Official Report 488KB pdf
Item 2 is evidence from representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. This is the last stakeholder evidence session before the committee hears oral evidence from the Minister for Housing and Welfare next week.
I welcome from COSLA Councillor Harry McGuigan, spokesperson for community wellbeing and safety; Silke Isbrand, policy manager from the community resourcing team, housing; and David Brewster, senior environmental health officer. I also welcome Jim Hayton from South Lanarkshire Council and Tony Cain from Stirling Council, who are representing ALACHO. Patrick Harvie, who has joined us for the session, is welcome, too.
Good morning, lady and gentlemen. The Scottish Government’s declared vision for housing is
“that all people in Scotland live in high-quality, sustainable homes that they can afford and that meet their needs.”
To what extent does the bill support that vision?
The committee will excuse me if I say a wee introductory piece that might help to clarify where we are coming from. I will then deal with the detail of the question, if that is required.
We are pleased to have and appreciate the opportunity to, we hope, help the committee in its deliberations during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. The COSLA, ALACHO and environmental health teams that are here this morning are anxious to ensure that local government analysis of the bill is presented with clarity and objectivity.
My executive group at COSLA has followed and engaged in the process of preparing for the bill since early last year. The process that was undertaken before the bill was introduced invited and secured wide consultation from a host of stakeholders on particular issues that are relevant to a broad spectrum of housing matters.
The issues that the bill covers were identified, examined and fleshed out during the consultation process, subsequent to which the bill was drafted. We think that an effective, collegiate and productive way of working has been used. COSLA and other stakeholders have engaged fully and have made formal submissions to the relevant Scottish Government consultation process.
There is much in the bill that we believe to be very positive, but there are some omissions, which we feel should be raised and highlighted rather than becoming missed opportunities to address pertinent issues that are faced with increasing and frustrating regularity by housing stakeholders. Those omissions need to be addressed.
I thank the committee for allowing us to come here today. I believe that this is your penultimate evidence-taking session on the bill, and it allows us to comment on some of the other submissions that have been made.
In response to your question, the provisions in the bill on the general housing issues are sound and are consistent with what we have been working for in local government and COSLA, along with stakeholders, for a long time. We want to continue to make that happen in a productive and useful way.
Do you wish to ask us about any specifics in relation to that?
My colleagues will certainly follow up on that. Does anyone else care to comment on how well the bill’s provisions promote the Scottish Government’s vision for housing?
Before answering that question, I say for the record that I no longer work for South Lanarkshire Council. I did until a few years ago; for the past couple of years, I have been fully employed as a policy adviser to the local authority chief housing officers.
I beg your indulgence and ask you to repeat the terms of the vision to which you referred.
Surely. It is
“that all people in Scotland live in high-quality, sustainable homes that they can afford and that meet their needs.”
In common with COSLA, ALACHO, in its response to the consultation, gave a broad welcome to the terms of the bill. In essence, it is about existing houses, the way in which they are allocated and some of the issues that affect the people who live in them—with the possible exception of the proposed abolition of the right to buy. In common with many other organisations, ALACHO has welcomed that as a measure to increase the supply of affordable housing, which we view as the major pressing issue in Scottish housing today.
There is a fair bit in the bill that will help to achieve the vision, not just in the social sector but also in the private sector, particularly the private rented sector, which presents many pressing challenges. The bill helpfully sets out some measures and provisions that will help us to improve the situation in that sector. ALACHO gives the bill a broad welcome.
I make a simple observation about the vision: in so far as it goes, nobody would argue with it. The major policy gap at the highest level—at United Kingdom level and Scottish level—seems to be a detailed articulation of what a stable and properly functioning housing system looks like and of what policy actions are required to ensure that it remains stable in the longer term. In particular, that means directly answering the questions of what we mean by the term “affordable” and what an appropriate balance in tenure mix ought to be across the system.
I am sure that some of my colleagues will get into more of the detail.
I note from your opening remarks, Councillor McGuigan, that you appear to be content with the consultation process that the Government adopted for the bill. Does anyone have any issues with that consultation, or are you quite happy with it?
We think that that is the correct way to work, rather than having a situation in which issues emerge in the bill; that could delay the process and cause considerable frustration.
Consultation is the best way to work. We have asked for that approach to be taken with regard to some of our work with the Scottish Government, and the dividends that we are seeing are good.
From ALACHO’s point of view, prior to the bill there were several strands of consultation on the right to buy and the options around that. There was a lot of detailed consultation on potential changes to housing allocation systems—a big group of about 15 interested parties looked at the options there. There was detailed consultation on the proposal to have a housing tribunal for dispute resolution. Last but not least, there was detailed consultation on measures for the private rented sector.
It was very helpful to have all that done in the past year and a bit. We did not get everything that we sought out of the consultation. I have set out in our submission areas in which we think that the bill could have gone further. The committee may wish to question us about that later. However, in broad terms, as we point out in our submission, we were pleased with the format of the consultation and its inclusive manner.
We move on to specific sections. Alex Johnstone has some questions on the right to buy.
You have all made it clear that you are in favour of the abolition of the right to buy. What benefits do you see that bringing to social landlords and their tenants?
We think that the abolition of the right to buy is absolutely necessary if we are to be able to meet the requirements and demands for housing in our communities. We feel that the timescale for that—the bill proposes three years—can and should be shortened to a more reasonable length. There is some nervousness that the timescale could result in a gallop towards homes being purchased before the deadline. However, there is no evidence that that happened when right to buy was abolished in relation to pressured area status.
We welcome the abolition of the right to buy. We have to find a balance between the European convention on human rights and the desperate need in our communities for affordable social housing.
As with almost all aspects of housing policy, the right to buy is a decision about competing priorities. There are some difficult decisions to be made. As we said in our submission, we fully acknowledge that there are trade-offs there. Many people in Scotland—perhaps the majority—still have legitimate aspirations to home ownership, but that has to be balanced against what we see as some fairly pressing needs on the affordable housing side. From memory, I think that Scottish Government statistics record that there are about 140,000 people on waiting lists.
We came to our view by weighing up the pros and cons of retention versus abolition of the right to buy and concluded that, in the current climate, having available in perpetuity a supply of affordable rented housing that would otherwise be lost to the sector outweighed the legitimate aspirations of some people—going by sales in the past few years, a significantly reduced number of people—to owner occupation. We think that that was a rational decision, based on an assessment of the competing priorities.
In terms of the operation and strategic planning of the provision of housing services, one of the key issues with the right to buy is that it makes it almost impossible in the longer term to be clear about the asset base and the long-term income streams that are available in managing that stock and developing services. In particular, with regard to meeting housing needs in rural communities, if people cannot be certain that the provision that they have put in place today will still be there in 10 years’ time, they cannot be certain that they will be able to meet those needs in the longer term.
There are settlements in my area in which, 20 years ago, I would have argued very clearly that we had met the housing need and that there was a sufficient supply of affordable rented housing. That supply is now almost entirely eroded and it will be difficult to go back into those rural communities and find suitable sites for the provision of additional affordable housing. As long as the right to buy remains in place, there is a substantial issue with regard to long-term strategic planning for investment stock and meeting housing needs.
10:15
Jim Hayton said that abolishing the right to buy would increase the supply of affordable housing, but in reality the people who tend to buy their council houses would tend to remain as long-term tenants anyway. For every 100 people who are denied the right to buy when they want to, a very small proportion—perhaps as few as 1 or 2 per cent—would be likely to vacate the property as an alternative to buying it. Abolishing the right to buy would not therefore free up much property in the first instance, would it?
Our analysis is a wee bit different: we contend that abolition would free up significantly more than 1 or 2 per cent of properties.
Are you suggesting that people who would wish to buy their properties will, once they are denied that right, vacate the houses that they currently occupy?
They may do, depending on the state of the housing market and how strong their aspiration is. Several things are affecting the right to buy, not least the significant change in the past few years in the discount provisions, which has resulted in demand tailing off significantly. We took those factors into account and concluded that in a majority of authorities—although, as with most things, there would be some differences—the advantages would lie in abolishing the right to buy.
You see the effects on the affordable housing supply as long term rather than short term.
Yes.
Does anyone else have a view, or a different view, on that point?
There are many people in our country who opposed the right to buy at the outset because—as we stated clearly and categorically—only certain types of property would be bought. We now find ourselves in a situation in which people who bought their homes through the right to buy are indeed moving into other homes and using the ex-council house for collateral. In our view that creates a situation that is grossly unfair, because stock that would have been available for ordinary people who cannot afford to buy their own home has been lost and is simply being taken over by people who can afford to buy it. That is a dangerous precedent to set in our country.
There is plenty of statistical evidence that suggests that the right-to-buy policy was withering on the vine in Scotland and that the numbers in recent years are a tiny fraction of what they were at their peak. I believe that fewer than 1,000 houses a year are now being bought by their tenants.
The proposal to abolish that right is, ironically, likely to cause a spike in the number of tenants who take up the right to buy. We heard anecdotal evidence from a housing association representative at our meeting in Dumbarton last week that there had been a significant increase in the number of applications and expressions of interest that had been received. Statistical evidence has also appeared in the past week that shows that the number of expressions of interest is already 50 per cent up on what it was at the same stage in recent years.
By proposing the abolition of right to buy, are we making the problem worse rather than better? Will we lose a large section of our available affordable housing stock in the process of ending the right to buy?
It is interesting that you say that the information is current and has come out just this week. We would say that there is no strong evidence that there is a housing spike and that people are rushing to buy before a particular deadline.
In my opening statement, I mentioned the removal of the right to buy from areas with pressured area status. The spikes did not materialise in that situation as many people thought they would. I can say only that the information that we have does not concur with the information that you have.
So you feel that there is no danger that we will see teams of young men going into council estates, knocking on doors and offering to lend people the money to buy their property while the opportunity is still there, which is what happened in the housing market in the past?
We would certainly hope that that does not happen.
I, too, would hope that it does not happen. However, I have grave concerns that, by moving to abolish the right to buy, we are accelerating all that is negative about it in an attempt to prevent all that is positive about it.
No, I do not think that we are. We are sending out a clear message about the priorities that we are addressing in our communities, where there is a desperate need for affordable housing for people to rent. That is what we are aiming to do.
You will have people coming to your surgery who are in dreadful situations, and that misery has to be dealt with. We have to maximise the housing resources that will be available for use. We have to build more houses too, but abolishing the right to buy is an important step in the right direction. I do not think for a minute that we will see teams of people going round housing estates chapping on doors and asking people to buy their houses—that is a dramatisation of the reality.
A dramatisation is potentially what I am talking about. I am looking into the future to see what would happen, and my concern is that, although by ending the right to buy in this way at this time we may be saving 20 or 30 houses throughout Scotland to be re-let in any one year, we may in doing so see 10,000 houses sold to their occupiers.
No, I do not think so.
With regard to strategic planning in public sector housing, we manage our stock and investment over a 30-year period, and we are currently planning—or assuming—that we will sell something over 10 per cent of our total stock over that time under the right-to-buy policy at the current levels of sales. It may well be more than that, depending on how the mortgage market and other things change.
It is possible—although we cannot predict what will happen—that there may be a rise in right-to-buy sales in the next 18 months to two years or however long the sunset clause is for the right to buy. However, it is preferable as a way of extracting ourselves from a policy position that has definitely had its day—whatever its relative merits were in 1980—to take the risk and go through that process to get to a place where it is possible for us to plan the provision of housing over the long term.
Alex Johnstone’s point about buyers not necessarily moving on immediately is fair. However, it is clear that something up to a third of all the properties that have been sold under the right to buy are now in the private rented sector and that the right to buy is, in the longer term, driving the growth of lower-quality private renting in many already pressured communities, which is problematic.
We are all aware that there has very recently been information in the press about an anticipated 50 per cent spike in sales. However, we have been following the issue for quite a while—Councillor McGuigan has outlined our mechanisms, such as the executive and task groups. Only a couple of days ago I received evidence from Perth and Kinross Council that there is no expected spike or rise in sales, and we also have the evidence from the move to pressured area status. The evidence that we have certainly contradicts what has been in the press only a couple of days ago.
Where do you think that the press might have got the idea that there is a spike?
I do not know.
We do not think that that idea can be substantiated. Alex Johnstone says that it is profitable for gangs to go round chapping on doors and asking people to buy, saying, “We’ll provide the money,” and so on. Of course it is: that happens and will continue to happen right up until the moment that the legislation is approved. However, it is wrong that it should be happening and that there are situations in which a landlord can buy up to three, four or five ex-council houses in North Lanarkshire. There is something seriously flawed in accepting that as good, sensible housing policy. It is an abuse, in capital letters. Tenants are not only buying their own home, but arrangements are made whereby in certain circumstances an individual can buy their auntie’s or mother’s house. We should tackle those things directly, and with fierceness.
One other issue that I need to ask about and which you have not covered is the three-year period, which was mentioned earlier. What is your view on that and on how we could do things differently without contravening the human rights of individuals?
That has to be looked at in the light of trying to find a balanced position between the rights of an individual and our need to retain and grow an affordable housing stock. As far as pressured area status is concerned, there were no ECHR referrals at all. If we handle the matter properly—and with sensitivity, because some people will face disappointment—and in a sensible timescale that tries to find that balance, we think that it will be manageable. That is the right way to go about it.
Councillor McGuigan has highlighted the number of ex-local authority houses that become private rented houses. It would be fair to look at it the other way and say that a lot of the private sector homes are ex-local authority. That brings with it the variable standards of management that we know about in the private rented sector. Where benefits are involved, there is evidence to suggest that we are paying out more in benefits where the same homes are in the private rented sector than we would have been when they were local authority or housing association homes.
The other practical thing that local authorities have to deal with is situations in which parts of buildings have been sold as private homes. In such cases, maintenance becomes considerably more complicated, and that was never considered in the original right to buy.
Mary Fee has some questions on social housing.
Provisions in part 2 of the bill are aimed at increasing social landlords’ flexibility in allocating housing. They also make changes to reasonable preferences. Do you think that the changes proposed are the right changes, and what impact do you think they will have?
Our response to the consultation states explicitly that we broadly welcome the proposed changes. We are not certain that most of them will make a huge amount of difference, but they are adjustments to the system that should be helpful. That includes amending the reasonable preference category, which is a relatively minor change that adds underoccupying tenants to the existing categories, but it is helpful nonetheless.
Some of the other proposals are also welcome, such as the new duty on local authorities and RSLs to consult applicants and tenants. Being able to take age into account when allocating social housing is something that councils particularly welcome, as they have thought for some time that that is a commonsense change to the current arrangements that will enable councils to make decisions that help to promote sustainable communities. For example, they could designate certain blocks as suitable for older people and invest in the infrastructure and support services required to adapt the block and make it suitable for that group.
We fully accept that change needs to come with some safeguards about people’s rights, and we think that that can be done. We argued strongly that the ownership of property should be taken into account. It is not a frequent occurrence, but it does sometimes happen that people are allocated social housing when they already own a house. In the past there was limited latitude for councils to do anything about that, and the bill helps with that. Equally, there is provision elsewhere that allows us to grant a short tenancy to owners, to tide them over in certain situations where they may be trying to sell a house.
The other provisions relate to suspensions, and we are not at all unhappy about the Government clarifying that. We would be happy to work with Government on the guidance and regulations that may support that. Suspension can happen in situations where applicants may have committed some antisocial behaviour or criminal offence in the past, and councils will want to ensure that there is time for people to reflect on the consequences before they are allocated housing. In broad terms, however, we are content with that too.
I guess that the answer to the question is that, in broad terms, we welcome the provisions and are happy to think about the guidance and regulation that will be needed to bring them into effect.
10:30
Just to add to that, it is very important that local authorities and registered social landlords are able to manage their housing stock in a way that is best suited to and well understood by the local communities. If special types of circumstances arise, it is grossly unfair if they are not recognised and given credence because an allocation policy is riveted in a certain fashion. We believe that subject to special cases, including age and income—that is another matter that we feel should be considered—we should be able to have the flexibility to manage our housing stock in the best possible way for all of the community. It is not about discriminating on the basis of age or anything else.
Quite sensibly in our view, a lot of the provisions come with the right of review or appeal for anyone who might feel aggrieved by them. We are more than happy to have such a provision as a safeguard and are content to work with the Government on how it would be implemented in practice.
I just want to make a simple observation. The provisions strike me as a sensible modernisation of the law as it stands on the issues. The one point that I would make is in relation to taking into account the existing ownership of a property. I have regular conversations with tenants and applicants who do not understand why we would allocate a house to a home owner. They generally assume that we have done so either by mistake or because we have been duped. That impacts on the credibility of our allocation processes.
In any event, the practice results in an inefficient use of the overall stock and resources. We make landlords of tenants. In Stirling, about five or six owners a year, principally older ones, will be allocated a council house and will be left with their own property as well. It might not be a large number, but it is obvious and visible in the communities and it impacts on the credibility of the way in which we manage our stock.
Mr Hayton raised the issue of age. The bill will allow social landlords to take that into account. We have heard varying views both supporting and opposing that change. For example, Shelter and the Govan Law Centre are not supportive of the change, but the Chartered Institute of Housing thinks that it would be a useful measure. Shelter said in evidence:
“The fundamental principle of social housing allocation should be that it is based on a framework of need and ... circumstances”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 22 January 2014; c 2436.]
I take it from your comments, Mr Hayton, that you do not agree with that and that you are quite happy with the proposals.
Yes, I do not agree with that. Shelter does not manage social housing and does not necessarily have to deal with the fall-out when people perceive that councils have made decisions that are not in the interests of the folk who live in a particular block, for example. Councils would absolutely accept that the principle should be based on need, but that should not involve following a set of rules blindly without regard to the make-up of a community and what is likely to lead to sustainability and peaceful coexistence rather than the creation of friction. It is not social engineering; it is about allowing landlords to make sensible decisions in the interests of a sustainable community life. For that reason I would disagree with Shelter’s view.
Does anyone else want to comment on that?
My observation is that, in preparing and approving allocation policies, local authorities are also required to prepare equalities impact assessments. To the extent that we are accountable for the EIAs through the statements and the challenges that can be made around them, the risk of discrimination is minimised.
And of course social landlords have to justify objectively how they are allocating. Is that quite easy to do? Are there enough safeguards in that for you?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay. That is a straightforward answer.
We would always expect to be accountable. I absolutely accept the right of organisations such as Shelter to hold us accountable. If they thought in future that there were instances when local authorities had been discriminatory, we would expect to be asked about them and to have to justify our decisions on commonsense, sustainable community grounds. We would be happy to do that when the time comes.
For example, if we allocated to a family with four children a house in, say, a block of flats that had only one stairwell and which already housed 12 children among the families who lived there, that would be problematic. We need to manage the stock in a way that is sensitive to the needs of all the people who live in the estate, and sometimes it makes sense to say, “Look—we can allocate this house in a different fashion.” It is not a matter of discriminating against anyone. Would you agree with that, Jim?
Yes.
At our recent Parliament day event in Dumbarton, tenants and tenants groups told us that they would like to become more involved in the letting process and, indeed, the council’s decision-making processes. Do you think that that would be a good thing? Should they become more involved?
Yes. I think that people and communities should become more involved in the decision-making processes that affect their lives. We welcome such involvement and try to engage constructively with tenants, residents associations and so on to ensure that their voices and ideas are heard. After all, they are the experts in their own communities. I am therefore 100 per cent behind that suggestion.
However, we also have to be a wee bit careful that we do not simply assume that everyone or every organisation that presents itself as the spokesagency, if you like, for a locality represents that locality. As you will have seen—and as I certainly have seen—it is very often a small clutch of people who purport to represent a whole area. They are well intentioned, but sometimes they, too, miss the point.
That said, I certainly want greater integration between the communities and the decisions that affect their lives. I think that we can work towards that aim—indeed, we are doing so—and that provisions in the bill will assist us in that respect.
Do you think that the more involved local communities and tenants are, the less likely you are to have problems with flexibility, allocations and the age stuff?
We run a better chance of making people feel comfortable if they know why things happen and if such information is shared fully with them. We will also create more confident localities and neighbourhoods. That is the kind of subsidiarity that I like and for which I have campaigned all my political career.
I broadly agree that tenants and residents should be involved in the formulation of the policy; indeed, as has been pointed out, there is a new duty to consult applicants and tenants when reviewing allocation policies. That is the best place for tenants to be involved. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we allow panels of tenants to decide who should be allocated housing; there needs to be a balance, but tenants should certainly be involved in decisions on allocation policies and in looking at their area’s local needs and helping to decide priorities very much within the constraints of the existing legislation.
Thank you.
Mark Griffin has some questions on tenancy changes.
The bill makes some changes to the qualifying period for joint tenancies, subletting, assignations and successions. In its written submission, COSLA has said that it would prefer the power to assign to be given to the social landlord instead of its remaining a tenant’s right. Do you agree with the changes to the qualifying periods and have you any other comments about the section in question?
I will answer the question directly and then ask Jim Hayton and Tony Cain to provide some more detail.
We feel strongly that the subletting and assigning of tenancies should be the business of the landlord, not the tenant. In other words, the right of assignation should shift to the landlord. As a member of the same local authority as me, Mr Griffin, you will have seen some very clever abuses of that very situation, with assignations being carried out in a way that is anything but consistent with fairness in the allocation of property.
Yes, I broadly agree with that. ALACHO was one of the groups that argued that landlords should have the power to make such decisions rather than assignation being a right of the tenant, but we are happy with the halfway house of extending the qualifying periods—essentially, for the reason that Harry McGuigan outlined and indeed for the reason that Tony Cain mentioned earlier about the credibility of the process.
Every single housing manager could tell stories about perceptions of abuse of the system, where someone has moved into a house and has claimed to have been living there for some time in order to succeed to the tenancy or where tenants decide to assign the tenancy to someone who almost certainly would not have been allocated that house on the basis of housing need.
Although the changes have not perhaps gone entirely the way that ALACHO would have liked, we think that they are a good move in the right direction and we support them.
Are you able to talk about any of the problems that councils have had when tackling and trying to solve problems with tenants’ antisocial behaviour, including any problems that councils have had with the use of short Scottish secure tenancies and any court action where councils have sought to evict tenants?
One of the big disappointments for COSLA in the bill relates to initial tenancies—some people call them probationary tenancies, but they are initial tenancies. Initial tenancies are useful and they should not be interpreted as being an attempt to make it easier to evict tenants for antisocial behaviour or for other reasons. We feel that initial tenancies provide us with a tremendous opportunity to help new tenants to understand what their responsibilities and rights are and to work with us as a group to ensure that we can minimise the likelihood of antisocial behaviour developing.
As far as initial tenancies are concerned, Jim Hayton may come in on the more general point about antisocial behaviour and what tools we have. I think that we have to look more deeply at the tools that we currently have and bring in more innovative means to deal with the issue.
A good approach is being adopted in North Lanarkshire at the moment in areas where the housing stock has unattractive features and there are stories about antisocial behaviour and so on that mean that people do not want to be housed there. Instead of allocating a house to an individual, who moves into such an area and immediately has the perception that they are vulnerable and on their own, there has been a move towards allocating collectively, with maybe four or five families going into a particular block or a particular area at a particular time.
Those four or five families have had the opportunity to meet and talk to one another and to get a feel for the aspirations that they each have for the new houses that they are moving into. That provides a degree of security and confidence as they move in. We find that people are moving into the houses and they are not retreating in the face of some of the bad practices that happen in the area. That is a particular example of what might be a good innovative practice. It is only being experimented with at the moment, but that is the kind of thing that we need to build on.
I have spent more than 30 years working in housing, and dealing with antisocial behaviour is probably the most intractable housing management problem that housing managers face. It is a huge issue for tenants. I have not read the Official Report of the committee’s meeting in Dumbarton last week, but I would be very surprised if antisocial behaviour did not figure largely on tenants’ agendas too. I guess that what is behind Mr Griffin’s question is the extent to which the bill will help landlords to deal with that problem.
There are some welcome measures that will help landlords to deal with substantive elements of the behaviour and that will go some way to convince tenants that landlords are not completely without power and therefore credibility in the area. A frequent criticism that councils and RSLs face is that we are unable to deal with such problems when they emerge and that the court system takes far too long to sort out problems for people. Some tenants say that they have lived with serious antisocial behaviour for three years or more.
10:45Therefore, we welcome some of the provisions in the bill. However, on the surface, other provisions look as though they will make our lives a wee bit more difficult. An example is the increase in the minimum term of an SSST that is granted for antisocial behaviour from six to 12 months. If a person has a short tenancy because of previous antisocial behaviour and they persist with that behaviour, neighbours will have to put up with it for 12 months, rather than six. So there are disadvantages, although there are measures to balance that.
We very much welcome the new requirement for courts to grant an application for a possession order that is made within 12 months of a tenant’s conviction. Unfortunately, some people have suggested that that is an open door for councils to evict people willy-nilly for things such as dropping litter or playing football on the street. We are not talking about that, and nothing could be further from the truth; we are talking about serious criminal or antisocial behaviour. It could be someone who has been dealing drugs and causing all kinds of problems for years and has then been convicted. Is anyone seriously suggesting that councils should reinstate that person or allow them to continue to live in the tenancy, and that they just need some support? When that happens, councils lose all credibility with tenants.
With the proper safeguards and the right guidance and regulation, that kind of measure will be helpful to landlords in dealing with antisocial behaviour. To the extent that the bill contains such measures, we welcome it.
The topic of antisocial behaviour always features strongly at meetings of the cross-party elected member task group that, as Councillor McGuigan outlined, we set up specifically to consider the bill. The general feeling of the group is that the proposed changes are a useful addition to the local authority toolkit. However, local authorities are still struggling with a number of issues. There are mixed-tenure blocks where antisocial behaviour arises from private properties, which links to the discussion that we had earlier about the right to buy. There is recurring low-level antisocial behaviour. The problems are different across the spectrum.
The general feeling is that the proposals in the bill are welcome but that the problem will not go away as a result of those proposals, so we need to continue to look at the issue. We need innovative practices as much as other methods. As Councillor McGuigan said, initial tenancies are a key issue. Another key issue is our disappointment, which we expressed in our written submission, about the fact that the bill does not introduce a housing tribunal for the social rented sector.
We will come on to that.
When the committee has raised the concerns about the increase in the minimum period of short SSTs from six months to 12 months, we have been told that many people who engage in antisocial behaviour have underlying issues, such as mental health issues or learning difficulties, or just living in a highly stressed environment. Alternatively, it could be only one individual in a household who is carrying out antisocial behaviour, rather than the whole household. Does the use of short SSTs sometimes exacerbate the situation and make things worse, which would mean that, actually, the move from six months to 12 months is welcome in those circumstances?
The short-term tenancy can be used effectively, but I do not know whether the evidence suggests that it would be more helpful to have a 12-month tenancy. We use the arrangements to ensure that people with mental health problems are supported; indeed, it is well understood that support is provided in that regard. However, a worrying issue relates to antisocial behaviour that is caused by other residents in the house as opposed to the tenant. We must make it absolutely clear to the tenant that they have and must accept some responsibility for the conduct of others in the home. I will let Jim Hayton speak to the detail.
As I said in response to a previous question, a short-term tenancy can be a mixed blessing. If there are issues that the council or agency can genuinely work with, a longer period could be helpful to make sure that a person gets the necessary support.
We have a particular issue with co-ordinating services for people who might be in need of support, so some of us have high hopes for the new health and social care partnerships that are coming in next year. In our profession, we sometimes feel that housing is left to deal with people’s problems that may have wider roots beyond those related to their housing problems. You mentioned some of those problems, which include substance abuse or health or mental health problems. We have high hopes that better-integrated working with our colleagues in health and social care could ensure that the support that people get is holistic and genuinely helpful in sorting out their problems. However, if the behaviour is intractable and continuing, we must accept the possibility that the extension from six to 12-month tenancies would work against rather than for us.
What are your views on the proposals to simplify the eviction process in cases of antisocial behaviour? Is there potential for tenants to be continually moved around the housing stock in a local authority area, leading to cycles of antisocial behaviour in different places, rather than addressing the problem?
Simplification is not something that we would accept as far as antisocial behaviour is concerned. Antisocial behaviour is a problem that we try very hard to deal with. The idea that any of the proposals that we are arguing for, such as initial tenancies, are being put forward because we feel that we need to be able to evict people more easily is a nonsense. We must continue to work with people in the situation that they are in. If we cannot find solutions to that situation, there must be interventions. Silke Isbrand talked about that with regard to the toolkit. An examination must take place of what other ways there are to enable us to deal with the antisocial behaviour scourge because it destroys lives—you know that and I know that. Jim, do you have anything to say?
I have nothing to add to that. Tony, do you want to say anything?
I will say something about the credibility of the management function. Communities have a reasonable expectation that people will be held accountable for their actions. It is very difficult to remove from a home people who are perpetrating acts of antisocial behaviour, but our failure to deliver a response impacts directly on our credibility as a landlord and people’s view of and willingness to engage in that process. If there are no outcomes and problems are not dealt with, people will simply stop reporting issues and withdraw from being prepared to give evidence and assist in tackling the problems. The ability to remove individuals whose behaviour is, in the end, beyond the pale, make them accountable for that behaviour and demonstrate that to their neighbours is a critical part of the process.
If we then need to engage with that individual in another context to assist them in improving and managing their behaviour—their drinking or their drug abuse—so that they can move on to a more stable environment, we need to do that, too. The answer is not to leave them where they are while you try to come up with solutions to the other problems. In some circumstances the answer must be that you have to remove people and then move on from there. A consequence must be demonstrated.
You might be going to ask about tribunals, which have been mentioned. We are disappointed that there will be housing tribunals only for the private sector. We think that the bill represents an opportunity to identify a problem early and to start the work that needs to be done to solve that problem at an earlier stage and thereby avoid the long, drawn-out court processes that we have to go through at the moment. We hope that lessons will be learned from the private sector that can be applied to the social sector.
I will come on to that but, before I do, is there anything else that could be included in the bill to address antisocial behaviour and its root causes?
The point has already been made: in the council sector, in particular, we strongly believe that the bill has missed an opportunity to bring in initial tenancies. I do not know whether the committee was going to come on to that.
The evidence from south of the border suggests that initial tenancies are successful, that they are a valuable tool in the toolkit, that they do not increase evictions and that they allow landlords to engage with tenants in the critical first year of a tenancy to emphasise that a secure tenancy is a valuable currency. At the same time, initial tenancies provide a meaningful sanction; they say to tenants, “This is a valuable commodity, but it involves expectations of behaviour on both sides. The landlord has obligations, but you have obligations, too, both to the dwelling and to your neighbours.”
Although initial tenancies would not have been a panacea or a silver bullet, they would have been a valuable addition to our toolkit. We were very disappointed that the minister decided not to include provisions on initial tenancies in the bill, as that means that we will not have the chance to consider them. We still think that it would be worth having a look at the evidence. Initial tenancies will not solve antisocial behaviour, but they might go some way to helping to prevent it and to mitigating the consequences of it in future.
It is also worth saying that some of the evidence that was submitted was clearly along the lines that Jim Hayton highlighted, so it is difficult to understand why the Government decided not to proceed with initial tenancies. The evidence—certainly that from tenants organisations—was overwhelmingly in favour of proceeding with them. The issue might need to be looked at again. Questions should be asked about why it was decided not to proceed with initial tenancies on the basis of a minority view from some quarters.
The transferring of social rented sector cases to the tribunal, along similar lines to what has been proposed for the private sector, has been raised repeatedly by witnesses. The Scottish Government has said that, because of the court reforms that are going through, increased use will be made of mediation, which will create the potential for improved outcomes for cases that go through the courts. Do you think that that is enough, or do you still support a move to the use of tribunals, as has been proposed for the private sector?
We do not think that that is enough. We think that we should proceed with tribunals. The agony that some people have to suffer continues, and I do not think that we should delay. It may well be that there are lessons that we can learn from the housing tribunal approach in the private sector, but we would certainly have preferred it to have been extended to the social sector. We are disappointed that it has not been.
I agree. There are at least a couple of things that we thought that a tribunal might deliver that the current system does not. We were a wee bit surprised to hear that one of the reasons for not adopting the tribunal approach was that the court review was under way. The Government knew that the court review was under way when it consulted on the proposal, so it might have been an idea not to consult on it at all.
However, it is a good idea. It might have helped to sort out two significant problems. The first is the recurring theme of dealing with matters speedily and not having people suffer, particularly from antisocial behaviour, for undue periods of time. The second is the potential to bring together an expert body of people who could consider the issues and perhaps help to streamline the process, which would result in better-quality, speedier decisions not only on antisocial behaviour but on any other matters that would be under the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
11:00Having said all that, ALACHO was happy with the consultation and is happy that the transfer of jurisdiction for private rented sector cases is in the bill. We believe that we have some kind of tentative commitment from the Government to revisit the proposal for the social rented sector and examine it in light of how successful or otherwise the transfer of jurisdiction is for the private sector. As professionals, we would be keen to hold the Government to account on that and come back to it should the Government decide that it should remain outwith the scope of the bill.
Jim Eadie will continue questions on the tribunal.
Good morning. I am grateful to the witnesses for their evidence and the constructive way in which they have set it out.
Sticking with access to justice for landlords and tenants, I hear your views on the proposal that we transfer certain cases in the private rented sector from the jurisdiction of the court to that of the first-tier tribunal. If I hear you correctly, you are saying that there should be a level playing field for the private rented sector and the social rented sector but, clearly, that is not what the Government proposes at the moment.
I ask you to tease out briefly the benefits of, and the justification for, the change in relation to the private rented sector.
The benefits in relation to the private rented sector?
The benefits for tenants and landlords of the proposal to transfer jurisdiction.
It means speedy interventions and early intervention. It means that people’s expectations would be fulfilled in a reasonable timescale as opposed to cases dragging on and on through the court system. If we get in early enough, we can certainly change attitudes. It might also avoid more severe measures having to be taken, such as seeking eviction. Once it is known that things will happen more speedily, it will have a transformative effect on what happens in the private sector.
I am absolutely certain that a transfer of jurisdiction would make a very big difference in the public sector. It would have considerable benefits. The elected members who are sitting around the table all know perfectly well that there is no quick and easy remedy for the people who come to their surgeries and are going through the hell of antisocial behaviour. Local authorities follow the processes that are in place, which are too slow, too frustrating and too painful for those who are suffering.
The transfer of jurisdiction will mean that things will happen quickly, will enable us to deal with problems early and will make a big difference. We believe firmly that it should be in the bill.
Would it be fair to characterise the benefits as speed, efficiency and nipping some problems in the bud without any diminution in the rights of tenants?
There is a big perception that there is a real imbalance of power between landlords and tenants in the private rented sector—one that does not exist to anything like the same extent in the social rented sector—and that the panel should allow that imbalance of power to be redressed in large measure or, at least, in part, not least by allowing third-party application rights. That will not mean landlords taking every single case for every single tenant because the onus will still be on tenants, but one hopes that it will help significantly those tenants who lack confidence about holding their landlords to account or feel vulnerable about it. The tribunal would also hear alleged breaches of the proposed code of practice under the proposals for the regulation of letting agents. I agree with your succinct list, but I would add to it the benefit of redressing the balance of power between landlords and tenants to do no more than get tenants access to their rights to decent quality standards, tenancy conditions and so on.
David Brewster may want to add to that.
There is a recognition that the standard of the management of private rented properties varies enormously. There are some very good private landlords, some amateur private landlords and some people who probably should not be private landlords. At one end of the scale, the very good landlords have some difficulties in dealing with problematic tenants, which is a long and difficult process for them. At the other end of the scale there are tenants with difficult landlords, and the ability for them to go to the tribunal, which is a more informal approach, helps to redress the balance of power in favour of the tenant. The slightly more informal approach, which is more inquisitorial than adversarial, is probably to everyone’s benefit.
We have heard evidence from a number of witnesses that there is a lack of awareness among tenants and landlords of their rights and responsibilities. Mr Hayton, you suggest that we need to do more to empower tenants to hold landlords to account. From your perspective as someone who works for a local authority, what steps have you taken locally to empower tenants and to make them aware of their rights? Scottish Borders Council told us that it had been involved in radio campaigns and campaigns in the letting pages of local newspapers. Have you taken those steps or would you consider doing so?
I think that I count as a practitioner. We are always conscious of the need to ensure that our tenants are properly informed of their rights, including their right to redress. When the council gets it wrong, we remind them of their right to independent advice on a regular basis, we remind them of our complaints procedure and we operate that complaints procedure as consistently as we can. We are also fairly diligent in ensuring that, if they do not like the outcome of the complaints procedure, they have the option of going to the ombudsman. To a greater or lesser extent, those are routine elements of the way in which we engage with tenants to ensure that they are aware of their options and the routes for challenging their landlord when we get it wrong.
I will make a couple of slightly wider points, going back to management in the private rented sector. In most of the management in the private rented sector, there is no culture that bears on issues of service quality—that is not what drives private landlords in managing their property. It is not foremost in their minds when they make decisions about their property and it is not a factor in their attitude and behaviour towards their tenants. Anything that pushes that sector more towards trading standards and a culture that is focused on service quality as opposed to property prices will benefit tenants. However, the power balance, which revolves around the nature of the tenancy regime, will always leave the landlord with the whip hand. The process of removal in the private rented sector is, in essence, arbitrary—tenants feel that acutely—so the third-party reference to tribunals is important in protecting tenants’ rights.
You may be surprised to hear that the main beneficiaries of extending that to the public sector will be tenants, as it will provide them with a significant additional option for holding public sector landlords to account for our behaviour. We do not always get it right, and there are occasions when—I need to be careful with my words here—we do not get it right over an extended period. Access to a tribunal will give the tenants confidence that they have somewhere else to go to hold us to account. That will result in a significant improvement in the rights of public sector tenants.
I would be surprised if any local authority in Scotland was not working to ensure that there is good communication about what services and support tenants can receive when they have difficulties with a private landlord. However, in spite of the campaigns and regardless of what we do to put the information out in the public domain as clearly as possible, people still come to our surgeries and say, “I didn’t know that I could do that.” We must keep working on that.
That leads us nicely on to questions that Gordon MacDonald has about letting agents, but Patrick Harvie will come in first.
I will pick up on comments about issues such as third-party applications to the Private Rented Housing Panel. That is one of two powers that the bill gives local authorities—the other concerns enhanced enforcement areas—to exercise at their own discretion. COSLA’s submission says:
“With regard to Third Party Reporting, we welcome this as a dedicated tool to be used by Local Authorities in special circumstances. A widespread expectation that local authorities take forward cases on behalf of tenants would have a considerable impact on resources.”
At the moment, no additional resources are attached to the provision. Is it fair to say that it would be wrong to expect either of the new mechanisms to be widely used?
In everything that we have spoken about today and in our submission, we have repeatedly said that the powers must be backed by adequate resourcing. I hear what is said about the bill being cost neutral. There is no point in having powers if the full recipe of needs is not being met, because that will not make a difference or make the changes that we require. A local authority would use the powers sensibly but, if we were snowed under, the service would not be of any great quality as we would want it to be. Resources are at the heart of the issue.
So local authorities might be more likely to use the powers in specific geographic areas. If somebody had a problem in an area that was not being given such attention, they would be unlikely to have the option of asking a local authority to raise something on their behalf.
I expect the powers to be used as and when appropriate. Resources are always a difficult issue. Most authorities operate with a specific allocation of personnel to an activity, who will deal with all of it and do what they can.
Forgive me for wandering beyond the brief for a moment, but one issue is that landlord registration fees, for example, have not risen in six or seven years. Setting fees is one thing, but the Scottish Government also needs to accept responsibility for raising them, so that we are properly equipped. An increase in fees would increase our ability to deal with issues.
I would expect us to use the powers when they are required and with our capacity rather than to fuss initially about whether the resources are available.
Under the heading of “Alternative approaches”, the policy memorandum says:
“Consideration was given to allow other relevant parties to make an application to the PRHP. This option was rejected”.
The bill gives the discretionary power of third-party application to a local authority or
“a person specified by order made by the Scottish Ministers.”
Would your organisations welcome ministers using that provision to extend the power to others, such as non-governmental organisations, student welfare rights advisers and perhaps even elected representatives, who could apply to the panel on their constituents’ behalf?
We would be keen to talk about and look at the detail of anything that would enable us to improve the situation and to understand better what might work and what certainly would not work.
I will respond to some elements of the issue that Patrick Harvie raises. COSLA’s submission reflects the situation that arises when the public have expectations because a power exists. Local authorities’ experience is that some owner-occupiers still expect local authorities to fix the roof of their home, for example. That suggests that the balance of responsibility must still be the tenants’.
In some circumstances, such as when tenants are particularly vulnerable, the third-party application power will be useful. Sometimes, tenants phone us in the week when they are leaving a property to say, “It’s awful—I’m getting out. Please make sure nobody else goes in there.” By that time, there is no ability to do anything, because only the tenant can report, and the tenant has already left or is leaving. So there are some circumstances in which the ability for a local authority to make an application would be a useful tool but, also from a local authority point of view, we would wish to ensure that the normal expectation remains that it is for the tenant to make such applications.
11:15
We are rapidly running out of time. I ask Mr Hayton to be as brief as possible.
I wish to respond to Mr Harvie’s point about the powers perhaps not being used in a widespread fashion. Nonetheless, I welcome them. Over the past couple of days, I have been reading some other councils’ submissions. Scotland’s biggest city, Glasgow, which has some of the most intractable problems, has been asking for such measures for years. The powers might not be universally used, but they are nonetheless welcome as additional tools in the toolkit.
Gordon MacDonald has some questions on letting agents but, if the point has already been answered, do not go over it again—and I ask the witnesses not to repeat themselves if they think that they have already answered the question.
The bill provides for the regulation of letting agents. Is there a need for the statutory regulation of letting agents? What would the benefits be to the consumers of letting agents’ services?
The short answer is yes. Those provisions have been universally welcomed. That seems to be a gaping hole in the current legislation, in the sense that any of us in the room could set ourselves up as a letting agent on Monday morning and could start operating, with all that that entails with regard to health and safety, conditions and so on. A lot of people have been arguing for some time that letting agents should be brought within the ambit of regulation, and we welcome that proposal.
I would embrace that, too.
It is indeed a substantial gap. One particular factor is that the majority of private sector landlords are small, and own one or two properties. Therefore, the majority are reliant on having a good agent operating on their behalf. We receive inquiries and complaints where landlords are relying on advice provided by agents who simply do not seem to know what they are doing.
Registration will work and provide a benefit only if it can be enforced properly. In its evidence on 29 January, the Scottish Association of Landlords said:
“landlord registration is not being enforced properly by our local authorities.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 29 January 2014; c 2523.]
What are your views on that? Is there anything that we can do to make the legislation more effective with regard to landlord registration or, indeed, letting agent registration?
The legislation around the private rented sector is shot through with criminal offences to be enforced by Police Scotland. For a variety of practical reasons, the police almost never do so, and they are largely unaware of many of the offences that are set out in the legislation. Transferring the responsibility for prosecution to local authorities is the one single step that you could make to improve the operation of the legislation and the effectiveness of enforcement.
It is worth noting that, in the proposals in the bill, a local authority enforcement power is not envisaged for dealing with unregistered letting agents.
Forgive me—I know that there is a time pressure—but I wish to mention a practical example. We recently managed to get a prosecution against a landlord both for being unregistered and for an unlawful eviction. The unlawful eviction was, if you will forgive the expression, an absolute stick-on—there was no avoiding the fact that it had happened. When the case eventually came to court, after some dispute with the police about whether there had been a criminal offence, the prosecution for unlawful eviction was dropped, and the fine for failing to register was about £200, which is well short of the maximum. The case concerned a professional landlord.
We identify a possible anomaly, which we need to address: the locus for enforcing landlord registration is local authorities and the responsibility for maintaining the letting agents register lies with central Government, as I understand it. We absolutely need to join those two things together, so that we get consistent, coherent action when it is needed. I am not quite sure that we have that sorted just yet, but we absolutely need to bear that in mind if the new powers are to be effective.
On enforcement of the repairing standard, in part 3 of the bill, the committee has heard evidence from stakeholders about the need for stronger legislative requirements around electrical and gas safety in private rented housing. What would be the benefits of expanding access to the Private Rented Housing Panel by enabling third-party applications by local authorities to enforce the repairing standard?
We would look at it together with the other measures.
There is perhaps a prior question about the extent to which we extend to the private rented sector some of those provisions, such as installing carbon monoxide alarms and improving electrical safety checks. That has come up in quite a few of the responses and we would broadly support that.
We will move on to mobile homes. I am conscious that the subject comes not under ALACHO’s remit but under health enforcement. Most of my remarks will therefore be directed to the COSLA representatives.
From a local authority perspective, what issues need to be addressed around mobile homes? In its evidence to the committee, the British Holiday and Home Parks Association said:
“there is often poor understanding among many local authorities who sometimes fail to understand site licensing and the role of Model Standards.”
The degree of understanding or lack of understanding will vary from local authority to local authority. We are in tune with the bill’s intentions on licensing, and that means that interventions and enforcement measures can be taken.
I ask David Brewster to come in on that one.
Local authorities are certainly keen to see an improvement in the enforcement and licensing arrangements for residential mobile home sites that are permanently occupied. The current legislation dates back to 1960 and is no longer fit for managing that sector. The residential mobile homes sector did not particularly exist in 1960 and the legislation has not kept pace with its development.
The degree to which local authorities have issues with residential mobile home sites tends to depend on how they are managed. Some sites are managed extremely well and provide useful housing capacity without causing difficulties. When there are difficulties with site management, it causes a disproportionate amount of difficulty for the local authority, and the current legislation simply does not provide sufficient teeth and practicality to allow those matters to be dealt with effectively.
Could you clarify the second part of your question?
When we took evidence from the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, it said that there is often poor understanding among many local authorities and they fail to understand site licensing and model standards.
I will start with model standards. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 gives them status, but one of the difficulties is that the exact status of model standards is open to a degree of interpretation. When such matters come to court, the exact status of model standards is a subject of considerable debate, and local authorities have raised that with the Scottish Government.
As far as local authority understanding of the licensing process is concerned, unless a local authority has a lot of sites, it will not spend a lot of time on the licensing of caravan sites—and they are legally caravans. There is certainly a lack of training and good knowledge about how to deal with those matters.
Over time, local authority staff move on, which means that the one or two people who have a good working knowledge of the issues can end up going to another authority or retiring. There is a need to keep those knowledge levels up.
The development of residential mobile home sites has changed things somewhat. It would be fair to say that most local authorities in Scotland did not necessarily understand the implications of those sites becoming full-time homes, with requirements for services and so on. Local authorities are much more aware of that now.
The issuing of new, clear legislation around this matter is exactly aimed at addressing those issues and ensuring that there is clarity around the tools that everyone can use. Local authorities, which understand the problems, drove that process. They wanted to have new and clearer tools in their toolkits so that they could address those problems.
We are aware that some residents have voiced fears that the legislation could turn against them. We have clarified those issues. It is the clear policy intent of the legislation to benefit and protect residents, and we are absolutely sure that the legislation can be designed in such a way that residents do not suffer.
That brings me to my next point, which is about the three-year licensing term. The representatives of some tenants organisations have told us that they think that that will give unscrupulous park owners a tool to threaten vulnerable people with, as they could say that they were going to close down the park. What is your view on that?
We have heard those concerns and we followed them up immediately with the Scottish Government in terms of the design of the legislation. As I said before, it is no one’s intention to let residents suffer. The reason why we want the legislation is so that we can protect residents. We are clear that the legislation can be designed in such a way that residents will not suffer. We have had assurances that, when an unscrupulous site owner loses their licence, the licence for the whole site will not be revoked, which means that residents will not lose their right to stay.
The bill already contains a provision that ensures that if a local authority refuses to issue or renew a licence, that does not affect the right of residents to stay on the site.
What we perhaps cannot legislate for is intentional or accidental mis-statement of what the law is and how it should be applied. However, the issue of the resident’s right to remain living on the site, under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, has been addressed in the draft text of the bill, and we have had further discussions with the Scottish Government about how we can ensure that those assurances are clearly stated.
My experience is that some site owners do not like the idea of the three-year licensing period and are therefore putting a bit of fear into the residents on their parks.
There are a few local authorities that manage mobile home parks pretty well and it would be useful to spread that good practice among other local authorities that have mobile homes.
Adam Ingram, do you want to wash up?
The bill makes some provisions regarding local authority housing condition discretionary enforcement powers. Is the range of provisions in the bill wide enough to be effective?
Do you mean specifically in relation to the private sector?
I am asking about local authority housing condition discretionary enforcement powers.
Are you talking about a situation involving mixed tenure in a single block, and an owner-occupier not being prepared to pay their share of the cost of common repairs?
Yes.
There are some amendments in the bill to the tenement management scheme to allow local authorities to step in and pay so-called missing shares, where owners are reluctant to carry out works. As with several other provisions in the bill, those are broadly welcomed by local authorities. The scope of works that we could do that for is extended a bit. We still have the thorny problem of paying the money up front and trying to recover it.
Managing and improving mixed tenure estates is one of the most challenging areas that we face and it will get even more so if and when we get to the stage of introducing energy efficiency regulations for the private sector. In that context, we are content with the provisions in the bill. Many authorities have said that they would plan to use them.
11:30
The existing tenant management scheme is very useful where title deeds are silent on repair issues. The current difficulty is that although residents can reclaim money from other residents, there is always the risk that they are left out of pocket. That means that sometimes repairs do not get done and we end up having to serve statutory notices, which creates further expectations and work for the local authority.
The amendment to the tenant management scheme is very useful. It means that the local authority can say, “If you, as a majority of residents in a tenement or flats, have agreed that work needs done, you can go ahead and do it and we’ll guarantee to pay the missing share.” That allows them to sort out their issue and deal with matters early, before the disrepair gets worse. It makes a huge amount of sense in all respects.
There is also a provision for specialist or additional powers for specific geographical areas where there are particular problems. That is perhaps where Adam Ingram’s question was coming from. There is a general proposal for that but my understanding is that the detail will probably come through at stage 2 of the bill.
Are there any final comments or questions?
Can I make one observation? It is in relation to Shelter’s proposition that we need to establish acceptable standards in temporary accommodation across local authorities. I am sure that no one in local authorities would accept a situation where we were dealing with indecent standards. However, we have to be clear about the work that is on-going in order to ensure that we do not trip up before we have examined the matter fully.
In other words, what are the standards that we are talking about? We need to identify definitive standards and establish a benchmarking understanding across local authorities. We are working with the Scottish Government and Shelter on that.
We should be cautious about embracing that request from Shelter. That is why I said at the beginning that I was pleased that we were able to comment on the evidence that has been given. Shelter’s proposition is premature, but we will return to it after the discussions between Shelter, the Scottish Government and local authorities have reached a sensible conclusion as opposed to racing in too early.
Are you talking about the private rented sector? Housing standards are set in the public sector, in public sector housing. Everyone sees the challenges and rises to the challenge of meeting the housing standards that are set. We would all agree that we want people who live in private sector houses to have the same standard of housing. That goes back to our first point about the vision for the bill.
Yes, absolutely.
Why would you have a lower standard in the private rented sector? Surely you are not suggesting that.
No, I did not say that. I was talking about temporary accommodation. The accommodation that we put people into should be of a decent standard. Shelter’s submission made a comment about people being able to challenge the accommodation that they are put into. I think that we should be careful when it comes to providing accommodation that meets what could be defined as an acceptable standard, because Harry McGuigan might have a different view of an acceptable standard than someone else might have.
We are simply saying that we should ensure that we get that right before we go down a road that causes more confusion and irritation for all concerned.
I have one observation relating to an operational matter that is not covered in the bill. It concerns issues arising in the discharge of our duty to co-operate with Police Scotland in the management of high-risk offenders—principally sex offenders at the moment, but the service is soon to be rolled out to violent offenders—and in the operation of the Scottish secure tenancy regime. There are regularly occasions on which registered offenders need to be removed relatively quickly, and there is a tension between their rights, as Scottish secure tenants, to remain in their home and to be protected from unlawful eviction and harassment and the need to uphold the statutory regime and the operation of civil orders and sexual offences prevention orders. It strikes me that there is a piece of work to be done, probably around the short tenancy regime, to put in place an appropriate tenancy that is consistent with the obligations and objectives of the multi-agency public protection arrangements process.
That is a good point.
A question was raised about why we have, or why we would want, separate standards for local authority housing and private sector housing. Private rented housing has to meet the repairing standard enforced by the Private Rented Housing Panel. That is different and has a different scope from the Scottish housing quality standard that applies to local authority and registered social landlord housing.
That is a helpful clarification, but I think that Councillor McGuigan was talking specifically about temporary accommodation.
Which can be in the private rented sector.
Indeed.
The point that was being made is that an important piece of work is on-going between local government, the Scottish Government and Shelter to find a way to get good, high-quality, acceptable standards in temporary accommodation. There are huge challenges with regard to welfare reform, and all that has been looked at holistically.
That all sounds great, and I know that you are going to provide helpful supplementary written evidence, but are we to take it from your representations today that COSLA is not in favour of provisions relating to temporary accommodation being in the bill? Is that the point that you are making?
Yes, at this moment in time.
We shall raise those points with the minister. In the meantime, thank you for your evidence, which has been helpful.
11:37 Meeting suspended.