Official Report 349KB pdf
Good morning, and welcome to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s first meeting in 2014. I remind everyone to switch off any mobile devices, as they affect the broadcasting system. Having said that, I note that some members will be working from tablets, as their committee papers are on the devices.
Yes, if that would be all right. The Housing (Scotland) Bill is a wide-ranging bill with provisions that affect all types of housing. Its policy objectives can be summed up as being to safeguard consumers’ interests, support improved quality and achieve better outcomes for communities.
Adam Ingram will start with some general themes of the bill.
The bill aspires to contribute to realising the Scottish Government’s housing vision, which, as you helpfully laid out in the slide that you provided to us, is that
As that slide shows, the separate policy areas in the bill feed into the supporting outcomes that underpin the vision. Those outcomes are a well-functioning housing system, high-quality sustainable homes, homes that meet people’s needs and sustainable communities. Each policy area does not map directly on to only one of the outcomes—some contribute to more than one outcome—but, taken as a whole, the provisions will contribute to those outcomes and therefore to the vision that ministers have for housing.
I will focus on one element of the vision—sustainability. Paragraph 32 of the policy memorandum states that the provisions have no adverse effect on sustainable development. Through what process was that determined?
The policy areas in the bill were assessed individually and collectively for their effect on sustainable development. We considered the effects in relation to the environment, society and the economy. In essence, the bill is concerned with property rights, processes and powers, none of which directly impacts on the environment.
You mentioned consultations and your discussions with stakeholders. Will you summarise the nature and extent of the consultation exercises and provide an overview of how you engaged with the stakeholders in the process?
We started discussions back in 2010, when we asked stakeholders whether any legislative changes could be made to help the housing system to work better. That formed part of our discussion paper “Housing: Fresh Thinking, New Ideas”. The outcome of that discussion fed into the strategy in “Homes Fit for the 21st Century”, and we identified a number of areas where legislative change might be appropriate and which we would explore in more detail. Based on that, we undertook over 18 months the seven consultations that I mentioned.
How many replies did you get via Facebook and social media?
I do not have that data here, but I can certainly write to you to let you know.
We shall move on to part 1, on the right to buy.
What views were expressed during the consultation on the proposed end to the right to buy?
There was a range of views. On the whole, landlords supported ending the right to buy, and the majority of tenants who responded to the consultation also supported ending the right to buy.
You described the consultation a moment or two ago, and it is obvious that work was done to consult tenants as well as landlords. Was any special effort made to consult directly the tenants who have a right that they will lose?
That would have been done through the discussions with tenants groups, because the tenants groups that my colleagues met contained a mix of people who have the right and will lose it and of those who do not have a right.
Why will there be a three-year notice period before the right to buy is ended, rather than a shorter notice period, as some social landlords suggested?
Ministers had to consider the effect on human rights of ending the right to buy. Our view was that there were potential issues under the European convention on human rights, so the decision that the notice period will be three years was made on the basis that that is a fair and reasonable timescale for tenants who have and can exercise their right to buy to exercise it.
That is a reasonable argument, which I would accept. However, a complication is that the right to buy has already been suspended in a number of areas, and that suspension could continue through to the end of the three-year period. What consideration was given to the position in which tenants in those areas find themselves?
Local authorities are the strategic bodies that have the power to make, amend and revoke pressured area designations. Ministers considered whether there should be a measure to suspend those designations during the notice period, but on balance they felt that that would take away the flexibility of local authorities to respond to housing needs in their areas.
The answer to a previous question was based on human rights. The answer to the question that followed was based on the balance of responsibilities. Is it possible or conceivable that challenges will be brought by tenants in pressured areas who are not allowed to exercise their right?
My colleague Colin Brown will answer that.
There is always a possibility of legal challenge, and someone can bring one if they so wish. My advice is that I would not expect such a challenge to succeed.
I have one other thing to ask about the right to buy. The number of houses that have been bought by their tenants has dropped in recent years, but that remains a source of income and resource for social landlords. Has any assessment been made of the financial implications for social landlords of abolishing the right to buy?
Yes. The financial memorandum goes into quite a lot of detail about that impact. Landlords who responded to our consultation felt that, on balance, the impact of losing those capital receipts would be neutral or positive. They cannot predict when they will sell the properties and receive the capital receipts whereas, if the stock is retained in their ownership, they can predict the rental income that they will receive, so they can base their business planning on that rental income stream.
Will you clarify how legislation on the right to buy might come up against human rights legislation?
Under article 1 of protocol 1 to the ECHR, the right to buy is part of a package of rights that a tenant has under a secure tenancy. The tenant has a right to buy; that is a possession in ECHR terms, and to interfere with the person’s possession, which is that right, and which the person might or might not be able to exercise in practice, needs some sort of justification. Whether that interference is justified has to be considered in a social context. It is slightly arcane, because it is not a very obvious right and it is only one of a package of rights, of which the remainder are unaffected.
So the right to buy is part of the tenancy agreement.
It is a right that a tenant has in the same way as they have the right to have certain repairs carried out, the right to assign in certain circumstances and the right not to be evicted except through certain processes and in certain situations.
Did you seek advice about the issue from the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
The Government sought no external advice on the matter. The Government’s legal directorate considered it as part and parcel of developing the proposals.
We will move on to part 2, which is on social housing.
What changes will the bill make to the existing reasonable preference provisions for the allocation of social housing and how will those changes give social landlords more flexibility than they currently have?
As you say, the purpose of the reasonable preference provisions is to give social landlords greater flexibility in allocating their housing. The bill will replace the current reasonable preference categories of failing the tolerable standard, overcrowding and large families, all of which are contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, and it will introduce new categories of being homeless or threatened with homelessness, unsatisfactory conditions and underoccupancy.
Can you give a bit more detail on why the categories of occupying overcrowded houses and large families have been dropped? Is there a shift away from giving priority to those who live in overcrowded conditions?
I do not have the detail of that, but I would be happy to write to you with it.
Thank you. Are there any other ways in which the bill would allow social landlords to make best use of social housing?
Yes. The bill will make a number of other changes, one of which is to allow landlords to take account of an applicant’s age in the allocation of housing, subject to equalities legislation. The intention behind that is to allow landlords to make best use of their stock in light of local circumstances. That suggestion came from responses to our consultation on affordable rented housing. We felt that removing the ban on taking age into account could allow landlords to develop policies that better meet the needs of people from different age groups. For example, a landlord might use a particular block of housing specifically for older people instead of having a mixed group of people whose different lifestyles could cause issues to arise. There were some concerns that the shift to allow landlords to take age into account might lead to young people being discriminated against, but the bill extends protection under the Equality Act 2010 to 16 and 17-year-olds to ensure that that does not happen.
I note from the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that there was some support for allowing allocations policies to include consideration of whether an applicant was from the local area. Why was that not taken forward?
The bill makes no changes to existing legislation in relation to local connection. Existing legislation allows landlords to take into account whether an applicant has a local connection—for example, whether they work in the area or need to move to the area because of special medical or social needs. However, in order to ensure that housing is allocated on the basis of need, landlords cannot take into account the length of time that someone has been in an area. There is no change to that.
I am sorry for raising this point, which is a bit cheeky, although it is relevant. A number of people on significantly above-average earnings continue to occupy social rented housing. There has been publicity in the past few days about attempts south of the border to end that practice. It was suggested to me that such a provision might appear in the bill, but it does not. Was one ever considered? If so, why was it dropped?
Ministers consulted on whether income should be taken into account, but they decided that, on balance, that should not be taken forward because they want social housing to remain accessible to all.
You have mentioned various factors that were taken into account. Did they include economic conditions in a particular area? I ask because I am from Aberdeen, which is a very pressured area for housing, with lots of people moving into the area to take up jobs.
As I said, existing legislation allows such local connections to be taken into account, so no change has been made to that.
Can you explain how the bill will provide social landlords with additional tools to tackle antisocial behaviour and what impact such provisions will have in practice?
Yes. There are a number of provisions in the bill that will help social landlords deal with antisocial behaviour more effectively, the first of which is to allow them to suspend an applicant with a history of antisocial behaviour from the waiting list for a period. The hope is that the ability to take past behaviour into account and to allow a period of time before an applicant is eligible for housing will encourage tenants to think about their behaviour and recognise the impact that it has on their ability to access housing.
I will ask about suspending applicants because of antisocial behaviour. Is there any clash at all with social landlords’ responsibility to make offers of housing to those who are homeless?
The provision will not affect those who are unintentionally homeless.
So there will be no suspension in those cases. That is fine.
That is one of the other provisions that would allow landlords to tackle antisocial behaviour. The intention is that it would help to reduce antisocial behaviour. Landlords would need evidence of antisocial behaviour on at least two occasions before they could convert a secure tenancy into a short Scottish secure tenancy, which would limit the tenant’s security of tenure to 12 months. A short secure tenancy currently lasts for six months, so we are extending its length from six to 12 months.
Are there any other protections for tenants who are placed on a short SST or who have their SST converted to a short SST?
Yes. The landlord would have to serve a notice to let the tenant know the grounds on which it was considering ending the short secure tenancy if the behaviour had not changed—that is not necessarily a requirement at the moment—and they would have to set out the reasons why they wished to recover possession. That is also a new measure.
What would be the right of appeal for a tenant who had their tenancy converted to a short SST?
I think that they would have a right of appeal to the social landlord and that the bill will allow ministers to set the requirement for that appeal process in regulations, but I will clarify that in writing.
Jim Eadie has some questions on private rented housing.
Thank you, convener. I will ask about the transfer of jurisdiction from the sheriff to the first-tier tribunal. There is a proposal to transfer certain types of civil court actions in relation to the private rented housing sector from the jurisdiction of the sheriff court to the jurisdiction of the first-tier tribunal, which is a new body that will be established under the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill. Can you set out the rationale for that change? What will be the benefits for tenants and landlords? Can you also explain to the committee why social rented sector cases are not being transferred from the sheriff’s jurisdiction to that of the first-tier tribunal, despite that having been flagged up as a possible option during the consultation process?
Yes. The social rented sector is very different from the private rented sector. For example, the Scottish Government’s 2009 review of the private rented sector showed that 75 per cent of private rented sector landlords have only one property, and half the properties surveyed were managed wholly by the landlords themselves. We have heard that private rented sector tenants and landlords can be reluctant to take cases to court and have difficulty accessing justice.
You have outlined the reasons for excluding the social rented sector from the proposal for the private rented sector. Can you tell me in a little bit more detail what benefits the proposal will have for landlords and tenants?
Tribunal procedures are less formal than court procedures, legal representation is not always required before tribunal proceedings, and a tribunal judiciary tends to be more active in asking questions and getting to the root of the issues involved in a case. The rationale behind transferring such cases to a tribunal is that that will enable tenants and landlords to access justice. They will have a more accessible forum in which to bring cases in situations in which they might have been reluctant to bring cases previously.
Can you clarify whether one of the advantages is that tenants who want to bring an action to the tribunal will not face the legal costs and barriers that they would have faced if they brought an action through the civil courts?
Parties that come before the tribunal could be represented if they wished, by a family friend or someone to speak on their behalf, who could be legally qualified. The tribunal’s advantage over the courts is that the tribunal judiciary has the expertise and time to ask questions, investigate the matter in question and get to the root of an issue. That should enable parties who are generally unrepresented in court proceedings at the moment to make the best of their case.
Are there any specific proposals regarding legal aid for tenants who will appear before the tribunal and what the tribunal fees are likely to be?
There are two elements to that. There would be scope for the tribunal to charge a fee under general powers provided for in the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill, which ministers want to consider further. That would involve balancing the interests of seeking to recoup a percentage of the tribunal’s overall running costs against those of ensuring accessibility for tenants and landlords, which we have said is a key issue. Any proposal to charge a fee for the private rented sector tribunal would require secondary legislation, so the Parliament would have the chance to scrutinise such a proposal.
I want to confirm that I have understood you correctly. Is the motivation for transferring jurisdiction from the sheriff court to the first-tier tribunal to do with strengthening tenants’ rights and rebalancing the relationship between the tenant and the landlord? Is that the motivation, rationale and justification for the move?
Partly. It is about improving the quality of and access to justice, for both tenants and landlords in the sector. Tenants will be able to bring cases on various issues to the tribunal, and landlords will also be able to bring cases to the tribunal.
You touched on tribunal fees being a source of income to offset the costs of setting up the tribunal. Do you have any information at this stage about what the expected cost of setting up the new process will be? Is there anything further that you can tell us about the staffing arrangements that would be required to get the service up and running and to sustain it?
We have provided cost estimates in the financial memorandum. Our estimates are that there would be one-off set-up costs of between £90,000 and £140,000 and on-going operational costs of between £580,000 and £880,000 a year. Those costs are based on data from other existing tribunal jurisdictions. The Private Rented Housing Panel is the only other dedicated housing tribunal that operates in Scotland.
We will come on to that in a second.
In the process of producing the costs, we visited some of the larger tribunal jurisdictions in Scotland—the social security and child support tribunal and the employment tribunal—to look at practice in those jurisdictions so that we could accurately model the costs.
Sixty employees is not an insignificant number of people. That suggests to me that there is an unmet need in terms of tenants being able to access justice through the current legal system, which might be addressed through the new tribunal system. Is that a fair assessment?
In consultation and during the development of the proposals, we have heard that, sometimes, tenants and landlords in the private sector can be reluctant to bring cases to court. The tribunal is intended to help parties who may have been reluctant to bring cases. A requirement for 60 members is not significant for tribunal jurisdictions of comparable size, because members are paid fees and generally tend to give around 15 days a year to tribunal work.
I would like to move on to other provisions in the bill on private rented housing matters. In sections 23 to 25, there is provision to expand access to the Private Rented Housing Panel, which you mentioned earlier, by enabling third-party applications by local authorities to enforce the repairing standard. The policy memorandum also makes reference to providing
The overall outcome that we seek to achieve through those provisions is to continue to improve the quality and condition of houses in the private rented sector that require improvement.
What will that mean in practice? How will the change benefit tenants?
There should be more of an opportunity for properties that do not meet the repairing standard to be brought to the panel’s attention and for the panel to do its job in assessing whether those properties meet the standard. If they do not, the panel can take action by issuing repairing standard enforcement orders to ensure that landlords bring properties up to the appropriate standard.
So that change could be quite significant and strengthen tenants’ rights.
Yes. The change is based on feedback from stakeholders, including local authorities, which felt that they would benefit from it. Ministers certainly felt that the move would help to improve properties out there that still do not meet the standard, and it increases opportunities for such properties to be brought to the PRHP’s attention.
What about the introduction of enhanced enforcement areas?
That is another means of seeking to improve the condition of properties where required and, again, is based on feedback that we received through the consultation that Linda Leslie mentioned and on-going dialogue with stakeholders.
That is very helpful. I understand that the intention behind the measure is to allow local authorities, if they so wish, to target enforcement action in areas where the conditions in the private rented sector are poor. Were the views that you received from stakeholders in the consultation process unanimous in their support for such a measure, or was there a range of views? Were there any conflicting views?
As we have discussed with stakeholders, the measure is designed for a particular context and we envisage its being used predominantly in urban areas. Local authorities, particularly urban ones, see it as being helpful because of the complex nature of the conditions that they might have to deal with. For example, a certain area might have a high proportion of private landlords or there might be issues with the make-up of the housing stock, and it was felt that such a power would help in those situations. Some stakeholders are particularly keen to have the measure as it will enable them to take further action to improve conditions in those areas.
Have you had any representations that suggest that we need to go further than that provision, or is it considered adequate to achieve the improvements that are sought?
That is the position at present, but because the amendment will not be lodged until stage 2 we can continue to discuss matters with stakeholders, and we will do that over the next wee while.
I am trying to establish whether you have received any early indication from stakeholders that they are satisfied that the proposed provision goes far enough or whether it would need to be amended further at a later stage in the legislative process.
The early indication is that an ability to inspect properties would be a significant and helpful power.
Thank you.
We move to part 4 of the bill, which is on letting agents. Mary Fee has some questions.
I apologise for my hoarseness—I hope that my voice lasts.
I am happy to do so. Your question is about the benefits of further regulation of the industry. We are on a journey, and we describe the process that we are going through as the further regulation of letting agents. We have taken measures to tackle some of the problems to do with letting agents that have been brought to our attention over recent years. Those measures will help, but they will not address the issue entirely. I will quickly set out the journey that we are on.
Can you give me a bit more detail about how the regulatory regime would work in practice and what the enforcement provisions would be? In the explanatory notes there is no definitive number of letting agents across Scotland, there is just an estimate.
Yes.
When a regulatory regime is set up, how will people who we do not know exist be brought on board? That is my concern. How will that work in practice?
I will start with what our intentions are in the bill. Put simply, there are three elements, the first of which is a register of letting agents. You are quite right that we do not have a definitive number of letting agents at present, but the register should give us that. It will be a legal requirement for a letting agent to register, and they will need to pass a fit-and-proper-person test. Our intention is that the Scottish Government will maintain the register. That should give a letting agent’s customers an assurance that it is indeed a letting agent, and there will be the assurance that a fit-and-proper-person test has been taken.
The onus would be on customers.
The onus will be on letting agents to register because it will be an offence if they do not do so.
I am still not completely clear about how letting agents that operate under the radar and have only one or two properties will be brought on board. If we do not know that they exist, they cannot be asked to register, so how will they be got on board?
The first and most obvious way is through the legal requirement for them to get on board. When ministers looked at the approach to letting agents, they were keen to ensure that we took a pragmatic and proportionate approach. That is one of the reasons why we set out the options that we set out. For example, we set out in the financial memorandum that we envisage that the cost to a letting agent would be £250 for a three-year membership. Therefore, the cost to a business of registering would be relatively small. There could have been further costs if we had chosen to go down another route. For example, we could have insisted on a proportion of staff having compulsory qualifications.
There is a view across many letting agents that they are happy with the bill and that it will help their sector. Are you confident that the proposals in the bill will be enough to bring on board every private letting agent?
Scottish Government ministers are confident that the provisions in the bill will achieve the aims that we have set out. In particular, the fact that the bill makes it an offence not to be registered should send a strong signal to any letting agent out there who feels that they would be able to avoid their legal requirement to register.
As you said, it will be a level 3 offence not to register. If someone registers and you then find that there is a breach of what they should be doing, will it be possible to remove them from the register?
Yes. Just to clarify, I said that it will be a level 3 offence, but it will actually be a level 5 offence. I apologise.
I know of a situation in which a property that was to let was in such poor condition that, in order to get a letting agent, the owner had to get one from Manchester. I presume that, if a letting agent works in Scotland, they will have to register here even though their head office may be outwith Scotland. Is that correct?
Yes. For a letting agent to operate in Scotland, they need to be registered.
Alex Johnstone has a supplementary question.
For a letting agent to be registered, they will be required to pass a fit-and-proper-person test. I take it that there is no plan to introduce a similar register of tenants.
No.
We will move swiftly on to mobile home sites with permanent residents. What evidence is there that the site licensing regime for permanent residential mobile homes needs to be improved?
Just to set the scene, I note that the current licensing regime is set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which is now relatively old, and Scottish ministers are aware that an increasing number of people are living on mobile home sites, including many older people. The survey that Consumer Focus carried out—I think that it was in 2012—found that the majority of interviewees were aged over 61. Such sites are marketed as desirable and affordable retirement communities.
What key changes does the bill make to the site licensing regime, and what benefits will that bring for mobile home residents?
The key change is the introduction of a fit-and-proper-person test akin to those that are used in other licensing regimes. A person who owns a mobile home site and applies for a licence will have to pass such a test under the new provisions. The bill sets out what material must be taken into account in considering whether somebody is a fit and proper person, which includes convictions for quite serious offences and, similar to tests for other licensing regimes in the housing sector, whether the person has previously contravened housing law. Somebody who runs a site on behalf of somebody else will also have to be a fit and proper person to do so.
Both the owner of a site and the person who runs it will have to be licensed.
That is correct. For the owner to obtain a licence, the person who runs the site will have to be considered a fit and proper person as well.
The site owner would lose their income from the rents.
Yes.
Where would that money go? Would the residents stop paying?
The site residents would be told that they did not have to pay on-going pitch fees. That is part of a range of enforcement measures that could be used if a person did not have a licence and continued to operate without one or if there was a failure to comply with an enforcement notice. It is anticipated that local authorities would engage with site owners prior to taking enforcement measures, but local authorities will be able to use a range of options for on-going enforcement on a site. A local authority will also be able to revoke a licence if a site owner is no longer considered to be a fit and proper person to own the site or they fail to continue to comply with the fit-and-proper-person test.
A few mobile home owners and residents in my constituency have been alerted to the bill and have had quite a lot of discussion about it. When you were drawing up the bill, did you get an impression that some local authorities have more of a handle, shall we say, on mobile home sites than others, and that the regimes in some local authority areas are very different from those in others?
There is on-going consultation with local authorities on the regime and how it is operated. The policy memorandum indicates that, in the consultation responses, there was a varied reaction from local authorities, with some perhaps not responding and others being in favour of enhanced enforcement measures. In the continuing discussions with local authorities, the Scottish Government is making them aware of the bill’s provisions and the new enforcement powers that local authorities will have.
What views did mobile home site owners and residents express in the consultation on the proposed revised licensing regime?
The responses to the formal consultation that was done before the bill’s provisions were drafted indicated that mobile home residents generally supported the proposed changes and an enhanced licensing and inspection regime.
Why did you alight on three years, as opposed to five years, for the term of a licence?
We consulted on the term being three years, and more than half of the 129 consultation responses supported that. Ministers consider that that term is similar to the terms for other types of licensing regime in the housing sector—for example, landlord registration—and that it takes account of residents’ desire for an effective, on-going review process that requires site owners to apply and local authorities to consider the fit-and-proper-person test.
How will permanent residents be protected in respect of on-going service provision and so on if the owner’s licence is refused or revoked?
It might be helpful if I set out a bit of background to the measures. The proposals in the bill deal almost exclusively with the licensing regime. The law that underpins mobile home sites and the rights of site residents is covered in various pieces of legislation, so this is part of a package of measures. The rights of people who live on mobile home sites and own the homes in which they live are protected under an act of 1983, which includes a set of terms relating to their residency. There is a provision in the bill to make it clear that those rights will not be affected by the provisions on the licensing system.
What have local authorities said about the resource implications for them of enforcing the new licensing regime?
In developing the proposals, it was considered that there should be an element of cost recovery. There is a provision that enables local authorities to charge a fee for licence applications as long as it relates to what is required to be carried out under the licensing process. There are also provisions that enable local authorities to cover any expenses that they incur from carrying out enforcement action.
That would be from the site owner.
Yes.
Do you have a ballpark figure for the cost of a licence?
Costings were carried out for the financial memorandum. It is estimated that the cost of a three-year licence will be £600. However, local authorities will be given the power to charge fees on the basis of costs to the individual local authority, so the figure may or may not be £600.
That is quite a lot if the mobile home site is not a terribly big one. I have some idea of pitch fees and they are not that much. That could be quite a lot in respect of the site owner’s income.
The £600 would be over three years, and it is anticipated that local authorities will take into account the size of the site and the general inspection costs. As I said, the fee must not exceed the reasonable cost to the authority of deciding on the application—it is tied to that. Moreover, Scottish ministers will have a power to make regulations on fees if it becomes apparent that issues are arising in respect of the bill. Such regulations could state that the fee must not exceed a certain amount and set out the factors that local authorities would have to take into account. However, it is expected that local authorities will look at the actual costs of processing licence applications.
As a result of work on a different committee, Mary Fee and I visited Travelling people’s sites, which, as you would realise from visiting them, fall under the criteria that are covered in the bill. In the preparation of the bill, was its impact and effect on Travelling people’s sites, or its interaction with them, taken into account?
The provisions in the bill will not affect Travellers sites that are maintained or operated by local authorities. However, it will affect privately-run Travellers sites, so there will be implications for them. People who own or run such sites will be required to have a licence under the provisions in the bill.
Will it basically apply in those circumstances as it will anywhere else?
Yes, but it is my understanding—if I am wrong about this, I will write to correct what I have said—that the provisions will not affect sites that are provided by local authorities. I am not sure whether the sites that were visited were local authority sites or not.
Part 6 of the bill amends local authorities’ powers to enforce repair and maintenance of private homes. Will you explain the policy objectives behind that?
I will try, but it is an area that I am not so familiar with, so we may have to write to you with some further details.
We have had a situation in Edinburgh in which, under the statutory notice system, the City of Edinburgh Council could intervene to organise repair work on private properties when the owners of shared buildings could not reach agreement. The system was accused of being open to bribery, overcharging and unnecessary work being done, and police later charged 15 people. What safeguards are in place for home owners to ensure that we do not replicate the problems that existed in Edinburgh?
My understanding is that the provisions in the bill do not replicate the system in Edinburgh. I can write to you about the safeguards and how they fit with the previous legislation in the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004.
I have two other questions that relate to that. If a council ends up paying an individual’s share, what recovery methods will be available to the council, especially in a situation where the householder or house owner has limited resources, perhaps because they are retired or unemployed?
We will have to write to you about that, to ensure that we give an accurate answer.
The City of Edinburgh Council has £22 million of repairs outstanding for which it has not yet recovered the costs from home owners. Given the financial pressures on councils, how will they be able to manage such situations?
The powers are discretionary, so it will be up to the council to decide whether it wishes to use them.
Moving on to part 7, will you provide a brief overview of the bill’s miscellaneous provisions? I am particularly interested in hearing about the changes to shared equity schemes, as I have a number of Orlit homes in my constituency. What are the practical changes with the repeal of the defective designation provisions? That is one of the four areas that are covered in part 7.
Colin Brown will answer that.
The heritable security stuff is fairly technical. It stems from legislation from 1974, which was part of a scheme to address the feudal tenure system. Those with long memories who know arcane details of feudal systems will know that people were able to redeem feu duties by paying 20 years’ worth of feu duties. In 1974, there was a concern that securities might create a form of feu duty in perpetuity when they ceased to be able to be created. The legislation for that covers all heritable securities and states that a person who has a debt or a property as security—the debtor on a security—has the right to redeem that security come year 20, as long as they pay what they originally borrowed plus the interest less what they have already paid.
So the bill just removes the provision.
Yes. It removes stuff that no longer has any practical significance.
Thank you.
We have had a good run through the generalities of the bill. I thank all the witnesses for attending, and we look forward to receiving written information from you shortly.
Previous
Attendance