Official Report 508KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the second meeting in 2014 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones and other such devices as they can affect the broadcasting system, but I note that some committee members will use their tablets to consult their papers. I also welcome Patrick Harvie to the meeting.
Good morning, everyone. The Scottish Government’s declared vision is
I am happy to kick off on that. A lot of areas in this wide-ranging bill will contribute to the improvement of housing and housing standards in the private rented sector, the owner-occupied sector and indeed the social sector. Only certain parts of it relate to physical standards, particularly in the owner-occupied and private rented sectors, but the overall issues with regard to rights, obligations and an improved housing system across the sectors are reflected in almost every part of the bill.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence. Shelter Scotland very much supports the bill’s aims and feels that many of the measures will achieve them. However, as the session continues, members will note that a few concerns that we have about some areas will emerge, and we suggest that the committee might wish to look for certain areas to be strengthened. If you have had an opportunity to read our submission, you will have seen that there are a few areas—particularly the provision of temporary accommodation and permanent homes for people who have found themselves homeless, and safety standards in the private rented sector—where we think an opportunity to strengthen the bill has been missed.
I thank the committee for inviting the SFHA to give evidence. We support the bill’s broad aims and principles, but I agree with David Bookbinder that in general it deals with the management of tenancies rather than with supply, which is more linked to your question.
On behalf of the forum, I thank the committee for the invitation to give evidence. Like others, we agree with the bill’s general principles and think that it is certainly moving in the right direction. Housing bills do not come around very often, so when they do it is essential that we use them to deal with the real and difficult housing issues that still exist in Scotland.
I am sure that my colleagues will pick up on some of the issues that you have mentioned.
As the committee knows, the bill contains a number of measures to help landlords to have more flexibility on allocations and to deal more effectively with antisocial behaviour. Those provisions could be said to have the aim of helping to maintain sustainable and cohesive communities and we very much welcome them.
Adam Ingram’s question pointed to management in the social rented sector. On achieving sustainable communities, David Bookbinder identified the antisocial behaviour measures in the bill. Shelter Scotland agrees that much more needs to be done to ensure that social landlords provide the best supply from a limited social stock, but we have concerns that the proposals on eviction processes could have negative consequences, given how they are defined in the bill.
David Bookbinder is right and I agree with him again. It is important to realise that the bill’s measures alone will not be a panacea for tackling antisocial behaviour, which will always require a multi-agency approach.
Our forum represents community-based housing associations in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. We argue that we have provided sustainable and cohesive communities for the past 35 years or so. We feel under siege to an extent, because the major issue is that it is becoming more difficult to maintain those communities and all the good work that has happened. We would support anything that the bill can do to reverse that trend.
Are you content with how the Scottish Government’s consultation process was conducted? Do you have any issues with that?
The consultation was comprehensive. Various issues were covered in different consultation processes, such as the right to buy, social sector tenancies and allocations and the future of the private rented sector. By and large, we could not say that consultation has been lacking. However, there was no prior consultation on one or two measures that appear towards the end of the bill. I will not go into detail on that now, but it meant that some of us were not in a position to comment in detail on some of the newer provisions relating to, for example, the Scottish Housing Regulator. We need more time to look at such provisions, but thankfully there is more time between now and stage 2 in which to do that.
I agree with David Bookbinder. Different Scottish Government teams consulted on different parts of the bill, so there was no single consultation. I echo the point that measures have appeared in the bill that we were perhaps not expecting as a result of the consultation process, and we need some time to consider them. That approach has meant that there are some additional measures that we would have promoted through the consultation process had we had the opportunity to do so. I hope that the committee will consider those issues at stages 1 and 2.
What specific measures are you talking about?
An example is that there was no opportunity during the consultation to raise particular issues around electrical safety in the private rented sector. We have also identified other matters on which we would have wanted to respond but that did not fit into any of the areas that were consulted on.
It is a fair point to say that some issues were not consulted on but, on a positive note, the consultation was very thorough on those issues that were consulted on, and our members were allowed to feed into the process.
I echo that. Some of the views that our members expressed in the pre-legislative consultation were taken on board when it came to the drafting of the bill, so we were pleased with the process. Probationary tenancies is one such issue on which our members commented and that has not appeared in the bill, so someone must have listened to us during the pre-legislative process.
Thank you.
As members have no further questions on that topic, I call Alex Johnstone, who has some questions on the right to buy.
Abolishing the right to buy is a headline objective of the bill. What benefits will come from that?
The key benefit is supply. For reasons that everyone is familiar with, recent years have not seen as many sales as were made in the 1980s and 1990s. The certainty that abolishing right to buy will give local authorities, landlord local authorities and housing associations with regard to their strategic and business planning roles—they will know how much rental income they will have and how much stock they can use for allocations and homelessness—will be a huge benefit.
Will you reduce the matter to simple numbers? How many vacancies do you expect to be created by the abolition of right to buy?
I do not have those figures.
Those who are denied right to buy, for the most part, will continue to be tenants. A deep assumption in the argument is that abolishing right to buy would massively increase housing stock availability, so how many vacancies will be created by abolishing that right?
An oft-used argument in favour of right to buy is that a tenant who buys does not vacate the property, but if they had not bought, they might not have immediately vacated the property either. That is a short-term argument. The longer-term argument is a no-brainer—that supply is increased by maintaining council and housing association stock at its maximum.
I think that the sales rate is currently about 1,000 a year in Scotland, but if we abolish right to buy, we will not create 1,000 vacancies a year. We will create a number that is very much smaller than that—if there are any, initially.
It is a longer-term move. As I said, if we look at the impact on supply over the longer term, there is no doubt about the contribution that right to buy has made to depriving councils and housing associations of the ability to house people in housing need.
I agree with everything that David Bookbinder has said. I add that the issue is not just the volume of stock that is lost through right to buy but the types of homes that are lost. When I say “lost”, I mean lost from the social sector. We have often seen the most desirable and best maintained homes in the best areas—often homes with particular characteristics—sold to their tenants, so that they are no longer available to social tenants in the future. Being able to secure those properties for the future is important.
The long-term issue is important. A study was done a couple of years ago—off the top of my head, I cannot remember the names of the people who carried it out, but I can supply the details later—that revealed horror stories about ex-right-to-buy properties that are now in the private rented sector for rents approaching double what the social rent would be. The study suggested that, UK-wide, that is costing the public purse up to £2 billion a year in excess housing benefit. That is one of the longer-term issues that David Bookbinder referred to.
Working for a housing association, I know that there are practical issues around right to buy in relation to trying to manage the business, as the asset base is at risk all the time. That is one of the issues that we are dealing with.
The proposal to abolish right to buy includes a three-year notice period. When we discussed that with officials last week and asked them the reason for it, they cited human rights as one of the issues. Given that a right is being taken away, they believe that a three-year notice period is appropriate. What are your views on the notice period? Do you believe that it is a human rights issue?
I am not a lawyer, but I think that there are probably human rights implications when an existing right is taken away. I can understand why ministers have been keen to ensure that they are acting reasonably in this situation so that tenants have a chance to plan ahead and consider their options.
The proposed notice period is excessive. I do not think that it is necessary to give tenants that long. It could be quite damaging, and not just from the point of view of the peaking of sales, which David Bookbinder mentioned. We also know—this has been evidenced before—that when the right to buy has been restricted or limited, companies out there almost prey on vulnerable tenants to persuade them to purchase the property when that might not be the right thing for them to do financially or in terms of their security. If we give people too long an opportunity to decide whether to purchase, we might see some detrimental effects on tenants.
It is probably worth pointing out that three quarters of the respondents to the consultation also thought that three years was too long. I agree with Shelter that a year seems more appropriate.
I echo what has been said. I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment on the human rights issue. However, I agree with what Rosemary Brotchie said on behalf of Shelter, which was that three years is too long. We reckon that the period should be one year, as we have said previously. The vast majority of our members feel that that is an appropriate timescale.
As Andy Young pointed out, people who live in pressured areas will not get the right to buy unless that status is lifted prior to the end date. Does the bill adequately address the position in which individuals in pressured areas might find themselves? Is it necessary for the bill to look further at the situation of people who would like to buy but who live in pressured areas and will remain there until the right is gone?
To be honest, I do not think that you could legislate for every little connotation of the current right-to-buy situation. For me, it would be quicker and cleaner just to draw a line under it.
Is there a danger that, if we try to legislate for every area, we will create anomalies that will then be exploited through the courts?
Possibly.
Pressured area status has been brought in for a significant and important reason. On the point about the committee possibly undermining that by trying to alter the abolition, the consensus in the consultation was that the sooner the right to buy is ended, the better.
I will come at the right to buy from an entirely different angle. Another issue is that, regardless of whether you approve of it, right to buy has been an income stream for social landlords—money has come in as a result of properties being sold. Will losing that income stream have any implications for social landlords?
It is likely that the worst affected will be the larger stock-transfer type of organisations. The indications are that the abolition of right to buy will have either a positive or a neutral effect, so the organisations are really not concerned about loss of receipts at all.
I cannot comment on the landlords’ perspective on the issue. However, even if the right to buy is removed, landlords will still be able to sell if they choose to do so. Such sales will be planned sales; landlords will be able to plan for them and sell the stock that they think is appropriate for selling. If a landlord needs to raise income and considers that selling off stock is the best way to do that, they will not be precluded from doing it by the abolition of right to buy.
Okay. Thank you very much.
If you want to have a shorter notice period—a year, say, rather than three years—might there be any difficulties in that? Even if the period is three years, do you envisage a rush of tenants wanting to buy within that three years—or one year? Has there been any indication from tenants that that might be the case?
The honest answer is that we just do not know. There is always a danger that, if we make the notice period a year, there will be a stampede. I cannot see that happening in reality, but it is of course a risk—there is no question about it.
As I said a few minutes ago, the committee will need to consider what an appropriate time is to allow people to take advice and consider the implications properly. The issues are not limited to the purchase price and the cost of the mortgage; they also include maintenance costs. Shelter Scotland sees cases in which people have bought rashly, without taking proper advice. They have not fully considered all the costs of running and maintaining an owned house, and they have got into difficulty and trouble later on.
What kind of companies?
They persuade tenants—they facilitate a mortgage, potentially so that they can buy the property to let it out. That is called mortgage to rent: tenants are persuaded to purchase their property, which the company then purchases and lets back to the tenant. We have seen that problem in the past, and it can be seen across the owner-occupied sector.
Would that situation be helped by reducing the notice time?
Potentially, yes. If we allow a longer time period, there is potential for such companies to build up more of an inroad into tenants who may not be considering their options quite as carefully as we would like.
As regards housing associations, and as far as borrowing and relationships with the banks are concerned, do you think that the right-to-buy measures will assist with the situation, as you will not have a depletion of your stock and assets?
I said earlier that it is much easier to do our own internal business planning if we know that our asset base is not at risk. That is bound to help. Over the years, the right-to-buy numbers have reduced significantly, but it is still an issue for us: we want to be able to plan ahead, knowing the amount of stock that we have and budgeting accordingly. In that respect, the measure can only help.
If there are no further questions on right to buy, we will move on to part 2 of the bill, on social housing.
What are the panel’s views on how the bill would amend the reasonable preference provisions in relation to allocation policy for social landlords?
It is a modest tinkering with the reasonable preference criteria. For many years now, very sensibly, the criteria have covered people coming out of homelessness and people living in unsatisfactory housing conditions—which include almost any kind of circumstance that people might find themselves in. Those criteria remain, with a very slight amendment to clarify that such people would of course have to be in housing need. There is also the welcome addition of people who are in social housing who are underoccupying, and we all understand the reasons for that.
Shelter Scotland has long argued that the reasonable preference groups in the current legislation are outdated and out of sync with current social housing allocation practice. We therefore think that the move is positive, in that it will give landlords scope to prioritise groups in a way that reflects local need.
David Bookbinder nailed it when he said that the effect should not be overegged. In practice, we do not think that the measure will make an awful lot of difference to housing association allocation policies.
We agree that the measure is a modest change. However, the term “unmet housing needs” in the bill could do with a bit of clarification.
I think that we all understand the reason for including the provision on underoccupied properties, which is to do with the effect that there is on many tenants. However, will the removal from the existing criteria of large families and overcrowded properties have a negative impact on some larger families or people who are struggling in houses that are too small for their needs?
No, not at all. A large family might not in itself be in any housing need. If such a family is in housing need, I believe that the situation will be covered, because I cannot imagine an allocation policy that would not include overcrowding under the criterion of unsatisfactory housing conditions. Therefore, in practice, I do not see that change making any difference.
The bill gives the Scottish ministers the power to make regulations on the categories of people that should be included in allocation policies. Is that power necessary and, if so, what categories of people should be specified?
The three key groups that are currently identified in legislation are homeless households, those living in unsatisfactory living conditions and, as we said, those with unmet housing need. That covers the broad range of people who would be given any kind of reasonable preference. However, I echo the point that the term “unmet housing needs” is a little woolly and could do with clarification.
The bill will allow social landlords, for the first time, to take into account an applicant’s age, although that cannot affect the overall policy to give priority to certain household types. What are the panel’s views on that? How could that assist in allocations?
I will unashamedly go first on that question, because CIH Scotland specifically sought the measure.
This might be one of the few areas in the bill on which there will be disagreement. We do not agree that the measure is necessary. It was not consulted on, so we did not have the opportunity to respond to it in the consultation process.
Consideration of age should help with sensitive lettings and it should help to avoid what we might call lifestyle clashes. However, because age is a protected characteristic, as was said, I wonder how the provision will operate in practice.
We support the measure. I think that it concurs with the proposals that we put forward in the Government’s pre-legislative consultation. The new provision would help social landlords to make greater use of sensitive lettings and promote greater tenant sustainability. We think that it is a good measure.
I have one last question. Do you have any comments on the bill’s provisions relating to qualifying periods for joint tenancies, subletting, assignations and successions?
We are pleased to see those provisions. Without overdramatising the extent to which abuse occurs in those areas, I suggest that most landlords have experienced cases of people who move in the day before a relative dies or something like that. The protection measure is therefore welcome.
Despite the perception, queue jumping is probably not as widespread as some people might think. That said, it is right that loopholes should be closed. I am pretty sure that our two organisations wanted to go further when it came to assignation: we wanted to remove the tenant’s right to assign a tenancy and, instead, confer a power on the landlord to allow assignation if necessary. Nevertheless, we agree with all the provisions.
Let us move on to antisocial behaviour as it is dealt with in part 2.
I have some questions about the Scottish secure tenancy.
Shelter Scotland certainly believes that antisocial behaviour, which we know can blight communities and cause misery and distress to individuals and neighbours, should be tackled quickly and effectively. However, we have concerns about the way in which section 8 is drafted—particularly about what constitutes antisocial behaviour, as it is defined—and about what evidence would be required for antisocial behaviour to result in somebody losing their tenancy or security of tenure.
I think that the measures are proportionate. Social landlords are heavily regulated, of course. It is a question of whether the system and the law trust landlords to use measures sensitively.
I do not necessarily disagree with Shelter Scotland. Clarity on what antisocial behaviour is and what the evidence test is for going through the process would be welcome—we flagged that issue up at quite an early stage in the consultation. That said, we agree with the measure.
We agree that giving more flexibility to landlords is a good thing, but the briefing note that we have issued to our members says that one consequence of the bill is to talk through the implementation issues with housing staff. Some practicalities of how such a power would be used in practice have to be worked through. We have a fair way to go to bottom that out.
If the Government produced guidance on how that particular provision should be used, would you like to see anything in particular in it? Does the guidance need to be quite specific and detailed about what evidence can be used and the length of time that people need to go back in examining the evidence?
We would certainly be interested in seeing whether there will be a check or balance in the primary legislation to identify what the burden of proof would be to penalise somebody under section 8. That is not to say that we do not take antisocial behaviour very seriously, but the means to address it should be effective and should not create unintended consequences.
We would favour advisory good practice guidance that, for instance, gives examples of behaviour that it might be appropriate and might not be appropriate to take into account. Legislating for every single circumstance in the bill or in regulations would be very risky.
We need a slightly stronger definition in the bill. Just as we can use such an example to show how such a measure could be unfair to landlords, we could probably point to an equivalent example in which such a measure could be used to unfairly penalise a tenant. We have to accept that people can reform and improve their behaviour over time.
The bill also makes provision for protection for tenants who are on short SSTs. Is any other protection required for tenants who are on short SSTs, or are you content that what is in the bill is adequate?
We certainly welcome those measures, particularly the increase in the period of time for which somebody can have an SSST, which enables them to have the support that is required to progress to a full, secure tenancy.
A landlord having to give a tenant a reason for ending a short tenancy is a positive move as well.
Yes.
Thank you.
I will go back to the earlier discussion on taking into account an applicant’s age. Is it correct that allocations could previously be made in terms of age? As MSPs, one of the major issues that we deal with is antisocial behaviour when younger people have been moved into a block that was traditionally a block for older people. Is being able to allocate based on an applicant’s age going back to what used to happen?
For as long as I can remember, it has not been possible to take age into account when allocating. I would have to double-check and get back to the committee on whether that was because of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. I rather think that it goes back to the 1987 act, but I will happily clarify that for the committee. The age-related provision in the bill will remove that prohibition on taking age into account.
You may be thinking of a situation, convener, in which landlords can already make decisions about how they allocate their property because of the type of property that it is. Clearly, if landlords have a block of adapted property or property with particular characteristics that make it more suitable for particular types of occupants, they can already distinguish people from others on a waiting list and allocate them to that property if it is suitable. As I said before, I think that there is already sufficient flexibility in allocations and that the addition of age as a category is therefore not required.
The existing provision that Rosemary Brotchie refers to relates to accommodation that is specially designed—for older people, for example. The whole idea of the new provision is to enable a degree of flexibility in relation to mainstream, ordinary accommodation that is not specially designed. That is where the barrier is at the moment.
On the antisocial behaviour proposals, do you think that tenancy agreements will be written up differently or rewritten to be more specific about what constitutes antisocial behaviour in the view of the landlord?
Possibly. It depends on what comes out at the end of this process: I think that the tenancy agreement will be based on whatever guidance you give to us.
I will continue on the subject of antisocial behaviour. The bill intends to make evictions simpler in cases in which an individual has been convicted of illegal activity that affects the community. How will that address some of the problems that social landlords currently experience when they seek to evict tenants who have a Scottish secure tenancy and who have been convicted of antisocial behaviour?
That particular provision about eviction after conviction will apply only in a small number of cases. The cases in which it could apply are likely to be protracted and difficult ones in which a criminal case is being built up at the same time as the landlord is trying to build a case to recover the property. Generally, those would be very serious cases. The landlord will often struggle in that situation, because witnesses can be afraid to come forward. If there is a conviction in those cases, it will help. So we should not exaggerate the number of cases in which the measure will help, but the cases in question are usually quite serious.
Shelter Scotland absolutely understands why landlords are seeking the change, and why MSPs might support it, but we urge a bit of caution. David Bookbinder talked about the ability to assess the nature of the offence. To take away sheriffs’ ability to assess reasonableness in the pursuit of an eviction would be a significantly detrimental measure. We argue strongly that a sheriff should still have the option of considering reasonableness in considering an eviction under the power.
I point out that social landlords’ record on evictions has improved significantly in the past three or four years. We are not in the business of evicting people; it just does not make any sense at all on any level. Obviously, I disagree with Shelter on that.
The measure in the bill is welcome, but we are talking about a very small number of cases. There is a wider discussion to be had about what social housing providers can do in the general context of antisocial behaviour and criminality. There might be a concern that everything seems to be falling at the door of the landlord. The interface with the police and other services is important.
On the small number of cases in which eviction must take place, the Legal Services Agency said in its written submission:
I concur with what the agency said, to the extent that people who are convicted of a criminal act and whose conviction might lead to a prison sentence will need somewhere to live when their sentence ends. There is a significant problem in Scotland with homelessness among people who come out of prison. We need to consider the longer-term implications of the approach.
If members were discussing this issue with a group of tenants who had, over a long period, been affected and had their lives blighted by serious and intimidatory antisocial behaviour, it would not be satisfactory to say, “Look, we could do something, but we would just be moving the problem somewhere else.” That is not a satisfactory response to such tenants.
The CIHS said in its submission:
I am not sure that the bill seeks to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour. As Alan Benson suggested, there are wider issues, which are to do with how people behave and how other agencies, not least the police, deal with antisocial behaviour.
It is evident that antisocial behaviour is not a tenure-based issue; it is found across all housing tenures. We talked about the impact of the right to buy on the creation of mixed communities. There are instances of antisocial behaviour blighting communities where there are private landlords or owner-occupiers. We want to give social landlords proportionate and effective powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, but the problem is not about housing; it is about how people behave in society.
To be honest, landlords see their relationship with agencies such as the police as far more important and influential in dealing with antisocial behaviour than anything that is in the bill.
I reiterate that it is good that the bill might provide additional tools for landlords, but the basis for that should always be to allow us to engage with people who carry out antisocial behaviour and with other agencies that can support us to find a suitable remedy.
We will move on to part 3, which is on private rented housing.
The bill makes provision to transfer certain types of civil court actions in relation to the private rented sector from the jurisdiction of the sheriff court to the jurisdiction of what will be a newly established first-tier tribunal. What are your views on that? Will it significantly improve the quality of and access to justice for landlords and tenants?
We have certainly recommended that and supported it strongly. Over the past 10 years, we have seen a continuing problem with access to justice for private tenants and, indeed, landlords in the sector. The private rented sector now houses a significant number of households across Scotland—double the number that it was 10 years ago—and we know that 26 per cent of tenants in the private rented sector have children. Increasingly, the sector houses people for much longer periods; it is becoming less about providing transitional tenancies.
I echo everything that Rosemary Brotchie said and add that all the advantages that a tribunal system would bring to the private rented sector, including that it would be less adversarial and more user friendly, would apply equally if we had a tribunal system in the social sector. I realise that that is a bigger issue, but if you were going to come on to that—
We are coming straight on to that, but first I would like to hear the panel’s views on the transfer of jurisdiction in the private rented sector, please.
I do not think that I can add anything to what Rosemary Brotchie said on that, but we want some sort of full housing tribunal pilot that deals with social cases, too.
We think that that would be a sensible measure.
That brings us seamlessly on to the next point, which is about extending the tribunal system to the social rented sector. The Chartered Institute of Housing has made the case that the transfer to the first-tier tribunal should apply also to the social rented sector. Can you outline your reasons for that and, if you have costed that proposal, say what the cost implications of such a move would be?
It would be a much greater move in terms of volume and cost. We are not arguing that the bill should be amended to take on board social sector cases, because we appreciate that a lot of costing work would need to be done. However, it is hard to find an advantage of the first-tier tribunal that does not apply across the sectors. We are aware that some changes will be made to the sheriff court system in the coming years and we acknowledge that the Scottish Government would want to consider the impact of those changes on the system, whether they reduce delays and whether the system can be made more user friendly. We are simply asking that the option to apply the tribunal system to the social sector is not closed off forever.
I do not disagree with anything that David Bookbinder has said. As I said, we supported the move to take private sector cases out of the sheriff court as the first stepping stone, particularly because there is such a degree of unmet need for dispute resolution in the private rented sector. Tenants and landlords avoid it as far as possible. We see the consequences of that in the way that the private rented sector works at the moment. We know that repairs cases are not dealt with as effectively as they might be because access to the PRHP is perhaps not as easy as it should be for tenants—
Will you explain what PRHP stands for?
I beg your pardon—it is the Private Rented Housing Panel, which is an existing tribunal specifically for dealing with repairs cases. One of the reasons for that is that tenants do not have the security of tenure that they might need in order to pursue such cases. Although we welcome the introduction of the tribunal for private rented sector cases, we think that it should be accompanied by increased security of tenure for tenants to enable them to use the new access to justice most effectively.
I want to be clear about what you mean by that. Are you saying that the scope of the tribunal should be extended?
Do you mean in terms of the social rented sector?
Yes.
That is certainly something to look at in future but, in the first instance, private rented sector cases should be the priority, and the new tribunal should be accompanied by an increase in security of tenure for tenants, to enable them to use that access to justice most effectively.
I would not argue with anything that has been said. I particularly agree with what David Bookbinder said. We talked earlier about access to justice. One of the biggest complaints to me from our members is about swift access to justice. The current sheriff court system appears to be unfit for purpose in respect of social housing cases.
Andy Young just stole my thunder. I was just going to say that the current system, as it applies to the social rented sector, is not fit for purpose. In fact, it penalises tenants. I look at spreadsheets all the time, and see rent arrears cases where the legal fees are as high as the rent arrears because of the length of time that the processes take. That issue should be looked at seriously in future. Since the Scottish Parliament was re-established, there has been a lot of talk about whether there should be a housing court to deal with some of those issues. The current sheriff court system is definitely not fit for purpose.
Ms Brotchie, you mentioned the Private Rented Housing Panel. Sections 23 to 25 of the bill make provision to expand access to the panel by enabling third-party applications by local authorities to enforce the repairing standard, which is the condition standard and legal obligation that landlords have to meet in order to rent out their property. I presume that you agree with that but, in responding to the point, could you refer to your earlier comments about the bill perhaps being in need of strengthening in relation to safety and electrical safety?
Certainly. You are right that we support the proposal for third-party reporting. The number of cases that are taken to the PRHP by tenants to challenge their landlord over the basic condition of the property is minuscule in comparison with what we know is significant disrepair throughout the private rented sector. Shelter sees cases every day. Some of the most significant things that people call us about are problems of disrepair and damp with their private rented property. Sometimes, those problems are severe and significant.
That was helpful, but I want to understand where you think the gap in the bill is so that we can address it. The Private Rented Housing Panel can issue repairing standard enforcement orders to ensure that landlords bring properties up to the appropriate standard. As I have said, that is a legal obligation. Would not that be the mechanism for ensuring that the additional electrical safety standards that you have mentioned are met?
Absolutely. However, although such orders are the mechanism for achieving standards, we are also looking for additions to the repairing standard to cover the specific issues of electrical safety and carbon monoxide alarms, in order to prevent unnecessary deaths.
Could that be achieved through an amendment?
It certainly could.
We look forward to seeing such an amendment. Do the other panel members have anything to add?
The repairing standard is very basic; we concur that it needs to be strengthened for the private rented sector. A parallel can be drawn with the social rented sector, which has to comply with the Scottish housing quality standard and for which a whole system of regulation is in place. That is absolutely fine, but the fact that the private rented sector has no equivalent must be addressed urgently. After all, the crisis in the quality of housing lies in the private sector and not in the social rented sector.
Over the past couple of years, CIHS and a number of other housing bodies have been working closely with the Electrical Safety Council on trying to get better electrical safety standards reflected in the repairing standard, including regular safety checks by qualified persons. We realise that the fact that such a provision has not been consulted on creates issues for the Scottish Government, but we very much want the Government and Parliament to keep the matter in mind, so we ask—if it is not possible to put such a measure in the bill—that it be considered at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter.
We mentioned just now the difference between repair in the private rented sector and in the social sector. I agree with most of those points, but we also seek a strengthening of the right of tenants who are placed in temporary accommodation to access to good-quality accommodation and good standards. That would be a simple amendment to an existing regulation that provides measures on unsuitable accommodation for certain categories of tenants who are placed in temporary accommodation. It should be extended to cover the condition of the accommodation in which they are placed.
I received a petition from Shelter Scotland before Christmas on that issue, so I am aware of it and look forward to further discussions on it.
I think that that is a reference to reforms of the civil court system. The jury is out—if you will excuse the pun—on what the impact of the changes will be. CIHS has always been a supporter of mediation where that is appropriate; I am sure that every organisation that is represented here is, too. There are, of course, cases in which mediation might be particularly difficult. The idea of mediation is that people volunteer for it rather than their being coerced into it, so it will not be appropriate for every case. However, more use of mediation and reform of the court system can help the social sector
Mediation is a useful tool; there is no doubt about that. It is also well used in the social sector. However, access to mediation is a bit of a problem at the moment; I understand that it is quite patchy throughout Scotland, which should be examined.
I am sure that I am by no means alone among members in seeing an increase in the volume of issues that are raised with me in relation to the private rented sector, so I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s discussions.
I am a member of the Government review group that has been mentioned, which is considering how the private rented sector tenancy currently operates. That group’s considerations so far have identified a very significant range of problems in how the tenancy works for landlords and for tenants.
On some of the other issues that I mentioned, such as failure to comply with the tenancy deposit scheme, we know that the Government is not able to put a figure on compliance, but I am sure that Shelter will be aware of many cases of landlords or letting agents working their way round the provisions by claiming not to be charging a deposit, although they are in fact charging a deposit in all but name. Are there provisions that we could be considering that would improve the operation of existing systems that are not working as they were intended to work?
Yes. The onus is on the tenant to take the landlord to court over non-protection of their deposit, and the penalty on the landlord is up to three times the deposit. There is almost an incentive for tenants to pursue such cases, but not many of them take that action. That being moved to the tribunal would be very welcome, but we would be interested to consider other options for addressing that problem.
Do you have concerns about discrimination in the private rented sector against housing benefit claimants now, or about how that might increase with the housing benefit changes that are coming through? Is there anything that we could be doing to address that issue?
I, as you and everybody else round the able has, have over the past few months heard of cases of landlords deciding wholesale not to accept tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit. That is not a new problem; it has existed many times in the past. I am sure that everybody is familiar with adverts saying “No DSS”.
CIH Scotland and CIH across the UK are concerned at reports of private landlords pulling people who are in receipt of housing benefit out of housing. It is hard to see how any Government can legislate to tell people who to house and who not to house. One obvious reaction from us is that, if more people are going to be excluded from the private rented sector who might have turned to it in the past, that increases the importance of there being an improved supply of social sector houses. The current target is to build 4,000 a year. I know that times are difficult, but the more we can do to increase that target, the more we can offer an option to people who may not now have the private rented sector to turn to.
We have touched on the subject of letting agents, and there has already been legislation concerning them. Do you agree that regulation of letting agents is required? If so, why?
We whole-heartedly agree that regulation of letting agents is necessary. I do not know of anybody who does not agree with that. Even the sector itself is calling for regulation.
How do you propose the regulatory regime should work in practice?
The proposal in the bill is that the Scottish Government will set up a register of letting agents and that, to be accepted on to it, an agent will have to accept a code of practice and pass a fit-and-proper-person test. The nature of the code of practice and the dispute resolution that will surround it need to be looked at carefully to ensure that they will be effective.
Do you believe that provision needs to be beefed up, over and above what is in the bill?
We do not know the detail of what will be in the code of practice because that is for secondary legislation, but we will be interested to see what it covers. On dispute resolution, again the bill introduces powers rather than sets out in detail how it is will operate. We encourage the committee to look for assurances from the Government about how dispute resolution will operate in practice.
Would you expect to be consulted on that?
Yes, we certainly would.
Okay.
I do not have any detailed comments on the provisions in the bill, I am afraid. We acknowledge that there is a need for reform and we are glad that the Government is acting on that need.
Does Shelter get calls from people on mobile home sites?
We get such calls occasionally. Park homes are not a big concern. In rural Scotland, there is a problem with people living in caravans on unlicensed sites, but that is not what part 5 of the bill covers.
Okay. Part 6 is on private housing conditions, on which we have already touched, in particular in relation to local authorities’ ability to pay a missing share and recoup that from the private part of a block, usually. Do you have any views on the provisions on that?
I merely say that it appears that there are welcome clarifications or modest amendments to the existing powers. Probably, the broader issue here is not so much a legislative one but a question of what resources hard-pressed local authorities are able to use to exercise the powers. Money is usually involved, which presents challenges for local authorities at any time, and especially at present. However, that is not something that the bill can tackle.
We will certainly ask about that when we have the local authority representatives in.
There is an area that has not come up in which we would like to see an additional power that is not currently in the bill. What is termed the section 5 referral process is the process whereby local authorities make referrals to housing associations to house people under the homelessness duties. Currently, there is mixed practice across Scotland regarding whether the section 5 referral process or a more informal nomination practice is used.
Rosemary Brotchie is right that local authorities use a variety of mechanisms to work with registered social landlords to house homeless people. Sometimes, the mechanism is section 5, and at other times, it is a more informal arrangement, as she said.
The proposal seems to move away from the person-centred approach that we have moved on to, and it does not sit comfortably with me. It is almost as if Shelter wants to monitor what RSLs are doing rather than worry about the outcome for homeless people, which must be first and foremost in everybody’s thoughts. If a different mechanism from section 5 referrals works best for an applicant, surely to change that would be ludicrous.
Shelter is not clear whether that approach is working best for applicants. As I said, RSLs play a large role in housing homeless people in some areas but do not in other areas.
I thank all the witnesses for their helpful input.
In the second panel of witnesses on the bill, I welcome Paul Brown, chief executive officer of the Legal Services Agency; Michael Clancy, director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland; and Garry Burns, prevention of homelessness caseworker at Govan Law Centre.
Good morning, gentlemen. The Scottish Government’s vision is
Who would like to start? I call Michael Clancy.
Thank you, convener. I am probably the least qualified member of the panel to answer Adam Ingram’s question.
I absolutely buy into the vision. Abolishing the right to buy and tackling tenemental repairs are important initiatives. I think that my colleague Garry Burns concurs with our view that there is a major problem of homelessness and that, in some respects, the bill will make that worse. The Legal Services Agency advised 256 rough sleepers in Glasgow between 12 April 2012 and 11 April 2013, but that figure soared between 12 April 2013 and 11 December 2013, which is a period of much less than a year, to 355 rough sleepers. We think that the number will double this year from a baseline four or five years ago of very few rough sleepers.
Does the position that you have described not relate particularly to Glasgow? Overall in Scotland the number of applications for homelessness assistance has fallen by about 13 per cent over the past year. I get the feeling from newspaper articles and so on that there is a passing-the-buck situation that relates particularly to Glasgow because Glasgow City Council does not have its own housing stock. As part of our evidence taking for our homelessness inquiry, we went to Glasgow and met Glasgow Housing Association and another organisation. They said that they were very proud of the work that they had done in Glasgow. However, we now seem to be finding that Glasgow City Council is reneging on its obligations to the homeless.
Glasgow City Council states that it cannot get the housing from RSLs—I am not privy to what is the true situation. We heard in the earlier evidence session about section 5 referrals by the local authority to registered social landlords, but there is basically not very much compulsion on RSLs, because they can turn down a referral if there is a good reason for them to do so. There is therefore a lack of alignment between a local authority’s obligations and the ability to provide housing. If there has been a stock transfer, the people who have the housing do not really have the obligation to provide housing for people who are homeless, but the local authority does—that is a mismatch. I suggest that the allocation policy for all public sector organisations, including RSLs, should be aligned with the public policy to provide accommodation for people who are homeless. The two things need to be aligned, or the mismatch will continue.
My point was that it seems to be a particular problem in Glasgow. As far as we can ascertain from the dealings that we have with our local authorities and housing associations, they work together in the rest of the country. The letting is done on a cross-social-housing basis. There seems to be a particular problem in Glasgow because the council does not have its own social housing stock. I think that we should move on.
I will ask Garry Burns to pick up on that, given his experience. One of the outcomes that the Scottish Government is seeking from the bill is to encourage sustainable communities. Could you talk to that in response to what you have heard already?
I echo what Paul Brown said. I agree that Glasgow is a specific case as it has the worst homelessness in Scotland, but the figures do not always tell the true story. Hidden homelessness is not happening only in Glasgow; it is happening in every community. I have worked with enough local authorities in this job and in my previous job to know that there are significant barriers to everybody who presents to a local authority. That has to be investigated. Sometimes local authorities will do everything they can before they take somebody on as a homelessness case. I dealt with a case like that just at the end of last week. I will not name the local authority, but it did everything that it could rather than take the client on as a homelessness client. The people involved were a couple—the young person involved was 16 years old. The local authority was just bashing them back and forward. The idea that this happens only in Glasgow is not completely true.
I will stop you there because we are getting into detail that we might come to when we look at the private rented sector. We are just taking a broad-brush look at this at the moment. We will certainly come back to the detail of what you were saying.
In general terms, you are saying that we need to do more than what is in the legislation to create the kind of sustainable communities that we are looking for.
Absolutely.
My final question is about the consultation process for the bill. Are you content with it? Were there deficiencies?
I have had a look at the consultation process. We got a lot of the material quite late on, so it has been difficult to look at it thoroughly, but I think that there are a lot of tenants’ voices missing. There is talk about changing age criteria in relation to reasonable preference, but I do not see that any young people or young persons’ organisations have been consulted. In my experience, inserting provisions to do with age would not be to the detriment of anybody apart from young people, so if you are changing the process, the voice of young people’s organisations such as Barnardo’s and Save the Children, which have homelessness places all over Scotland, would be positive in informing the debate. However, that part of the consultation document says that the Government did not consult on that issue. If the consultation paper itself says that it did not consult on it, that part definitely has to change.
Witnesses on a previous panel of tenants’ representatives suggested that they were actually quite pleased with the pre-consultation consultations that they had had, but I take your point about some of those things coming late on the scene.
The ones who are excluded from getting into tenancies by the bill have not been consulted. It is easy for a tenant to say that that is a good idea because it means that they will not get somebody who has had an antisocial behaviour order or who has been evicted living next to them, but those people also deserve housing. Instead of listening to only a select few tenants, there should be a wider debate that includes people who have chaotic lifestyles, because there are enough organisations working with them to allow us access to them. That would allow us to ask them, if they are going through homelessness or into different tenancies or in and out of places, what they think could help them to sustain a tenancy, as opposed to telling them how not to get housing.
I entirely agree with Garry Burns. I suggest that the membership of the affordable rented housing advisory group should have been markedly wider. There are no lawyers represented on it who specifically represent homeless people. Shelter is represented, but it bore the full weight of representing that constituency. No organisations representing people with mental health problems are represented, and that is one of the areas that we are talking about when we consider some aspects of antisocial behaviour. The membership should have been broader. I entirely agree that young people do not have a voice in established tenants’ organisations or housing associations in general, so an effort needs to be made there.
The general point about consultation is that it can always be done better. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is currently looking at the legislative process, and it will probably receive comments on consultation, which is something that we should look at in the round.
That is helpful. We will move on to the detail of the bill. Part 1 is about the abolition of the right to buy. Do you have any comments to make about the proposed abolition of the right to buy, particularly in relation to the impact on tenants’ rights?
I think that that is another one for me. Having listened to some of the earlier questioning and having read last week’s Official Report, I know that questions have been raised in the committee about whether the abolition of the right to buy is compliant with the European convention on human rights. If one looks at the provisions of the convention that engage with property rights, such as article 8, which says that
The length of time for the process to extinguish the right to buy has been stipulated at three years. We have heard from others that one year might be sufficient. Do you have a view on that?
It is a personal view only—I did not consult anyone back at the office on this. I think that three years is quite reasonable. It gives people a reasonable time in which to decide whether to exercise the right to buy.
Do any of the other gentlemen have views on the matter?
We support it.
We support it, too. It is a bold and important reform.
Part 2 of the bill is on social housing.
Does the panel have any comments on provisions in the bill that are aimed at increasing the flexibility that social landlords have in allocating properties, particularly relating to the changes to the existing reasonable preference provisions and the inclusion of age as a factor that social landlords are able to take into account?
My view is that RSLs’ obligations in the allocation of housing need to be aligned with local authorities’ obligations to provide housing, particularly where there has been a stock transfer. I have no difficulty with increasing flexibility but within the context that the flexibility needs to be constrained by enabling the local authority to meet its obligations to people who are homeless.
When it comes to reasonable preference, one danger is to do with removing the category of overcrowding. We would be concerned if that were to be removed, as overcrowding is certainly an issue in Glasgow and, I guess, in other local authority areas. Removing people living in overcrowded houses as a category for reasonable preference would not be a great idea.
Do you wish to discuss issues around antisocial behaviour, Mary?
Thank you, convener. I have some questions about Scottish secure tenancies. The bill contains provisions that would widen the circumstances in which landlords can use short SSTs where there is a history of antisocial behaviour. I am interested in the panel’s views on whether those proposals are appropriate and proportionate. Do the witnesses have any concerns about the type of evidence that a social landlord would need to have to make use of those powers?
We have considerable concerns about the overall direction of travel regarding antisocial behaviour in the bill.
I think that a solution is being designed for a problem that does not exist. SSSTs can be used at the moment anyway, if there has been antisocial behaviour. In cases involving families or individuals in which antisocial behaviour is taking place, there will be other issues and other things going on. There might be mental health problems, addiction issues or both; other things could be going on in the family.
Would it be helpful if the Government issued specific guidance to landlords on how the powers should be used?
I think that the procedure and the rights need to be tightened up. It is not just a matter of guidance. There will be human rights challenges.
Specifically with this?
Yes.
Does Garry Burns have any further comments?
No. I could not add anything that Paul Brown has not already said.
There are provisions in the bill that would provide further protection for tenants, particularly those with short SSTs. Do you think that any other type of protection is required? You have talked at length about issues that you have, but could something specific be added that would help?
To protect tenants?
Yes.
I am concerned about the new proposed recovery of possession procedure for secure tenants. Section 15 removes reasonableness from the test for antisocial behaviour. It says that if someone has been convicted of various offences, there is no defence to the action for eviction—apart from the proportionality route. I think that that was accepted in the earlier session. It seems a bit absurd to have people know that proportionality may be raised but not to explain it in statute in a way that is accountable and clear. The rule of law should give people a clear indication.
The way to improve all tenants’ rights is to bring private sector tenancy rights more in line with social sector tenancies, because it is a lot easier to get somebody out of a private let. There are examples of people who have been in their homes for four, five or six years, or even longer, and who can be out of there relatively quickly because of certain ways in which the landlord can raise actions. Sometimes not a lot of evidence is required for those actions to get somebody out, and the period can be as short as six weeks to two months. That is quite unfair, particularly where families are involved. If someone has been in a tenancy for five years, that is their home and they think that they will be there for a long time. We should bring things in the private sector more into line with the social sector.
What is Michael Clancy’s view?
I am afraid that I am inexpert in this area and must defer to the two experts on either side of me.
I suspect that I know the answer to my next question, because we have touched on the eviction process and the bill simplifies that process. Do you think that it balances the rights of tenants and landlords, or does it swing too much in favour of one or the other?
I reckon that, for the most vulnerable tenants, quite a lot of rights could be removed by the bill, and I have concerns about that. I do not understand why landlords appear to fear the legal process so much. I appreciate that there are sometimes problems, but we have heard evidence that they do not like the arrangements and that they seem to think that they do not get their remedies. That is not our experience at all. RSLs and local authorities in Scotland raise thousands of actions, sometimes on quite modest grounds, and they frequently get the remedy that they seek. I am not talking about rent arrears cases, but they frequently get the remedy that they seek in other cases. I am concerned about the way in which the changes to the SSST regime can result in naive tenants and members of their families losing their homes, or losing a lot of security, without really understanding what is going on.
Any erosion of tenants’ rights or any policy that makes it easier for a landlord to evict a tenant should be avoided at all costs. It should be more difficult to evict, although I echo what Paul Brown said—we are not saying that tenants have a right to their home no matter what they do.
Moving on to part 3, on the private rented housing sector, Jim Eadie has some questions.
I kick off by asking whether panel members have information that they can provide about housing cases, particularly those in the private rented sector, that are currently dealt with by the sheriff courts. What are some of the problems in relation to equality and access to justice?
One of the significant barriers is the private landlord. We deal with illegal evictions—a rough estimate is about five or six a month. By that, I mean a landlord changing someone’s locks or removing their property from their home and putting it out on the street.
Are you saying that in such cases, when a criminal act has been committed, the police refuse to intervene?
Not in every case.
You have experience of the other side of the situation.
In almost every case, I have had to spend a significant amount of time with the police, going through different types of officer to get the sergeant so that I can report the landlord’s action as a crime. Even when it is reported as a crime, the police ask questions such as whether the tenant has paid rent. That is not the issue. The tenant has been evicted illegally and the police are not there to make judgments on rent. Usually the police do get involved but, unfortunately, it can take a significant amount of time, during which the tenant has nowhere to go. In quite a lot of cases, the police have not really done their job. As I understand it, there have never been any prosecutions, despite significant evidence that a crime has been committed.
Do the other witnesses have any perspective on that issue?
Our experience of private rented sector cases is that they can be very complex. If the short assured tenancy is created and ended properly, there is no defence, but sometimes it is a lot more complex than that. In the case of long-running tenancies that predate the assured tenancy regime, we are looking at an earlier statutory regime. I would agree that there is a problem of landlord education.
Do you have any other perspective that you can share with the committee on your experience of how cases in the private rented sector are currently dealt with by sheriff courts?
We have little experience there, because very few tenants consult us. We have done some unlawful eviction cases, which can be very difficult if the landlord is intransigent. There is an education issue there. My impression is that some sheriffs quite enjoy the very complex cases, because they are getting their teeth into complex legal issues. However, those are quite few and far between at the moment.
I will move on in that case, unless Mr Clancy has anything to add.
Your question was also about access to justice. That can frequently depend on eligibility for legal aid, especially for tenants. Although there may be a wider eligibility for advice and assistance these days, legal aid availability is more restrictive. That is an area that needs examined. Matching eligibility and availability is a continual problem.
What are the views of the panel on the proposals contained in the bill to transfer certain types of civil court actions in relation to the private rented sector from the sheriff court to the first-tier tribunal?
The Law Society is in favour of the way in which the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill is proceeding. It is currently at stage 2. Tribunals, on the whole, have a different ethos from that of the courts. They are more accessible and more user friendly, and they can be more specialised. They are relatively less adversarial, and they are relatively more inquisitorial in the way in which they do their business. They are also quite informal. All of that adds up to a balance in favour of tribunals. Under the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill, a first-tier chamber for housing, land and property questions is envisaged.
You raise an important point about access to justice through legal aid. Do you have a sense of whether transferring the jurisdiction from the sheriff court to the newly established tribunal would be cost neutral, or whether there would be a cost implication attached? If it is the latter, how much might that be?
My capabilities in arithmetic and mathematics are so limited that I cannot answer that question just now.
I do not believe that for a moment. I do not believe that there are any limits to your capabilities.
You are charming as ever, Mr Eadie, and also overly optimistic. However, I shall take that question back and ask our access-to-justice team to look at it and see whether we can write to the committee at a later point during stage 1.
That is helpful. Could the other panel members address the issue of legal aid and fees?
Provision of legal aid for the tribunal process is crucial. There will be non-compliance with article 6 of the ECHR if that is not the case, and it would also make life difficult for the tribunal itself if none of the defenders in eviction cases in the private rented sector is represented. A proportion will have difficulties, such as communication difficulties, and will have no idea how to gather and deploy evidence or legal arguments. We are talking about a family losing their home, which is the removal of a fundamental freedom—with the obligation to pay rent and so forth, of course—so legal aid is crucial.
We would be concerned about not having a solicitor representing a tenant at a tribunal—the whole point of tribunals, as I understand it, is that there should not be—and about not having a sheriff. I am not so sure that sheriffs lack the specialism that the briefing says they lack. You can go to see a sheriff for small amounts and they can make decisions on whether or not you have bought a dodgy sofa—are we saying that it is more important for a sheriff to decide on that than to decide on your home? Our concern is that a person’s home is vital; you cannot do anything in life without a strong home. So long as it does not have the power to evict, the tribunal could be a good forum, but only as an arbitrator. If it comes to making a decision on an eviction, we feel that that power should stay with the sheriff courts, as it is at the moment. We may disagree about that, but we are from different organisations, so that is fine. We do not think that it is a great idea to move into the tribunal system.
That is helpful. Perhaps we can pursue the need for clarification that you have highlighted.
Yes.
In response to an earlier question from Mr Ingram, you mentioned the level of rents in the private rented sector. Could you say a little more about that?
The level of rents in the private sector just now is very high in comparison with the social sector. Brick by brick is the best way of looking at it: potentially, the rent for a two-bedroom house in Glasgow can be about £600 a month; the neighbours could be paying about half of that if they are in the social sector, for the exact equivalent flat. We do not see that as fair, and we think that the Government should take a role in dealing with that. For a lot of people, particularly those on the minimum wage, most of their income goes on housing costs. When most of a household’s income goes on housing costs—I was there myself not too long ago—it is not nice. It is not nice to pay half your wages to somebody else who is making quite a lot of money—and it is often the case that they are providing a poor service.
What is the remedy that you suggest the Scottish Government should adopt?
For the Scottish Government to do a review, looking into the matter at a deeper level. I appreciate that this might not be the greatest format, but there should be a big review on rent. If there is a legal way to proceed with this—we suggest that there is—and if there is a fair and just way to do it, what we are essentially talking about, to put it in a brutal way, is capping rents. I think that there is a way for the Scottish Government to consider that, potentially using legislation to protect people from having to pay exorbitant rent out of their income and at the same time protecting the public purse. That rent gets charged to people who are getting housing benefit to pay it, and they need a top-up with their £70-a-week benefits to pay off the rest of it.
I have a final question on this area. Do you think that the Government’s proposals for court reforms could achieve similar outcomes, in terms of efficiency and access to justice, to those that are envisaged through the transfer of jurisdiction from court to tribunal?
The court reform programme is broad and wide ranging. It has already begun in some respects, following on from the report of Lord Gill. There are other reports involved, too, including that of Sheriff Principal Taylor. It is a very big programme to improve efficiency in the courts and to ensure that the right level of court deals with the right level of matter.
Should social rented sector cases also be transferred to the first-tier tribunal?
We are in opposition to that for the private rented sector, so it follows that we will be opposed to it for the social rented sector. I will not add anything further.
I did not realise that this would be such a hot potato. I would like to submit some more detailed written representations later. The fundamental issue is not between a tribunal and a court—it is about the resources that go into the provision of the court or tribunal facilities; ensuring that the judges, whether on a tribunal or in a sheriff court, know about the subject matter beforehand; and ensuring that there is legal aid. In the past—it is less the case now—there was an idea that a case going to a tribunal meant that it was not necessary to have representation and that, if someone did have representation, they did not need to be all that expert.
The rest of the questions that I was going to ask have been covered.
Mark Griffin has some questions on other matters relating to the private rented sector.
What are your views on expanding access to the Private Rented Housing Panel by enabling third-party applications by local authorities to enforce the repairing standard?
Great.
Brilliant.
You have a consensus there.
Okay—that was an easy one.
We agree with the regulation of letting agents. The policy intention is a clear one, and we support it. We have an issue, however, with the way in which the regulatory scheme is being set up, the extent of the regulation of letting agents by Scottish ministers and the functions that the Scottish ministers would perform as regulators. Those are our issues—as well as the inclusion of solicitors in the regulatory scheme.
So you would hope that solicitors would be excluded from the scheme.
In the scheme under the bill, Scottish ministers are to establish a register of letting agents, and it will be a criminal offence not to register yet to act as a letting agent. In order to be on the register, someone has to be
Do the other panel members wish to comment?
Convener, if you do not mind, I would like to put on record some comments about certain drafting points in the bill.
If no one has any comments about parts 6 or 7 or wishes to raise any other general issue, I want, finally, to ask the witnesses whether they have any comments about part 5, which relates to mobile home sites with permanent residents.
No.
No.
No.
As members have no further questions, I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence. We look forward to receiving the further details that one or two of you have said you would like to send in.
Previous
Attendance