the transfer process? How are the checks and balances monitored and the promises kept?

It has been very useful to have you come and give the committee this update, minister.

To reference the information that we have received, the concerns that people had were specifically about air quality and the knock-on effect when it comes to what people can endure if they live in proximity to somewhere that has such issues.

As you have identified, the small number of wood-burning stoves would contribute minimally to the air quality difficulties that people might be concerned about. Many of the concerns have been about the knock-on effect on people’s health. However, you have explained very concisely that that would not necessarily be the case. That is the message that I am receiving from you. Could you reiterate whether that is the case?

My question is for Mr Bain. The fact that the UK Government is now talking about a reset suggests that there could be opportunities in the future. It would be useful to get a flavour of whether you see such a reset as a positive development as far as our ability to continue to trade is concerned, and whether it could unlock the provision of more services in some sectors. Over several months, the committee has taken evidence from individuals, organisations and sectors that have told us about various difficulties. Others have told us how they have developed, progressed, changed and adapted to ensure that trade continues to flow. Could you give us an indication of how you see the whole reset happening and how it might change things?

We have heard that loud and clear from some of those sectors, which have given evidence to the committee about the qualifications, the difficulties that they have and how they are having to adapt or circumvent issues in some ways. Given your trade obligations, what are your real asks as part of the reset?