We proceed to agenda item 2. Members should have received copies of all the written submissions that have come in and a helpful note that the clerk and the Scottish Parliament information centre have prepared. We must decide whom to invite to give oral evidence on the Tenements (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, so I invite members' suggestions.
An invitation to the Association of British Insurers would flow from some of the discussions that we have had. I was also interested in the City of Edinburgh Council's submission, because I was somewhat surprised to learn that the council does things differently as far as common repairs in tenements are concerned. I had thought that everybody treated common repairs in the same way, but perhaps that was because I used to be a councillor in the City of Edinburgh Council and have no experience of what happens elsewhere in Scotland. The council's submission says that the tenement management scheme takes precedence over the existing deeds; that would be an interesting issue to explore with the council. I thought that it might be interesting to hear from those two bodies.
I was interested to note that the City of Edinburgh Council submitted a detailed response and is certainly not in favour of free variation of the title deeds.
I am happy to do that. It would be useful to hear from local authorities other than the City of Edinburgh Council, which clearly has a track record in dealing with the matter differently from other local authorities.
The Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland would offer us a technical understanding of the background to the legislation, which might be valuable.
A number of local authorities have sent us written submissions. It will be difficult to choose which ones should give oral evidence and which ones should not, but we need a panel of local authorities so that we can reflect the interest across Scotland. I would like North Lanarkshire Council to be part of that panel; we have experience of a lot of multistorey blocks, not in my constituency, but in my colleague Cathie Craigie's constituency of Cumbernauld, which has high levels of home ownership and the problems that arise from that. North Lanarkshire Council would have a specific perspective on the issue and on the bill. We should reflect the geographic spread of local authorities that have expressed an interest.
May I intervene for a moment? Page 7 of the clerk's paper has a list of suggested witnesses for oral evidence, which includes the Chartered Institute of Housing. Members might want to look at that list as a starting point. I am happy to listen to other suggestions over and above what is in the paper. So far, Karen Whitefield has suggested that apart from the Chartered Institute of Housing, we should take evidence from a representative panel of local authorities.
I am happy with that suggestion. I note simply that while it has been suggested that the Chartered Institute of Housing should provide oral evidence, we have received nothing in writing from it, so to comment on what we think the institute might say might be slightly premature in the absence of any paper from it.
I was going to suggest that as well.
I am grateful to you for mentioning that, because it lets me raise a technical point about paragraph 28 of the summary of written evidence, in which Dr Douglas Robertson becomes Dr Douglas Paterson. I alert the committee to that little clerical oversight. I have noted the suggestions so far.
The only other organisation that I have highlighted is the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. As I am not an expert on housing, perhaps somebody could tell me whether its evidence would be covered by the Chartered Institute of Housing.
My preference would be to hear from the Chartered Institute of Housing, but Jackie Baillie might have a slightly different view. That is my preference simply because the CIH looks at housing as a whole, not solely from the point of view of the registered social landlord. The SFHA will have things to say about the bill, but it would come at it from the perspective of an RSL, rather than look at it in the round; having said that, I may have condemned the SFHA unduly, which I would not want to do.
We have set aside two meetings to take evidence; our third meeting will be with the Minister for Communities. We must be sensible about getting the best responses from our evidence sessions. That means that we should be focused on selecting the witnesses for oral evidence—if we are not, we will use up all three meetings. We will do that if we have to, but I think that the committee is not overly enthusiastic about doing so. I am happy to be guided by members.
Leaving aside the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland for a moment, I move to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland and the Property Managers Association Scotland. Again, I think that they could be conjoined in a single session. Is that acceptable?
That takes us pretty close to the usual capacity of our meetings. We then have the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, a local authority and the two other suggestions that were made. Members might think that the City of Edinburgh Council's response is very full—we are in no doubt about its views or its reasons for holding them—and that it is therefore not necessary for the council to give oral evidence. Perhaps it is important to test the council's views against other sources, and that might bring us towards the grouping that Mike Pringle suggested, perhaps coupled with an umbrella organisation. I throw in that suggestion—it is not absolute, but that grouping would represent all local authorities' lawyers and administrators. We will get into slightly pressurised territory at the second evidence-taking meeting. Are members with me?
I am absolutely with you, but I do not think that the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, good though it is, will necessarily add anything. We have agreed to have a substantive evidence-taking session with the legal profession, and if we are to invite the society, we should invite it in that category. There are some things that we want to hear about from local authorities, from either the City of Edinburgh Council or a small panel of local authorities. Perhaps we should ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to bring along a couple of authorities.
I might be happier with that. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that Karen Whitefield made, I am conscious that it is difficult for us to select some local authorities without inevitably causing irritation to others who have views to offer on the situation in their areas. However, I am perfectly happy to deal with the matter under the umbrella of COSLA, if we ask it to be our witness and to bring such representatives as it deems appropriate. Is that all right?
The Council of Mortgage Lenders is important for one reason: whatever happens, we must be clear that we understand the effect of any legislative proposals. If the CML has concerns about what it would find acceptable in the future as lending security for tenement or other subdivided properties in Scotland, we need to know about that. Do members agree that we should invite the CML?
Are we content with the City of Edinburgh Council's written submission or do we want to—
Leave that to COSLA.
I am happy with that. That leaves us with the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which is a perfectly reputable body that has, no doubt, a valuable opinion to offer; I am just sorry that there is no written submission from it to help us. If members want to take evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing, we can probably build that into the second evidence-taking session. Is that agreed?
We have a final decision to make, although I think that we have dealt with it. Is the body that Mike Pringle suggested taken care of under the umbrella presence of COSLA?
Yes.
So you do not want to press that suggestion?
No.
My suggestion was to take evidence from the Scottish Consumer Council, rather than from individual tenants associations.
That is sensible. Are members happy with that suggestion?
The clerks tell me that that gives us six groups of witnesses, which we can fit into the two available evidence-taking sessions. I presume that the third session will be for the minister, after which we will identify the bones of our draft report.
Should we fit in Douglas Paterson?
It is Douglas Robertson.
Somebody said that it is Paterson.
No; it is Robertson.
It might be interesting to get Dr Robertson's perspective given that he is an individual, rather than a representative of an organisation. His submission was reasonably good, so it might be useful to hear from him.
Do members support the inclusion of Dr Robertson?
If we can hear from him, we should do so.
We might be able to build in space in the session with the Council of Mortgage Lenders, given that its points will be fairly focused. Do members agree to include Dr Douglas Robertson?
I am grateful to members for their suggestions.
Previous
Constitutional Reform Bill