Scottish Government

3. PART ONE - REFORMING THE RIGHT TO BUY

Introduction

3.1 This section analyses the response in relation to Part One: Reforming Right to Buy. This part of the paper outlines a proposed package of reforms to the RTB.

Question 1.1

What financial impact would our proposed reforms to RTB have on social landlords, particularly over the longer term? And what steps could landlords take to mitigate this?

3.2 Seventy-eight per cent of respondents (249) commented on the potential financial impact of the reforms for social landlords. Twenty-nine per cent (92) suggested steps that could be taken to mitigate these impacts.

3.3 Overall, the respondents were positive about the financial impact of the proposed reforms which most felt would be limited, offset by rental income over the longer term, and outweighed by the positive benefits of modernising the RTB more generally.

3.4 The most frequent comment (across respondent groups) was that, while landlords would lose income from RTB capital receipts, over the longer-term they would receive rental income from retained and newly developed properties. Many landlords and local authorities stated that the income lost as a result of reducing RTB receipts would be "minimal" or "not significant". This was mainly the case where they had seen "a significant reduction in the RTB sales over recent years and project further reductions in future" (The Highland Council). Many of the landlords responding were charitable RSLs exempt from the RTB and did not think the proposed reforms would have any financial impact on their organisation.

3.5 However, it was broadly recognised that impacts would vary across landlords and that some would be more dependent than others on RTB receipts to support housing investment and particularly investment to bring housing up to the Scottish Housing Quality Standard ( SHQS) by 2015. There was particular concern that councils and RSLs that had acquired stock through Large Scale Voluntary Transfer ( LSVT) may be more dependent on RTB sales. Some respondents were worried that a shortfall could result in greater borrowing and consequential rent increases.

"Any gap in capital investment could be made up from increasing borrowing but this may require an increase in rents to service additional borrowing."

(City of Edinburgh Council)

3.6 To mitigate the impact of the proposed reforms, it was felt that borrowing and rent setting were the main options available to landlords. It was also felt that strong planning (including reviewing existing business plans / investment programmes) and effective procurement methods could help landlords deal with any capital shortfalls.

"Landlords will have to look carefully at how they structure their borrowing requirements and phase their capital programmes. Pressure to meet the SHQS by 2015 remains our most critical challenge."

(Clackmannanshire Council)

"Borrow more to fund improvements, reduce Capital Investment Programme or raise rents." (Stirling Council)

3.7 The CML stated that where landlords were facing financial difficulties it would be likely that their lenders would want to see void properties sold to generate a capital receipt.

"Depending upon circumstances, alternative funding arrangements may of course be capable of being put in place to ensure that the SHQS is achieved but if this is not possible we would suggest that in exceptional circumstances an extension should be given to the 2015 deadline."

( CML Scotland)

3.8 It was also suggested that, in the current economic climate, landlords were already planning programmes in line with reduced income from RTB sales.

"Social landlords are having to adjust now to changes in the economy, resulting in reductions in RTB applications, so they will already be taking steps to mitigate against reduced income and capital receipts."

(Rural and Islands Housing Association Forum)

3.9 Some respondents took the opportunity to suggest steps that the Government could take to help landlords deal with the potential financial impacts. Several local authority and RSL respondents felt that the Scottish Government could help LSVTRSLs by allowing them to keep surplus RTB receipts for improvements to their housing stock. Some landlords and CIH Scotland argued that the Scottish Government should ensure that there is the option of 'voluntary' or 'opt in' sales schemes for landlords where appropriate. However, the majority of landlords did not make this suggestion.

"As a solution to both meeting local needs and mitigating the long term financial impact of ending the RTB, CIH proposes providing social landlords with the flexibility to 'opt into' the RTB where it is deemed necessary for the creation of mixed communities or for sound investment reasons."

( CIH Scotland)

Question 1.2

Do you agree with the definition of new supply social housing provided at section 109 of the draft Bill?

Table 3.1: Responses to Q1.2 by Stakeholder Group

3.10 Ninety per cent of respondents answering this question (239) agreed with the definition of new supply social housing provided at section 109 of the draft Bill. A typical response came from Shetland Islands Council, who said:

"Broadly, Shetland Islands Council agrees this approach as a fair way of bringing about this step change."

(Shetland Islands Council)

3.11 Some of those agreeing with the definition did so with caveats and sought greater clarity on issues such as refurbishments of properties, tenants changing landlord and homes acquired under the Mortgage to Rent Scheme.

"We are generally in agreement with this but not clear what about how refurbishments / reconfigurations of properties would be treated. This should be made explicit."

(Paragon Housing Association)

"We would welcome clarification of how the proposed safeguards for existing tenants would operate where a move to a new supply house involves a change of landlord."

( GWSFHA)

"Clarification is required, however, as to whether properties purchased under the Scottish Government Mortgage to Rent Scheme are included in the new definition of new supply social housing."

(East Lothian Council)

3.12 A significant number of those agreeing (notably RTOs / tenant representative bodies) stressed that the definition should be clear to landlords and tenants.

Question 1.3

If not, what definition do you propose?

3.13 Twelve per cent of respondents (37) proposed alternative approaches to defining new supply social housing. Nearly all of these related to extending the proposed definition. Several respondents took the opportunity to express the view that they would like to see the RTB ended more conclusively by widening the definition of new supply social housing to:

"..all properties let (or re-let) after a set date."

(North View Housing Association)

"The Council proposes that RTB should be ended for all new SST tenancies which are created after the start date of the new legislation, regardless of whether or not the property is being let on a SST for the first time."

(South Ayrshire Council)

3.14 Some felt that the date for defining new supply housing should be earlier.

"A more appropriate date for defining what is new supply social housing would be 30th September 2002, the date on which the Modernised RTB came into effect through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001."

( SFHA)

3.15 CIH Scotland argued that the definition of 'new' supply housing would have to be adaptable over time.

"...looking into the long term future of the legislation, in 20 to 30 years time for example, it has to be questioned whether housing stock built in 2012 can still be defined as 'new' in 2032?"

( CIH Scotland)

Question 1.4

Do you agree with the safeguards we are proposing for existing tenants?

Table 3.2: Responses to Q1.4 by Stakeholder Group

3.16 Nearly two-thirds of those responding (64% - 171) agreed with the safeguards that the consultation proposed for existing tenants. As a group, private individuals were more opposed to the proposed safeguards.

3.17 Many respondents supported the proposed safeguards on grounds that they are "fair" and:

"..give a balance between safeguarding existing tenants' rights and protecting new housing stock." (The Fife Housing Partnership)

3.18 Some respondents stated their opposition to the RTB continuing at all, but said that they would support the safeguards for tenants if the RTB is retained.

3.19 Several of the respondents that agreed 'overall', were opposed to the specific proposal that existing tenants moving to a new supply property would lose their RTB but could subsequently regain the RTB if they move on to another property that is not new. This was opposed on grounds of complexity and consistency with the draft Bill.

"Not only is this proposal potentially cumbersome from an administration point of view, it does not in our opinion, help to achieve what the draft Bill seeks to do in terms of striking a better and fairer balance between tenants who wish to own their own home and the needs of prospective tenants for social rented accommodation."

(Cunningham Housing Association)

3.20 Many of the respondents that broadly agreed were concerned about the situation for tenants affected by demolition and subsequently rehoused in new-build properties. Respondents (particularly RSLs in areas affected by the GHA reprovisioning programme) sought clarity on the entitlements that tenants would have where demolition sees tenants rehoused under a new landlord.

3.21 Consultees that were opposed to the proposed safeguards were concerned that they were complex and unnecessary.

"These appear too complex and allow potential for confusion in terms of tenants moving between houses that may have periods of eligibility and ineligibility. The administration required for keeping track of this over time will be intensive..."

(East Renfrewshire Council)

3.22 Several respondents did not support the arrangements for ensuring tenants are informed of changes to their RTB status, and felt that the potential for tenants to challenge were unhelpful 'loopholes'.

"The idea that if someone is not appropriately informed of their exact personal circumstances properly they may later be able to claim a Right to Buy just leads to red tape, confusion and lengthy and expensive legal actions."

(East Lothian Housing Association)

Question 1.5

If not, which safeguards do you propose?

3.23 Just less than a third of all respondents (32% - 101) proposed alternative safeguards for existing tenants. The most common response was that the safeguards should be amended so that the RTB would end for tenants moving to new supply social housing and that the RTB should not be reinstated if they subsequently move into a property not considered new supply.

Any tenants moving to new supply housing should not have any RTB entitlements on such properties."

( TPAS Scotland)

"Tenants moving from a "new supply home" (as defined) with no RTB and subsequently to another tenancy still should not have the right to buy."

(Ochil View Housing Association)

3.24 Several RTOs / tenant representative bodies and private individuals supported the approach to allowing RTB to be reinstated for those moving on from a new supply home, but argued that discount points accumulated should be frozen at the point where a tenant moves into a new supply property.

3.25 Some respondents stressed the importance of informing tenants of the changes in relation to RTB entitlement:

" RSLs should be able to provide evidence that specific advice on RTB has been given prior to a Scottish Secure Tenancy Agreement being signed for new supply social housing."

( SFHA)

3.26 As part of the Equality Impact Assessment, consultees were asked to consider whether there were any negative impacts from the proposals for particular groups of tenants. Typically, respondents were supportive of curtailing the RTB but recognised that this route to home ownership will be closed to particular groups.

"Low income groups, which may include many BME households, who are already under-represented in the social housing sector, will not have the same opportunities to build up asset wealth under these proposals... These proposals could...also penalise young people who are also most likely to enter the social rented sector for the first time."

( CIH Scotland)

3.27 There were a range of views on the impact on rights for disabled households. While it was recognised that people with disabilities are under-represented amongst homeowners in Scotland and that the removal of the RTB will further impact on this group, it was also felt that:

"Ending the Right to Buy will ensure that fewer accessible homes currently in the social rented sector will be sold and made unavailable to those in the most urgent need."

( SDEF)

Question 1.6

Do you agree that new tenants entering the social rented sector after the date on which the section comes into force should no longer have the RTB?

Table 3.3: Responses to Q1.6 by Stakeholder Group

3.28 A large majority of those responding to this question (94% - 266) agreed that new tenants entering the social rented sector after the date on which the section comes into force should no longer have the RTB. It was broadly supported on grounds that this would help preserve social housing stock and reduce concerns "about the financial costs associated with loss of future stock" (Argyll Community Housing Association).

3.29 Many respondents, while supporting the proposal, highlighted the fact that RTB has had positive impacts in terms of creating mixed tenure communities and providing an affordable route to home ownership for those living in regeneration areas. Consultees want the Scottish Government to consider how these positive benefits can be maintained, building on previous and existing policies to promote tenure diversification.

"If RTB is to end over time we need to look at new ways of creating mixed communities and choice, for example by offering equity options, different rental markets and the flexibility to move in and out of different sectors."

(Glasgow Housing Association)

3.30 Some respondents argued that in order to preserve the positive impacts of RTB there should be greater flexibility than is being proposed, whereby local authorities and landlords would have the option to 'opt in' to RTB.

"We are of the view that the local authorities should be given the discretion to designate specific areas where the right to buy would be available. This could be used by the authority in pursuance of strategic objectives in meeting the needs of specific areas, for example, to promote tenure choice in regeneration areas or to encourage low cost home ownership."

(South Lanarkshire Council)

3.31 A number of respondents were also concerned about the potential negative impact of creating a three tier tenancy system divided between: tenants with a form of preserved RTB; tenants with modernised RTB; and first time tenants with no RTB.

3.32 Several respondents felt that the proposal should be extended:

"..the end to RTB entitlements should also apply to tenants who choose to transfer to another social tenancy, to those who succeed to a tenancy and to those becoming a tenant as a result of assignation."

(West Lothian Council)

3.33 Some respondents also reiterated their opposition to RTB continuing for existing tenancies.

Question 1.7

Do you agree that tenants of other relevant landlords should continue to be given modernised RTB entitlements if they transfer directly to the social rented sector?

Table 3.4: Responses to Q1.7 by Stakeholder Group

3.34 Respondents had relatively mixed views on this proposal. Just over half of those answering the question (53% - 139) agreed that transferring tenants of other relevant landlords should continue to be given modernised RTB entitlements. RTOs / tenant representative bodies were more inclined to disagree with the proposal.

3.35 Those supporting the proposal felt that it was fair and reasonable, although some respondents said that they would like a clearer definition of 'relevant landlords' and guidance on what constitutes a 'break' in tenancy. Several respondents were concerned about increased complexity in the system.

"...numerous different entitlements are proposed depending on individual circumstances and it may become complex and confusing for housing staff to differentiate between the range of circumstances which would apply."

(East Lothian Council)

3.36 Respondents that were opposed to the proposal were also concerned that it could lead to confusion and potentially 'inequality' between groups of tenants. But the main concern among consultees was that extending RTB entitlements to these groups was contrary to the overall aim of preserving social rented stock for the future.

"We believe that existing stock should be preserved as far as possible."

(Williamsburgh Housing Association)

3.37 Several RSL respondents felt that the Bill should not give RTB entitlements that were not previously held by households.

"We think it would be more logical if these entitlements applied only to transferring tenants who already had a Scottish Secure Tenancy with their previous landlord."

(Wellhouse Housing Association)

Question 1.8

Is the scope of proposed reforms to pressured-area designations appropriate?

Table 3.5: Responses to Q1.8 by Stakeholder Group

3.38 Eighty-one per cent of those responding (217) broadly supported the proposed reforms to pressured-area designations . The proposals were particularly well supported by local authorities, RSLs and RTOs.

3.39 Many respondents supported the proposals to strengthen pressured-area designations as they felt it is an effective tool to preserve dwindling social housing stock. Consultees particularly supported the proposal to place decision-making at the local level.

"This will create a more flexible and speedy system for applying and granting PAS where it is required, and will ensure that the process is informed by the evidence contained in the LHS."

(South Ayrshire Council)

3.40 Several respondents were concerned that the process for achieving pressured-area designations is lengthy and bureaucratic and felt that efforts should be made to simplify the system. Others felt that this issue would be resolved if pressured-area designations was set as the 'default' position with applications made to have it removed.

3.41 Consultees that were opposed to the proposal were particularly concerned that unless those holding preserved RTB were included in the designation, extending the scope of pressured-area designations would have limited impact.

"...the proposals will not have the desired effect if preserved RTB is excluded. The types of housing in short supply tend to have very low turnover and therefore the RTB will be prevalent in pressured areas for the long term if the RTB is not removed for all tenants in these areas."

(Knowes Housing Association)

Question 1.9

Do you agree that the maximum designation period should be increased from five to ten years?

Table 3.6: Responses to Q1.9 by Stakeholder Group

3.42 A strong majority of those answering the question (239 - 90%) agreed that the maximum designation period should be increased from five to ten years. Most respondents stated that the previous five year designation was too short and that ten years is a more realistic period to deal with pressure in the social rented sector.

"Since the designation is made due to RTB exacerbating the housing need in the area, it is unlikely that measures can be put in place (such as building additional affordable housing) to alleviate the pressure within a period of five years. It is therefore more realistic to reassess the situation after a ten year period."

(Perth and Kinross Council)

3.43 Several respondents said that they supported the extension of the designation period but were opposed to setting a maximum period of 10 years. Consultees felt that there should be greater flexibility to meet locally assessed needs.

"...we would argue that a time limit of any length is arbitrary and not responsive to local circumstances. Rather, councils should keep the situation under review as part of the ongoing update of their Local Housing Strategy."

(East Ayrshire Council)

"Social landlords' business plans tend to project into the much longer term (up to 30 years in some cases). It would therefore be beneficial for landlords to have the flexibility to specify timescales based on sound financial and investment plans up to 10 years."

( CIH Scotland)

Question 1.10

Do you agree with our proposal to allow particular housing types to be designated as pressured?

Table 3.7: Responses to Q1.10 by Stakeholder Group

3.44 Ninety-five per cent of respondents (253) were in favour of the proposal to allow particular housing types to be designated as pressured. Local authorities and RSLs agreed that this would be a useful approach to preserve house types and sizes that are in high demand / low supply. Landlords generally felt that this approach would be helpful in preserving larger homes and homes for residents with special housing needs, although demand varies with some areas experiencing pressure for smaller sized accommodation.

"There is definitely a pressure for particular house types and sizes, such as family housing, in a number of areas. It is not always the case that a particular geographical area displays pressure, however demand for particular types and sizes can be a pressure across the whole local authority area."

(East Renfrewshire Council)

" In the context of an ageing population where a very large proportion of single pensioners, and a smaller proportion of pensioner couples, live in social housing there is a very strong case for allowing particular housing types to be designated as pressured in areas where there is high demand for small flats, for example."

(Age Concern and Help the Aged)

3.45 SDEF was concerned that the proposal might have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities who want to buy their home.

"Statistics repeatedly show a huge shortage of accessible housing in Scotland. There is a concern that if more accessible homes are classed as pressurized this will create a further discriminatory obstacle to home ownership to disabled people in Scotland."

( SDEF)

Question 1.11

Should Ministers devolve pressured area decision-making to councils?

Table 3.8: Responses to Q1.11 by Stakeholder Group

3.46 Seventy-four per cent of those responding (195) agreed that Ministers should devolve pressured area decision-making to councils. Most of the opposition to this proposal came from RTOs / tenant representative bodies and private individuals.

3.47 Local authorities and a range of other bodies shared the view that councils are best placed to make this decision given their role as strategic housing authorities. This proposal was also felt to be "in the spirit of the Concordat" ( CIH Scotland) between central and local government and recognised the role of councils as the strategic housing authority at the local level.

3.48 RSLs broadly supported this view but several added that it should be clearly stated that RSLs can request pressured-area designations for its area. RSL respondents also felt that there should be a process to review decisions at a secondary level.

"It should be made explicit that an RSL can initiate a request for pressured area designation of its area. And that RSLs can seek an independent review of decisions to reject such a request."

(Cloch Housing Association)

"Where an undeniable case exists and yet is not being implemented there should be scope for this to be raised at a secondary level."

(East Kilbride and District Housing Association)

3.49 RTOs and tenant representative bodies stated that decisions should be made in consultation with tenants in line with the provision of the 2001 Housing (Scotland) Act.

3.50 Several respondents stressed that if the decision-making process is devolved it should be clear and transparent.

"...this must be supported by a transparent, evidence based decision-making process in which all social housing providers and communities are involved."

( CIH Scotland)

3.51 There was some opposition to the proposal principally due to mistrust of councils. RTOs in particular were concerned that tenants' views would not be adequately represented by councils.

Question 1.12

If so, what would be the best way to implement devolved decision-making in practice to deliver a transparent, balanced and soundly-evidenced process?

3.52 Seventy per cent (222) suggested ways in which decision-making would be delivered in a transparent, balanced and soundly-evidenced process.

3.53 Many respondents (particularly local authorities and RSLs) emphasised the need for consistency across the country and supported the production of national guidance. Several respondents felt that the process should be supported by the Scottish Government and Scottish Housing Regulator, and should be subject to a robust audit process.

"Consistency in approach is required in the designation of pressured area status. This could take the form of Guidance or perhaps a checklist of issues to be considered by local authorities in making the decision."

(Perth and Kinross Council)

"Clear guidance or codes with statutory force could be helpful. There may be a role for a "sign off" by Scottish Government or the Scottish Housing Regulator to ensure that due process has been followed."

(Paragon Housing Association)

3.54 Respondents broadly agreed that the process should be based on "robust analysis within strategic planning mechanisms embedded at the local level" (Dundee City Council) with decisions linked to the findings of the Housing Need and Demand Assessment ( HNDA) and Local Housing Strategy ( LHS). Several respondents felt that there should be a clear link between the process for designating pressured areas and the LHS.

"The application and decision making process for designating Pressured Area Status ( PAS) should not be made in isolation from the Local Housing Strategy. The decision to request PAS designation for specific properties / areas / house types should be clearly incorporated and planned for in the Local Housing Strategy action plan."

(South Ayrshire Council)

3.55 RSL respondents felt that individual landlords should have a key role in providing evidence for pressured-area designations .

"Local Housing Strategy should set the overall context and criteria for designation applications and decisions. Individual landlords should be responsible for developing and evidencing the case for suspension at local level."

(Easthall Park Housing Co-operative)

3.56 Many respondents felt that the guidelines should set out clear requirements for consultation with landlords, tenants and other stakeholders.

"Councils should also have to demonstrate that they have consulted with other landlords in their areas, as well as tenants and other stakeholders, including applicants for housing."

(Manor Estates Housing Association)

"Involve tenants and RTOs in all aspects of the process at local and strategic levels. Consideration should be given to timescales to allow this to happen."

( TPAS Scotland)

Question 1.13

Do you agree with the criteria / approach (to developing guidance for applications from RSLs to extend the ten-year suspension) set out in section 1.7 of the consultation paper?

Table 3.9: Responses to Q1.13 by Stakeholder Group

3.57 Eighty-four per cent of respondents (212) agreed with the approach set out for developing guidance for applications from RSLs to extend the ten-year suspension.

3.58 Those agreeing felt that the new approach was necessary and is an improvement on previous guidance.

"..we would agree that the broad criteria set out in the document strikes more of a balance between tenants' rights and housing need..."

(East Ayrshire Council)

3.59 Several local authority respondents added that the criteria should include fitting with wider strategic objectives ( e.g. applications should be in line with findings in the HNDA and LHS) and that RSLs need to take account of local authority views.

3.60 Although respondents had different views about the likely level of RTB uptake after 2012, many consultees supported the inclusion of 'financial impact on other priorities' as a criteria.

"Existing tenants of RSLs will become eligible to utilise the modernised RTB in 2012. CIH members working in RSLs have expressed concerns that should large numbers of tenants decide to buy, this may have significant financial implications for their organisations. In addition, these tenants will be eligible for discount (some dating back a number of years), which could lead to debt or even insolvency for some housing organisations. Therefore, CIH agrees with the criteria / approach set out in section 1.7."

( CIH Scotland)

Question 1.14

If not, what alternative criteria / approach would you suggest?

3.61 Sixteen per cent of respondents (51) answered this question although some took the opportunity to reiterate their opposition to the RTB continuing or the view that RTB should end for all new tenancies.

3.62 Several respondents wanted to see stronger linkage between the process for suspending RTB and the designation of pressured areas.

"We believe that councils should assess whether there is a case for extending suspension of RTB for RSLs based on the overall assessment of housing need and demand set out in Local Housing Strategies."

(The Highland Council)

"Social landlords in a LA area should contribute to a "joined-up" PAS process which will cover all social rented housing within the LA area. This combined approach would ensure that all social rented stock is safeguarded for the future."

(Northern Lights Regional Network)

3.63 Some RSLs argued that there should be an automatic extension of the suspension period and that charitable RSLs should have it suspended without a specified timescale.

Question 1.15

Do you agree that landlords should be encouraged to use their discretionary powers on the continuous occupation rule for ex-service personnel transferring to social housing?

Table 3.10: Responses to Q1.15 by Stakeholder Group

3.64 Respondents had mixed views on this question although it was generally supported by local authorities and RSLs. Forty-nine per cent of those answering (130) were in agreement with the proposal while 45 per cent (118) were opposed and six per cent (16) did not support or disagree with the proposal. Respondents across all groups raised the issue of wording and highlighted that this should refer to ex-regular service personnel rather than any other categories.

3.65 Many respondents agree with the approach to ex-service personnel since they are a group that has less control of their housing pattern than others. These respondents felt that discretion, rather than legislation, was appropriate as there is sufficient existing legislation, cases should be considered on individual circumstances and local housing market conditions will impact on decisions.

"...given that any policies relating to the continuous occupation ruling would need to reflect the local housing market in terms of supply and demand, then it is clear that landlords should be encouraged to use their discretionary powers in this matter."

(Orkney Islands Council)

3.66 There was some discussion of how the issue should be approached when ex-service personnel struggle to find accommodation in the social rented sector and temporarily take up an alternative tenure. East Renfrewshire Council felt that further guidance was required on what would constitute a reasonable break where someone in this situation takes up another type of tenancy. The Joint Service Housing Office (responding on behalf of the Ministry of Defence) was also concerned about this issue and would like to see periods of 'Irregular Occupancy' (where ex-regulars may be placed in temporary or private accommodation by a local authority) not considered as a 'break' in occupancy.

3.67 Many respondents agreed that ex-service personnel were a special group but felt that the issues should be dealt with in legislation rather than by the discretion of individual landlords.

"...this should not be discretionary but a legal requirement with clear and transparent definitions and criteria in place."

(East Renfrewshire Tenants and Residents Association)

3.68 Several respondents disagreed that ex-service personnel should be treated differently from other groups such as people living in tied accommodation. Some consultees argued that they should be treated in the same way as other new tenants (with no RTB entitlement).

3.69 Some respondents disagreed with the proposal on the grounds that it was against the main aim of the Bill to preserve social housing stock. Consultees argued that the main issue for ex-service personnel is finding appropriate housing for them and their families rather than ensuring they have the RTB. Respondents felt that this could be achieved through prioritising applications, and promoting other housing policies / schemes (including low cost home ownership).

"If there is evidence of a particular problem with the ability of ex-service personnel to meet their housing needs and aspirations, surely this should be addressed via the Scottish Government's LIFT schemes, rather than by encouraging further depletion of the social rented housing stock?"

(Angus Council)

Question 1.16

Do you think this should apply in other circumstances or to other groups of tenants?

Table 3.11: Responses to Q1.16 by Stakeholder Group

3.70 A majority of those responding to this question (56% - 134) felt that this approach should apply in other circumstances or to other groups of tenants.

3.71 Respondents across the stakeholder groups felt that discretion might also be applied in situations where tenants have had a break in occupancy due to circumstances beyond their control. Examples included: emergencies such as fire and flood damage; fleeing domestic abuse; and ill health resulting in spells in hospital.

3.72 Many consultees also felt that if discretion is to be encouraged for ex-service personnel on the continuous occupation rule then this should also apply to people living in tied accommodation such as agricultural workers, nurses, fire-fighters and other emergency service personnel.

3.73 Many respondents felt it would be inappropriate to extend this to other groups since it was against the aims of the Bill and would not be a case of preserving existing rights of tenants.

"What is crucial is that we need to be looking for solutions to safeguard stock for future generations of tenants. People with tied tenancies will not have the RTB, therefore are not losing any rights and should be considered as a new tenant entering the social rented sector."

(Eskview Tenants and Residents Association)