Plenary, 16 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, January 16, 2003

Official Report 739KB pdf

---

Housing (Private Rented Sector)

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3679, in the name of Johann Lamont, on the private rented housing sector. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the lack of regulation of the private rented housing sector, despite the capacity of that sector to receive public funding through housing benefit; further notes the stark contrast between the obligations placed on landlords in the social rented sector and landlords in the private rented sector; believes that private sector landlords who are in receipt of public funding should be expected to meet minimum standards and procedures in the way that their properties are managed, in order to protect the rights of private sector tenants and their neighbours and to ensure probity in the distribution of public funds, and considers that the Scottish Executive should address these serious matters as a matter of priority.

I am pleased to have secured tonight's members' business debate on the private rented housing sector. I am grateful that the motion has been selected and for the cross-party support that has been shown. I must be fairly high up on the league table of people who have been successful in securing members' business debates, so if anyone wants advice on how to get it done, they should come and see me.

A key responsibility of MSPs is to take action and to work with constituents who are experiencing problems and who bring cases to us. It is also our responsibility to analyse the underlying issues that create individual difficulties. The ability to see a direct link between speaking to an MSP and a development in legislation or practice is one of the things that can build credibility for the political process.

I will outline the case of a constituent of mine to illustrate the problem and then I will highlight the challenges that the case raises. Members might be aware from previous contributions that I have made that constituents often come to me about anti-social behaviour and disorder, particularly in our more vulnerable communities. The case that I am about to describe has had as huge an impact on me as any that has been brought before me, and I cannot overstate my strength of feeling that the problem must be tackled.

My constituents own their own home. They have lived in the area of their choice for 17 years. They brought up their family in the area, and wish to stay there. They are public-spirited people—the very people who strengthen communities. The community where they live is struggling a little and, over time, as owner-occupiers have sold up, private landlords have bought the properties.

In this particular case, a private tenant moved in above the family. His behaviour began poorly and deteriorated: there was fighting, aggression, violence and damage to property. My constituents are reasonable people. They sought to make a complaint to the landlord—a logical thing to do. It is absolutely scandalous that they had to go to the Land Register of Scotland and pay for the privilege of establishing who the landlord was. Having succeeded in getting hold of the landlord, they could not get him to take action. During my meeting with the landlord and the police, I discovered that he did not see that he had a particular responsibility. Indeed, he seemed bemused at the suggestion that he might take some action.

On being asked by me for a point of contact where neighbours could complain to him and let him know the seriousness of the issue, he replied, "I only have a mobile phone. Would you give out your mobile phone number or private house number?" He was none too happy when I pointed out to him that responsibilities went along with the job, and that a mobile phone was perhaps not a sufficient way in which to manage those responsibilities.

The family, who were harassed and targeted because they made a complaint, had to move out. They had to walk away from the investment that their home represented to them because of the impact of the situation on their health, well-being and peace of mind. The community must now be more vulnerable for the loss of those people, who at least had some fighting spirit. It is shocking that a private landlord's lack of responsibility can do that, and that shock is compounded by the fact that public money, allocated through housing benefits, can fund that private landlord's rental income.

I recall a distressing meeting with my constituents. I had agreed to phone them the next day, but they indicated not to phone during the day, as they would both be out working. Then, the wife lifted her eyes to the ceiling and said, "And, yes, I feel like I'm going out to work to pay for the mayhem that's making my life a misery." It cannot be right that landlords can receive public funds in that way without addressing their public responsibilities. I am currently in dialogue with Ian Davidson, the MP for Pollok, about whether some of these matters can usefully be addressed through the benefits system at a Westminster level.

Cases such as the one that I have described create challenges for public policy. I underline the importance of the private sector. I have spoken at length to representatives of the Scottish Association of Landlords, and wish to emphasise that the private sector has an important role in housing provision. The Scottish Association of Landlords is in favour of regulating the sector, as the good practice that has been adopted by some landlords is diminished by the appalling behaviour of the bad.

I thank the Scottish Association of Landlords for taking the time to discuss the issues with me, as well as the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and Shelter Scotland for their briefings and information on the matter. It is significant that Shelter, the CIHS and SAL are united in their support for action in this area.

I turn to the issue's impact on our strategy for community regeneration. In the case that I highlighted, the local area is benefiting from public moneys to create economic regeneration, but at the same time, public moneys are feeding the monster that makes the community vulnerable and fragile. In order to address the problems, I urge the Executive to examine seriously the possibility of an accreditation or regulation scheme, or, as SAL suggested, a licence-to-let scheme. At the very least, there must be a system whereby only houses that meet proper maintenance standards can be made available for publicly funded renting, and whereby landlords, too, must meet standards for tenant management. I further urge the Executive to continue the important work on making anti-social behaviour orders—ASBOs—effective.

Between 1999 and 2001, only two out of the 210 anti-social behaviour orders that were sought came from the private rented sector. We need to consider how to place obligations on private landlords to provide the relevant information to local authorities, so that they can address and promote ASBOs.

Let me summarise my very strongly held views on this subject. My constituents showed great courage and paid a heavy price for being willing to stand up for themselves. Their courage in highlighting their situation must be rewarded with action. I am appalled to discover that public money can be paid to landlords but that landlords have no reciprocal responsibility to provide a decent service to tenants and no obligation to deal with anti-social behaviour by their tenants. I am disturbed that landlords are under no obligation to be accessible to neighbours whose lives are being made a misery by anti-social tenants and that they are under no pressure to act consistently and appropriately against tenants who cause problems.

I am deeply troubled that, at the same time as significant public moneys are being injected into areas to create economic and social regeneration, public moneys are going directly to private landlords, in whose interests it might be to depress house values and who have no incentive to deal with anti-social behaviour, which is creating fragile and fearful communities.

I emphasise that I am not attacking those who are entitled to housing benefit or the many reputable private landlords who provide an important housing service. My target is clear: private landlords who accept public moneys but do not accept their public responsibilities. Anti-social behaviour is a problem throughout housing tenures. We are entitled to demand that private landlords play their part in tackling it. The debate offers the Executive and the private sector an important challenge. I trust that they will rise to it.

I understand that I have two interests to declare: my membership of the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and the fact that I am a private landlord, as I let a property. I hope that my tenants consider me to be a fairly good landlord.

I agree with everything that Johann Lamont said. The story that she told is familiar to many people. When I worked in housing and our tenants suffered because of their neighbours, frustration arose when those neighbours were owner-occupiers or had private landlords, because it was difficult to find out who could take responsibility.

Anti-social behaviour orders have the potential to be more worthwhile. We must research why they are not being used to the extent that they could be used. There are many good private landlords, as Johann Lamont said, and a decent private rented sector makes a great contribution to housing in this country.

The condition of houses is also important, because tenants' rights in private housing are important. I will relate one of my worries about that to the situation in the 1970s and 1980s, when councils and housing associations worked together closely in housing action areas to rid our cities of slum landlords and to provide decent housing conditions, mainly to people who lived in tenements.

I am worried that, in isolated places, we could create a new private rented sector from ex-right-to-buy properties. East Kilbride—the constituency in which I live—has a growing problem of ex-right-to-buy houses being sold to people who want to let them as private landlords. In one area, houses have lost much of their value because of asbestos problems, which are the subject of a continuing argument between residents and the local council. A couple of private landlords are trying hard to buy those properties.

Johann Lamont talked about housing benefit. Such properties are often let at the maximum housing benefit level that landlords know the council will pay. Landlords pocket the money and feel that they have no obligation to such properties' tenants or to people who live round about in the wider community. We need regulation, and we can discuss the best method of doing that. I look forward to the housing improvement task force's report on the matter.

Some people live in tied accommodation, the condition of which is ridiculous. I have seen that all over the country, but mainly in rural areas, where tied accommodation that is let in a particularly bad state can be found on large estates. I hope that the housing improvement task force considers the landlords of tied accommodation when it reports.

I congratulate my comrade Johann Lamont on securing this timely debate. As Johann Lamont said, there are good landlords and there are bad landlords. We have to sort out the bad landlords who, like loan sharks, batten on poor and vulnerable tenants and make their impoverished lives even more miserable with their greedy and grasping concern for rents and nothing else.

I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I can identify areas in my constituency where rent sharks operate. Whole streets of houses, usually of a very low standard, are bought up cheaply and rented out, and housing benefit appears to pour into the grasping landlords' deep pockets. Streets such as Robert Street and the surrounding streets in Port Glasgow were once a decent place to live. They were built for the ship workers and their families—proud, hard-working people who cleaned their closes, kept the noise down, watched out for the kids in the street and were proud to live there. The situation is different now.

Decent people are bedevilled by uncaring landlords and are harassed and plagued by anti-social neighbours, drug dealers, burnt-out cars and dirty streets. The decent, hard-working people who still live there are at the end of their tether. It is disgusting that people have to live in such circumstances. The many decent people who still live there have formed a tenants association, which I have addressed. The Scottish Executive has given money, through the better neighbourhood services fund, for extra policing. That is useful, but it is not quite enough.

Why should public money in the form of housing benefit be poured into the hands of rent sharks? As Johann Lamont asked, how many of those tenants even have a lease or a contract? I suspect that they are very few. The rent sharks should be subject to tough laws that do not inconvenience good landlords, but improve the lives of tenants. The aim should be to give all tenants in the private sector the protection afforded to council tenants and members of housing associations. If someone is offered a council house, they have to sign a missive, which explains their responsibilities as a council tenant and the recourse that the council has if they do not adhere to the rules. Why cannot we have the same system for those in the private rented sector?

We need a national strategy to drive up standards throughout the private sector. Regulation of landlords might be required to set basic standards and to promote good practice. Whatever the solution, we must act sooner rather than later. The motion asks for the Scottish Executive to address the matter as a priority, which I believe is absolutely essential. We should act now.

I congratulate Johann Lamont on introducing the motion for debate on a subject that is dear to our hearts, not just because of the aspects to do with anti-social behaviour, of which I have personal experience. I tried to find the landlord of a property and found that he had moved to South Africa and there was no way for us to get in touch with him. Johann Lamont has covered that issue.

I will talk about tenements, particularly in the heart of Glasgow and the west end where some of the property should be condemned, given its unbelievable state of disrepair. It is not the tenants who are anti-social but the landlords. The tenants are vulnerable people. I have walked up tenement closes with spiral staircases where the railings are falling apart or do not exist and the spaces are big enough for a child to fall through. Nothing is done about it, because no one can contact the landlords, who are the sharks who are taking money from vulnerable people. I will support any legislation that brings them to book and makes them stand up and accept their responsibilities. We can make them do that.

The terrible conditions of the buildings as a whole, once they are sold on, can be described only as pre-war. Many areas in the west end of Glasgow are like that, particularly the many houses in multiple occupation. Nobody can seem to get hold of the landlords, who just abdicate responsibility.

We have to protect people from anti-social tenants, but if legislation comes from the Parliament and the Executive it must protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords. Plenty of people come to my surgery complaining about the conditions that they have to live in. How can we possibly get hold of someone in South Africa who has bought a house in a terrible condition and has let it out to 10 or 15 people? The problem affects not just the people who are living there, but those living next door and in the streets beyond. We must put a stop to such behaviour as quickly as possible, and make sure that legislation is introduced so that people who live in these conditions suffer no further. I congratulate Johann once again on lodging the motion.

I, too, congratulate Johann Lamont on securing the debate, and thank her for introducing the motion to the chamber.

It is undoubtedly true that the size of the private rented housing sector is small compared to private home ownership and the council provision of housing throughout Scotland. However, that sector serves the needs of many different groups of people. I remember well my student days in Dundee when I lived at first in a six-bedroomed flat in Blackness Avenue. Now it would probably be advertised as a penthouse duplex, but it did not seem so when I was resident. Thereafter, I moved on to a house in the west end of Dundee. However, it is not just students who depend on the sector, but 20 and 30-somethings who are at the start of their careers or who are eager to travel to broaden their experience. Rural tenants, too, depend on the sector.

I am indebted to the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland for its briefing, which details the importance of the private rented sector. As its paper states, there are some 162,000 houses in that sector in Scotland, which is 8 per cent of the total housing stock; some 41 per cent of the sector comprises tenement flats, compared with 23 per cent of the overall housing stock.

We all share Johann Lamont's concerns. We all expect private sector landlords to adhere to the highest standards of good practice. I understand worries about lack of regulation, but I am a little dubious as to whether regulation is the only answer. There are other things that we can do. I note that the CIHS supports the introduction of compulsory certification to ensure minimum standards, and a voluntary accreditation scheme. That scheme appeals to me. I hope that, as with a special seal of approval, inclusion in a voluntary scheme would become the gold standard.

I want to consider a point in the CIHS briefing on anti-social behaviour orders. Members from all parties in the chamber will have received representations on anti-social behaviour orders. We all sympathise with the problem, but are thankful that we do not experience similar difficulties. However, the situation is not confined to the social rented sector.

I want briefly to outline a case that I know of, which involves a group of home owners who are all retired professional people living in a flatted development in a leafy suburb. However, they have one difficult neighbour, whose activities have included everything that Johann Lamont mentioned and worse. ASBOs are likely to be their salvation. They have involved other people in their campaign and fear the consequences, as they now face the prospect of fire-raising and other bizarre behaviour. The cause of their problem has now taken to leaving human excrement on doorsteps and bottling urine and pouring it and the liquid from rotting fruit and vegetables over newly washed windows. As in the case that Trish Godman highlighted, the owners are at the end of their tether. The offender is publicly funded and it appears that the resolution might be to section them. The very idea should chill us all.

I support Johann Lamont's suggestion that there ought to be better regulation.

I, too, congratulate Johann Lamont on securing this very important debate. I want to concentrate on Dundee. In common with many other Scottish cities, Dundee has thousands of tenement properties, many of which are in mixed ownership. Achieving agreement between owners to carry out repairs, let alone maintenance, is a time-consuming and often fruitless process.

In many cases, councils are forced to serve notices on owners to ensure that they comply with basic safety requirements. The majority of the properties in Dundee are in the private rented sector and anecdotal evidence shows that the vast majority of tenants receive some level of housing benefit. As a result, landlords are making thousands of pounds in income, often from some of the most vulnerable tenants, and many are giving little or nothing in return.

As a consequence, properties gradually fall into disrepair and become a blight on surrounding areas and other properties. In turn, property prices are lowered, which leads to negative equity with the frequent result that, when owners move, they are forced into renting and the cycle continues. The situation does not affect the traditional late-Victorian tenements alone; increasingly, it is spreading into former council estates because of the right to buy, as Linda Fabiani pointed out. It used to be said that one could spot the bought houses because they had double glazing, but it is now more likely that the bought property is the one without the new windows. It is a matter of importance to many communities throughout Scotland and I welcome Johann Lamont's motion.

I have lodged a motion on the related subject of accessing the registration of ownership in order to allow faster resolution of many problems. Part of the problem is trying to find out who owns the property, particularly when it has become vacant and fallen into disrepair. I ask the minister to consider how the Executive can assist local councils in their work by making records of property ownership readily available to them. That would make their job an awful lot easier. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about that.

I want to address some issues that have arisen in the west end of Glasgow, most of which is in my constituency. The area represents a large proportion of the private rented sector—too much, in fact—and it is a bone of contention that we do not have a housing mix in that area. I hope that the opportunities that might be available in the future are taken to ensure that there is a housing mix—perhaps a harbour development is one to consider.

The inequalities between the private and the socially rented sector must be addressed. It cannot be right that there are powers to regulate social landlords but not private landlords. Johann Lamont has raised such issues not only tonight, but at the Justice 2 Committee, which I convene. During our consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill she had an impact in persuading members that we must have something on interim ASBOs at stage 3. The sharing of information between authorities would go some way to addressing some of those inequalities.

It is my experience that when people bring problems with anti-social behaviour to my surgery, I hope that they are socially rented tenants because I know my chance of dealing with the problem is better—that cannot be right. I signed some sort of charter today, as did other MSPs, and I cannot remember what it was—I hope that I have signed the right thing. Perhaps the bodies that deal with the private sector are thinking about such issues.

There is no fair renting to be had in the private sector. I have constituents—single parents and others—who rent private accommodation whose rent is so through the roof that the benefits system will not accommodate them. Those people have no one to go to for help.

I do not have time to go into detail on the HMO regulations, but I know that Johann Lamont and the Social Justice Committee have been helpful in requesting a review. The regulations represent an attempt to regulate private sector accommodation. The Executive's intention behind the regulations is to be supported. The regulations make clear that there should be windows and fire exits and the obligations on private landlords are clear. However, the practical effect is a problem, which I hope we can address. I have asked ministers for meetings about the matter and I take the opportunity now to plead with the minister to meet me and interested parties. People in Hillhead, in the heart of my constituency, have a lot to offer ministers about their experiences.

Finally, as everyone has recounted their stories of the private rented sector, my story concerns 4 Cecil Street. I am not the only MSP to have lived in that famous street—I believe that three or four of us have lived there, although I will not name names. It was compulsorily purchased by the local authority because it was literally falling down and people were living in dangerous conditions. [Interruption.] The local authority had to compulsorily purchase it in order to demolish it. The land will now be available for the private landlords to take advantage of the higher market value. The campaign in my constituency—I think that the campaigners call themselves the anti-racketeers or something like that—is an indication that that there are more issues out there and Cecil Street only highlights the problem.

Perhaps the message on your mobile phone was from the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, telling you what it was that you signed today, Ms McNeill.

After thanking Johann Lamont for putting private rented accommodation on the Parliament's agenda, I would like to ask, "If the minister is going to meet Pauline McNeill, can I go with her, please?" I would also like to talk to Des McNulty about HMOs. There is a specific problem with HMOs in parts of Edinburgh that were previously known as the leafy suburbs—most unfairly, as they were just full of decent people trying to live in a decent area and bring their children up decently. Those people are now finding that the standards of communal behaviour, which Trish Godman referred to, have fallen.

After the HMO legislation had been in place for a year, a review was carried out. That indicates that there is a need to include tenancy management issues in the registration procedure. I agree with that. I also back the extension of HMO regulations to ensure that the number of HMOs in a given stair or street is limited. For example, there might be a maximum of two per stair. Such an arrangement should take account of past problems with tenant behaviour and resolution of neighbour issues and might ensure that residential areas such as the ones that I have described are not dominated by one particular type of property. It would also help to ensure that mixed neighbourhoods with families, elderly residents, students and others can exist and that the people in them can get along as a community. We must take measures to ensure that a sense of community is once again injected into city living.

I would also like to raise with the minister the issue of mobile homes. It may seem strange, but in Scotland's boom city we have a bit of a problem with mobile homes, and I foresee that the problem will grow, because rents in Edinburgh are so high. I know of one instance of a private landlord who condemned a mobile home on his site. He then bought the mobile home, did it up and relet it. However, no subsequent checks are carried out to ensure that such properties are done up to a suitable quality or that the reasons why they were condemned have been removed.

There is a park homes charter, but it can only make recommendations. There are legal requirements for mobile homes, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Mobile Homes Act 1983, but there are lots of loopholes. For example, there are no minimum fire regulations. Mobile homes are not subject to the HMO regulations, so there is tremendous potential for overcrowding. On a mobile home site, home owners have no legal power to complain about the condition of other homes on the site, even if the value of their own home is at risk. Environmental officers to whom I have spoken—particularly those involved in the outskirts of Edinburgh—have said that their hands are tied. I put it to the minister that some attention should be paid to that specific problem.

I congratulate Johann Lamont on raising an important issue. We should stress the fact that there are a lot of good landlords and that our criticisms are directed at the minority who are not good landlords.

There are various sets of interaction. First, we must protect tenants from bad landlords in respect of the quality of buildings and the way in which they are managed. Secondly, we must protect tenants and the public purse from landlords who fleece the benefits system to the detriment of both the tenant and the public, who are paying much more than they should. Thirdly, there is an interaction between landlords and neighbours who foul up tenants' collective attempts to improve the stair or mend the roof. Then there is the problem of the neighbour from hell. Some tenants misbehave, and it can be difficult for neighbours to deal with the problem because they cannot find out who the landlord is or because the landlord pays no attention whatever.

Like other members, I read the various briefings on the matter and two main concepts seemed to be very good. Compulsory certification would be a sort of standard grade. People would have to write in to say that they had achieved certain standards, and it would therefore be known who they were and that they had achieved those standards. There would be an inspection system, so some of those people would be inspected. Above that is the concept of voluntary accreditation, which would be like highers. That voluntary system would be agreed between landlords, authorities and the community. Perhaps stars could be given, such as those that are given to hotels. Good suggestions have been made about how to improve things.

There are opportunities for dealing with the matter through legislation. I understand that legislation will be introduced on the law of the tenement, which could deal with a number of issues. HMOs are licensed, although such licensing may not always work terribly well. We could extend licensing to other buildings and introduce a tribunal and a much-simplified legal system. There could be a rent assessment tribunal, for example, and opportunities for tenants or their neighbours to bring forward their problems with the landlord.

There are ways forward. At the moment, landlords have power without responsibility and we must nail them down so that those who are failing will deliver on their responsibilities.

I add my congratulations to those that members of all parties have given to Johann Lamont on securing the debate.

I have been struck by the range of speeches, which has shown some of the complexities that are attached to legislating in this area and some of the problems that members want to be addressed. I may not respond to every point that has been made, but I will certainly read carefully in the Official Report what members have said. Over the coming months, I hope that I will begin to see how some issues might be addressed and acted on in due course.

Johann Lamont highlighted the point that where problems arise with private landlords, significant inconvenience and nuisance for tenants and private owners in adjacent properties can result. I will go through some measures that are in place for dealing with some of those issues in different contexts and discuss some additional proposals that the Executive is considering.

The Executive has introduced measures to license HMOs such as bedsits and student flats. I have been advised that such properties represent between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the overall private rented stock, but—as Pauline McNeill pointed out—they are concentrated in certain areas. In such cases, the licensing of HMOs covers management as well as physical standards. To date, such licensing has been successful to a considerable extent in at least beginning to address long-standing issues.

I used to live in Wilson Street, which is probably the street that has the most parties in Glasgow, so I am aware of the issues that can be raised by multiple occupancy and its potential consequences, such as noise and nuisance.

We need to tackle further issues to improve the system of HMO licensing. I would certainly be happy to meet Pauline McNeill in due course to discuss such issues. I could meet Margo MacDonald separately to talk about some of the issues in Edinburgh, which are different from those in Glasgow. I would like to get a different perspective, so I might have joint meetings with colleagues in the two cities on that basis.

It is important to highlight the fact that existing legislation gives tenants some security against rogue landlords. Landlords or agents must follow specified procedures for eviction. They must provide a written statement of the terms of tenancy and, in most cases, a rent book. They are legally obliged not to harass tenants or to evict them unlawfully. There is a requirement that the names and addresses of landlords should be provided on request. We must examine whether those measures are as effective as they need to be.

We have legislated in this Parliament on anti-social behaviour by tenants, on which a number of actions can be taken. Criminal charges can be brought against the anti-social person; the police have powers to seize noise-making equipment; local authorities have powers to make ASBOs; and individuals can seek interdict or non-harassment orders, with powers of arrest where appropriate. I am sure that members would reflect that those measures are all useful, but they do not address the specific issues that Johann Lamont raised, such as what the onus is on the landlord and how we can make the landlord behave responsibly.

I was particularly interested in Johann Lamont's comments about the link between the problems that she highlighted and effective strategies for community regeneration. In that context, the behaviour of some rogue landlords can jeopardise not only the position of individual tenants who live in a specific building, but the process of regenerating an entire community. We must adopt an approach that is based on the context of local housing strategies and consider how we develop such local housing strategies and make them effective in planning and legislative terms.

The Executive has established a housing improvement task force, with a view to raising standards in general and addressing many of the issues that have been raised. The task force is examining in detail the need for various forms of regulation, including alternatives such as comprehensive regulation based on specified physical and management standards to make good practice a legal requirement; registration to ensure that local authorities and tenants have basic information on landlords and their properties; certification that enhances registration requirements to make it mandatory that landlords furnish relevant certificates such as gas safety and fire certificates; and voluntary accreditation schemes to encourage best practice.

Do the proposed new regulations encompass mobile homes?

We are considering those issues in the context of the task force. I will feed Margo MacDonald's concerns about mobile homes into that consideration.

It is crucial that we strike the right balance in taking the matter forward. It is difficult to achieve the balance between a light regulatory touch, which is appropriate in the context of good landlords, and the introduction of effective measures to deal with rogue landlords and bad landlords. There may be more than one legislative means of achieving that. Lyndsay McIntosh referred to what might come forward in the context of legislation on the law of the tenement. Issues might be addressed in other forms of legislation that may emerge from the task force. We must address those issues effectively and get the balance right.

The task force is examining the need to change landlords' obligations, not only in respect of management but in respect of repairs and the need to bring repair standards into line with those for the social rented sector. The task force is also investigating giving tenants a voice in enforcing the standards that are to be applied.

The task force report is expected shortly. I give a commitment to Johann Lamont and to the Parliament that we will look at the task force proposals seriously and take into account the points that people have raised with a view to delivering higher standards and achieving more effective ways of dealing with the maintenance and repair issues and the management issues, which have been highlighted.

The issue of public funds that Johann Lamont raised is difficult, because the reality is that, in the situation that she mentioned, the public funds go to the tenant. Nobody wants to create a situation in which tenants lose out because of the withdrawal of housing benefit. Johann Lamont made that point clearly in her speech.

We need stronger and more effective regulation that takes out bad practice and irresponsible landlordism. We must identify clearly for private and social landlords the terms of their business and we must create circumstances in which the withdrawal of registration, licensing or certification can be delivered effectively. That means that we need effective sanctions and effective local strategies. We are actively working on such measures.

When the report of the task force is published, we will consider options and alternatives. I am sure that the Social Justice Committee, of which Johann Lamont is the convener, will pursue the issue actively. I promise members that we are interested in putting the most effective measures in place as quickly as possible.

Meeting closed at 17:51.