Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
We move now to agenda item 2, for which we are joined by Pauline McNeil MSP and Ted Brocklebank MSP. We will be considering stage 2 amendments to the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill.
I welcome Alex Neil, the Minister for Housing and Communities. The minister is accompanied by Colin Affleck, senior policy officer of the private rented sector policy team; Rachel England, policy analyst with the housing supply unit; Willie Ferrie from the office of the Scottish parliamentary counsel; and Stephanie Virlogeux from the Scottish Government legal directorate. Welcome.
We now turn to our marshalled list.
Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.
Section 6—Duty to include certain information in advertisements
Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 8, 9, 10 and 11.
The Minister for Housing and Communities (Alex Neil)
The main effect of amendments 7 to 11 will be to limit the requirement for the inclusion of landlord registration numbers in advertisements when landlords are advertising private rented property in cases where houses are in multiple ownership. I am aware that some landlords have expressed concerns that, should the bill require the inclusion of multiple registration numbers in advertisements where there are two or more owners of a property, that could increase the advertising costs for landlords. In response to that concern, the Scottish Government has lodged amendment 9, which provides that, where there are two or more owners of a property, the duty is complied with by the inclusion in the advert of the registration number of any one of the landlords. In other words, only one registration number will be required in the advert.
Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that landlords will not incur excessive costs in cases in which there are joint owners and one or more is registered and one or more has a pending application. In such cases, the duty will be complied with by the inclusion of either the landlord registration number of one of the landlords or the statement “landlord registration pending”.
Amendment 11 is a consequential amendment that will apply the definition of “advertisement” to the provisions that are proposed in amendments 9 and 10. Amendments 7 and 8 clarify the meaning of “registered person” in proposed new section 92B of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, as would be inserted by section 6 of the bill.
I ask the committee to support amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in my name.
I move amendment 7.
I understand the intention of the minister’s amendments, and I support the principle behind that intention. However, in his closing comments, will he clarify whether the provisions will simply mean that only one of two individuals who are landlords of a property will register, while the other will decide that there is no compelling reason to do so?
I can confirm that both will have to register; the only issue is what appears in the advertisement. In essence, what appears in the advert is a control mechanism for enforcement officers in local authorities. We have consulted them widely and they are content that the provisions will in no way diminish the effectiveness of enforcement.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendments 8 to 11 moved—[Alex Neil]—and agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 12 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Before section 13
10:45
Amendment 28, in the name of Alex Johnstone, is in a group on its own.
It is not my intention to speak at great length since the subject was brought to my attention by my colleague Ted Brocklebank. The experience that Ted reports is a problem that is associated with the high density of houses in multiple occupation in the town of St Andrews.
I apologise to anyone who has been concerned about the nature of amendment 28. I know that it has frightened a few horses in some areas, but it was designed to put the matter on the agenda during our discussion. I am aware that a great deal of fine tuning is necessary, and I hope that we can deal with any side effects during the passage of the bill. It is a matter that I wish to see aired, and I look forward to hearing what the minister and Ted Brocklebank have to say.
I move amendment 28.
I begin by drawing the committee’s attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests to the effect that I own two properties in St Andrews that are let for rental. Technically, they are not HMOs since each property is occupied by only two tenants, but by any definition I am a landlord. I assure the committee that what I have to say today in support of amendment 28 is unlikely to be endorsed by the Scottish Association of Landlords.
Simply, the purpose of amendment 28 is to manage concentrations of HMOs that have been shown to be destructive to social cohesion and sustainability of communities. I speak with direct experience of the situation in St Andrews, which is a small town with a fixed population of around 16,000. Additionally, there are around 8,000 students and 1,120 licensed HMOs. They account for 93 per cent of the total for the whole of Fife.
The HMO problem is severest in the historic core of the town. In what has been described as the best surviving example of a medieval township in Scotland, approximately 85 per cent of the population are students. The 155 permanent residents are a diminishing group as market forces ensure that most houses and flats that come on the market are bought by absentee buy-to-let landlords who are guaranteed to have tenants and a reliable income. I assure the committee that the properties that I own are not in the town centre, nor am I an absentee.
By any measure, St Andrews city centre is not a balanced community. The remaining permanent residents’ lifestyles are directly affected by the lifestyles of a younger peripatetic student community, and the buy-to-let properties are not maintained at anything like the same level as those of the permanent residents. I am being neither anti-student nor anti-landlord; I am simply reflecting the facts.
To tackle the problems in the historic core, Fife Council has recently introduced for consultation a draft policy that would limit further HMO development in the town centre, but the policy cannot be fully effective as it covers only houses and flats that require planning permission, and a large number of premises, including many listed buildings, are outwith the scope of the planning legislation. The situation that I describe is replicated with variations in many parts of Scotland, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill will improve matters by empowering local authorities to require planning permission before considering a licence application. However, not all HMOs require planning consent, so consequently the planning system cannot prevent concentrations of HMOs. The requirement for planning consent for some HMOs but not others will have the effect of concentrating HMOs in house types and areas for which there are no planning controls, thus defeating the very intention of the legislation.
Amendment 28, as lodged by my colleague Alex Johnstone, would make all HMOs subject to planning consent and remove that problem at a stroke. I do not believe that it would prove onerous for local authorities to administer, but would simplify matters through introducing one rule for all.
I am grateful to Mr Brocklebank for his explanation of amendment 28.
When the committee took evidence at stage 1, we were made very aware of the situation in St Andrews in particular. However, I am not sure that the planning system is the way to resolve issues of density.
I would be interested to hear the minister’s comments on amendment 28, its effect with regard to the way in which planning can control the problem and how we can meet the increased demand for HMOs that is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. If there is a demand, it needs to be serviced somewhere.
I recognise what Ted Brocklebank says about the proliferation of HMOs in a given area, but if the provision is not to be there, it needs to be somewhere else, and I am not sure how the interaction would arrive at that.
I would be interested to hear the minister’s response as to whether amendment 28 would achieve what Mr Brocklebank suggests it will achieve.
I empathise with the issue that Ted Brocklebank has raised in relation to St Andrews, but I also share Mary Mulligan’s concerns that amendment 28 is not the best way to deal with the problem of density.
In fact, amendment 28 would have the extreme opposite effect, in that it would have hugely negative repercussions for the whole HMO sector throughout Scotland. It would mean that every HMO in Scotland would need planning permission, whether or not it is subject to planning control at present, and it would cost local authorities, private landlords and the Scottish Government millions of pounds.
Those costs and the additional unnecessary red tape are likely to affect HMO businesses and significantly to impact on supply by driving good landlords out of the sector and encouraging bad landlords to operate without licences.
As Mary Mulligan said, there will be expanding demand for HMOs. We estimate that as many as 7,500 young adults will require HMO accommodation in Glasgow and Edinburgh in the near future. We are working to drive up standards in the HMO sector and have already included in the bill powers that will help local authorities in that regard. Unfortunately, Alex Johnstone’s amendment 28—which is in a sense Ted Brocklebank’s amendment—would mean that there would most likely not be enough HMOs to go round, which would create a dire shortage.
If access to HMOs is to be substantially reduced, where are vulnerable tenants to go? Where will the 7,500 young people aged between 25 and 34 find single rooms if HMOs are disappearing, in the light of the welfare and housing benefit reforms that have been announced? Even worse, what would happen if people end up living in dangerous, substandard and unlicensed HMOs because of the pressure that amendment 28 would put on the supply?
As the committee pointed out in its stage 1 report, we need to ensure that young people have access to safe and secure accommodation. In that spirit, I ask members to consider carefully the ramifications of amendment 28, which I unfortunately cannot support. I urge Alex Johnstone to withdraw it.
As I conceded, my objective in lodging amendment 28 was to put the matter on the agenda for discussion. I was aware that it is a blunt instrument and I was aware of some of its potential consequences—other consequences have been brought to my attention since I lodged it. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss the matter and I welcome the minister’s acknowledgement that there is a problem in St Andrews and perhaps one or two other places in Scotland. As a consequence, it would be appropriate at this stage to seek leave to withdraw amendment 28, so that I can consider the matter further.
Amendment 28, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 13—Amendment of HMO licensing regime
Amendment 29, in the name of Jim Tolson, is grouped with amendments 1 to 4, 30 and 6. If amendment 29 is agreed to, amendments 1 to 4 and 30 will be pre-empted.
Many people think that amendment 29 is very much focused on students in Scotland. However, although the National Union of Students Scotland was instrumental in taking forward the approach that is proposed in amendment 29, members will be aware that the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, Crisis and other organisations provided briefings in which they sympathised with the proposed approach.
The concern of those bodies, which I share to a large extent, is that the bill—and the amendments in Pauline McNeill’s name—might make the situation worse, particularly in relation to the need to solve Scotland’s homelessness problems. The Government’s approach will not achieve many of the aims of the bill. In particular, the link with planning will reduce local authorities’ flexibility. I would rather put in place a more commonsense approach, which would allow flexibility to permit HMOs, where they are required and where there is no huge, detrimental impact on permanent residents—I know about the extreme cases in St Andrews, which Ted Brocklebank rightly mentioned.
It is certainly not a case of one size fits all for HMOs throughout the country. Flexibility is important for local authorities and local councillors, who are much more aware of the situation on the ground in their areas. Restricting supply could be the wrong thing to do, particularly at this time, as Mary Mulligan and other members said. It would put more pressure on not just students but the many people who might lose their private homes and need to find other accommodation. If not enough rented accommodation is available, there will be problems in many areas and there will be an effect on homelessness in Scotland, which is an issue that we all want to solve.
The bill and the amendments in Pauline McNeill’s name would put more pressure on honest landlords and do not focus on solving the problem of rogue landlords. I would rather that we produced legislation that focused on rogue landlords.
The HMO licensing scheme is imperfect and needs to work better, but a requirement for planning permission could be counterproductive in many ways, particularly if it led to more subdivision by certain landlords. The organisations that I talked about are concerned, as am I, about the impact on not just the type and suitability but the safety of accommodation.
In all likelihood, a shortage of HMOs would push up costs. I draw members’ attention to the situation in Aberdeen, where renting is much more expensive. I am not sure that many of the students who plan to go to the University of Aberdeen or other institutions in the city are aware of the bill’s implications for them.
I move amendment 29.
11:00
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
I lodged amendment 1, which I do not intend to press, simply to enable the committee to debate whether the bill should require local authorities to implement the approach in section 13(2), rather than provide that they “may” do so, as the bill says.
I will explain what I wanted to achieve by lodging amendments 1 to 4, 30 and 6. First, as we have often heard in the Parliament, high concentrations of HMOs in parts of Scotland are making some communities unsustainable, as Ted Brocklebank said. I represent an area in which that has been the case for many years. As always, I place it on record that I support HMOs as part of the housing solution, but they cannot continue to be unregulated.
I turn to Jim Tolson’s amendment 29, which is set up against my amendments. His analysis is wrong because the bill does not at all reduce flexibility for local authorities, but instead gives them a choice—I recognise the progress that Alex Neil has made on that. Proposed new section 129A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 states that local authorities can “refuse to consider” an application. The wording in the bill gives local authorities a power that they may or may not use. Therefore, it certainly does not reduce flexibility.
I am sure that other members have argued that there should be strategies for homeless people, student accommodation and migrant workers. Universities should not be let off the hook, and nor should local authorities. However, to have an unregulated HMO system as the only solution would continue to grow the problem throughout Scotland, rather than reduce it. Jim Tolson fails to take into account the concentrations of HMOs in some areas. I can tell him directly that, in my communities and probably in Patricia Ferguson’s constituency, families are leaving. People who were born and bred in areas such as Hillhead and Partick are pleading for us to do something because their communities are unsustainable. The tenement properties that I have particular experience of were not built to allow 35 people to live in one close, as is the situation next to my office. The amenity is not sustainable with that number of people.
Through my amendments, I want to give local authorities clear grounds on which to consider whether an HMO licence should be granted and to expand the grounds on which local authorities can refuse a licence. It is important to emphasise that the issue is not about planning regulation. My amendments would allow local authorities to use certain provisions to refuse applications; their use would be a matter for local authority licensing committees.
Amendment 2 relates to the variation of a licence. Under the bill, a local authority will be able to refuse to consider an application, so it would make sense and be consistent with the bill to allow an authority to refuse to consider the variation of a licence if it so wishes.
On amendment 3, when I think back to the panels that were put together after the introduction of the 2006 act, in relation to which I, Iain Smith, Mike Pringle and others debated the thinking on HMOs, I remember that there was discussion about the 10-year lawful-use rule. I would not go to the wall on the issue, but it is important to recognise that, under planning law, a landlord who does not have a legal HMO but who can provide evidence that the property has been used as an HMO for 10 years must be granted consent. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law. Even in cases in which a property could legally be an HMO, that should still be a matter for planning law and landlords should not be given consent simply because the property has been used in that way for 10 years.
The evidence that landlords provide in claiming that their property has been used as an HMO for 10 years can be patchy. I cite as an example a property in Glasgow that I owned in 2001 and for which the current landlord applied for a licence under the 10-year lawful- use rule. I had to write to the local authority saying that I could show it the title deeds and details of the sale. It is important to acknowledge that, as greater reliance on HMOs is possible for the reasons that Jim Tolson outlined, that rule will be used more often.
My main amendments are 4, 30 and 6. The committee has heard evidence that, in some cases, the subdivision of rooms leads to overcrowding and noise nuisance. My constituency has many conservation areas where we might be concerned about what is happening to properties, but I am more concerned about landlords cramming in tenants by basically putting a wall in the middle of a room and splitting a window in half or not having a window.
It could be argued that, in such circumstances, local authorities can use the guidance, but I think that such adaptation should be clear-cut grounds for refusal. Authorities will be able to choose whether to use that power. I worry that if such a provision is not in the bill, local authorities will lose appeals. We should not forget that plenty of appeals are made against local authorities that have refused to grant HMO licences.
The same is true of stacked services in tenements where the water amenities are aligned. Landlords who want to put in more tenants will move the kitchen or the bathroom, which causes problems for tenants who sleep below those kitchens or bathrooms, which could be prone to leaks. It seems to me that it would be quite legitimate for a local authority, in circumstances in which it thought that a landlord was maximising the rental stream by cramming a kitchen, a toilet or too many bedrooms into an amenity that could not sustain it, to say, “We are not happy to grant the licence until you change that.”
The same should apply in relation to communal space and amenity. The focus is very much on tenemental properties. To achieve what we are trying to achieve on recycling in Glasgow, it is necessary to have space in the back court. Back courts are not big enough to sustain all the bin bags and recycling for 35 people who all live in one tenement. A local authority should be allowed to look at that issue when it considers licence applications. I re-emphasise that we are talking about licensing law rather than planning law.
Finally—I am getting there—the minister knows from the many letters that I have sent him on the issue and the many discussions that we have had about it how frustrated I am about the length of time that it took for the provisions of the 2006 act, which I think are good, to come into force. I have consulted widely with my local authority, Glasgow City Council, and COSLA, and have reassured them that my intention is to give local authorities the power to act at their discretion.
I feel strongly that whatever legislation we end up with following stage 3 should come into force immediately. We should certainly not have to wait as long as we waited for implementation of the 2006 act, although I know that the minister will say that there were reasons for that, from which I hope that lessons have been learned about the construction of legislation. I make a plea: wherever the committee goes with it, the bill is needed. Local authorities will have the discretion to act. I argue that more local authorities will need to be able to regulate such matters.
I speak against Jim Tolson’s amendment 29 because in lodging it he forgets the rationale for HMO licensing, which was very simple. We recognised the situation that the tragic deaths of two youth students in my constituency highlighted—the circumstances in which too many of our young people, particularly students, and too many vulnerable people in our communities, such as migrant workers, were living. HMO licensing was developed to protect those people.
In future, given the uncertainties that exist because of the changes that are being made to the benefits system, the likelihood is, as the minister said, that the number of people who seek to live in such accommodation will increase. To my mind, that makes it even more important that we have proper and robust legislation in place that protects those people, and that is exactly what the bill aims to do. I have some concerns about whether it does that in the way that I would like it to, but that is what it aims to do.
I support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 4, in particular, because the subdivision of properties, particularly properties in tenemental buildings, is, as she rightly identified, a huge and growing concern in areas of Glasgow that we are very familiar with and which we work with cheek by jowl. I am extremely frustrated by the lack of opportunity that exists to help people who, as a result of the legislation that is there to protect vulnerable people, find that their communities are being adversely affected by the concentration of HMOs and by the adaptation of HMO properties within communal properties. Pauline McNeill has given examples of windows and sewerage, drainage and other pipework being affected.
In some properties fire doors are quite rightly provided. Unfortunately, because of the number of people who come and go in those properties, the noise created at certain times of the day by fire doors closing becomes an adverse factor for others who live in the close. They might find that their traditional-style flat is now surrounded by flats in which the bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms and front doors no longer marry up. I am keen that we try to ensure that the legislation makes it safe for people to live in HMOs, and that it also makes it possible for the community to be as balanced and as mixed as possible.
We have to have a serious conversation with the UK Government about the situation that is going to be created by the benefits changes. Perhaps closer to hand, we also have to have a serious conversation with the universities and colleges about the way in which they have to take responsibility for some of the situations that exist. I speak as someone whose constituency, as well as containing a number of HMOs, contains the largest student village in Europe. I am proud of that, because the young people who inhabit that village are an asset to the community. However, their needs and the needs of the indigenous community have to be balanced and both have to be safeguarded.
I will not repeat what Patricia Ferguson has said about Jim Tolson’s amendment 29 other than to say that I do not think that it is the right way to go. I support the idea that we need to have a more comprehensive study of the housing needs of young people and students in particular. Whatever happens after the coming election, it would be prudent to consider that.
On Pauline McNeill’s amendments, I am attracted to amendment 4, which deals with stacked services. That issue was raised with us in stage 1 evidence. It causes inconvenience—perhaps worse than that—for people who live in those areas. The amendment has a point and I am interested to hear the minister’s response to it.
Likewise, I am interested in the continual operation issue, which is dealt with in amendment 3. It is wrong that we should reward people for bad behaviour. Regardless of how long someone thinks an HMO might have been operating, if it has not been registered and they know that it should have been, something is wrong. I am interested to hear what the minister thinks should be our response to that issue.
There is a general point to be made. At the beginning of our consideration of the bill, we knew that it would deal with the HMO issue. I remind the committee that the HMO provisions were removed from the Housing (Scotland) Bill and put into the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill, but we still have not arrived at a satisfactory situation for all those who are involved in HMOs. We have not addressed the concentration levels within certain areas in our towns and cities or the concerns that have been expressed about that issue by people who have lived in those areas for many years. We are now faced with a potential increase in demand, and there is an issue about how to build such an increase into our system.
Apart from the complaints about levels of HMO concentration, the main problem seems to be with management. I am not sure that the bill puts the right measures in place. The minister might have other ideas, but it seems to me that we are making small changes to the existing legislation. If, as Pauline McNeill suggested, local authorities are not pursuing bad management or other bad situations, that is because they feel that they are not going to be able to win the cases. Is the bill going to change that situation? Can we tell people that they will be able to address the problems that have been flagged up to us? Despite the amount of time that we have had to deal with the issue, I do not feel confident that we will have the right legislation in place. I understand why the amendments that we are dealing with were lodged. We are trying to deal with the problem, but in a piecemeal way. We might need to remove the provisions on HMO, decide that the system needs a complete overhaul and take it back to the drawing board. At the moment, I am not sure that we are resolving the problems of anyone who is involved in the sector.
11:15
We must have a balanced approach in ensuring that there is effective regulation and enforcement of regulation, and that must be done sensibly and at the right time in order not to reduce unintentionally the supply of good-quality HMOs. Having listened to the debate, I feel that members perhaps do not fully appreciate the powers that are already available to local authorities, for example to deal with the management of HMOs.
Let me deal with the amendments in more detail, starting with Jim Tolson’s amendment 29. Section 13 of the bill amends the HMO licensing regime in part 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, which will commence on 31 August this year, to give a local authority power to refuse to consider an HMO licence application if it considers that any requisite planning permission has not been obtained. Amendment 29 seeks to remove that power completely from the bill. The request for the power originated from Glasgow City Council, which requested help to deal with problems in areas such as Hillhead, where many HMOs operate in breach of planning controls. The inclusion of that power in the bill was endorsed by the Scottish private rented sector strategy group. It is expected that the power will help to improve enforcement where there are excessive numbers of HMOs in an area and will allow local authorities discretion to take account of local circumstances.
Pauline McNeill’s amendment 1 goes significantly further than the bill’s provisions by seeking to make it mandatory for local authorities to confirm the position in relation to planning permission before considering an application for an HMO licence. Thereafter, amendment 1 would require them to refuse to consider the application if the HMO was in breach of planning control. I understand why Pauline McNeill lodged amendment 1 and I am sympathetic to the particular concerns of her constituents in Hillhead, which is why we included the discretionary power in the bill in the first place. However, I believe that amendment 1 would have unintended negative consequences; accordingly, I cannot support it.
As I said, I was pleased to hear members acknowledge the need to find a balance between managing the impacts that a concentration of HMOs can have on communities and ensuring that young people have access to safe and secure accommodation. I fully support that view; unfortunately, I believe that Pauline McNeill’s proposal would stymie efforts to strike that balance by restricting supply and removing local authority discretion. It would also have the unintended consequence of forcing HMO landlords underground. As I outlined, the provision in the bill as introduced originated from Glasgow City Council, which requested a discretionary power to consider planning matters in the context of HMO licence applications in order to deal with exactly the sort of problems that Pauline McNeill seeks to address.
Amendment 1 would remove that discretion and impose a substantial new administrative burden on all local authorities at a time when prioritisation of the use of public finances and staff resource is a key strategic issue. Local authorities would have to check the planning position in relation to every single application. That is not straightforward and would require the council to ascertain whether planning permission was required for the HMO in question and thereafter to establish whether such permission had been granted. I appreciate that councils require the flexibility to prioritise their activities on the basis of local needs. For example, they may consider local planning considerations to be outweighed by the need for HMO accommodation in a particular area to tackle homelessness. The provision in the bill as introduced would enable authorities to take the planning position into account where they considered that to be appropriate. However, amendment 1 would require authorities to do so even if they did not consider it necessary or helpful in view of local conditions. That would cause unnecessary delays in opening HMOs in areas where they were most needed, which would restrict supply and could contribute to homelessness.
The bulk of most HMOs raise no planning concerns for local authorities. Many authorities will not need to use proposed new section 129A of the 2006 act, so it is appropriate that its use remains discretionary, to avoid an unnecessary administrative burden and so that authorities can consider their particular local issues and needs case by case. Glasgow City Council and other stakeholders that I have consulted support that approach. As I said, the PRS strategy group, which helped to develop the bill, concurred with that view. The bill sounding board that I established also endorsed it.
Amendment 2 would require local authorities to refuse to consider varying a licence unless they were satisfied that any requisite planning permission, or a certificate of lawfulness of use, had been granted. That would create administrative delays and would deter landlords from notifying authorities of changes to their circumstances that would require a variation of their licences.
Amendment 3 would ensure that the bill stated expressly that a local authority can exercise the power to refuse to consider an HMO licence application on planning grounds after the time limit for enforcement action by a planning authority has expired. The amendment is unnecessary, as it is already clear from section 13 that the relevant consideration for the authority is whether planning control would be breached and not whether the planning authority is entitled to take enforcement action on a breach under planning legislation.
Furthermore, amendment 3 would risk causing confusion. I do not think that Pauline McNeill’s intention is to revive the planning authority’s ability to take enforcement action after the period that is set out in planning legislation. However, the amendment has the risk of being misinterpreted in that way, which could have significant adverse consequences for landlords who might have operated lawfully for some time.
Amendment 4 would introduce subdivision and alteration of water or drainage pipes as issues that a local authority must take into account when considering an HMO licence application. I highlight the fact that local authorities are already required to consider the suitability of accommodation when deciding whether to grant or renew an HMO licence. As part of that assessment, it is open to them to consider issues such as subdivision and alteration of rooms. To that extent, the amendment is unnecessary.
In granting or renewing HMO licences, local authorities apply space standards to ensure that rooms are of a sufficient size. Our guidance encourages authorities to work with building standards colleagues to ensure compliance on that point. Issues have arisen when the relocation of bathrooms and kitchens in flats has caused nuisance, but that applies not just to HMOs but to adaptations in owner-occupied housing. It is for building standards officers to deal with such matters.
Pauline McNeill’s amendment 30 would introduce an additional factor for local authorities to consider when determining an HMO licence application. They would be required to refuse an application if they considered that the use of the living accommodation as an HMO would have an adverse effect on communal open space that was associated with the accommodation, such as gardens or refuse storage areas. The amendment is unnecessary. Under section 131 in part 5 of the 2006 act, when considering an HMO licence application, local authorities must ensure that the premises are
“suitable for occupation as an HMO”
and must consider
“the possibility of undue public nuisance.”
The draft statutory guidance that is being consulted on supplements that by suggesting, under the heading of physical standards, that whether adequate refuse storage facilities are available and are used appropriately should be considered.
Amendment 6 would commence section 13 of the bill at royal assent. That would have no practical effect and could cause confusion, as part 5 of the 2006 act, to which section 13 relates, will not come into force until 31 August 2011.
I ask Jim Tolson to withdraw amendment 29 and Pauline McNeill not to move her amendments.
I am interested in some of the comments that we have heard, particularly from Pauline McNeill and the minister.
Unfortunately, although Pauline McNeill and I agree on many issues in the Parliament, I am afraid that there is not just clear blue water but somewhat of an ocean between us on some of these issues. I will not support her amendments today as I think that they go too far, especially as I am already quite concerned, on behalf of the groups that I mentioned earlier, about this part of the bill.
Alex Neil is right to say that we should have some balance, and perhaps that is where we will end up after today—who knows? There are conflicting concerns from different groups and individuals in areas of high HMO concentration, and perhaps trying to achieve a balance is the best way forward, but we will see how that pans out as the debate on the amendments proceeds.
I am not too familiar with the Glasgow Hillhead issue, for which I apologise to Pauline McNeill and others, nor with the specific concerns that Patricia Ferguson raised about the effects on the lives of some of her constituents.
In my view, however, people feel strongly that discretion must remain a part of how we take these issues forward. It is going too far to bind the hands of our local authorities and councillors, and I press amendment 29.
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendments 1 to 3 not moved.
Amendment 4 moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 30 moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 30 disagreed to.
Amendment 5, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 5 relates to the 10-year rule in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. As I have said, some landlords are now relying on the fact that they have been landlords for 10 years. If the minister, as he indicated in his previous comments, is clear that a local authority may decide not to grant an application if it is in breach of planning controls, I would be happier if it was clear that the landlord could not then rely on the fact that they had been around for 10 years and therefore the section would not apply.
For clarity’s sake, I am going to move amendment 5. There needs to be clarity. If a local authority chooses to refuse an application from a landlord because of a breach on planning grounds—because the landlord did not apply for planning consent, which is a matter for the local authority to decide—the landlord should not be allowed to come along and say, “Well, I’ve been a landlord for 10 years, so you have to give me the planning consent.” That would be fundamentally wrong, and would go against the provisions in the bill.
I move amendment 5.
11:30
As I said in an earlier contribution, I have concerns about rewarding people for not doing what they are supposed to do. I heard what the minister said about local authorities already having the appropriate power, but how do we ensure that they are aware of their power and use it when appropriate? Sometimes, the only way in which to make something happen is to put it in legislation. However, if the minister can reassure me that that is not necessary, I will be open to persuasion.
As Pauline McNeill said, amendment 5 proposes to include in the bill a statement that, if a landlord unlawfully operates an unregistered HMO and subsequently obtains a licence, they cannot use the fact that they have obtained a licence as a defence in any prosecution for the earlier offence. I categorically reassure Pauline that that is already the position in law, so there is no need to express it directly in the bill. Indeed, there is a danger that amendment 5 could introduce confusion and uncertainty about the operation of other, similar provisions.
To Mary Mulligan I say that, once this bill becomes an act, we will of course issue guidelines and reminders to local authorities about their powers, and we will remind them about this power. The review of the implementation and enforcement of landlord registration can address that issue as well.
In light of the fact that the measures already exist in law, I invite Pauline McNeill to withdraw amendment 5.
I invite Pauline McNeill to indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 5.
The minister has provided some clarity for me. If, in any future cases in which doubts arise, we can rely on what the minister has said on the record, I am happy to accept his words today.
Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 to 16 agreed to.
Section 17—Overcrowding in private rented housing: statutory notice
Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 16.
Amendments 12 and 16 relate to matters to be considered by a local authority in deciding whether to serve an overcrowding statutory notice. I was pleased that, in its stage 1 report, the committee agreed with us that something needs to be done now about the serious problems caused by overcrowding in some parts of Scotland, such as Govanhill. The method by which we are proposing to do something was originally proposed by Glasgow City Council. However, I am aware of the concerns that some stakeholders and MSPs have expressed about the practical operation of overcrowding statutory notices and, in particular, about the potential effects on homelessness and housing stock.
To respond to those concerns, the Scottish Government has lodged amendments to clarify further how the notices will work and to offer reassurance that local authorities will use notices only when it is appropriate to do so. We have explained previously the importance of statutory guidance for local authorities in the use of notices. However, we have decided that it would be better to place some provisions in the bill.
Amendment 16 sets out matters that the local authority must consider when deciding whether to serve an overcrowding statutory notice. The first of those is whether it is reasonable and proportionate to serve a notice in view of the extent to which the overcrowding is having an adverse effect, the nature of that effect, the likely effects of service and whether another approach could be taken instead. That will ensure that notices are served only in the most serious cases, where no better alternative exists, and only when service would not make matters worse.
Secondly, before serving a notice, there will be a specific requirement for the local authority to take into account the circumstances of the people living in the house; their views and the views of the landlord, if the local authority is aware of them; and the likely effects of a notice on the people living in the house, particularly with regard to homelessness. That means that the local authority will have to focus on the individuals living in the house to see whether serving a notice is the best approach for them. Amendment 16 will thus ensure that the local authority considers a wide range of factors before using an overcrowding statutory notice.
Amendment 12 indicates that the power to issue a notice is subject to the requirement to take the matters that I have described into account. I ask the committee to support amendments 12 and 16.
I move amendment 12.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 14, 24, 18 and 21.
These amendments relate to overcrowding statutory notices. Amendment 14 places a requirement on ministers to consult stakeholders before using the power to make an order under section 17(7) in relation to overcrowding statutory notices. That will ensure that relevant interests, such as local authorities and tenant and landlord representatives, will have an input into the prescribed form of the overcrowding statutory notice, the additional information to be included in it and the people to whom a copy of it must be given.
Like other amendments that we have lodged, these amendments show the importance that the Scottish Government attaches to the full involvement of relevant stakeholders in the process of developing the system of overcrowding statutory notices.
At stage 1, some stakeholders observed that the maximum fine for a landlord’s non-compliance with an overcrowding statutory notice seemed too low in comparison with other housing offences. On reconsideration, we agree, given that the harm that could be caused by non-compliance could be very serious. We are all aware of the appalling consequences of overcrowding in some parts of Scotland. Amendment 18 therefore increases the maximum fine level from level 3, which is £1,000, to level 5, which is £5,000.
Amendments 13 and 21 are minor drafting amendments. Amendment 13 clarifies one of the criteria in relation to houses for which an overcrowding statutory notice may be served. Amendment 21 amends the definitions of “house” and “landlord” as used in part 3.
I am sympathetic to the aims behind Mary Mulligan’s amendment 24. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should monitor the number of overcrowding statutory notices that are issued and review their effectiveness in dealing with overcrowding and their impact on homelessness. In my reply, I said that we would do that. I therefore consider it sensible to reassure those who have concerns about OSNs by placing a statutory requirement on ministers to publish a triennial report on the number and effects of overcrowding statutory notices. However, there are some minor drafting amendments that could be made to the amendment. In order to ensure that the provision works as intended, Scottish Government officials would be prepared to work with Mary Mulligan with a view to lodging a revised amendment at stage 3. On the basis of that offer, I invite Mary Mulligan not to move amendment 24.
I ask the committee to support amendments 13, 14, 18 and 21.
I move amendment 13.
The committee had much discussion about the problem of overcrowding and what we felt needed to be done through legislation to resolve it. We knew that homelessness legislation would provide for anyone who was rendered homeless because of overcrowding. However, we all agreed that the bill was necessary to strengthen the powers of local authorities to serve notice where overcrowding was a problem.
Following discussion at stage 1, we also recognised that there was a risk of unintended consequences. For example, we discussed the risk that people might be seen as queue jumping for council housing. Furthermore, once an overcrowding notice was served, there would be nowhere for individuals to go, so we would not solve the problem in the way that we would wish to.
The minister and I have each lodged amendments that seek to address those problems. However, to be honest, there is still a risk, and that is the reasoning behind my suggestion that we should review the measures after three years to gauge the impact that they have had. I accept that that might seem like a belt-and-braces proposal, but the committee’s concerns were genuine and we needed to do something.
I have listened to what the minister has said, and we are in agreement on the matter. If the drafting of my amendment 24 needs to be improved, I am more than happy to discuss with the minister how to do that. We are both aiming to achieve the same thing. On this occasion, therefore, I will not move my amendment.
I thank Mary Mulligan for taking up the offer, and I reiterate that we will work with her to produce an acceptable stage 3 amendment. The drafting changes to her amendment 24 will be fairly minor, but it is better to try to get it right for stage 3.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 23, in the name of Mary Mulligan, is grouped with amendments 25 and 26.
As I have already said, the committee took a lot of time to discuss overcrowding statutory notices and their consequences. The intention behind my amendments 23, 25 and 26 is to ensure that one of the effects of serving those notices is dealt with.
An overcrowding notice having been served, we would expect someone—often more than one person—to leave the property. For me, the issue is where that person then goes. We all accept that those people will frequently be vulnerable in some way, and that they will be in need of support to find alternative accommodation. The intention behind my amendments in this group is to ensure that the local authority that serves the notice provides a housing plan.
The housing plan, which will be drafted in discussion with the landlord and the tenants, will provide information on alternative housing options, such as other private landlords’ names and addresses, and guidance on how to apply to the local authority or to a housing association in the area. I wish to be clear that the existence of a housing plan will not mean that the local authority has to provide alternative housing. However, providing support by way of a housing plan would be sensible. Given our concerns about outcomes, I feel that it is necessary to place the housing plan in legislation. That is why I have lodged these amendments.
I move amendment 23.
I understand the reasoning behind Mary Mulligan’s amendments, which are well intentioned. However, I am concerned about the proposals, despite the member’s assurance that the intention is not to make people feel that they will get housing from the local authority and despite the fact that the circumstances that we are discussing will be rare. I am also concerned that the provisions duplicate many of the services that local authorities and a wide range of voluntary sector bodies already provide. Therefore, I am not convinced of the need for the amendments.
Amendment 23, in conjunction with amendments 25 and 26, relate, as Mary Mulligan has said, to the situation where the local authority has served an overcrowding statutory notice that requires the landlord to take active steps to reduce the occupancy level of the house. Local authorities will be able to serve notices that require landlords not to replace tenants as they leave. However, it is possible that some situations will require more urgent action, and landlords might have to take steps to require occupants to leave.
The idea of providing support to occupants who are affected by an overcrowding statutory notice is highly desirable. When we reach the Government’s amendment 17, I will explain how we intend that that should be done in relation to all overcrowding statutory notices. However, the wording of Mary Mulligan’s amendments means that they would go further than merely requiring a local authority to support someone in finding alternative accommodation. Although the amendments describe “an alternative housing plan”, it is clear from the wording of amendment 26, which uses the phrase
“for the purpose of re-housing”,
that the amendments would actually place a duty on local authorities to arrange rehousing for anyone who was required to leave by a landlord complying with a statutory notice.
11:45
Rehousing would not have to be in the social sector; it could be in the private rented sector. However, if the local authority could not arrange private rented accommodation, it would have to use its power to provide accommodation itself. We consider that it would be an unnecessarily bureaucratic burden to require every local authority to arrange an individual alternative housing plan involving rehousing for every person who was required to move because of an overcrowding statutory notice. That could cut across existing homelessness obligations and might make it more difficult for local authorities to meet their duties to priority-need groups and impact on their ability to meet the 2012 homelessness target.
COSLA has made that point and has also expressed concerns about the effects on allocations policies and possible allegations of queue jumping. COSLA also shares our serious concerns about the costs that local authorities could incur if they were required to rehouse every person.
Some occupants will be capable of making their own arrangements unaided. In other cases, all that occupants will need is advice and information about, for example, reputable letting agents or landlords. The Government’s amendment 17 gives local authorities duties and a power to provide advice and information that, as subordinate legislation and guidance will make clear, will include those topics. Legislation on environmental health and fire safety can already lead to occupants being required to leave houses, and local authorities and other agencies take a measured approach to dealing with people who are thus displaced. That is exactly the sort of approach that will result from the Government’s amendment 16, which will require local authorities to take into account a range of factors, including possible homelessness and other available means to deal with overcrowding, before serving an OSN. Those provisions will be backed up by statutory guidance.
I consider Mary Mulligan’s amendments to be unnecessarily sweeping. They might dissuade local authorities from using OSNs, and we do not want to place barriers in the way of local authorities using OSNs to deal with the appalling conditions that we know still exist in parts of Scotland. I therefore invite Mary Mulligan to withdraw amendment 23 and not to move amendments 25 and 26.
I do not think that my measures would be overburdensome in the way that the minister suggests. In the discussions that we have had about overcrowding statutory notices, we have agreed that their use will be a last resort. I am not sure that so many will be issued that the measures will be burdensome.
I also believe that almost all people who find themselves in that situation will be vulnerable. Although they might be able to take on board any advice that is given, they will need some support, so there will be a burden. I can see both sides of that position.
I regret if the wording of my amendments is not such that they explain exactly what I am trying to achieve. In using the term “alternative housing plan” I have tried to distinguish the measures from the housing allocation system. It was never my intention that they should be the same. I have sought to ensure that we provide the necessary support to individuals who find themselves in an overcrowding situation and are required to move. I have listened to the minister and I take his points on board. I hope that we can have some more discussion of the issue. He might be able to convince me that his amendments 16 and 17 address what I am trying to do. However, at this stage, I will seek to withdraw amendment 23.
Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 14 moved—[Alex Neil]—and agreed to.
Amendment 15, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 20.
These amendments relate to guidance for part 3. Despite the changes that we have made, guidance will still play an important role in a local authority’s use of the new overcrowding powers and the local authority must have regard to it. Amendment 20 is designed to allow such guidance to be as comprehensive as possible by clarifying that it can deal with all aspects of a local authority’s discharge of its functions under part 3 and related matters. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should consult widely on the guidance and amendment 20 seeks to put such consultation on a statutory footing by requiring ministers to consult local authorities, representatives of landlords and occupiers and other appropriate stakeholders before the guidance is issued. Amendment 15 seeks to remove the previous, more limited provision on guidance, and I ask committee members to support both amendments.
I move amendment 15.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendment 24 not moved.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
After section 17
Amendment 16 moved—[Alex Neil]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Tenant information and advice
Amendment 25 not moved.
Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
The bill contains a power for a local authority to provide appropriate information and advice to the occupier of a house on which an overcrowding statutory notice has been served. In light of concerns that the provision was not strong enough to ensure that occupiers would receive the necessary help, amendment 17 seeks to replace that original power with new duties. A local authority that serves a notice will be required to serve on the occupier of the house in question a notice containing information and advice as prescribed in an order to be made by ministers. Before that order is made, ministers will be required to consult stakeholders. In addition, the local authority will have to provide relevant information or advice that is reasonably requested by anyone living in the house and may provide the occupier with other appropriate information and advice. Such duties placed on a local authority exercising the discretionary power to serve an overcrowding statutory notice will maximise the opportunities for the occupier and other people living in the affected house to receive helpful advice and information.
I move amendment 17.
I reassure the minister that I appreciate the reference to “duties” in his remarks and that I will support amendment 17.
Proposed subsection (4) in amendment 17 refers to “other information” that would be given to the occupier. Given that in the debate on a number of Mary Mulligan’s amendments it was felt that we might be going too far and requiring too much information to be provided, I am slightly concerned about double standards and I would be grateful if the minister could give us some examples of “other information” that it might be appropriate to give under the terms of amendment 17.
Obviously, we will consult on all this, but other information might include where to get housing support and what housing is available in the private and social rented sectors. Moreover, under our new housing options approach, we would be encouraging local authorities to have a wider discussion with displaced people on other options that might be available to them, including, for example, assistance through the low-income first-time buyers scheme. As I say, that wide-ranging discussion would be based on the housing options principle and would consider all the realistic options that might be available to the displaced person.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 19 to 24 agreed to.
Section 25—Offences
Amendment 18 moved—[Alex Neil]—and agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
After section 25
Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
At stage 1, some stakeholders raised the valid question of how a local authority would establish that a house was statutorily overcrowded, which is a criterion for the service of an OSN. It is expected that information about a house causing problems would come in the main from neighbours, agencies such as the police and other local authority departments. However, in order to establish that overcrowding exists, a local authority may need to obtain additional information about the house and the people living in it. To allow a local authority to carry out its part 3 functions, amendment 19 gives it the power to require specified persons connected with the house to provide information about the house and persons connected with it. Failure to comply with the requirement, or the provision of false or misleading information, will be offences that will be subject to a maximum fine of level 2—£500. The use of this power, particularly in relation to vulnerable occupants of houses, will be covered in the statutory guidance.
I move amendment 19.
I am glad that the minister referred to protection for vulnerable tenants. We had a similar discussion about tenants giving information against landlords where landlords were not registered. We were concerned that that might put vulnerable tenants in a difficult situation to the extent that they would be thrown out on to the street. I want reassurance from the minister that there will be guidance to try to support people in such a situation in that, if they are legitimately seen as vulnerable, they would not face a possible fine.
I seek clarification on new subsections (2)(a) and (3)(b) that are proposed in amendment 19; they seem to be wide ranging. I am not sure that in circumstances where multiple individuals own particular properties they would all be known to one another, depending on how that was organised. Can you clarify why you seek what seems to be a wide-ranging remit in those subsections?
First, I assure Mary Mulligan that we will follow the example that we followed previously in ensuring that vulnerable people are not subject to prosecution in the circumstances to which she referred. Clearly, that would not be our intention at all. The provisions proposed in amendment 19 and the guidance that will be provided will make that absolutely clear.
Does Jim Tolson’s question refer first to proposed subsection (2)(a)?
Yes. There is a similar feel to proposed subsections (2)(a) and (3)(b). There could be a situation in which, for example, shareholders in various properties that would come under the legislation would not be known to one another, so how could they provide information on one another?
That is a fairly technical point. There is similar wording the HMO and landlord registration, so the registration of individual people or companies should be synonymous with HMO registration.
I accept the minister’s reassurance on that.
We will give you further explanation by letter. I am happy to do so.
Thank you.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
After section 26
Amendment 20 moved—[Alex Neil]—and agreed to.
Section 27—Interpretation of Part 3
Amendment 26 not moved.
Amendment 21 moved—[Alex Neil]—and agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
Section 29—Tenant information packs
12:00
Amendment 31, in the name of Bob Doris, is grouped with amendment 27.
I thank the Electrical Safety Council, with which I have had a dialogue on the matter. The ESC has drawn to my attention its belief that tenants in the private rented sector are more at risk in a variety of ways, including in relation to the electrical safety of properties.
For instance, the installation of residual current devices—RCDs—has an important role to play in fire safety and safeguarding life. Such devices detect small variations in current should an electrical appliance malfunction in some way or should a tenant within a property be subject to electric shock and black out. They potentially save people from fire and save life and limb, but around 50 per cent of private rented sector stock has no such devices fitted. That is a UK figure, and perhaps there is a need for a Scottish figure. The safety council also estimates that 80 fires in the UK annually could be avoided by the installation of RCDs. That would be 20 per cent of all electrical fires.
Making electrical safety reports a core part of any tenant information pack could be a key driver for change. My amendment 31 would require the pack to have such a report. It would also, among other things, require the pack to say whether an RCD had been installed when commenting on the electrical safety of the house in general. Such a requirement would assist in focusing the minds of private landlords to roll out the installation of RCDs and to promote a more systematic approach to electrical safety in general in their properties.
There appears to be public support for such measures. It is estimated that 87 per cent of the Scottish population would seek to have electrical checks in rented properties, whereas the UK average support for that is 78 per cent, so it is clear that the Scottish electorate would be keen for such things to happen.
I concede that the safety council would like to go further and introduce, among other things, periodic inspection reports, but I am wary of the burden that such measures could place on the private rented sector. Other possible drivers for the improvement of the sector’s electrical safety might include providing small grants and tax incentives—particularly VAT cuts—for retrofitting RCDs in certain private rented sector stock.
I acknowledge that we do not normally put such measures in a bill but, given the concerns that have been brought to my attention, I thought that it was only right to seek to put in the bill provisions to ensure that such information is provided in the tenant information pack. I seek the minister’s views on whether that would be desirable and, regardless of whether the matter is included in the bill, an assurance that the tenant information pack will focus more seriously on electrical safety.
I move amendment 31.
The committee has recognised that gas and electricity checks are crucial to tenants’ being fully reassured about safety. Such checks have been available for some years and have been included in good practice for a period. However, technology now allows for efficient and effective carbon monoxide detectors to be used and, therefore, I see no reason why we should not include them.
I acknowledge that the committee did not take any evidence on the issue at stage 1. Indeed, I would not have lodged amendment 27 had I not been prompted to do so by a constituent who is a landlord and has experience of the effect of having had a carbon monoxide detector in her property. She is to be commended for her concern about safety and I hope that other committee members will feel able to support amendment 27.
The amendments seek to ensure that documents confirming the installation of a carbon monoxide detector and a residual current device, along with the assessment of the safety of the energy utilities, form part of the tenant information pack outlined in section 29.
Section 29 inserts a new section 30A into the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, placing a duty on private landlords to provide tenants with standard tenancy documents. New section 30B provides a power for ministers to specify the documents to be provided. The amendments set out to insert provisions in the bill that require the relevant documents be included in the contents of the tenant information pack, which ministers can specify by order.
As the bill is drafted, the documents to be provided to tenants may include, among other things, documents containing information about the house and the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords. Before making an order specifying the standard documents, ministers are required to consult representatives of tenants, private landlords, agents and any other appropriate bodies. That allows scope to include a broad set of documents following further consultation and consideration of the implications for landlords, tenants and local authorities.
I agree that electrical safety and the detection of carbon monoxide are extremely important and I undertake to ensure that those issues are considered as part of that consultation process, with a view to ensuring that they are addressed when developing the information pack.
I believe that we can achieve what members are looking for without amending the bill, and I therefore ask Bob Doris to withdraw amendment 31 and Mary Mulligan not to move amendment 27.
Amendment 31 was a probing amendment to raise awareness generally about the need for electrical safety in all tenure types, including the private rented sector. I have listened carefully to the minister’s assurances and on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The member seeks leave to withdraw the amendment. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31 disagreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Mary Mulligan].
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 disagreed to.
Sections 29 and 30 agreed to.
Section 31—Landlord application to private rented housing panel
Amendment 22, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Section 31 amends the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 by inserting provisions that will allow a landlord to apply to the private rented housing panel. That is to help landlords exercise their existing right of entry to a rented house to establish whether it meets the repairing standard or to carry out work to comply with the repairing standard duty or repairing standard enforcement order.
New section 28B of the 2006 act, as inserted by the bill, will give ministers power to
“make further provision about the making or deciding”
of such applications by means of regulations. As the bill stands, such regulations will be subject to negative procedure. However, the Subordinate Legislation Committee commented that the power could be used to go beyond purely administrative detail and that negative procedure might not be appropriate. The Scottish Government agrees, and amendment 22 therefore amends the 2006 act so that regulations made under new section 28B(1) will be subject to affirmative procedure, except where they relate only to new section 28B(2)(b), which deals with the prescribing of an application fee to be paid by a landlord.
Subordinate legislation that sets fees is commonly subject to negative procedure, since fees may be altered quite frequently.
I move amendment 22.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
After section 31
Amendment 32, in the name of David McLetchie, is grouped with amendment 33.
Having been a member of the committee when it considered the bill in Parliament at stage 1, it is a pleasure to be back in order to move amendments 32 and 33.
I think that we would all agree that Scotland needs to build more homes for rent, and that is certainly true of what we label the affordable housing sector: homes for social or mid-market rent that are built by councils or housing associations. However, it is also true of homes for rent on the open market—the private rented sector—which accounts for some 9 per cent of the total housing stock in Scotland.
As the minister has said on several occasions, the private rented sector is a bit of a cottage industry with a multiplicity of landlords who own one or two properties. Many of those landlords are brought into the market by the investment returns that they perceive they can gain with the aid of buy-to-let mortgages. Overall, that has been a positive development, contributing to the increase in the housing stock in Scotland that is available to suit the needs and circumstances of our people.
However, what we do not have in this country is significant institutional investment in the private rented sector, other than in specialised areas such as the provision of student accommodation. As I think we are all aware, institutional investment is commonplace in European countries, so we need to consider the barriers to such investment in Scotland where they exist.
One such barrier is the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974, which abolished feuduties and contained provisions in sections 8 and 11 in effect to prevent the equivalent of feuduties being reintroduced through the use of long leaseholds and standard securities.
Those sections in the 1974 act prohibited the granting of a lease of residential property of more than 20 years and the right to redeem a standard security over property that was longer than 20 years in duration.
Those were good intentions, but as we are all aware, good intentions can have unintended negative consequences. In this case, certain funding models for the construction of new homes for rent cannot safely be used because of those legal restrictions and prohibitions.
The issue was brought to light in the context of housing associations and housing bodies when the committee considered the Housing (Scotland) Bill last year and the amendments that were lodged at stage 2 by the minister and Alasdair Morgan and at stage 3 by the minister, and which the committee and the Parliament approved.
Amendments 32 and 33 take matters a stage further. I am grateful to the minister and his officials for the detailed consideration that they have given to the amendments, and I am also grateful to Mr Leonard Freedman of Harper Macleod and other professional colleagues for the expert advice that they have provided.
In essence, the amendments enable a minister by order to prescribe further bodies, which will essentially be private sector bodies and institutions, that can enter into new funding arrangements for building housing for rent. It does so through a further relaxation of the 20-year rule, which was relaxed for other organisations in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 last year.
I believe that amendment 32 contains sufficient checks and balances to protect the interests of tenants and prevent the resurrection of the feudal system of land tenure by the back door, which was of course the real purpose of the 1974 act. It was never intended to inhibit construction of housing for rent, but it is a technical barrier to doing so. That is why the amendment is necessary and desirable, and I commend it to the Parliament.
I move amendment 32.
I knew that David McLetchie would miss us and have to come back and join the committee, but I did not think that it would be quite so quick.
I appreciate his explanation of amendments 32 and 33, because—I have to be honest—when I first looked at them, I was a little puzzled as to why they were being lodged at this stage. As someone who has just lodged amendment 27 I perhaps should not say this, but I was not aware that we had had much discussion of the issue at stage 1.
Mr McLetchie’s explanation was helpful, but part of me wonders whether his amendments might have unintended consequences. I would appreciate clarification of whether he has had discussions with the minister or his expert advisers with a view to ensuring that his proposals would have no unintended consequences.
12:15
I, too, welcome back Mr McLetchie to the committee’s proceedings and thank him for lodging his amendments.
As he said, the Government has already enabled housing associations, local authorities and rural housing bodies to invest in and provide affordable housing without the restrictions that the 20-year rule imposes. Amendments 32 and 33 would enable other landlords to obtain the same opportunities. As Mr McLetchie pointed out, the provisions would not apply to individuals. We are talking about a limited measure that would avoid the risk of introducing the leasehold arrangements for residential property that apply elsewhere in the UK.
Although we have still to see how social landlords and rural housing bodies will take advantage of the exemptions that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 affords them, we should not delay further reform of this area while we await evidence. In the current financial climate, given the rising demand for rented accommodation, it is important to ensure that there are as few barriers as possible to increasing the supply of affordable housing, particularly when many people who, a few years ago, would have been first-time buyers cannot afford the deposit for a mortgage to get on the owner-occupation housing ladder and so must have the option to rent.
Accordingly, I welcome amendments 32 and 33 and urge the committee to support them.
I welcome the minister’s remarks and those of Mary Mulligan. I hope that the minister’s explanation of the background to our discussions allays any concerns that she may have had about unintended consequences. I stress that my amendments incorporate a number of checks and balances on the bodies that will be authorised to enter into such arrangements, and I hope that members will be satisfied that that process enables us to open up the market to a wider form of institutional investment while not prejudicing or imperilling the security and peaceful occupation of property that tenants are entitled to expect.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment 33 moved—[David McLetchie]—and agreed to.
Sections 32 to 34 agreed to.
Section 35—Short title and commencement
Amendment 6 moved—[Pauline McNeill].
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 0, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Thank you. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the minister and his team.
12:18
Meeting suspended.
12:21
On resuming—