Official Report 326KB pdf
Item 5 on the agenda deals with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The committee will be aware that over time a number of concerns have been brought to our attention on the issue, in particular late last year, when people commented on the impact of the licensing regulations. We agreed that we would take evidence to build up a picture of the current situation and gain an understanding of the anxieties of organisations before reporting to the Parliament.
Colin Affleck works in my division and has been involved closely in development and implementation of the HMO scheme. Dr Stollard has, with Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate, advised us on the technical standards that are included in the guidance.
You commented on the limited nature of the research. Do you think that you ought to be doing something else to establish whether you have a proper view of the impact of the first year? Your written submission states that you have a proper view of the impact of the first year, but that
There is nothing obvious that we can do. The research will seek to get feedback from landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested parties, which is where we must look for views. Information about the impact on supply will inevitably take some time to gather, because a limited number of HMOs have been brought within the system. Also, it is hard to assess the situation because, for example, people are making decisions about whether to continue in business. However, it is easier to get information on the administrative aspects of the scheme.
You mentioned the rationale behind using secondary rather than primary legislation. Will the Scottish Executive—in considering the impact of, and identifying flaws in, the scheme—consider primary legislation? Do you accept that introducing such legislation would not be as difficult as it would have been pre-devolution? As there is more space for legislation, will the Executive consider that option?
I am sure you understand that decisions about priorities for primary legislation are for ministers to consider. The housing improvement task force is considering a range of measures on conditions in the private sector and a sub-group of the task force is examining the private rented sector, which in due course might lead to recommendations for legislation. It is conceivable that, if wider regulation of the private rented sector were recommended, the licensing scheme could be integrated into that. However, that is speculative because the task force is considering only the problems and has not moved to discussing recommendations.
When or if any further amendments to the HMO licensing system are proposed, will the committee and the general public be given an opportunity to comment?
That is normal practice. Our submission mentions technical changes to the order that must be introduced. The Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 means that certain exemptions will become obsolete and changes will have to be made. We do not envisage any extensive consultation for those technical changes but, if policy changes were proposed, it would be in line with normal Executive practice to consult before they were put before Parliament.
You talked about the fact that this is not primary legislation, but an order under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, so all we can do is issue codes of guidance. Can anything at all be done, under either the 1982 act or another act, should a local authority decide to ignore the code of guidance completely?
The licensing scheme is set out in an order under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. From a legislative point of view, what we can do is change the order. For example, if we wanted to change the range of exempt properties, we could do that by changing the order. If we wanted to change the size thresholds or the phasing of the implementation of those thresholds, we could do that by order. What we cannot do is require local authorities to set certain standards. In that respect, we can only issue guidance. However, there is a legal duty on local authorities to establish a licensing scheme.
Paragraph 23 of the Scottish Executive briefing paper states:
Perhaps that paragraph is slightly strongly worded. We need to ensure that the policy framework for licensing is integrated with planning provisions, although the procedures are probably separate. As far as we know, there is a clear planning policy in Glasgow in relation to HMOs and flats, which is quite strict. You would need to ask Glasgow City Council for the details of that, and I hesitate to go into too much detail now in case I get it wrong. I think that there is a presumption against HMOs if they are over a certain size and are not main-door flats. Those are the main criteria, but other specific criteria are set out in the local plan.
Do you know whether the majority of local authorities use that policy as part of the licensing requirements?
I shall ask Colin Affleck to answer that question in more detail. It is unusual for local authorities to have specific policies in relation to flats. In relation to houses, generally people require planning permission only if there are more than five people living in the house, otherwise it is not required. It is necessary for local authorities to specify their own policies on flats. Our understanding is that Glasgow is the local authority that has particular policies. There may be others.
One or two other councils have similar planning rules for flats, because under the planning use laws there is no particular use classification for flats—there is a classification for separate houses. I do not know whether the majority of local authorities require planning consent, but some local authorities require it as a condition of licensing. Other local authorities have taken legal advice and think that they are not allowed to use planning consent as a condition of licensing, so there is some disagreement on that point. Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, local authorities have to set reasonable conditions for licensing. There is a legal opinion that planning consent is not a reasonable condition, because there is an entirely separate legislative structure.
That is an interesting point. I hope that the committee will examine the issue in more detail. In a similar vein, some of the organisations that have contacted us have said that local authorities need more support and more mechanisms to be able to identify HMOs that are not coming forward for licensing. Paragraph 20 of the Executive's briefing says that the Executive is encouraging local authorities to form interdepartmental HMO units to aid co-operation between councils' departments on related matters. Would that allow local authorities to use information on housing benefit that is held by other council departments?
Do you mean information on housing benefit and HMOs?
Yes. Would they be able to say, "There are six applications for housing benefit from 1, The Mound, Edinburgh"? I understand that giving out information on individuals' applications would be a problem, but would it be possible to inform the department dealing with HMOs where there were multiple applications for housing benefit?
I do not know the answer to that question or whether there are any rules in relation to the housing benefit regulations that would prevent a local authority from sharing information with other departments. More generally, we anticipate that different departments will share information, with a view to building up knowledge of where HMOs are. That information has to be developed gradually. Some authorities have a fairly good idea of where HMOs are because they have, for example, set up registration schemes for HMOs under the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, which allows them to draw up a list of HMOs. That provides a starting point. Other local authorities will need to go out and collect information as best they can. A starting point for picking up the more difficult HMOs would be complaints from local residents and tenants. There is no magic answer for identifying all HMOs, but sharing information is a good idea.
That would be good.
Glasgow has been mentioned. One of my concerns is the differential impact of licensing on local authorities. I do not know whether you have seen the submission from Glasgow City Council, which is represented today by Mr Kelly. Its concern is that it has 90 per cent of the houses in multiple occupation in west central Scotland. Glasgow is concerned that that puts a specific burden on it compared with other local authorities. Glasgow has raised dozens of concerns about licensing. Those include lack of direct consultation with the city, a rushed introduction and an unrealistic overall timetable. Is there any way in which additional funding could be made available to cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh to ensure that licensing is implemented effectively? Otherwise, those councils will have to take resources from other hard-pressed budgets. Concern has also been raised about landlords being able to afford the works that may be necessary to ensure compliance with licensing.
The question about resources for local authorities is primarily one for ministers. It is envisaged that all licensing activity under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 should be self-financing, through charges. I do not know whether ministers have the powers to provide funding. We have never been asked that question, so we would need to talk to the lawyers about that.
The Scottish Executive requires local authorities to send in annual returns, monitoring HMOs. I take it that those have started to come in. Have you had any early indications from the returns that you have received?
One return was published in the March housing statistics, which covered the first six months. The figures indicated that, in that period, approximately 700 applications had been received and 20-odd had been processed. That is not surprising, considering that it was fairly early on. I was pleased by that, because the discretionary schemes, which a number of local authorities, including Glasgow, had established in the early 1990s, under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1991, had lead to only 290 HMOs being licensed. Mandatory licensing, even though it only cuts in at a high threshold, has led to a substantial number of applications.
There is a periodic meeting of representatives of local authorities to discuss HMO matters. At the most recent meeting, a couple of months ago, the 11 local authorities that were represented had between them issued more than 220 licences. A rapidly increasing number of HMOs are being processed through the system and are obtaining licences.
Do those figures reflect the true number of HMOs in Scotland?
When we received the return, the threshold was more than five. It is probably not the full proportion of HMOs in that category, but it should be a significant number of them. When the size threshold is reduced, there will be many more HMOs. HMOs are a difficult group of properties to identify. As a result, we do not have any central authoritative record of how many there are and have only made various estimates over time according to particular definitions and the size threshold in use.
Was the initial threshold of six too high? Should it have been lower?
No. Most people seemed more concerned about the implementation being too rushed. One committee member mentioned that that was a concern in Glasgow. We tried to stagger implementation to allow local authorities to gear up gradually and to ensure that the process happened in an ordered, reasoned and effective way, instead of just rushing at things, with the danger that they would not happen. We were trying to build on the experience of discretionary licensing schemes, on which we had commissioned research and which most people felt had not been particularly successful.
You indicated in an earlier answer to Cathie Craigie that a particularly low number of licences had been granted by March this year. Indeed, the number granted was less than 4 per cent of the number applied for. Colin Affleck then mentioned that more applications had been processed at the previous benchmark meeting. Have local authorities been able to grant licences within the six month to 12-month timetable stipulated in the guidance, or are they encountering difficulties?
We have had no indication so far that there have been problems. Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, there is usually a six-month period for final consideration of applications. During the consultation process, local authorities said that that was not long enough and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000 extended the period for consideration of HMO applications to 12 months. As far as I am aware, no local authority has complained that that is too short a time to deal with an application.
Has any local authority brought a prosecution against a landlord operating an HMO without a licence since the introduction of the mandatory scheme?
Not as far as we know. We know that, in Glasgow, prosecutions were prepared against quite a few HMO landlords. However, under the threat of prosecution, the landlords applied for licences and the cases did not come to court.
Do local authorities face any difficulties in identifying landlords who might be operating HMOs illegally? Is there anything that we can do to make that job easier?
As Richard Grant already mentioned, the worst HMOs are likely to be drawn to the attention of local authorities because of complaints by tenants, voluntary organisations or neighbours. In certain areas, neighbours are particularly concerned about the effects of HMOs. Furthermore, the wide publicity that HMO licensing has received in the press over the past year will encourage people to come forward and report illegal HMOs.
I should also point out that, in designing the order, we specifically gave local authorities the power to gain access to HMOs for inspection purposes. Such a power was not included in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 or the discretionary schemes, and the people who carried out the research drew its lack to our attention as a potential weakness. As a result, we tried to strengthen that provision. Although we do not know whether the power has been used or has been helpful, it was an attempt to give local authorities a bit more clout.
You will be aware that a number of organisations have expressed concerns about the operation of the system. It is useful that you meet local authorities regularly to find out what difficulties they experience. I would be interested to know whether the HMO benchmarking group has asked the Scottish Executive to amend the regulations or the guidance. If it has, what has the group asked for, and how has the Executive responded?
I am not aware of any formal requests. I will ask Colin Affleck to say whether any proposals have been made.
The benchmarking group has made no proposals or suggestions to the Executive.
One concern of groups is the exemptions. The committee will see witnesses today from two groups that are concerned about aspects of the exemptions, such as whether registered social landlords or voluntary organisations should be included in their scope.
I agree with the Executive's position on exemptions, because we want a proper standard across the board. Has any consideration been given to exempting non-profit-making organisations from paying the fee? That would be a way of getting round the situation.
We could not decide that. It would be for local authorities to decide that.
You could put that in guidance.
We could suggest that in guidance, but the decision would still be for local authorities. They would have to put up fees for private sector landlords to subsidise the voluntary sector.
Most of the questions that I had intended to ask have been well covered, so I will return to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that under that act councils have been able for many years to place a closure order on a building that is deemed dangerous.
Under the licensing scheme, if a council identifies an HMO it can require the landlord to apply for a licence. When it is considering that licence it can consider the fire safety requirements of that particular property. If they are not up to scratch, and the landlord will not bring them up to scratch, the council can refuse to give a licence.
How long would that take? If the council reckons that four students are living in the flat and there are bars on the window, does it have to take 12 months under the guidance—
Twelve months is the maximum. That is to allow for the possibility that works will need to be carried out by the landlord. Paul, do you want to comment on the fire safety measures that might be required?
If the council became aware that there was an immediate hazard to health and it would take too long to go through the licensing process, there are powers vested in the fire authorities that would enable them to take immediate action. There are powers under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to issue section 10 notices, which can immediately curtail the business.
So we have done nothing to ensure that, if the problem happens again, we can deal with it immediately under the secondary legislation.
Not immediately under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, no.
I have one or two general points about the exemptions. What public purpose is served by requiring, say, the University of Glasgow or the Abbeyfield Society for Scotland to register under the provision? Do you have any examples of things that have gone wrong in the past in such accommodation? Given the implications of the limited resources, which Kenny Gibson touched on, where is the public benefit of regulating organisations such as those under these arrangements?
The public benefit is in ensuring that all HMOs reach a particular minimum standard. Local authorities consider properties and suggest works that should be carried out, although I am not familiar with the details of that. While at first sight properties may look relatively low risk, in practice there may be works that need to be undertaken.
Do organisations such as Abbeyfield or the University of Glasgow have a history of incidents or problems of any kind that is known to the department?
I am not aware of any shock-horror stories in relation to those organisations, but there is still the question of whether they need to meet the common standard.
What I am trying to get at is the question of targeting. Accepting that there is a major job to be done to bring this lot in—given the staggered way in which it is being done you have obviously accepted that—would it have been sensible at the very least to put organisations such as Abbeyfield and the University of Glasgow at the back of the queue and provide a temporary exemption or something similar until you saw how the thing worked in the private sector, which is where the main issue lies?
The choice for ministers was whether to put such organisations into the scheme or to create an exemption and leave them out. We consulted widely on that and, rightly or wrongly, there was considerable support for putting them in the scheme at that time. Ministers went with that. The line that we have tried to take on the implementation of the scheme is that, in the day-to-day administration of the scheme, local authorities may need to adopt a rather different approach to high-risk properties than they do to low-risk ones. That is to say, they may need to inspect the high-risk ones more frequently and rigorously than the low-risk ones. The charging structure is really a matter for the local authority as well. That would be our general approach to dealing with risk within the framework of the scheme, where it is not possible to say, "We have an initial assessment of risk and we license only those in the high-risk categories." We have to license all those that are covered by the scheme.
To move to the private sector, is there a case for saying that the arrangements at the moment really target the good landlords—the ones that obey the law, follow things through effectively and so on—rather than the ones you are really trying to get at as being the main source of the problem? Bearing in mind the information that you indicated local authorities had about the people they wanted to get at, might a more targeted approach have been better?
I think that local authorities can do that. I do not see any difficulty in local authorities' trying to ensure that applications are received from landlords that they are particularly concerned about. That kind of targeting can take place. Councils do not need just to sit back and wait for applications to come in, which might lead to the result that you are worried about—that only the relatively good landlords apply. If councils are concerned about specific landlords, they can be more proactive.
I have a final point on this general area. You have probably seen the Abbeyfield Society's representation to the committee that the cost to the Abbeyfield Society will be between £105 and £583 per resident. On balance, do you think that those figures are anything like correct? Is that a reasonable use of voluntary sector resource, set against the low level of potential problem existing in that sort of situation?
I cannot comment on that. I do not know in detail what the money is to be spent on. You would need to ask the Abbeyfield Society for more details and come to your own view. However, it seems that in the particular case that was mentioned, the local authority is finding works that the Abbeyfield Society needs to carry out, so the two things are rather going against each other.
In the guidance on the technical standards, we were keen to stress that a risk assessment was necessary—especially in regard to fire safety, which is normally an expensive aspect—and that, in considering risk on premises, such things as the management should be considered. A good, well-managed premises obviously poses a lower risk to the residents than one that is not. I would be concerned if the benchmark standards—they are only benchmarks—were being applied without that level of risk assessment.
That brings us back to the kind of variation that we have seen. The Abbeyfield Society's representation revealed a chaotic system throughout Scotland in terms of what is required of it, when it is required and how it is required—if it is required at all. Is there not cause for considering in more detail what local authorities are doing on the ground and trying to bring more coherence and consistency to the whole process?
We sought to do that by issuing the guidance that was drawn up centrally, but there must be some variation within the general framework to take into account the local circumstances of each property. Our experience is that there is perhaps more uniformity in the general physical standards of properties than might be indicated by the Abbeyfield Society. The main area in which there is variation appears to be that of fire safety, in which the advice of fire authorities to the local authorities is followed.
I return to what I was going on about before. It strikes me as peculiar that an established, good landlord such as the Abbeyfield Society is getting hammered while a landlord in Glasgow might have bars in their windows and we cannot do anything about it. Was thought given at the time to the inability of the method that has been adopted to deal quickly and efficiently with a potentially dangerous situation? Paul Stollard mentioned the fire authorities. Did you consider issuing guidance at least to co-ordinate the different services, to ensure that immediate action can be taken against very bad landlords? Good landlords throughout the country are being pursued for money for things that are ridiculous in comparison to bars in the windows of a multiple-occupation flat.
The licensing scheme cuts across all landlords who meet the criteria and is meant to lead to a general improvement in standards. It builds on existing powers and does not detract from them. In relation to HMOs, there is a range of powers that are rarely used. For instance, there are powers to require safety works to be carried out and to impose a control order on a particular HMO and take over the running of it. There are such draconian powers, but local authorities—quite reasonably—are not keen to use them often. They are the sorts of powers that one would want to fall back on in exceptional circumstances. The licensing scheme aims to tackle poor standards in general, through gradual improvements that are implemented so as not to lead to the withdrawal of large numbers of properties from the housing stock.
But was the scheme taken on board? You said that work was already being undertaken when the tragic accident occurred in Glasgow. Was it acknowledged that everything possible must be done to avoid such an accident happening again?
The licensing scheme provides a framework that should help to prevent that kind of accident, although one can never be certain. The licensing framework builds on other legislation that will allow local authorities to take emergency action in cases that justify it.
But does the guidance say, "Okay, we are not doing anything to allow you to do it just like that, but what you can do is this"?
The guidance concerns primarily the HMO licensing scheme. The other powers have been in place for some time and were summarised in earlier guidance that was issued when the discretionary schemes were implemented, in the early 1990s. That information is available to local authorities.
We will leave it at that. I am aware that some of the questions that we are beginning to pursue may be more appropriately raised with the minister. In reflecting on what we have heard, we may wish to pursue those points with the minister.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I call the meeting back to order and welcome our next set of witnesses. This will be a panel session. We hope to obtain the views of operators of houses in multiple occupation and get a sense of how the legislation has impacted on them. We want each organisation to make a brief opening statement. The committee will then ask everybody the same questions.
First, we are glad to have this opportunity to speak to our concerns and share the concerns of the other organisations on the panel.
Thank you. I ask Kate Arnot to make a statement for Scottish Women's Aid.
Thank you for inviting us. We have always taken the line that we should be exempt from the regulations, although we are not a religious or spiritual organisation.
I represent the University of Glasgow. I do not speak on behalf of the University of Strathclyde or Glasgow Caledonian University, but I am aware that they agree with the vast majority of what I am going to say.
I ask all the witnesses to comment on this question. How much has each organisation spent on applying for HMO licences?
That varies from group to group. It also depends on what work is required to comply with the licensing conditions.
I would like to concentrate on applying for the registration. We will cover the point that you make in a later question.
We are not sure of all the groups. Some are still in the process of registering. I will find out and let you know.
The costs associated with registration are detailed in the appendices to our report in as much detail as we have been able to gather over the past year. On average, the costs have been about £1,000 to £2,000.
We expect the University of Glasgow to spend between £150,000 and £200,000 to cover the first three years of the licence. The licence in Glasgow runs for three years.
This question is also to the entire panel. Do tenants or residents of your organisations qualify for housing benefit?
No.
Yes. Approximately one third of our residents qualify—that is, as far as our figures demonstrate. Independence is important to our residents. Some of them do not want to discuss monetary matters. That is obviously none of our business. However, we support tenants who apply for benefit. Because of the supporting people regime that we are under at the moment and the housing benefit returns that we are making to local authorities, we have some figures. They are that approximately 30 per cent qualify.
The majority of the women who stay in our accommodation are in receipt of full housing benefit or a proportion of housing benefit. One of the problems for us is that the housing benefit levels for the next year will have been set without taking into account the cost of the licence.
We move on to the question that Kate Arnot wanted to answer earlier. Ian Bruce indicated the cost of bringing properties up to the standards necessary to achieve registration. What sort of costs have your organisations had to pick up in order to comply, or what do you expect the costs to be?
Are you asking about the cost of works?
Yes.
Again I refer the committee to the appendices of our report, particularly appendix 2, which is based on a report from the Abbeyfield Edinburgh Society. It is particularly relevant because the City of Edinburgh Council was one of the few local authorities that applied the scheme when it was still discretionary. The costs are, we understand, exceptionally high for the concomitant prevention of risk to residents.
What kind of works does the society have to undertake?
One of the witnesses from the Scottish Executive spoke about fire safety. The majority of the works that have been undertaken are related to fire safety.
Many groups do not come into the category that we are discussing, because a large number of refuges house three adults with accompanying children. The group that has had to make changes has been faced with architects' fees and the cost of associated works, involving the redesign of kitchens. It raised funds and obtained a grant to cover those costs. Like most voluntary organisations, the group was poorly funded and did not have reserves. If voluntary organisations have reserves, either those are clawed back or it becomes very difficult to raise funds. We are in a no-win position.
Besides precautions that were taken in order that buildings might be approved in the first place, many hundreds of thousands of pounds might need to be spent, primarily but not exclusively on fire alarm systems and upgrading of internal doors. When in buildings evacuation times are very short, the integrity of doors, beyond basic, is not a great issue. Having said that, we are confident that the implementation of the works that have to be carried out will be characterised by the usual discussion and co-operation with Glasgow City Council. It will not be a case simply of their having to be done by tomorrow. There will be a phased implementation, just as there has been a significant review of charges, for which we are grateful. However, we feel that further progress could be made on that issue.
My first question is directed specifically at Mr Bruce. I commend you on a first-class written submission, from which I would like to quote. On page 3, you write:
The regulations are a major worry for us. I know that some committee members are familiar with Abbeyfield provision. We are talking about local community figures who recognise the value of older people within that community. The reason why Abbeyfield accommodation is relatively cheap in comparison with that of similar providers is that local volunteers undertake almost all the management.
The problem for us is that the time that is spent complying with the regulatory framework is time that is not given to individual women and children or to group work with women and children. We have a multiplicity of offices. It would be fine if there was one officer, but there are lots of different people. We are very precious and paranoid about where refuges are. The more people who know where refuges are, the more concerns we have. To comply with the regulations, many officers have to know where the refuges are.
As I said in my submission, the universities make enormous efforts to ensure that the accommodation provided to students is as competitive as possible and provides best value for money. That is aimed partly at widening accessibility to all groups of students, not just those who can afford it. The cost of accommodation will go up to reflect the universities having to absorb the cost—we have to pass on both the cost of the licence and any necessary compliance works directly to the students. That gives us particular problems where the licence is granted for three years.
From what I have heard so far, it appears that the regulations are something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Do you believe that there have been tangible improvements for residents in terms of safety and security?
That has not been the understanding of our member societies. We come from a background of social housing with a wealth of experience over many years, the majority of the housing stock having been paid for by the people of Scotland. That is the bottom line. To suggest that in some sense it was inferior or substandard accommodation in the first place does not make any sense. It goes back to risk assessment. I had a wee look at the Scottish Executive website, as I regularly do, which suggests that the majority of local authorities are following the benchmark standards that are required. However, the risk assessment process that we would have expected does not appear to be taking place. Effectively, the Scottish Executive is applying the same standards, regardless of the type of house, without assessing the risks to the residents. That is our objection.
I cannot think of any improvements. If I did, I would let you know. As I said earlier, this is worrying because of the number of people who know where a refuge is; it has almost had a negative effect on safety and security.
I would say that, in the end, there might be tangible benefits for students and other users in the private sector, because the fact that someone has a licence confirms for the layperson that that landlord has met certain standards. However, in the immediate short term, I am not aware of any tangible benefits. It might standardise the sector in time, but at what cost on the way?
Have any of the organisations here had difficulties in obtaining HMO licences from local authorities? If so, what have those difficulties been?
Again, I refer you to the appendices to our submissions. All the information is in there. Some of the experiences of the local societies have been, frankly, ridiculous.
Is it a box-ticking exercise?
It is a little more than that. In general, Abbeyfield tries to get ahead of regulation, as we find it far easier to be ready and prepared for anything that comes up. We wrote to all the societies before the legislation was introduced. I am probably wrong, but I think that the guidelines that were issued by the Scottish Executive were in response to the fact that we had raised concerns at all. They mention that there should be some concession for tenancies. I recall seeing no mention of that until I raised the concern that the order would impact on Abbeyfield provision. Committee members will know that the guidelines were introduced only a few days before the SSI was due for implementation. I leave it to the committee to come to its own conclusions on that.
Our groups have received a huge variety of responses, including, as Ian Bruce says, "It won't affect you." Part of the problem is the need to clarify at what age someone becomes a person for the purposes of the order. Some groups are thoroughly exasperated by what is being requested of them and the time that it is taking; however, they have to comply to get the licence.
Traditionally, the relationship with the council has been practical and realistic, and that works both ways. We do not anticipate any great difficulty in obtaining licences for our properties. However, we are poised to enter into formal discussions on the treatment of the individual sites—whether as individual sites or as campus sites—and I might have more to say on that when those discussions are complete. All the universities would say the same thing: we do not expect too much difficulty in getting the licences.
I have a couple of questions for the university. Am I right in saying that the university is considering having its accommodation managed in a different way by registered social landlords and people of that sort?
That is partially correct. The University of Glasgow is considering a different model for funding its residences in the long term and, in particular, long-term life-cycle maintenance costs. It is also considering freeing up capital to develop other projects and repay existing loan debt associated with building new residences. In the more modern sites that will form part of the transfer portfolio—the transfer has to be agreed, but it is 99 per cent certain—a registered social landlord will manage the day-to-day operational issues in the residences. The pastoral care, supervision, allocation and general ethos that surrounds the operation of the residences will remain strictly under the university's control.
I raise the issue because of the implication that, if there were exemption, we might have to consider to whom the exemption applied.
That is correct.
You might have mentioned that, but I did not pick it up. What is the estimate—if you have one—of the likely increase in rents attributable to the requirements under the proposed legislation?
In addition to the normal annual increases, there might be a percentage point increase on average, depending on how long we take to recover the amount. Recovery could be phased over the three years of the licence, or there could be recovery up front. Our estimate is an increase of 0.75 per cent to 1.5 per cent.
What does that mean in real, per week terms?
From 50p to £1.50 per student, per week.
From the university's general experience in the outside sector—leaving aside its own accommodation—how well targeted is the legislation? From the evidence, it seems a bureaucratic nightmare in some respects and does not hit the target that we want it to hit. Do you have any views from talking to students and others in the private sector?
The good and some of the more infamous bad practitioners in the private sector are well known and can be easily explored. Appropriate action can therefore be taken if necessary. However, I am concerned that the university and the council do not know about a significant number of practitioners, although the council would have to respond to that itself. My concern in respect of possible increases in rents in the private sector is that students might be driven towards non-compliant, almost underground operators—that concerns me greatly, especially in the light of the accident of a few years ago that is often referred to.
Can the university assist from its registry of students' addresses, for example, and give information that would help a survey? Is that a practical proposition?
We operate in conjunction with the other colleges and universities in the city. There is a private accommodation database, known as PAD. It is a database of landlords who have applied to have their accommodations advertised to students at the constituent institutions. We do not inspect the accommodations, but in registering, the landlords agree that their details can be given to any relevant statutory body. The information is available to the council and has been taken by it. That helps.
The Scottish Executive has indicated that it might change the current regulations, following a study of their implications. Are changes necessary? What should they be? Are your organisations arguing that exemption is a better option?
Exemption is the better option. In what was said today, and at least in parts of its report on whether the order would become part of the law in Scotland, the Executive has made it quite clear what it was trying to do. But to return to what Robert Brown said, we feel that the Executive has completely missed the mark. Minimum standards should apply across the range, but we would expect a body such as the one dealing with regulation of care to pick up sheltered housing, for example. It does not make sense to have lots of different regulators for different aspects of social housing.
What we really want is to be exempt because ours is a not-for-profit organisation. Failing that, we would like more uniformity of implementation. We certainly want it to be clarified how old a child has to be before he is considered to be a person and for that age to be applied throughout Scotland. We would also like much more uniformity of cost. However, our strong preference is for exemption on a not-for-profit basis.
Earlier, I noted that there has been some significant—on paper anyway—movement in the licensing fees for educational institutions in Glasgow. However, much depends on how the sites are interpreted, and that is still to be fleshed out in the coming weeks. We are obviously keen to secure any downward movement in fees. The question is, has it gone far enough? That is debatable and remains to be seen.
I seek clarification from Scottish Women's Aid on a point that has been raised with me. The issue of HMOs has the potential to compromise the aim of refuges: to provide a safe place for women to go to. Because information on HMOs has to be in the public domain and neighbours have to know, the work that refuges are trying to do could be undermined. Having to apply for a licence might distract you from your work. Can the existence of an HMO, where refuges are not exempt, mean that it is not possible to provide the necessary safety for women?
The Scottish Executive recognised our particular circumstances in that the guidance exempts us from having to post notices for publication. However, we still need to inform neighbours. Obviously, neighbours get to know when a house is a refuge, but there is something about having to inform the neighbours that worries us. We are strict on confidentiality and we do not want to have to inform people about the refuge. That ties into what I said to Kenny Gibson: it could have a negative impact on safety and security.
Let me ask Ian Bruce a question. We have been talking about grant funding and regulation. It struck me that, regardless of whether you are altering an existing building or building a new one, you must deal with building regulations, planning guidelines and building warrants. Has there been any attempt by funding bodies and statutory bodies to create a standard that would apply across the board to enable your project to meet all the various regulatory functions in one shot? For example, if you are adapting a building, does the building warrant that you have to obtain from the local authority incorporate the works required to bring the property up to the standard that would be required for the HMO licence? If there is no tie-in, a lot of money could be wasted.
On your first point, our current projects are to do with integrated care. A major project has just started in Ballachulish and, although it received Scottish Homes funding, we have had no indication that there has been any liaison with the local authority about HMO requirements. We recently completed a building project in Johnstone. A fire officer inspected the project a year later under the HMO regulation and now things have to be changed.
Most of the properties that Scottish Women's Aid uses are local authority properties. I assume that local authorities ensure that the properties meet certain standards before they give them over. I would like to ask the Scottish Women's Aid representatives whether that ties in with what is expected of an HMO—perhaps it is too soon to say.
Over the past decade, the whole domain of the issue of domestic abuse has changed. A significant change has been the setting up of the Scottish Parliament, which has made domestic abuse a high priority. All publicly elected bodies—local councils, the Scottish Parliament and those at a European level—are committed to ending domestic abuse.
I thank the witnesses for coming today and for providing information. I was a bit anxious about the way in which we had set up the session, but I am grateful to you for using the time effectively. You have given us a clear picture, from your perspective, of the issues that arise from the regulations.
I have heard all that has been said this morning, so I will not go over the same ground. I am sure that interesting issues will come up in questions.
What has Glasgow City Council done to identify all the HMOs that may require a licence? Has that exercise been successful or is there still a problem in getting to unidentified HMOs?
I have worked for the council for a long time. In the past 25 or 30 years, we have regularly undertaken such work—without, of course, the benefit of a licensing scheme. We can reasonably say that we know where most HMOs are. However, HMOs come and go: some open up, and some come under pressure and close down or move somewhere else. There is a moving target.
What have been the resource implications for the council, in terms of cash and staff, of the introduction of the mandatory licensing of HMOs?
I have given you an early indication. We took the opportunity, when the HMO order was introduced, to consider what we had been doing. Some 10 or 12 years ago, I formed a team, largely made up of environmental health officers, specifically to deal with HMOs. Their working life was devoted to that activity, so the issue is not entirely new. Because of the restructuring of departments, about which I will not go into detail, I have been able to put building control officers and planners with that group of environmental health officers. Recently, I also had responsibility for the legal section in the council. All that was knitted together in a strong, structured group. Subsequent changes have splintered that group, but the core still exists of a good, organised unit that is targeted on this function.
The detailed answer to this question may be in your submission. Can you clarify how many HMO licence application forms you have issued? How many did you receive back? Have you taken action when landlords have failed to return a form? Are any cases being prepared for prosecution?
We have issued far more application forms than I would like to admit, because the return rate is not good. We have issued more than 600 applications, and we have received about 240 back. We are struggling to get the targeted number in.
Are you saying that the prosecution service makes life difficult for the council?
Put it this way, the issue is certainly not at the top of the fiscal's tree, given all the activities that he has to deal with in Glasgow. The fiscal has given assurances that he will prosecute cases in order to demonstrate that we can take the issue to court. In practice, cases will not get to court very often.
Do the resource implications include what sounds like the incredibly heavy job at the end of the process of trying to get people to comply?
Yes. We have to take account of all that. Doing the paperwork to present the case probably costs about £1,000 in officer time. If the case fails at that stage, we ultimately get the fee, so there is a balance. That demonstrates that we are not making a profit out of the system. A lot of hard work goes into it.
Thank you for a focused submission, although I am sure you will accept that it is not so much a submission as a demolition of the regulatory framework. Glasgow City Council is obviously concerned about HMO regulations, but does it believe that the entire regulatory framework should be rethought?
Yes. I would just about go that far. The system is flawed, to say the least. The civil servants have now gone. Before the order was implemented, we advised that it should be more targeted. The accusation has been made—and it is correct to an extent—that, in the early days of the system, the good people, who wish to comply with the standards that have been set, are picking up the burden of the payments. The bad guys are still ducking and diving, but we will ultimately catch up with them. However, in the short term the good are paying and the bad are escaping.
In your submission, you raise concerns about confidentiality for women's refuges. In fact, the issue was touched on in the panel session. You also mention your concern about the definition of a women's refuge. You say:
The officer who made that comment was conscious of the fact that the guidance simply specifies a partner, whereas I think it is known in society that abuse can happen within families, for example by a father, brother or uncle. The criticism was of the exclusiveness of the definition. The point was that, if we are too prescriptive, some issues might not be addressed.
You said that the cost of implementation was £2.4 million over about three years. Obviously, there will be some fee income to Glasgow, but what net deficit will there be? How will that impact on the workings of your department, if at all? If there is a gap, should that gap be met by the Scottish Parliament through additional funding for Glasgow City Council?
The three-year cycle will not be met—it will probably extend to four or even five years. We will therefore run at a deficit. That is difficult to predict at the moment. We had a meeting yesterday with the accountants, who asked us to attempt to specify what the income might be next year. In my budget submission I asked for allowance to be made for a £200,000 shortfall. If we get that adjustment, it will be short-lived. The accountants hope that, in the fullness of time, we will net all the fees that we are due. That is without taking account of the goalposts moving and groups falling out of the system, which would mean that the income stream had to be adjusted. We are using a complicated formula, but there will be a significant gap. I would welcome financial assistance if it were made available. However, I do not think that it will be. I think that council tax payers in the city will bear the burden.
If there is a financial shortfall, how will that impact on your department?
As I think I said in the submission, we would hope to expand the work force to meet any increase in demand. Equally, if we fail to deliver, and if the predictions that the market will shrink are true, the work force will shrink accordingly. We can afford to staff only according to the income stream. I do not want to talk in terms of redundancies, but you asked the question and, in a practical sense, that is how it would be resolved. If the market shrank or large chunks were taken out because of the enforcement regime, I would need to revisit that question. I might say, for example, "I do not need 20 staff doing this; I only need 15." That would be the consequence.
I am sure that, like everyone else, you are aware that the purpose of the regulations is to weed out rogue landlords. What criteria does Glasgow City Council use to decide whether an applicant meets the statutory requirement of being fit and proper to hold an HMO licence?
That is a broad question. Like the police, we take account of whether an applicant for a licence is fit and proper. However, we pride ourselves on the work that we have done. We know where most of the bad people are and we are targeting them. I know that the phasing was meant well, but we would have been happier to have been left to our own devices in that respect. We could have devoted our resources more specifically at the bad people, or rogues as you have called them.
You told us that you have sent out about 600 application forms and that about 240 of those have been returned. How quickly are you able to process those returned forms? You said that some applicants took you right to the wire, that you had to force them to comply and that they did so only when legal action was threatened. Are you having difficulty processing applications? How long is that taking?
The honest answer is that processing applications is difficult, takes a long time and is very taxing. In the committee setting, we have had difficulty when one report comes in from building control and a different report comes in from the fire authority. Those reports have to be reconciled. The licensing committee has tended to regard the firemaster's report as pre-eminent. That represents a reversal of the approach that was taken during the previous 10 years, when the building control report was used as the basis for serving section 162 notices.
The Executive has indicated that it might consider changing some of the regulations because of the implementation difficulties that you and others have referred to. What would Glasgow City Council like to see changed?
I do not have sufficient time to do that, given what I have said in my submission. However, one possible change was mentioned earlier. The firemaster, for example, has powers that we do not have, which seems anomalous because the local authority is the licensing body. In cases where an extreme fire risk is assessed, we have no difficulty in resorting to the firemaster and we get splendid co-operation. However, it strikes me that the local authority is wise enough to use its prohibition powers appropriately and say, "We don't need to seek the assistance of the firemaster. We see a situation here that needs addressing today and we are not leaving here until we have this resolved." It could be as urgent as that.
I imagine that there is expertise within the local authority to do what you have described. Do enforcement officers from the environmental health department in Glasgow, for example, go out looking at the HMOs? If not, is that done by officers involved in housing? I am trying to get a picture of the situation. I know that officers from environmental health departments are used to dealing with prohibition orders and telling people to make changes right away or their business operation will be stopped. That expertise is built up over time. Do you have people within your local authority who have such expertise?
Absolutely. The officers in the team that we have created are from backgrounds that include environmental health and building control. They now share the same office and work together as a team. We do not have a them-and-us situation. Officers do not have to go looking for assistance from another group as they are sitting opposite each other in the same room. They go out together. They share information and look together at the drawings that come in. They consult legal colleagues, who are on the floor below. The process is tightly knitted together now and it works well in terms of officer co-ordination and co-operation. There is no question but that the local authority has the expertise.
Kenny Gibson said that a sledgehammer is being used to crack a nut. We perhaps need a bulldozer in some cases. However, what you need is the hammer in the hands of the officers, so that they do not have to go for someone else.
That is one example only. However, we cannot speed up the licensing process because it is driven by the committee cycle. We need the applicants to come in and we need time to assess the drawings. We need to give recommendations and meet builders and owners. We also need to come to a conclusion whereby we agree the work that must be done and bring the matter back to the committee, which must say yes or no. Other reports, from the police and the fire authorities and so on, must also be taken into account.
I return to the bars-on-the-windows scenario. I have been dismayed by what I have heard this morning. You said that, if you have to serve a section 162 notice, it can take up to two years for the case to go to court. What would your department at Glasgow City Council do if you came across a property that you believe is an HMO and which is in a basement and has bars on the windows?
We would arrange a visit instantly with the fire authority. We would go there and ask the firemaster or fire prevention officer to use his powers under section 10 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, and that would happen.
Would his powers be effective immediately?
Yes, we would order the people out and clear the building. We have done that.
Would the fire department come out straight away? Does that generally happen?
Let me explain. Perhaps I should have said that the fire authority is also expected to provide reports, and it does that. However, to meet our needs, it has had to employ four additional staff who are dedicated to that task. It is costing the fire authority at least £100,000 a year to give us the support that we need in that area.
So you think that it would be much more sensible if you had that power.
Absolutely, yes. We would take nothing away from the firemaster. It is not a question of seeking to take power away from another authority. It is just that he will be involved in an activity at one place while we are involved at another. We should not be prevented from acting if we see enough wrong at a property that we cannot walk away but have to act immediately. In my opinion, we should have that power.
Did you expect to have that power when the regulations came out? Were you disappointed?
I do not think that the regulation ever got down to that kind of detail, but there was certainly a long lead-in period, when we made those points to the officials who came to visit Glasgow to take soundings. As I have said in the report—I shall say it again if you will permit me—it was a bad decision not to have Glasgow and Edinburgh represented on the committee or on the groups that were considering those proposals. That was a basic mistake, because the wealth of experience that was available to be tapped into was missed.
I have a Glasgow-specific question. A letter about this issue from a concerned Glasgow resident was distributed to us this morning.
He is not from Glasgow. He is from Eastwood. He is a constituent of Ken Macintosh's.
Would you prefer me not to cover this?
It is okay. I just wanted to point out that it was not a Glasgow resident who sent the letter.
I see. This fellow is not a Glasgow resident, but he talks about Glasgow City Council. He has written to express concern about the council's approach, whereby planning consent is not granted for multiple occupancy unless the properties are in a designated area of the west end and are main-door residences. He is referring to new applications, rather than to properties where there has been multiple occupancy for the past 10 years. Is what he says the case? I am interested in the rationale behind that and in the long-term effects that it might have on property supply and rents.
I shall try as best I can to answer that, but I am not from a planning background. In a perfect world, the planning enforcement would have taken place over the past 10 or 15 years to address the growth in multiple occupation, particularly in the west end of Glasgow. In an ideal world, the director of planning would have had at his disposal sufficient officers to consider whether to give consent to the multiple occupation properties that were developing. If they decided not to, they would have to take enforcement action to drive them out of the market or to make them comply.
What if the application was for a Women's Aid refuge?
We were not thinking about refuges in those days—they are a fairly new phenomenon. That would not have been a consideration—there was a simple control on numbers. The plan said that to get a new grant an HMO would have to be a main-door house that could be approached only from a lit street. There was an extra qualification. Those planning rules were applied to try to control the number of houses in multiple occupation. If we are to control something, we should use the regulations at our disposal. However, sadly, we have failed to do that over many years.
Are those restrictions still in place?
Yes, they still apply.
I am concerned that that disadvantages certain groups of people. For example, a new Women's Aid refuge in the south side of Glasgow would not be allowed under the new licensing agreement.
Yes. It sounds defensive, but I would say that there is scope to have such a refuge in another part of the city. It would not need to be in the west end. I do not mean to be unhelpful, but there are competing pressures.
I was interested to hear that information because I was not aware of it previously.
There are controls that the planners attempt to use to control the new growth of HMOs. However, I suspect that they do not work.
That is a concern, particularly in the west end of Glasgow. It would arise from local concern—not targeted at groups such as Women's Aid—about the environment in which the current HMOs operate. That is an issue that Women's Aid would bear in mind when considering appropriate places for refuges.
In response to Karen Whitefield, you were talking about the amount of money that people are expected to spend to comply with the new regime. Do you have any evidence, either factual or anecdotal, that some people cannot afford to pay for the changes legally, are not prepared to go to the black economy and have decided to get out of the business?
I can safely say that I posed that question to my officers in the past few days, knowing that I was coming to give evidence to the committee. As far as my officers are aware, there is no evidence that anyone is leaving the market.
That is very interesting.
I understand that there are concerns over the level of fees. The letter from Mr Mann says that the fees are exorbitant:
Yes, I am sure it does. However, the people who duck and dive would have done the same even if the fee were £500 less. It is not the figure of £1,700 that is the issue.
Do you not think that reducing the fee would actually lead to an increase in income?
It would not make any difference.
However, the fee level is an active incentive for those operating legally to encourage everyone else in the field to pay up. That is another way of looking at the issue.
Absolutely.
Thank you. That was a very productive session.
Meeting closed at 13:01.
Previous
Voluntary Sector Inquiry