Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Official Report 672KB pdf

---

Public Petitions

---

Pre-1989 Scottish Secure Tenants (Rights) (PE1743)

Agenda item 5 is consideration of two public petitions. PE1743 is an on-going petition and PE1778 is one that the committee is considering for the first time.

PE1743, which is from John Foster on behalf of Govan community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to prevent disproportionate rent increases from being set for Scottish secure tenants. We last considered the petition on 21 August 2020 and agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, Living Rent and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to seek information or views on the issues that are raised in the petition. The responses can be found at paragraph 9 of paper 4, along with an update from the petitioner. A late response from the SFHA has also been provided by the clerks.

I invite comments from members to consider the next steps in light of the responses that we have received.

As I said in our previous discussion on the petition, the petitioner has a valid point. The question of what constitutes comparative rents is a vital legal question, particularly given that, since the 1984 act was passed, we have seen huge growth in the private rented market, huge changes to property tenure—for example, tens of thousands of council houses have become owner occupied—and much greater diversity in housing tenure in local communities. The provisions that were established in 1984 were particular to the tenure and rental markets that existed in 1984, which was almost 40 years ago, so I disagree with the Government’s view that no change is merited.

I understand the Government’s reluctance to introduce primary legislation that seeks to amend, update or reform rental conditions that cover a relatively small number of what we might call legacy tenants—people who are on tenancies that by and large have now disappeared. Nevertheless, that is still a really important role for Parliament. If people are on such tenancies and the provisions governing their rental reviews are out of date, it is incumbent on Parliament at least to consider remedying the situation, even if it affects only a relatively small number of people. It is not their fault that they are in a very small number.

The committee should agree with the petitioner and recommend to the Government that the 1984 act be amended.

I note my former employment with the SFHA.

Basically, I agree with Andy. As our papers set out, there is in effect a loophole for a small number of tenants. We need to act on that, because their rents should not be compared with private sector rents in determining future rent rises. I know that it is not a huge issue for the whole of the social rented sector, but the issue needs to be tidied up. I agree that we should recommend to the Scottish Government that it have a proper look at the issue.

As no other members have any views, are we happy to write to the Scottish Government to say that there is a small group of people who are affected by an anomaly in the 1984 act and to ask the Government to consider how it can remedy that situation? Would that meet with everybody’s approval, including yours, Andy?

Self-evidently, it meets with my approval—I am recommending that course of action.

I was just making sure that I was going in the right direction based on what you were asking.

As it seems that we agree, I will ask the clerks to draft a letter and send it to members for approval.

---

Scottish Landlord Register (Review) (PE1778)

PE1778, by David Findleton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the effectiveness of the Scottish landlord register scheme. Mr Findleton’s view is that councils do not appear to be policing the register and in particular are not applying the fit and proper person test in the rigorous way that was intended when the legislation was drawn up.

I invite members to give their views on the petition, with reference to the options that are set out in paragraph 18 of page 4.

The issue is worth further investigation, and the clerks have provided a useful set of suggestions. It would be useful to refer the petition to the Scottish ministers and ask them to take a look at it. It would be worth giving the issue a bit more thought.

I note that the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence has pulled together research that reveals issues, and some of the feedback from local authorities suggests that the issue needs to be looked at. The report states:

“Scottish authorities ... reported a lack of clear guidelines to inform enforcement decisions, particularly in relation to the application of the ‘fit and proper person’ test”.

I am keen to get the Scottish Government’s views on whether guidance would be helpful. Landlords are represented by the Scottish Association of Landlords. We are not saying that all landlords are not good, but we are identifying that there might be gaps in how the issue is addressed and that could have an impact on tenants.

I have had a number of constituency cases in which the issue has been raised, and I would be happy for us to write to the Government, or take whatever other action we think is appropriate. We certainly should not let the matter slide.

Does anybody else have any other views or want to comment?

I concur with the comments that you and Sarah Boyack have made. The area certainly needs to be looked at, because a number of constituents have had issues in this regard. The local authorities manage the situation mostly through the licensing teams, which check the register and that the regulations are actively being enforced. That is important and should be looked at. I agree that we should raise the issue with ministers so that they can consider the options.

The petitioner raises valid concerns. Some of them relate to how the law is applied by local authorities and some relate to whether the law could be clearer, stricter or more flexible and so on.

I was taken by the report from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence, which highlighted various issues. It said that the relevant legislation was “hastily assembled” and that

“Scottish authorities ... reported a lack of clear guidelines to inform enforcement decisions”.

Therefore, there is a bit of a disconnect between what the Government thinks should be the case, what is actually the case on the ground and, importantly, what tenants feel should be the case, which will be about a mixture of enforcement and implementation, and the legislation.

I suggest that we seek evidence from witnesses as to the particular concerns that the petitioner has raised and on the broader question of whether the landlord registration scheme is deemed to be fit for purpose. I do not think that we will have time to take oral evidence, given that dissolution is a matter of months away, but it would be useful to be informed by written evidence. Obviously, we might have to close the petition at dissolution, if that is what happens to petitions at dissolution, but we could do so by writing to the Government after we have taken written evidence. Probably—this would of course remain to be determined—we could refer in our legacy report to any outstanding issues.

12:15  

I do not support taking evidence. We have to have a look at our workload. We are nearly three hours into this meeting, and we still have a fair bit to go, and most of our meetings that are coming up will probably be similar.

On the point about who is responsible, sometimes the inclination is to always go back to the Government. If the regulations are unclear, that is the right place to go, and I have no problem with that. However, if local authorities are not enforcing the regulations in the way that people expect, that is a question for the local authorities.

If we do not acknowledge that, we will once again be in the position of saying that the Scottish Government must legislate, take action and issue guidance to force local authorities to do this, that and the other. We should have a balance. Maybe we need to take up with COSLA some of the issues that are rightly for local authorities.

I have no problem with taking further action but, to be honest, I just do not think that we have time to take more evidence.

I note that COSLA and the Scottish Association of Landlords failed to reply to the Public Petitions Committee when they were asked to give evidence, which does not bode well.

I tend to agree with Keith Brown. We should probably write to the minister, but I am not sure who else we would write to. I certainly do not think that we should let it lie, because there is an issue. I can speak only for my area, but local authorities use the Government as an excuse to get out of doing what they should be doing, because they find it difficult. We have had a number of cases involving the issue.

If no other members want to comment, we will move on. The suggestion is that we could refer the petition to the Scottish ministers or to another committee or person or body for them to take such actions as they consider appropriate. Alternatively, we could report to the Parliamentary Bureau or to the Parliament, or take any other action that the committee considers appropriate, which was basically what Andy Wightman said. It is pretty clear that we will not close the petition.

I think that we should write to the minister to outline our concerns and see what response we get, because there is no time to take evidence and, even if we got written evidence, that would be another thing that we would have to try to fit into our busy schedule. My suggestion is that we write to the minister and outline the petitioner’s concerns and our concerns. Are members happy to go along with that?

My only concern about that is that the Public Petitions Committee has already written to the minister and the minister has replied. I am not sure what the minister would say differently to this committee.

I understand members’ concerns about the pressures on time. I suggested that we take written evidence. I know that that would involve us then considering the evidence, but if the committee feels that we do not have time, that is perfectly fair.

Perhaps the one thing that we can do that the Public Petitions Committee did not do is to say that we recognise that the issue should be looked at. I do not know what the Public Petitions Committee said, but we could say that we recognise that there is an issue and that local authorities might have a case to answer, or perhaps that the Scottish Government should tighten up the regulations. If we wrote a firmer letter than the Public Petitions Committee wrote, we might get the response that we are looking for. Although COSLA did not respond to the Public Petitions Committee, it might respond to us, so I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government and to COSLA.

I agree with you on that, convener.

We do not have a lot of time. We need to say that there is clearly evidence that needs to be looked at and that action is required. It is not about fobbing off the petition; it is about saying that we want a proper response from the Scottish Government. That pulls together your thoughts, convener, and Andy Wightman’s thoughts. It would be helpful if we also made COSLA and the Scottish Association of Landlords aware of what we are doing.

Yes. Let us hope that they both respond to this committee, given that they did not bother to respond to the Public Petitions Committee. I think that we are clear on what we are going to do on the petition.

That concludes the public part of the meeting.

12:19 Meeting continued in private until 12:42.