Social Justice Committee,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 23, 2002

Official Report 225KB pdf

---

Houses in Multiple Occupation (Licensing)

The committee will be aware that it agreed to take further evidence from the Executive on its response to the committee's interim report on the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. I welcome Hugh Henry to his first meeting with the committee as Deputy Minister for Social Justice. I am sure that we shall have a constructive dialogue on HMOs and other matters. I also welcome Richard Grant, Paul Stollard and Roger Harris. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement before we move to questions.

Thank you for your welcome, convener. I, too, look forward to having a constructive discussion with the committee over the coming months. I am grateful for the opportunity to answer your questions and give evidence that follows on from the Executive's letter of 18 February, which set out our response to the committee's interim report on the licensing of HMOs.

First, I welcome the committee's conclusion that it strongly supports the Executive's policy on the need for statutory regulation of houses in multiple occupation. That echoes the response to our consultation before the scheme was launched, when a large majority of those who responded were in favour of licensing, in principle. That means that the debate is about the means rather than the ends.

It is not straightforward to create a fair, cost-effective and well-targeted HMO licensing scheme. Inevitably, there are difficult decisions to be made on what should count as an HMO for licensing purposes; what HMOs, if any, should be exempt; how HMO licensing should interact with other forms of regulation that may affect certain categories of HMOs; and how best HMO licensing should be implemented. However, that is a matter for the implementing bodies, which are local authorities in this case.

As members will know, the current scheme was designed on the basis that only HMOs that were already subject to an equivalent form of regulation or those for which licensing was clearly inappropriate should be exempt. That was in line with the views of bodies such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations when the initial consultation took place. However, some members of the SFHA now seek wider exemptions. We envisaged that local authorities would take a flexible approach to the standards required, recognising the diversity of HMO properties and landlords.

There is nothing in the legislative framework for the scheme or the guidance that was issued in 2000 that prevents local authorities from targeting effort on problematic landlords—who are, I think, a major concern of the committee. Nevertheless, we are prepared to consider amending the scheme, if that seems sensible. We commissioned independent research on the initial operation of the scheme and, in response to the committee's interim report, we have agreed to issue a consultation paper on possible extensions to the exemptions. That paper has been prepared and should be issued within the next few days.

For the longer term, the housing improvement task force is looking at the whole question of regulation of the private rented sector. We will consider carefully its recommendations, which may have implications for the HMO licensing scheme. We do not expect to see the task force's conclusions until early next year. It will inevitably take some time before they can be fully considered and, if agreed, implemented. Therefore, it makes sense now to look closely at the HMO licensing scheme and to make adjustments, if they are required, by introducing suitable amendments to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000 and the associated guidance.

Members will appreciate that this is a fairly new subject for me and that I have been thrust in at the deep end. However, I hope that between the officials, with expertise on the technical areas, and me, with political responsibility, we will be able to answer your questions as fully as possible.

I will start with general questions. When she launched mandatory HMO licensing, Wendy Alexander, who was then the Minister for Communities, stated:

"Good landlords have nothing to fear from this law, but bad ones have everything to fear."

Do you consider that that is still the case? What is your response to those who, in evidence to us, made it clear that they do not think that that is the case?

I am not sure that we have seen much evidence to suggest that that is not the case. There are clearly differences of opinion in certain organisations about emphasis. However, I believe that the fundamental switch that you described still pertains. Indeed, people in local government have said that the standard of housing has gone way up in their areas because of the licensing. They believe that that has resulted in considerable benefit to the public.

I accept that there are teething problems and that some anomalies need to be ironed out, but the principles are having a beneficial effect. The scheme is intended to ensure that bad landlords are targeted, but also to ensure that we afford considerable protection to a vulnerable section of the public that in the past was often left exposed. Generally, the approach is right and we would reinforce that. We do not deny that some things could be changed and improved.

When the Executive set out on the road of licensing of HMOs, do you think that anybody envisaged that very sheltered housing would come within the ambit of what might be described as difficult landlords who have to be targeted? What proportion of licences have been issued to people in what might be loosely defined as the social rented, non-private sector? If it was perceived when the scheme was introduced that we were targeting difficult landlords in the private sector, have we succeeded?

I will ask the officials to answer the second question, on the statistics.

On the first question, I cannot claim to know what was in the minds of those responsible when they were thinking about who should be targeted. We are not identifying very sheltered housing provision as problematic; we are accepting that it comes within the scope of the scheme. Once such provision is licensed, in most cases there should be no further problem. There may be general concerns about the standards of very sheltered housing in one or two organisations. If such concerns exist, it is right that they are investigated. Very sheltered housing would not generally come within the definition of problematic, but because of the nature and structure of very sheltered housing, with which I am familiar, it is proper that certain safety issues be examined.

The first statistics that we received on applications are now a little dated. We get annual returns, so we will get more recent statistics shortly. The first statistics suggest that about 20 per cent of the initial applications came from registered social landlords as opposed to private sector landlords.

So 80 per cent of the licences issued have been issued in the private sector.

I would not say that. The figures were for the initial applications. At that stage very few licences had been issued, as they were still being progressed.

So there are no figures that prove or disprove the feeling that very sheltered housing and similar accommodation are getting caught up in legislation that was supposed to target problematic private sector housing.

The figures suggested that applications had been received from a wide range of landlords. The overwhelming majority of the applications were from private sector landlords. The applications were being progressed and moves were being made towards issuing the landlords with licences. It is bound to be the case that the more responsible landlords will apply of their own volition. Initially, a number of registered social landlords who realised that the scheme applied to them applied in the normal way.

So there is limited capacity to target licensing at problematic, difficult landlords, who were the object of policy when the scheme was introduced. Those landlords are not being targeted.

I do not accept that. It is very much for local authorities to seek to target. Local authorities are bound to have to spend more time and effort targeting the more difficult landlords. They are going to have to go to some trouble to do that. If they are aware of difficult landlords and know where to look, they can use the powers to seek them out and require licences.

We have evidence of local authorities actively seeking out the type of landlord that you describe—landlords who seek to avoid coming under the scheme. We do not underestimate the difficulty involved in that. It is always the case that those who have nothing to fear and those who are willing not only to abide by regulation but to encourage it will seek to ensure that they are included and do the right thing.

The problem is that there are always those who will seek to avoid that for whatever reason. Some local authorities are putting huge efforts into going out—almost close by close and street by street in certain areas—to identify the properties of such landlords. Some reports that the Executive receives suggest that such exercises have other beneficial effects. For example, local authorities have been able to identify other problems. At the same time as they have been trying to implement the scheme properly, they have also benefited from other work that is being done.

I will ask a final question before I allow other members to come in. The committee has received correspondence from a particular group within what might be called the owner-occupier sector—I refer to people who live co-operatively, in that they share accommodation but are not a family. They have particular anxieties about the HMO scheme. It may not be appropriate to discuss their concerns in detail today, but would you agree to look at the correspondence and respond with your view of their concerns?

Yes, by all means. People in that category are exempt from the legislation if each has a heritable right to the property. However, there may be situations in which, for legal reasons, they decide to form a co-operative that has a legal structure. In those circumstances, they will be caught up in the scheme. We could consider adding that category of people to the list of exemptions—we would be happy to look at the correspondence.

Would the Scottish Executive introduce primary legislation if research proved that that would be the best way of improving the HMO licensing scheme?

If we felt that primary legislation was necessary to tackle a clear, long-term problem, we would consider doing that. However, we would prefer to take the matter forward by using, if necessary, the powers that are available to us in order to make the scheme work well—or better.

We would also consider legislating in the context of the housing improvement task force report, which I mentioned. The task force is due to report in March 2003 and once it has done so, we may reflect on whether there is a need for further primary legislation on housing in general. If primary legislation were required, we would want to make a case for considering such legislation within the Executive's legislative programme. It would be inappropriate of me to make a commitment about what that legislative programme might look like. Indeed, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether it is absolutely necessary for us to introduce primary legislation. We will review the situation in the light of the report on housing improvement.

What is the impact of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 on premises such as those run by the Abbeyfield Society for Scotland Ltd? What is the extent of regulation for such premises, regardless of HMO status? In other words, are such premises sufficiently regulated without bringing them into the HMO scheme?

That is another debate that you may need to raise with my colleagues in the health department. Notwithstanding the fact that, up until a couple of weeks ago, I shared responsibility for that matter, it would be wrong of me to make commitments on its behalf.

A number of issues have arisen as a result of the legislation, and a number of organisations, including those in the private residential sector, have expressed concern about the standards that are now expected—in my view, reasonably expected. Some of those organisations may well have to make considerable adaptations or changes to the way in which they operate to meet the standards that will be required by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. We are now seeking to raise to a completely new level of expectation things that may have been acceptable in the past. In the long run, once the changes are made, people will look back and ask, "Why did we ever accept anything less?" The example that I am thinking of is the right to a room of one's own. Why should people have to share a room just because they are elderly or infirm? That is causing problems for many care home providers and is an issue that the health department may need to look into.

There are specific issues in relation to Abbeyfield that bring it within the focus of HMOs. People who live in accommodation that is provided by Abbeyfield should have the right to the same standards of security and safety as others. There are two Abbeyfield facilities in my constituency. I know the sterling work that they do and the satisfaction that they give to the residents. However, there is evidence that some establishments need to raise the standard of the services that they are providing to what we would consider an acceptable level. Where it is appropriate, improvements need to be made. Other issues relating to the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 need to be addressed elsewhere.

You will be aware that the interim report of the committee recommended that there are classes of property—to which my colleagues alluded in earlier questions—that should be exempted from HMO legislation, which focuses particularly on the private sector. I understand that the Scottish Executive intends to consult on the possible changes to exemptions. What is the time scale for that consultation and when will the outcome be publicly available? What will be the time scale for any amendments to the legislation that are necessary as a result of the consultation?

As I said, I hope that the consultation process will start in the next few days. I ask the Executive officials to talk about the end process.

As you know, the Executive is committed to three months of normal consultation. We will view the results of that in the context of the research that is being undertaken by Heriot-Watt University and the University of Glasgow—but principally by Heriot-Watt University. That research will be completed by the end of June or soon after. We will be considering the results of the consultation and the research together in early autumn, when we will ask ministers whether they want to make any changes to the scheme. If the changes to the scheme require legislation, we will have to bring a new order to the committee or the Parliament for approval.

Does the Executive have any clear idea of the criteria that it will use in deciding whether properties are eligible for exemption?

We have set out a number of headings and ask a range of questions under those headings. I do not know whether the consultation will automatically come to members of the committee. I will ensure that it does, so that you can tell us whether you feel that any issues have not been covered. However, I do not know whether it is proper protocol for comments to be made before the consultation paper goes out. I do not want to start breaking rules while I am new in the job.

Go on.

It would be helpful to know whether the committee felt that any topics had been missed out.

We have taken our lead, regarding what we thought that you were looking for, from the committee's interim report. The draft consultation paper seeks to consult on the criteria. At the moment, the criteria mean that we should include HMOs unless they already fall into a comparable system of regulation. The paper consults on the criteria and then goes through various possible circumstances in which an exemption might be justified. However, if there were clear cases for exemptions, we would have made those exemptions already.

Judgments will need to be made about levels of risk in particular cases. We have seen a report that was prepared for the committee by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which argues strongly against any extension of the exemptions, even to properties that local authorities might own. That seems to be the COSLA position in advance of the consultation, although it might want to reflect again when it sees our paper.

I suppose that that is where the Executive's view differs from the committee's view. We think that organisations such as the Abbeyfield Society for Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid, and perhaps also the universities, need a partial or a full exemption. I hope that that will emerge during the consultation process.

All the organisations that you mentioned will be covered—they are among the categories for which we are seeking views on possible exemptions. Particular organisations will not be identified, but the generic groups on which we are seeking views will cover all those categories.

There might well be views within local authorities that such organisations should be exempt. I am sure that that has helped to inform the committee's conclusion. However, strong views are also coming from local government that some of the organisations that you mentioned should not be exempt. The consultation will be an opportunity for both sides of the argument to be put. We will reflect on the information that we get back.

In your response to our interim report, you say:

"there may be a case for a time limited moratorium on the reduction in the size threshold due in October 2002"

to allow for an assessment of the research and consultation on exemptions. What progress has been made and, in particular, how have local authorities responded to that proposal?

I will ask Richard Grant to answer part of that. There are differences of opinion, because a strong view exists in certain sections of local government that we should push ahead. Although some people are slightly concerned about what is being proposed and think that, if possible, the time scale should be looked at, others think that we should push ahead vigorously. There is no one clear view.

Our initial thought was that it might be helpful to have more time before the threshold was reduced—not necessarily to prevent the threshold from going down, but just to allow more time. I consulted Glasgow City Council and COSLA separately on that. I have not received a formal reply from COSLA. The reply from Glasgow indicates that it is opposed to any change. The informal message that I have received from COSLA is that there are differences of view: some local authorities would not mind, but others would be concerned.

One of the primary reasons why some authorities are concerned is the fact that they have already put quite a lot of work into planning for the reduction in the threshold. My view is that it is impractical to introduce a moratorium on the reduction in the threshold for this October. There is still a question as to whether it is appropriate in principle to move to the lower threshold that would come in the following October, or whether it would be better to postpone that.

Existing legislation requires local authorities to recoup the cost of licence administration through fees that it charges to applicants. Given that that cannot be changed without primary legislation, what can the Executive do quickly to ensure consistent and reasonable levels of charging across Scotland?

That takes us back to the debate about how subsidiarity should be practised, which applies in a number of areas. Should we enforce standards across Scotland—whether in the present case, or in relation to fees that are charged in social work or to standards in education—or should discretion be given to local authorities to carry out their duties as they see fit in their area? You indicated that there is a problem about making changes without primary legislation. At the moment, all licences require to be self-funding under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

We hope that local authorities will try to have a fair and sensible pricing policy. It has been suggested that some authorities charge far more than others charge. For example, Glasgow City Council appears to charge high fees. However, those fees cover a three-year period, whereas the fees that some other authorities charge cover only a one-year period. If such one-year fees are extrapolated over three years, they are not very different from the fees charged by Glasgow City Council.

I am not sure that fees are a huge issue. It is for local authorities to implement HMO licensing as well as they can in their areas.

Have you thought about assisting local authorities that have greater concentrations of houses in multiple occupation? I am thinking especially of university towns.

There is doubt about whether we have the powers to do that. Licences under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 are required to be self-funding. I am not sure that we have the power to make payments to local authorities. Even if we decided to make such payments, we would have to take the money from somewhere else. I recognise that there are differences between areas, but ultimately that is an issue for housing providers. Most authorities will seek to recover their costs and if that places particular burdens on the establishments that must fund them, we might want to reflect on that in future. However, although one or two people in one or two organisations have made complaints, fees are not generally the problem that they are sometimes perceived to be.

Have you received feedback from organisations that represent landlords or tenants about the effect that HMO licensing has had?

Local authorities would receive such feedback. I am not sure that we have received any.

The research that we are carrying out involves collecting views from local authorities and other interested parties. We are taking evidence directly from individual landlords, as well as from landlord organisations. Those are our major sources of information, but we are in touch with other bodies. The Scottish Association of Landlords is clear about its views and has communicated those to the committee and to us. Many of the representations that have been made to the committee have been made to us at the same time.

So you are taking a scatter-gun approach.

I was surprised that you said that Glasgow City Council was not interested in a moratorium, because recently the relevant official, Brian Kelly, was reported in the newspapers to be blasting the legislation in general terms.

My question relates to standards and benchmarking. Are we trying to establish minimum standards for safety, are we trying to establish the best possible standards—an aspirational standard—or are we aiming for something in-between? The answer to that question is key in determining how we approach the issue. I say that against the background of the evidence that we received from the Abbeyfield Society for Scotland Ltd—one of the few organisations whose evidence was based on experience from throughout Scotland. That society indicated that the standards that it was asked by different councils to apply were substantially different and not altogether suitable to their interests, and that the standards that were imposed by different officials of the same council were often different. Would it be possible to examine the standards that are applied and to find out whether they are necessary for the establishment of a minimum standard?

In a moment I will ask Dr Paul Stollard to comment on the issue that Robert Brown raises. Clearly, there is not much that we can do to prevent different people in the same organisation from applying standards differently. Such organisations might want to address that issue themselves.

It is hard, without appearing to control local authorities absolutely, to issue a single directive that will allow them to do their jobs. For example, opinions differ about the overlap between HMO licensing and planning. Glasgow has a distinctive and, I would argue, effective approach in trying to protect certain communities. Edinburgh and other areas have for certain reasons decided not to adopt that approach. I do not think that we would say that either Edinburgh or Glasgow should do what the other city is doing. I hope that each will learn best practice from the other. I think that Glasgow is making considerable progress and others might learn from that.

Best practice is different to minimum standards. There is a terminology issue there.

Yes. I will bring in Paul Stollard to deal with that point.

The guidance that the Executive provided deliberately steers clear of giving precise standards. We stress several times that we are giving benchmark standards and that a risk assessment should be conducted on each HMO. The benchmark standards that we have provided are considerably less than the minimum standards that we apply to new buildings. We argue therefore that the benchmark standards are not aspirational—they are a minimum standard. We examined consciously what we would require of a new-build HMO; we considered what was not practicable and lowered the standard to what we thought would be achievable as a minimum. We were creating neither guidelines on best practice nor an aspirational standard.

One of the problems is that many local authorities are risk-averse. They think that the Executive has given benchmark standards and so they should ask for those plus a few extras. We emphasise that we provide benchmark standards and that it might be appropriate to achieve them through different mechanisms. That is what we are trying to encourage local authorities to do.

Is there potential to re-examine the standards and guidance to local authorities in the light of the information that has been received? We are not experts in the detail and we cannot go into the assessment of fire doors and so on, but your officials can. Have you enough information and experience of what different local authorities are doing to reconsider the issue in some detail, review the guidance or even consult on it further?

We are reviewing the operation of the scheme and if information comes to light that requires further action, we will—where possible—initiate that by regulation. Given some of the difficulties and complexities, it is right that we reflect on the experience of local authorities. I cannot give any commitment as to exactly what we would do, but we will certainly give the matter further consideration.

The benchmark standards were drafted in consultation with a range of organisations. I chaired a group, which involved the Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Shelter, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and various professional bodies, which produced the guidance that includes the benchmark standards. We now have some evidence about how things work in practice through keeping in touch with the local authorities that are implementing the guidance, and from research. We will probably want to reconvene that group, or something similar, before promulgating any changes to the guidance.

Page 5 of the written response from the Executive indicates that it should be possible to identify problematic landlords in the current scheme. It goes on to say that

"staff effort should be concentrated on problem HMOs."

What evidence does the Executive have of the scale of problem HMOs and of licence evasion?

My officials might be able to give the committee some statistical evidence. It is fair to say that certain problems are emerging about taking enforcement action; we will need to reflect on those.

On problem HMOs and staff effort on that, I have been involved directly with the local authorities network group that brings together the officers who are involved in problem HMOs. It is clear to me that, as one officer commented, they have in a short period moved a long way towards implementing the system.

As the minister said, a number of authorities are methodically and thoroughly going about the initial task of identifying HMOs. They are also gradually improving the way in which they co-ordinate inspections in order to avoid duplication and to achieve consistency between different offices. Through those means, they are sizing up, identifying and concentrating on the problem HMOs. It is the staff's desire to do that, but a number of practical problems are involved in finding HMOs in the first place.

The minister mentioned enforcement action. Is there evidence about the number of prosecutions of unlicensed HMOs that we have been able to carry through? The committee took evidence that suggested that different levels of success resulted depending on the court in which the case was heard. What feedback have you had on that?

The information that I have includes patchy figures, which resulted from a discussion that occurred at a group meeting. We do not have a thorough survey of the information but, from the information that I have, I am aware that some authorities are having difficulty with the process in respect of the level of evidence. When enforcement action is taken, it is inevitable that the extreme cases—those that involve people who will try to evade enforcement if they can—are being dealt with.

Practical difficulties arise concerning the level of evidence that is required to pursue a criminal prosecution. The authorities concerned are in discussion with local procurators fiscal on how to manage the process most effectively. Other authorities have struck a balance between enforcement actions and the efforts that are required to identify HMOs. All that work involves substantial staff time, and judgments must be made as to which activity will be most productive at any given time.

Recently, we received comments from one authority about enforcement and the difficulties that are involved. That authority asked whether we could consider alternative routes; however, the alternatives that have been suggested involve primary legislation. We are happy to engage in discussion on the subject with the authorities concerned. It is worth considering whether better ways of achieving enforcement exist.

We are all coming at the issue from the same angle. Our primary concern is the quality of properties that are available for rent and the safety of the people who live in shared accommodation. That is the evidence that we heard from local government and which the minister repeated today.

Everyone wants to give every tool and assistance to local authorities to help them in identifying problematic landlords. In a previous question, I asked about departments sharing information, including housing benefit information, with the department that deals with HMO licensing. The response that we received from the minister agreed that problems existed regarding data protection legislation.

Is it possible to assist local authorities in the time-consuming identification of problem HMOs? Is it possible to identify addresses where more than one application—say, three or half a dozen; who knows what the number would be—had been made for housing benefit? Could that be done instead of providing the names of people who might be applying for housing benefit? That would stop the staff who are involved in investigating HMO licensing having to undertake that sort of investigative work.

The information would have to rest with the local authority rather than with the Scottish Executive.

I have spoken to a number of local authorities about the potential for exchanging information. They are clear that the legal advice that they have been given is that such information cannot be exchanged in that way. They would therefore not transfer information on council tax benefit or housing benefit in any way, shape or form. It would be inappropriate for the Executive to try to influence that.

Some local authorities have examined the electoral register, which, although it is imperfect, gives them some information with which to try to identify potential cases of multiple occupancy. Others have sent officers out to areas in which they think such multiple occupancy might exist and have attempted to identify such cases door by door and close by close. They have had some success, although that approach is also imperfect.

The Executive cannot bring about sharing of information. Most local authorities have probably taken advice on sharing information and have been advised that certain information cannot be exchanged, even within departments of the council.

Perhaps, when we are talking about health and safety issues, we should consider enabling the exchange of that information.

Does the Executive believe that it has done enough to ensure that those who live in houses with more than two residents are aware of the licensing scheme? What level of awareness have you found among private sector landlords that they should be licensed? How are you promoting the need for applications to come in from private landlords?

I will leave the officials to answer the questions on awareness and promotion in the private sector. It has been reported to us that some tenants are reluctant to identify their landlords as working outwith the scheme because they fear that, by doing so, they might leave themselves open to eviction or harassment. That is clearly not acceptable and it is not a reason for our not doing something. In fact, it reinforces our views about why we should do something. There is anecdotal evidence of that concern from some areas.

We have expected local authorities to promote the HMO licensing arrangements, particularly because authorities have different schemes. We are aware from our contacts with private landlords that those with whom we deal are very aware of HMO licensing; it is top of their agenda in many of their discussions with us.

The extent of local authority promotional activity varies according to the perception of the extent of the problem. Dundee City Council has done a leaflet drop of some 52,000 leaflets. That is an active way in which to pursue the issue. Other authorities have, as the minister said, taken a door-to-door approach including, in one case, ensuring that the authority makes contact with tenants wherever possible. There are a number of different ways of approaching promotion. The local authorities devise and then promote the schemes.

We have also taken evidence that suggests that some smaller landlords are closing the door. They say that they will not apply for the licence because it is cost prohibitive and that they will rent out their house to a family or sell it and move on to some other form of business. Do you have any evidence that the level of private rental accommodation has fallen since the scheme was introduced?

No, but I will ask my officials about the statistical information that might be available. However, we have certainly heard anecdotal evidence from some local authorities about concerns that certain types of properties might be relatively costly to adapt and might therefore not be available for letting in future. However, the local authorities and I feel that such properties can exist only by leaving residents to face a fairly vulnerable future. As much as I do not want any reduction in available accommodation, we have collectively perceived the need to take action in light of some horrific incidents. It would not be right to turn a blind eye to private landlords who might be reluctant to invest in providing safe and secure accommodation.

Although we have not taken any evidence on this subject, there has definitely been talk that some hostel-type accommodation, particularly in Edinburgh, is not covered by the scheme. Young people who, because they are travelling about, stay for only two or three nights at a time are living in quite horrendous conditions because they are not protected by the scheme. Will the Executive be able to address that problem as part of the review?

I will ask Richard Grant to answer that question in a moment. I am extremely concerned about the situation that Cathie Craigie mentioned. Fire regulations should apply to many of these establishments; however, beyond that, it seems that the transient nature of the population that Cathie Craigie described allows landlords to get around the HMO licensing scheme. I have asked for that matter to be examined. Notwithstanding the protection that is afforded by fire regulations, clearly other things are happening out there that none of us would find acceptable.

When we drafted the scheme, it was designed to apply to accommodation that provided the main or principal residence for a specified number of persons. In other words, the accommodation was their home. We did not intend to include property that was purely for visitors; if we had done so, we would have had to bring all sorts of hotels, guest houses and bed-and-breakfast accommodation into the scheme's purview. As a result, it is a matter for local consideration whether the hostels are being used either as a form of low-priced hotel for visitors or as people's principal accommodation. If the latter were the case, the local authority would be able to insist that a licence must be applied for.

Notwithstanding those comments, I was concerned to hear about this development and will certainly seek more information about it. If we know that young people are being left in particularly vulnerable or potentially dangerous situations, it is not acceptable simply to say that there is nothing we can do about the matter because it falls between different schemes. We have heard stories from all over the world about the horrific consequences of young people on their travels seeking out cheap accommodation. I do not want to have to come back—or see someone else come back—in a year or two to say that a particular problem should be looked at because a horrendous incident has happened. We will take Cathie Craigie's comments seriously and find out whether we can do anything.

I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance and for answering our questions. We look forward to the consultation document and to contributing to it.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—