Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 04 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 4, 2000

Official Report 248KB pdf

---

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000

Members will have received documents on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000. The committee recommended in May that the order be approved. As members can see, the Abbeyfield Society for Scotland Ltd has expressed concern about the implications of the order for social housing providers. You will also see that the clerks recommend that the committee request further information from the Scottish Executive, Scottish Homes and local authorities on the implications of the regulatory regime for which the legislation provides.

We should support the recommendations, which are a measured and appropriate response to Ian Bruce's letter on behalf of the Abbeyfield Society for Scotland. The fact that this order was approved illustrates the shortcomings in the statutory instrument process. What we were shown in May looked very reasonable and we nodded it through. Issues are thrown up by the fact that often we are given short notice and, as other committees have pointed out, sometimes we receive inadequate information to support our decisions on statutory instruments. I welcome the fact that we have caught this order, but the committee should be aware that there are broader issues.

We will pursue those issues.

The Abbeyfield Society's concerns are legitimate and understandable. The Abbeyfield house in my constituency contacted me about this. I understand that when housing legislation impacted on Abbeyfield in the past, an additional circular was usually issued by the Scottish Office and then the Scottish Executive exempting Abbeyfield, or taking into account its particular circumstances. I wrote to Wendy Alexander for clarification on this at the end of last week. The clerk is right to recommend that we write to the Scottish Executive for further information because it is likely to have considered the unique benefits of Abbeyfield when it introduced this statutory instrument.

I support what Mike Watson said about the deficiencies of the procedures. Like him, I took a certain interest in this instrument when it was approved and held a number of meetings about it. We received some background information, including the suggestion that the charge for licences would be £100 or £200, which seemed modest and would cover the costs involved.

I have now been told that Glasgow City Council charges something like £1,700 per flat for licences. A landlord told me that, so I have written to check the details. I suppose that the council judges that it might have to take cases to court and may incur all sorts of other costs. If the charges are as high as I have been told they are, we are entering into the realm of serious deterrents to people letting houses, which is an important general issue. My information will have to be checked, but I think that other issues are emerging in the background.

The committee should raise the procedural issue that certain statutory instruments should be examined in more detail and that there should be more opportunity for people to give evidence on them.

This has not been one of our happier efforts, frankly. I could see why the order was being introduced. It came before Parliament against a background of certain events involving completely unsatisfactory bed-sit accommodation which, in at least one instance in Glasgow, was connected to a tragic event. That led members of the committee to believe that the order was necessary. The problem is that the issue was not explored in sufficient depth. Subsequently, it has come out that some of the measures that are proposed are draconian, to say the least. They are certainly over the top in a number of respects. The costs that Robert Brown mentioned are the same as were indicated to me in Glasgow and I think that the costs in Edinburgh are about the same.

The committee may recall that, when I asked the Scottish Council for Single Homeless about the matter a few weeks ago, it said that there was no particular problem with regard to loss of accommodation. However, it is clear to me that if nothing is done, we will lose the sort of housing tenure that we are talking about. That could have serious consequences, particularly in areas with universities.

How are the statutory instruments notified to the public before they come to this committee? In the House of Commons, they are published about 90 days before they will be considered. Are they available on the internet for interested parties? Does the Parliament have information on its website about when this committee will consider them? Does it invite people to contact the committee before we consider the statutory instruments so that we can be informed of objections to them?

We have approximately 40 days after a statutory instrument has been given to us. At the moment, it is hit or miss whether we are informed that one is on its way. We usually find out, but only through informal channels. I will have to check what happens before an instrument becomes parliamentary—obviously, it is nothing to do with us until then.

Are the public informed that an order is coming to this committee?

I will check.

We have to deal with the specific issue. Everybody wants to follow the recommendations from the clerk, that is clear. When we have done that, however, we should take some time to consider how we should deal with statutory instruments. The issue has been raised in the conveners liaison group and at the Parliamentary Bureau. It would be useful to work out best practice and raise concerns, as we are certainly going to get more statutory instruments to deal with.

Would it be useful to ask the Executive about the cost element, in relation to what was said in the financial memorandum?

That has already been agreed.

If anyone has specific examples that we can use in our correspondence with the Executive, it would be useful if we could have them by next week.

Do I take it that the clerk's recommendations are agreeable to the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

We now move into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 12:33.