Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Official Report 248KB pdf

---

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000

I welcome everyone, including the Minister for Communities, who makes regular appearances at our meetings. I also welcome the officials whom she has brought with her.

We have a substantial amount of business with the minister this morning, the first part of which is the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000. The committee has the draft order, the associated regulatory impact note, an Executive note and a reminder on procedural points. The committee has already considered the procedure. I invite the minister to speak to the order, so that members may ask questions. I will ask her to move the order after that.

I am delighted to be back at a meeting of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. I will speak briefly about the introduction of mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation. In 1997, the Scottish Labour party manifesto promised to introduce mandatory licensing to provide protection where it is most needed for tenants in HMOs. I am glad that we have reached the stage of putting to the committee the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000, which will make that protection a reality.

We know that the order is still needed, as we have received evidence from the voluntary sector and others of the squalid conditions in which some poor and otherwise vulnerable people continue to live in HMOs. At the worst extreme, overcrowding, damp, poor facilities and financial exploitation remain.

However, the need for protection is wider than that. We must be able to assure Scottish parents that, when their children leave home to become students, the shared accommodation in which they are likely to stay is of a reasonable standard and, most important, safe. The order explicitly includes shared accommodation occupied by students during term time. Many people from various sections of the community live in HMOs at some stage in their lives, such as people who have moved to a new job in a new town and people who live in unregistered supported housing. All of them need to know that they are living in safe, good-quality accommodation.

Our main concern has been with tenants, but it has become clear recently that there are other victims of poor management in HMOs. Whether in tenements or on housing estates, the neighbours of HMOs must be protected from the noise, litter and even worse that such establishments produce. We hope that the licensing scheme will help to provide that protection.

Responsible landlords should also benefit from mandatory licensing. With improved standards, the status of the sector should improve and potential tenants will look for accommodation that is licensed, in the knowledge that reasonable physical standards, facilities, safety and tenancy management are guaranteed. Good-quality HMOs should already meet those high standards. We hope that local authorities will be able to use mandatory licensing as the basis for developing private rented sector strategies and for their work with responsible landlords.

The Scottish Office consulted widely on the original proposals, for which it found wide support. Some 86 bodies and individuals responded to the consultation paper, "Mandatory Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation", which was issued in 1998. The overwhelming majority of those who responded supported the case for making it mandatory for all local authorities in Scotland to introduce licensing of HMOs.

The consultation paper also sought views on the best way of implementing mandatory licensing and the scope of such a licensing scheme. In light of the responses to the consultation paper, the conclusion was reached that mandatory licensing of HMOs should be introduced by means of an order under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, because that was the quickest method of establishing a national licensing scheme.

Following devolution, I announced that the Scottish Executive would progress those proposals. Further consultation with relevant interests on the details of the licensing scheme has been carried out. Representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the voluntary sector and professional interests joined a working group, which has drawn up extensive and detailed guidance for local authorities on the implementation of mandatory licensing, including benchmark standards for the conditions to be met before a licence can be obtained. The guidance covers matters such as space standards, sanitary and kitchen facilities and heating. It also quite rightly stresses the importance of fire safety in HMOs and deals with tenancy management standards.

The guidance is not mandatory, but we hope that local authorities will use it to promote consistency throughout Scotland, while recognising the need for flexibility when dealing with different types of HMOs. We are consulting local authorities further on the details of the final guidance.

The licensing scheme that we are introducing is based on a definition of a house in multiple occupancy as a house that is the only or principal residence of a specified number of persons who are not all members of one family or of one or other of two families. The order will bring about a staged implementation of licensing by progressively reducing the number of specified persons, so that the largest HMOs will be licensed first. Over time, all HMOs will be included in the scheme.

From 1 October, we will begin with HMOs that contain more than five people. That threshold will reduce by one annually until it becomes more than two people on 1 October 2003. We are bringing the threshold down to the minimum compatible with the definition, as we recognise that the smallest HMOs can be as badly managed, dangerous and inadequate as larger HMOs.

The activity to be licensed is the giving of permission for the occupation of a house as an HMO, where that permission is given knowingly by the owner. We have used that wide definition as we want to include other situations where occupancy rights in HMOs are granted outside of conventional lets—for example, when an employer provides accommodation for employees free of charge.

We considered carefully the question of exemptions from the licensing scheme, taking into account the responses to the consultation exercise. We believe that the only categories of HMOs that should be exempted are: residential and nursing homes, including private hospitals, which are already subject to registration and enforcement by the local authority or the health board; accommodation in boarding schools, which is also inspected; and premises occupied by religious communities, because of their spiritual nature.

In the light of the experience of the discretionary licensing of HMOs and the comments that we received, the order introduces some modifications of licensing procedures, linked to the use of the powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The period during which an application for a new licence may be considered by the local authority is being doubled to 12 months, in order to ensure that applicants have sufficient time to undertake remedial work in a specified period before a licence is granted.

The order also grants an authorised officer of a local authority, with the approval of the court, the power to enter and search premises where there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are being let as an HMO without a licence. That extends the power under the 1982 act to enter licensed premises and will greatly assist local authorities in obtaining evidence against landlords who operate illegal HMOs.

The order exempts women's refuges from the public notification procedures in the 1982 act, in order to help to safeguard the anonymity of that particularly vulnerable type of HMO. The only notification required will be direct in writing to the neighbours.

As we have decided that the maximum fine for operating an HMO without a licence under the discretionary licensing scheme does not reflect the seriousness of the offence, nor, given the profits that can be made from some HMOs, does it provide a sufficient deterrent, we are increasing the maximum fine to level 5 in the scale, which is currently £5,000. We believe that the order will establish a well-considered system of mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupancy and improve the living conditions of many people throughout Scotland.

I am happy to take the committee's questions.

Thank you, minister. Although I am sure that the committee has a lot of sympathy with your comments, we seek clarification on a number of issues.

I should tell the committee that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has considered the instrument and is not bringing it to the Parliament's attention. However, the convener of that committee has written to me to flag up one or two concerns about the instrument. I want to explore those concerns with you, minister, as the committee has had only a very short briefing about them.

To do so, I have to put on the record an extract from a letter from the Association of Residential Letting Agents (Scotland). The organisation, which was part of the consultation exercise, raises a significant point in its letter, in which its representative says:

"If a license requires to be obtained when an agreement to enter into a lease has been reached (as stated within the Statutory Instrument) then there could be a significant delay between the agreement to lease and the actual lease being granted, since the Landlord would not wish to grant a lease without a license. During that period, tenants may go elsewhere. What the Scottish Executive had suggested to me on the telephone was that the Landlord could grant the lease subject to the grant of the license. However, this conflicts with tenants rights under the Housing Legislation, since obviously if the lease is granted then the tenants have rights to remain in the property"

under the auspices of the legislation.

There seems to be some hiccup with the instrument, in that there is a delay between the licence being granted and the granting of occupancy. The committee would like to discuss how we can tidy up that discrepancy.

We have received representations from ARLA on a number of points. However, its main concern—which is not quite the concern that you have raised, but is directly related to it—is what happens to tenants already in HMOs if the landlord does not get a licence. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 allows the landlord—or the applicant—to claim reasonable excuse. In our view, there would be reasonable excuse as long as the landlord took steps to rectify the situation either by terminating the tenancy—which they would be allowed to do in conformity with the legislation—or by taking steps to improve conditions.

As for the delay to which you refer, if a new landlord wants to set up an HMO, it would be only reasonable to expect him to find out the requirements of the licence, to take advice from the local authority and to take steps to ensure that conditions are suitable before he moved into that business.

I accept that, but is not ARLA flagging up a particular problem with people who wish to grant a tenancy immediately but are still in the process of applying? I think that you have extended the period of grant application from six months to a year.

That is right.

Will that not mean some delays in the current situation, which might cause problems for student accommodation and such like?

We have tried to strike a balance by suggesting a 12-month application period to ensure that there is not an undue delay in bringing a property up to standard and to avoid circumstances where the tenant might feel any unnecessary insecurity because the registration has not been achieved or the property has not been brought up to standard. The 12-month application period is the best way in which to balance the rights of the tenant to live in a safe and secure property with the need to give a well-meaning landlord the opportunity to register the property and to act on any local authority conditions on that registration, such as improvements to management or fire safety.

Did you have prolonged discussions with ARLA? What was its response to your recent statement?

I will ask Colin Affleck to answer that question, as he dealt directly with the organisation.

We exchanged letters with ARLA and took some of its points about an earlier draft of the order into account in the final draft.

As for the licence, we have a transitional arrangement whereby, if new HMOs are set up before 1 October, they can continue to operate if they apply for a licence before that date. After 1 October, new HMOs will need a licence before landlords can start to operate. Most licensing schemes have the same conditions.

Furthermore, the 12 months is an absolute maximum. Although, under the 1982 act, six months is allowed for discretionary licensing, it was decided that that period was not long enough because of the condition of HMOs. For example, landlords might have to get building control warrants and carry out work, which can take longer than six months. The extension of the application period was to allow landlords to carry out work in a reasonable time. However, 12 months is an absolute maximum, as I said. We believe that, in most cases, licences could be considered within six months. A longer period might be needed in cases where permission is required for certain works.

ARLA also raised concerns about what happens to tenants with secure tenancies if a landlord operating that HMO is turned down for a licence. In such a situation, the landlord would have reasonable excuse to operate without a licence under the 1982 act. However, although there is no legal method of ending the tenancies immediately, we would expect the landlord to give notice to tenants as soon as possible.

Does that mean that there would be no conflict between different pieces of legislation?

That is right.

I want to clarify one point. If a landlord is turned down for a licence and has to give notice to his tenants, is he given the option to continue operation if he undertakes to carry out remedial work?

Yes. If he carried out the work that was required by the council, he would get a licence.

The landlord would apply for a licence and the local authority would tell him that it would be prepared to grant a licence if he carried out certain work. The idea behind the 12-month period for application is to give the landlord time to carry out the necessary work. That partly came out of the experience in Glasgow, where the council was reluctant to give conditional licences under the discretionary licensing scheme. It was found that landlords could not carry out the work in six months. Our proposal emerged from that experience and from research that we commissioned on good practice in previous schemes.

Although there is general agreement and welcome for what we are trying to do, the committee's job is to scrutinise the detail of the legislation. If a landlord with sitting tenants is refused a licence, he has basically two options. First, he has reasonable excuse to give tenants notice under the 1982 act. Secondly, he can undertake to upgrade the premises and apply for a new licence, which means that a new licensing period kicks in. At that point, would that landlord be committing a criminal offence under the order, or would he be covered by the fact that he was going to apply for a new licence, perhaps on the day after he is refused?

I envisage that authorities would liaise with applicants before the stage of refusal was reached so that applicants would be aware of what the conditions would be. Rather than learning that they had been refused and then finding out what conditions were to be complied with, they would find that out in advance. In cases in which applicants find out about the conditions at the point of refusal, there is scope for the authorities to grant a temporary licence.

That is an area that we definitely wanted to pursue with you, but I think that you have covered it to our satisfaction.

A related problem concerns the fact that the licensing will be covered by the same bodies that license taxis and pubs and so on. As you are talking about giving advance notice and warnings, as well as tenancies and other housing issues, would it not be more appropriate for the licensing to be done in the housing arena?

I will answer on the politics of that and then the officials can give a technical answer. Although this has not featured in the debate so far, it is important to emphasise the fact that the powers to act are reinforced by those under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. They include powers to impose a management order and management code; to make a work order; to require a notice that the work is carried out; to limit the number of people living in a property; and to impose a control order to take possession if orders are not complied with. The problem is that local authorities have found that incredibly onerous, partly because the six-month period has not been long enough. If the ultimate result is a control order under which authorities have to manage HMOs, an area in which they have no competence, that is a very unattractive proposition.

The decision on the 12-month period is intended to optimise the interests of both the tenant and the local authority in forcing compliance with the various stages. At the moment, there is an incentive for many people to ignore local authorities because they know that local authorities do not want to end up managing the property and that 12 months is too short to move the landlord through all the stages. Even if landlords are well meaning, it has been difficult for them to comply with the various stages in the time that has been available. We did not choose the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to alter the range of remedies. We want to use the act to create a framework in which that helpful underpinning legislation can be used effectively, which is not happening at the moment.

What resources will be made available to local authorities to carry out these important duties, particularly in a city such as Edinburgh, where there are many rented flats and so on?

It is intended that the scheme should be self-financing. There will be an obligation to register. In the current models, the charges for registration vary between £100 and £400. We intend to give local authorities discretion to set a registration fee that will allow them to cover their costs. There is no doubt that considerable costs in upgrading properties will be incurred by landlords. Given the extent to which landlords benefit from rental income, including a substantial chunk from housing benefit, we think that in large part they should bear the cost of upgrade. Of course, improvement grants are available, although there is an obligation to make grants available only where there are issues of fire safety.

You said that the scheme should be self-financing. Presumably, that will ultimately be the case, but an initial investment by local authorities will be required. I support the scheme completely. You recognise the administrative burden on local authorities of the licensable occupancy threshold and the way in which it is being reduced over three years from five to just over two. Certain local authorities, such as those containing seaside towns, which have a higher number of HMOs per head of population, may be affected. My concern is the initial investment that will be required by local authorities to recruit and train the people who will carry out the licensing process.

Seven authorities are already operating schemes. Generally, they correlate with areas in which this has been a material consideration locally. I know that those authorities are willing to offer advice on implementing schemes so that they are self-financing. The discretionary scheme in certain areas has had difficulties in covering its costs because only 300 properties are covered. It is intended that this scheme should cover 12,500 private properties and 4,000 public properties, so the cost will be spread over a much higher number of properties, all of which will have to pay a registration fee that will be set at the discretion of the local authorities. Spreading the cost over more than 16,500 properties may make the management of cost easier than it has been under the discretionary schemes.

Can you confirm that bed and breakfasts, which in seaside towns can have almost permanent residents, will be included?

I was interested in the exemption for retreats. I did not know that the spiritual nature of a house protected it from fire and other dangers. I mean no disrespect to them, but there are a number of religious orders and other kinds of retreats throughout Scotland, such as the Findhorn community. Why should they be exempt? Is there not an interest in protecting people at such retreats? The Findhorn community grows hugely in summer and probably houses people in buildings in multiple occupation. Why should such retreats be exempt because of their spiritual nature?

I will allow the officials to comment on the decision to exempt religious orders. On the point about bed and breakfasts—officials can clarify the legal niceties—the definition that we adopted was that it was whether buildings were people's principal residences that should determine whether they qualified as HMOs. We used that definition to get around those cases where employers offer accommodation free. The definition is based not on the payment of rent, but on the number of unrelated families living in one house as their principal residence. For example, in the national health service, nurses' accommodation, if it is the principal residence of the nurses, will be included, but somebody who is temporarily staying in hospital but who has a home somewhere else will not be covered by the definition. That is the sort of judgment that would have to be made about bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

It is very important that it should be included.

Bed and breakfasts would be included if they met the other aspects of the definition relating to the number of people, composition of the household, and whether facilities are shared. That is complex, but bed and breakfasts are treated no differently from other forms of accommodation.

On the exemption for religious orders, we had a lot of difficulty in trying to decide what properties should be exempt. Some would argue that a scheme such as this should be targeted at properties with the highest risk, which would mean a much wider range of exemptions. We thought that, in this category, there was not the same traditional tenant-landlord relationship that existed elsewhere. People voluntarily agree to enter such retreats and often choose to live in conditions that would not ordinarily be acceptable. For example, we did not believe that it was right to compel monasteries to have a certain number of showers and baths per room, or to say that they should have a certain level of occupation and not be too overcrowded. You can imagine that the matter could become awkward. That category is not really the target group.

I did not anticipate that we would follow this line of questioning; however, there might be one or two more questions in that area.

If the licensing fee is to be determined by each local authority, what is the guarantee that they will base that fee on the cost of administering the scheme, rather than using it to gain revenue for other areas?

Their good will. We have not sought to regulate that. I will seek clarification from officials on those points. We have had one round of consultation with COSLA and are in the final stages of consulting on the terms of the guidance. There is no reason why the committee should not have a view on several areas that it would ask the working party on guidance to consider. For example, might local authorities be prepared to consider minimum conditions on fire safety as they relate to houses of religious order, but not to the number of cookers in other houses in multiple occupation? We might ask COSLA what undertaking it might be prepared to give that it would not cross-subsidise other areas.

We are hoping to make progress on this matter on the basis of a common set of guidelines. We welcome the committee's views on what the working party should include in the guidance. The working party could take that on board without slowing up the timetable of implementation.

I am sure that we will take up that suggestion.

Further to that point, the procedural costs will vary according to geographical circumstance. That could lead to great variation in the cost of licensing. Do you have any plans for additional settlements for local authorities in the rural and Highlands and Islands areas to meet those extra processing costs?

There are two issues, one of which is the compliance cost. We have spent some time estimating the likely compliance cost for landlords as a result of the conditions imposed as a result of the licensing. We found it very difficult to estimate potential compliance costs because we have a sample size of only 300 properties in seven authorities. The definition that we have drawn up will cover 16,500 properties—12,500 in private occupation. The working party has tried to scope compliance costs in general terms. The principle that the working party has followed is that the compliance costs should fall on the landlord, because of the rental stream that they accrue from the property.

The working party could advise on what mechanism the Executive and the committee might use to review the operation of the licence scheme a year down the line. Clearly, we have an interest in minimising the burdens on the public purse, particularly given the amount of housing benefit from which such landlords benefit. The working party would like to reassess the situation after a year. Given that the compliance period will be a certain number of months, we will be in a position to scope compliance costs relatively quickly.

We will certainly be monitoring the operation of the new scheme. We have had discretionary licensing, but we will need to keep a close eye on the scheme.

There is statutory provision for fees and charges. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 requires that local authorities charge reasonable fees. It also requires local authorities to balance their books in terms of licensing activities. In other words, across the whole range of activities, licence schemes are meant to be self-funding—local authorities might make more on one area and subsidise another. Local authorities could be challenged if landlords thought that the fees were not reasonable.

Are you suggesting that there could be cross-subsidy?

There could be cross-subsidy between different licensing activities.

That is not quite what the minister suggested.

I said that, so far, we have not sought to secure any undertaking from COSLA. However, that is something that the working party would look on favourably. I cannot speak for the working party, but that seems to be a legitimate suggestion to pursue.

Does that not question the approach of applying such licensing in the same way as for bars and restaurants? As Fiona Hyslop suggested, might it not be more appropriate to operate such a scheme within a housing framework, rather than a licensing one, particularly given the likelihood of cross-subsidy?

Wearing my local government hat, I am acutely aware of COSLA's anxiety about the Parliament micro-managing how local authorities account for things in budgetary terms. Although we did not have a completely happy experience with improvement grants and their reduction when they were put into the capital allocation, we nevertheless felt that that was a fair price for local authority discretion. I do not want to prejudge the working party's conclusions, but it is wholly appropriate for the committee to offer a view on such matters.

The committee will probably pursue that issue.

I have several issues relating to the effectiveness of the potential legislation that I want to raise with the minister.

Section 3 of the order refers to the definition of a landlord and talks about the person "knowingly" giving permission. There is a question about the identification of the owner, particularly in the case of parent companies or foreign owners who live outside the country. Will there be provisions to identify the real owner or controller of the property against whom orders could be made to ensure that the standards of the legislation were upheld? Currently, any prosecution would be the responsibility of the procurator fiscal. However, in practice, that has been found not to be a particularly speedy procedure because of the requirements of other cases, such as murders and rapes. Has any consideration been given to transferring prosecution powers to the local authority, which is on the front line and needs a speedy response?

I will give an answer and my officials will add some detail. The identification of the owner might be a problem when the owner is a company and registered elsewhere. The same requirements fall on corporate bodies, trusts and partnerships as fall on individuals. The principle is that the same criminal sanctions apply to an owner who lives abroad and non-compliance would be dealt with under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. As we said earlier, the core housing legislation would be the basis of any action.

As you have already said, that is not the most effective way of dealing with non-compliance from companies or foreign landlords. Bearing in mind that many properties are controlled by factors or letting agencies, is there potential for having a nominated person—as is the case for pubs and so on—who would have to lodge a bond or something? In situations of difficulty, that would allow the order to be enforced.

That is a point to which we have given careful consideration. An earlier draft of the order included a provision that the person applying for the licence should be the person who was responsible for the day-to-day management of the property. However, we had strong representations from Glasgow City Council about the fact that there is a common arrangement under which there is a head tenant—for example, one student takes out the lease and then sublets the property. In those circumstances it would be that student who would be required to get the licence and would effectively carry the burden of this legislation. We thought that that was quite wrong and would present an easy way for landlords to avoid the effect of the regulation. That is why we switched the emphasis to the owner. Clearly, the situation is not so straightforward in relation to owners who live abroad. However, if we consider what we know about the privately rented sector, particularly houses of multiple occupancy, that is a fairly uncommon situation.

Research shows that about half of landlords own only one property and 70-odd per cent own fewer than 10. The problem can be dealt with, if necessary, by using the more cumbersome powers that the minister referred to, but I do not think that it will be a problem in practice. There would have been a problem if we had decided to require some management agent to be the person who gets the licence.

We have given some thought to the point about procurators fiscal. As a matter of criminal justice policy, my department does not support the idea of developing private prosecutions in Scotland. We see the procurator fiscal as the route through which prosecutions would be brought. Perhaps the real worry relates to the prioritisation of the matter. We intend to bring to the attention of the Crown Office the fact that we are talking about a new scheme, not a continuation of the discretionary scheme. The scheme is backed by the Executive and is in line with the Executive's priorities. The procurators fiscal should be made aware of that.

I want to ask about the numbers of multiple occupancies in an area. In Marchmont in Edinburgh, for example, about 30 per cent of the houses are in multiple occupancy because of the student presence. Will the local authorities have powers to declare that there are enough multiple occupancy licences in an area?

Glasgow, which controls its regulations through the planning legislation, requires planning applications to be made for material change of use of a property in which live fewer than two or three people in different circumstances. I take it that that situation will not be affected by the operation of the new regulations. I take it that some hiatus in the legislation will not be allowed to reduce Glasgow's standards.

Indeed not. Local authorities have planning discretion and they are able to consider the amenity value of a location as a criterion in the approval of planning applications under the licensing scheme. We hope that the formalisation of that scheme will create the opportunity to use the discretionary planning framework.

Would it be helpful to include in the guidance a degree of linkage between the two areas? The point that you raise is crucial for the major cities.

The guidance contains a reference to planning permission. If planning permission is required—and it might not be—the applicant needs to get it. The committee might feel that the reference needs to be strengthened. I am happy to take that on board.

That would be helpful, thank you.

I want to talk about funding. Currently, 25 Scottish local authorities do not operate any kind of licensing system. They will be required to set up some kind of apparatus for licensing. It seems to be suggested that the scheme will be funded by fees that will not begin to flow until after the apparatus has been set up. Are you saying that the local authorities must find money for the set-up of the apparatus from their existing budgets or that they should increase the licensing fees for taxis, restaurants and so on to fund the initial costs?

We expect that most of the local authorities will have little demand for licensing requirements. As most HMOs are in the four cities, only a small operation will be required and could be built on to their existing licensing arrangements. The key departments that already exist—the environmental health department, the housing department, the fire department and so on—would be involved. Any extra costs will be recouped in due course through the licensing fee system.

Ayr now has a university campus and the town has experienced a huge growth in multiple occupancy. South Ayrshire Council has been cutting budgets right, left and centre. It has closed the Carrick Street centre because it could not afford to pay for the wardens and the electricity. Are you saying that it can afford to employ another two or three inspection officers?

We said that houses that are in multiple occupancy and are in a safe condition—the vast majority—will now generate revenue for local government in Scotland. It is important that the burden for the repair of the small minority of properties that are in need of extensive repair is borne by the slum landlords who have benefited greatly from state revenues over a long period. We are confident that the vast majority of landlords, private and public, will receive automatic registration. A revenue stream will be generated quickly. We have allowed local authorities to set the level as they feel appropriate. If the committee wants to suggest an area of the housing budget from which the money to support the scheme could be culled, we would be happy to listen. The critical point is that the significant costs will not come from monitoring but from compliance. That burden should fall on those who have been inappropriately profiting from the public purse for too long.

I invite the minister to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee in consideration of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000 recommends that the Order be approved.—[Ms Alexander.]

Motion agreed to.