Official Report 583KB pdf
The next item of business is the committee’s final evidence-taking session on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Margaret Burgess, the Minister for Housing and Welfare, and her supporting officials from the Scottish Government. William Fleming is head of the social housing and strategy unit, Barry Stalker is private rented sector policy team leader, Daniel Couldridge is a senior policy officer in the private housing services team and Colin Brown is a senior principal legal officer. I also welcome Patrick Harvie, who has stayed with us for this session.
Thank you, convener. I am pleased to be here to answer questions about the Housing (Scotland) Bill. As you know, it is a wide-ranging bill, with provisions that affect all types of housing. Its policy objectives are to safeguard the interests of consumers, support improved quality and achieve better outcomes for communities.
Thank you. Adam Ingram will start the questioning.
Good morning, minister. I will start with a couple of general questions. First, how will the provisions in the bill meet the national performance framework national outcomes that are listed in the policy memorandum? Those are well-designed, sustainable places; strong, resilient and supportive communities; and public services that are responsive to local people’s needs.
As I said, the majority of stakeholders have acknowledged that the provisions in the bill will support the objectives that we set out in the policy memorandum. The ending of the right to buy, the measures to give social landlords flexibility in the allocation of their stock and the measures to tackle antisocial behaviour will ensure and support strong, resilient communities, so they will meet national outcome 11.
Thank you for that response. The committee heard from a lot of the witnesses who have given evidence to us that the consultation on the bill was well received, but we heard some comments that young people could perhaps have been more involved. Can you reassure us that the equality impact assessments for the bill are fully comprehensive?
I think that they are fully comprehensive. We recognised early on that young people had to be consulted and that the provisions on social housing and, in the private rented sector, the regulation of letting agents will have an impact on young people. Officials also recognised that we could not consult young people in the normal ways and that we had to consider other ways of consulting them. We used youth groups and organisations to set up discussion forums, and we also used social media.
Thank you.
As no member appears to have anything else to ask about that, we move on to the right to buy.
I am sure that it will be no surprise to the minister that the right to buy is one of the areas of interest for me. What was the Government’s motivation in moving to end the right to buy at this time?
There are a number of reasons. One is to protect the social housing stock. We have lost more than 450,000 social rented houses since the right to buy was introduced. The right to buy has been amended over time and, in its current format, it is very complex. There are different aspects of the right to buy that depend on the length of tenancy, where someone lives, the type of house, and so on. It was becoming difficult for people to understand. Ending the right to buy will put everyone in the same position.
Statistical evidence indicates that the right to buy was withering on the vine anyway. The number of houses that were being sold to their tenants had dropped to less than 1,000 a year. In addition to that, the assumption can be made that if the 1,000 tenants a year who were choosing to take up that right were denied that right, very few of them would vacate the property, so not many properties are being saved to be re-let, are they?
It will keep those properties in the social rented sector and the landlords will keep getting the rental income to use. If houses are sold at huge discounts, the landlord’s asset base also diminishes. We therefore think that it is the right step to take. Huge support for ending the right to buy was expressed during the consultation.
Has the Government assessed the impact on demand for right to buy of setting a date for its ending? Is there a serious danger that, by moving to end the right to buy, we might give it a sudden and explosive lease of life at the end?
We certainly considered whether there would be a spike in demand if we announced the end of the right to buy. The most recent figures show that there has been an increase, but we anticipated that that would happen after the announcement. During the last quarter, there has been an increase of 101 house sales under the right to buy. We do not think that that will continue.
You do not think that we are going to see a rush of sons and daughters buying their parents’ houses as we have seen occasionally in the past, or teams of young men going down streets and knocking on doors to offer to lend money for people to buy their council houses?
I do not think that we will see that. I repeat what I said about the more stringent mortgage regulations that are coming to ensure that, when people are borrowing to buy a house, they can afford the house. It is called the mortgage market review. We do not anticipate what you describe. We did not get evidence from the consultation that that would happen.
When we spoke to officials at the start of this process, we talked about the three-year period that had been proposed to end the right to buy. We have spoken to a number of witnesses who have talked about shortening that period. Do you have a view about the period that will be allowed at the end of the right to buy and whether it can be changed?
As I think I said in my opening statement, that is something that I will consider when I get the stage 1 report. In evidence I alluded to the fact that three years had not been agreed to be the right period. We are looking at that.
People who currently have the right to buy have something that would be recognised as a right in ECHR terms, so any interference with that has to be proportionate. There has to be a balance, as the minister said, between the justification for interference with the right and giving people an appropriate period to consider whether they want to exercise rights that they currently have before they lose them. That is not a purely ECHR point. There are wider issues to do with people having an opportunity to consider what is appropriate for their circumstances and to take proper advice on that.
Thank you very much.
We move to part 2, which is on social housing.
Section 3 proposes that “reasonable preference” in allocations is given to people who are homeless or living in unsatisfactory conditions and who in both cases have “unmet housing needs”. Can you explain what is meant by “unmet housing needs” and how they will be assessed?
It will be for landlords to assess housing needs in line with their framework, as amended by the bill, and with any guidance that we publish. The assessment of any housing needs or “reasonable preference” is for the landlord.
You mentioned housing that is below the tolerable standard. Government statistics show that up to 15,000 socially rented houses are below the tolerable standard. Why is the requirement for giving reasonable preference to those who live in such dwellings going to be removed?
It will not be removed, because those people’s situations will be covered by “unsatisfactory housing conditions”. We wanted to widen that. I think that 2.5 per cent of housing is below the tolerable standard. People who live in housing that is below the tolerable standard will still have a housing need under the “unsatisfactory housing conditions” category.
A number of witnesses raised concerns about the possibility of age discrimination in the allocation policy. Witnesses have said that age
The first thing to say is that there is no intention to discriminate against anybody. Landlords cannot use discriminatory practices in allocating houses—I think that that is clear. As I said, need is the absolute priority. However, the issue of flexibility for landlords came up during the consultation in that they want to make better use—and sometimes better sense—of how they allocate houses when people have needs.
Mary Fee has some questions on antisocial behaviour.
Part 2 contains provisions that are aimed at giving social landlords more tools to tackle antisocial behaviour, including the
During the consultation process, landlords, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations welcomed the proposals for tackling antisocial behaviour. However, we recognise that, as they said, the proposals will not be the absolute panacea for antisocial behaviour. We are not suggesting that the bill will sort antisocial behaviour and bring it to an end. However, the provisions will give landlords key tools with which to tackle the antisocial behaviour that you heard about from the tenants in Dumbarton.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has suggested that we need to think about more innovative ways of tackling antisocial behaviour. The Tenants Information Service suggested that partnership working was critical for dealing with antisocial behaviour. We have heard other evidence around the same theme, but the bill does not address those issues directly. How will the bill’s provisions regarding antisocial behaviour help to provide better outcomes for communities?
As I said, I think that the bill will lead to better outcomes for communities. The measures on antisocial behaviour are intended to help landlords to play their part, by giving them the tools to act in circumstances in which they are currently unable to act. That should contribute towards better communities.
There is evidence that partnership working is quite patchy across the country. Some areas are far better at it than others are. Should there be something in the bill about the necessity of working in partnership, to strengthen and shore up the approach?
The issue did not come up in the consultation—unless I am wrong on that. William Fleming might comment.
We have not had evidence that we ought to be legislating in that area. I think that the evidence was that we should do more to give landlords the right sort of tools, so that they could play their part, in a partnership. There is a presumption that partnership working is always going on, although it might not be as good everywhere as it might be. The bill focuses on what landlords can do and does not address the wider issue. By giving landlords more tools, we hope that they can be more effective partners, with police and local authorities.
The committee heard that the removal of the test of reasonableness in certain eviction cases, in section 15, is a fundamental erosion of tenants’ rights. How will the proposals strike an appropriate balance between the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants?
The proposal on the reasonableness test relates to serious cases, in which someone has been convicted of an offence that has caused distress to their neighbours and community—it is not about offences that were committed inside the house and did not impact on other people. In such circumstances, a landlord who is already dealing with the antisocial behaviour aspect will have to go through a separate eviction process, which takes up time—people always complain about the time that it takes for landlords to evict people in serious antisocial behaviour cases.
The Government consulted on the possibility of introducing initial probationary tenancies for all new tenants, although that has not been taken up in the bill. We have heard a mix of evidence, some of which supported initial tenancies while some did not. Why has the proposal for initial probationary tenancies not been taken forward, given that 62 per cent of respondents to the consultation supported the proposal?
I am aware of the response to the consultation, but the initial tenancies were not the only proposal for dealing with antisocial behaviour. I do not think that the time is right to proceed with initial probationary tenancies. There is enough uncertainty just now with the welfare reforms. In other parts of the UK, social tenancies are a short-term thing—people have no right to remain and they are moved around. A tenancy in the social sector is only for a short time in someone’s life, and they have to move on. Given all those uncertainties, it would just not be right to implement the proposal.
We move to part 3, on private rented housing.
The bill makes provision to transfer jurisdiction for civil private rented sector cases from the Scottish courts to a first-tier tribunal. At the moment, if someone is pursuing a case through the courts, they are or may be eligible for legal aid. How do you intend to ensure that tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, are able to access advocacy services or some other form of representation through the tribunal process?
The tribunal procedures are designed to be accessible, understandable and less formal than the court system. That is how tribunals currently operate, and that is the way in which I would expect the private rented sector housing tribunals to operate. People can represent themselves; they can be represented by family members; or they can be represented by friends. Some people might have legal representation. Many people will be represented by other agencies, advocacy services and advice agencies, as you described.
I take the point entirely that the process is less formal. I hear what you say about ensuring that people can access the tribunal system. What specific measures is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that?
I hope that my comments made it clear that we will ensure that that happens and that tribunals are accessible. That does not have to be in the bill; it is something that we will discuss with the agencies that will be involved and the stakeholders. The intention is absolutely clear: the tribunal system will be accessible to people. We know that some people will have difficulty in accessing it, but we need to look at the measures that we can introduce to deal with that and we will monitor the situation. I do not think that we need to put in the bill how we will make it accessible, however, as we have yet to draw up the tribunal procedures.
Okay. The policy memorandum makes the point that, under the current dispute resolution system,
We are confident that it will be adequately resourced. The ethos behind the system is to make it more accessible. We hope that that will also speed up the process, but the absolute priority is to provide access to justice for people who do not currently use the system. I do not know whether any of the officials want to comment on the figures that we arrived at.
The costings that we developed for the private rented sector tribunal are based on data and best practice from other existing tribunal jurisdictions. We have also costed a range of scenarios based on how many cases the tribunal can hear in a day, which should give a good range for the tribunal to develop properly.
The financial memorandum states:
We cannot do that at this stage. Sorry—could you repeat what you said at the start of your question?
The financial memorandum states that
We will come to the staffing arrangements and budget in a minute. Those will come under the tribunal set-up. There should be no additional costs to local authorities from the setting up of the tribunal system. I am not sure why local authorities would feel that there would be an extra cost to them from our setting up the tribunal system.
It has been suggested to the committee in evidence that councils might have to train their staff, for example, or that there might be appeals against landlord registration decisions.
My understanding is that only one local authority has suggested that. We will look at that, but we do not expect that there will be any significant cost to local authorities from our setting up the private rented sector tribunal. Colin Brown or Dan Couldridge might be able to address your point about the financial memorandum.
In the financial memorandum, we set out that the private rented sector tribunal will need up to 63 members to hear the estimated case load and that there will be one-off set-up costs of between £90,000 and £130,000 and annual operating costs of between £585,000 and £880,000 thereafter.
The set-up costs will be £130,000, and what will be the annual running costs?
They will be between £585,000 and £880,000.
What about the staffing arrangements?
Up to 63 tribunal members will be needed to hear the estimated case load. Those will be fee-paid tribunal members who will give around 15 days per year to hearing cases for the tribunal.
Am I right in saying that the impact of the change will be a widening of access to justice for people and that there will not necessarily be a resultant saving to the court service?
The intention is to widen access to justice. It is not for us to save money for the court service.
Okay. We heard in evidence that the private rented sector will be covered by the new tribunal but the social rented sector will be excluded. Can you explain what the rationale for that decision was and how you intend to monitor and evaluate the situation?
The rationale for that was the evidence that we heard, which was that in the private rented sector, there were fewer tenants—and even landlords—taking forward cases through the court system. It is about balance. Someone put it very well at the committee evidence session last week—in the private sector, there is not a balance of power between the landlord and the tenant; the redress is not there for the tenant. In the social rented sector, tenants have a right to complain, the social housing charter looks at the housing quality standards and there are a number of other areas that go to the ombudsman. Tenants in the social rented sector have a form of redress that tenants do not currently have in the private rented sector. It was felt very strongly that we should start this tribunal in the private rented sector.
Can you add anything to that answer on the changes to the court system in relation to the social rented sector as regards the use of mediation services?
We are looking separately at mediation services between landlords and tenants—we do not have to legislate for them. We are taking forward mediation services in any case, so we do not have to put that in the bill. Colin Brown can add a bit more about the court reforms and how they would apply in the social rented sector.
We will have to watch to see how the court reforms develop. It is for the Lord President to decide how the courts operate, and the indications are that the Lord President is minded to create specialist summary sheriffs in housing cases; when that system is developed, it would be expected to have advantages in how housing cases are handled. However, it is a work in progress and it will have to be watched as it develops to see how it goes and also to see how it impacts on things such as mediation and the choices that parties make on what goes to court.
Does the Scottish Government intend to evaluate whether social rented sector cases could or should be transferred to a tribunal system at some future point?
We have said that we will look at how the tribunal system operates in the private rented sector to see whether the system delivers what we intend it to deliver. We will also look at the court reforms when they come in to see whether they have made any changes in the social rented sector or had any impact on it. The situation will have to be monitored and if at a future date we have to legislate or change things further, that point could be considered but it will not happen in the immediate future. We have to see how the tribunal system works in the private sector first and whether it delivers the outcome that we want it to deliver. Then we will look at the court reforms to see whether further changes need to be made.
Moving on from the tribunal to the other aspects of the bill that relate to the private rented sector, the bill could have gone into a number of other areas. What scope do you see for the bill to develop over stage 2 and stage 3 into addressing other aspects of the private rented sector—in particular cost, given rent levels? We do not have the chronic problem that exists in some parts of the south of England, for example, but in areas such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and, in particular, Aberdeen, costs are spiralling and that is becoming extremely burdensome.
We did not consult on rent levels. The issue was not raised during our consultation on the private rented sector strategy, and nor has it been raised with me, other than by you, Mr Harvie. We have a group that is looking at private rented sector tenure but, again, the issue of rent levels has not been high on the agenda in that group. We do not intend to legislate on rent levels in the bill. We have not consulted on it and the issue has not been raised with us frequently, if at all.
It is possible that organisations such as the National Union of Students will seek to raise the issue. The NUS has certainly already made public arguments about it.
I have said from the outset that, for the bill, we were not consulting on security of tenure. I have had discussions about that with Shelter Scotland and other organisations and told them clearly that, if the evidence is there, we will consider legislating on the issue, not in the bill, but during the current session of Parliament. We set up the group that I mentioned to put forward proposals, evidence and suggestions. Mr Harvie has suggested that he does not think that the research is wide enough, and we will look at all that. If a need to change the tenancy regime is demonstrated, I am open to doing that. We will not do it in the bill, but we would certainly do it in the current session.
We will move on to part 4, which is on letting agents.
In evidence, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors pointed out that the proposed registration processes for letting agents are largely based on those for property factors. The RICS has suggested that the necessary qualifications for registering as a property factor are
I have listened carefully to what the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has been saying. We are absolutely clear that any regulation or registration has to be set at a meaningful level. We have looked at the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011, and I agree that, in practice, we might need something stronger for letting agents. That is the intention. We have to have something, and it has to be set at a level that is meaningful and can be enforced. It cannot just be about putting names in a register and thinking that that is fine.
What changes will you introduce?
I want to wait until stage 1 is over and we have looked at all the evidence and the report, but we will certainly look at strengthening what is required of a letting agent. We are not going down the road of thinking that letting agents have to be a member of a professional body, because that is about the industry regulating itself. In effect, it would say who gets into and out of the register. However, we will certainly look at things such as training, qualifications and how letting agents operate their business. We are looking at a number of things. We have received a lot of evidence from letting agents and the sector, and you may see changes at stage 2. We are looking at the matter very closely.
You said that you are not going down the route of letting agents having to be members of a professional or trade body. What will be the visible policing body for the letting agent sector whose purpose it is to inspect and investigate the industry in a bid to scope out unregistered or substandard practitioners?
First, we are not saying that we will police the agents through a regulatory body such as that for social housing—the Scottish Housing Regulator. That was not costed or consulted on.
Okay. Finally, do you have any views on how the code of practice could help to support the Scottish Government’s aspiration for sustainable homes that help to meet Scotland’s climate change targets?
I do not think that the letting agent code of practice will cover that. It will be more about the quality and standards of professional services; it will not be about climate change or sustainable housing. That would be covered by our sustainable housing strategy, when we look at consulting on standards for the private sector, which includes the private rented sector and home owners. It is not covered in the bill.
Does Patrick Harvie have a question on that part of the bill?
Yes. I am grateful to you, convener.
The code of practice is about raising standards and ensuring that agents can meet them. Some of the issues that you raised can certainly be addressed in the code of practice—some perhaps more easily than others. For example, I think that we can address the problem of landlords getting round the tenancy deposit scheme in the code of practice. I want to address such issues in that way.
It was about giving tenants a reason why they have been given notice to quit, when they have insecure tenure after a period of secure tenure.
That should be happening in any case, I would have thought. The code of practice should say that letting agents should know what the rules are and how and when they can issue a notice to quit—we talked about training. Tenants should know that, too.
Thank you.
Why is there no provision in the bill to give bodies—in addition to local authorities—third-party rights to report to the Private Rented Housing Panel? Would not such an approach help to meet the policy aim of expanding access to the panel?
I understand where you are coming from. During the consultation, local authorities asked for such a power, which they thought would help in relation to their strategic approaches. I have sympathy with the suggestion that other people should have reporting rights. Of course, a person can act via the local authority, and a tenant could act with the support of an agency to report their landlord to the local authority.
Okay. What action is the Scottish Government taking on issues to do with the enforcement of existing private rented sector legislation, such as the private landlord registration scheme? Does the bill present an opportunity to improve the operation of the scheme, or is the scheme working?
There are existing powers for local authorities to take action against landlords who do not abide by the private landlord registration scheme. I accept that the scheme is probably not operating as we hoped that it would do. However, local authorities have the power to take action against bad landlords.
Do you agree with some of the suggestions that have been made to us about supplementing the bill’s provision of improvements to the physical standard of private rented housing? In particular, I am referring to the need to be clear about how electrical safety should be achieved, making the provision of smoke alarms mandatory in private rented properties and the installation of carbon monoxide alarms.
Safety in homes is paramount and I am sympathetic to some of the proposals that have been put to the committee. I have followed the debate and I would certainly be interested in the committee’s recommendations.
I move on to part 5, on mobile homes. We heard evidence suggesting that site owners could use the three-year licence period as a threat against vulnerable residents. What is the policy intention behind the three-year licence period and what can you do to prevent site owners from using it as a threat to vulnerable tenants?
The intention behind the fixed-term licence was to protect residents on a mobile home site and to ensure that the site owner was operating the site effectively and was a fit and proper person to do that. I know that evidence has suggested that site owners are telling tenants, “If we lose our licence after three years, you’re off the site.” That is simply not the case. We need to do some work on that by talking to both site owners and residents to assure them that that is not the intention. The intention was to protect tenants, and the situation seems to be turning, so we will issue advice and information to residents and to site owners about our views on the matter.
The park owners have also suggested that a three-year licence term could impact negatively on lenders providing finance to residential park homes in Scotland. Is not there an argument for a five-yearly review and a rolling licence, a bit like the arrangements for Care Inspectorate inspections of care homes that are less likely to meet the standards rather than those that are consistently meeting them, or the arrangements for school inspections?
We heard suggestions that it might prevent lenders from lending to site owners, and it is not our intention that that should happen, but we do not have any concrete evidence at this stage that that is the case. Officials are speaking to colleagues in the Welsh Assembly to determine whether that is an issue in Wales, and we shall keep an eye on that.
We have heard that practice varies among local authorities. Do local authorities have the resources to be able to inspect sites regularly and fully use the proposed site licensing enforcement powers?
The bill gives local authorities an income stream in relation to issuing and enforcing mobile home site licences. It also gives them the ability to claim back from site owners the costs of any enforcement action. We expect the fees to cover the cost of a site inspection at least once in the term of a licence.
Is there a way for local authorities or the Government to ensure that park owners’ costs are not passed on to residents?
I do not know whether somebody in the legal team knows about ensuring that costs of enforcement action are not passed on. We will look into that and get back to the committee.
We expect licensing to be a small cost that would be passed on to each resident—that will be part of the site owner’s costs—but we will look into whether the impact of what is in effect a fine could be prevented from being passed on to residents.
The intention is certainly not that residents should pay for bad services that landlords have been made to correct. We will look into that.
Residents would have paid for a good service, but they would not have got it.
I absolutely take your point. Why should residents pay twice?
Adam Ingram has questions on private housing conditions.
Part 6 amends local authority powers to enforce repairs and maintenance in private homes. How does that sit in the context of the Scottish Government’s sustainable housing strategy?
The provisions sit in that context, because they cover a number of situations in which local authorities can enforce repairs, which can include measures such as insulation. The provisions are part of keeping houses to a standard that means that people can maintain and live in them. The bill amends existing powers on repairs and maintenance.
The intention is to improve the quality of the stock generally. In that sense, the provisions go towards a more sustainable approach.
The missing share proposal will solve one of the problems.
The missing share problem has been a major difficulty in getting houses brought up to quality and standard. I think that the proposal will be of assistance and local authorities tell us that it will assist them considerably.
Finally, you mentioned the Scottish Housing Regulator in your opening remarks. Having listened to tenants—especially when we were in Dumbarton on the Parliament day—we know that they are concerned about the removal of the need to consult. Why do you think that the Scottish Housing Regulator might not have to consult tenants? Insolvency or the threat of insolvency does not happen from one day to the next. There is a build-up to it—whatever the reason behind it—so it is not a sudden thing. Why are there proposals in the bill to remove the need to consult? Should we not be genuinely trying to find means to protect tenants?
The bill is seen as a means to protect tenants. I think that I made it clear in my opening remarks how important consulting tenants is for the Scottish Government. This very narrow exception in the bill addresses a circumstance that I hope would never arise, but it came close to happening on one occasion, so we have to address it, and that is why we want to include that exception to the duty in the bill. We envisage it being exercised only if a social landlord is in financial jeopardy that means that they could imminently become insolvent as the lender could call in the debt. In those circumstances, a direction from the Scottish Housing Regulator to transfer the assets to another registered landlord would reduce the likelihood of that happening. In those circumstances, there might not be time to consult. Those four tests would have to be met before the need to consult would be removed.
There is also some concern in the sector about amalgamations of housing associations. Would it still be the case that tenants would have to vote on whether their housing association amalgamates with others? Where is the drive for that coming from?
As I said in my opening remarks, the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations put forward quite compelling arguments for why, when there is an amalgamation or a merger, tenants should be balloted. Currently, tenants are balloted only if they change their landlord, whereas if a housing association amalgamates with or forms a constitutional partnership with a larger housing association, in effect tenants have the same landlord and they are not required to be balloted.
So we will see amendments on that from you at stage 2.
Possibly.
As there are no further questions, I thank the minister and her team very much.