Official Report 227KB pdf
We move now to agenda item 4, which is consideration of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 2000. At the meeting on 4 October, the committee considered a submission from the Abbeyfield Society for Scotland on the amount of regulation that the licensing of houses in multiple occupancy would impose and the degree of discretion that is granted to local authorities in the registration process. The committee agreed to seek further information from Scottish Homes and the Scottish Executive on the implications of the order for registered social landlords. The committee is invited to consider the responses that we have received from Scottish Homes and the Scottish Executive and the clerks' recommendations.
When the matter arose before, I—and, I think, Bill Aitken—asked about the wide discrepancies in charging by local authorities. That is merely incidental to what we are discussing, but it has not been properly dealt with. I received in correspondence a list of the charges in different local authority areas. If I remember correctly, they range from £103 in Aberdeen to £1,700 in Glasgow. There is no earthly way in which such a discrepancy can be justified on the basis of recovering cost. The fear of the people who raised the matter with me is that such charging will be sufficient to discourage landlords—especially small landlords—from letting houses in areas of housing need, without providing any benefit in the regulatory machinery. That aspect is at least as important as the one that is homed in on in the instrument.
I underline that view. There is a remarkable disparity in the fees that local authorities charge—that is difficult to justify. I wonder whether the numbers were properly thought through at the inception of the order. This type of housing tenure has a bad reputation, which in some respects is deserved. I could illustrate a number of cases in Glasgow in which multiple occupancy has worked adversely for both the tenants and the neighbouring residents. I wonder whether the steps that were taken were over the top and whether we should revisit the whole issue. The question of charges has to be examined. Clearly, we do not wish to do anything that would inhibit the work of Abbeyfield or other organisations, which do a tremendous job with this type of housing.
When first we discussed the instrument, we had concerns about charging and how schemes would operate. I remember a discussion about how the licensing of taxi drivers could perhaps subsidise the licensing of houses of multiple occupancy, as councils could vary the level of charges. Now we are seeing evidence of the variability in charges that councils have licence to charge. Although the committee is limited in what it can do and the order will be reviewed in a year, we have the opportunity to gather evidence. Abbeyfield has submitted its view.
Could we add that the system of discretionary charging by local authorities should be included in that review?
I think that we should consider the responses from Scottish Homes and the Scottish Executive and pursue a number of points in addition to those that were raised by Abbeyfield—I think that that was Robert Brown's point. Related to that is the second recommendation, which is that the committee should ask the clerks
Information on the level of fees that are being charged by local authorities is centrally available. We might want other information from other local authorities, but to some extent the issue of charging homes in on charging in Glasgow, because it is at one extreme of the range.
There seem to be two recommendations: that we ascertain the experiences of HMOs in different local authority areas and that we consider the levels of fees. If such information is centrally accessible, that is fine, but it would be helpful to ask individual authorities about their experiences.
The information might be available centrally, but we all need a copy of it and it should be minuted that we will look into the charges. In Glasgow, there was an overreaction to unfortunate circumstances relating to multiple occupancy. Things were done too quickly and other areas were affected. We should consider specifically the amount of multiple occupancy in Glasgow. That might be a third recommendation.
Obviously Glasgow is not the only place that has specific identified needs.
I know, but because of the number of students in Glasgow, it has a greater problem with houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs.
I disagree with Sandra White's point about overreaction. Local authorities called for regulations for HMOs for years. Such regulations were long overdue—people died and people are paying a fortune for accommodation that is well below standard. I hope that the new order will eventually improve that situation.
In our previous meeting on the provisions for houses in multiple occupation, the committee supported far tighter regulation. However, there is no doubt that operation of the regulations could be improved. There will be a review in a year's time, and the steps that we are taking mean that we will be more prepared and informed by then. A point was made about Abbeyfield, but there are other points about registered social landlords in general. Those points will inform us when we consider the proposals in the housing bill and when we consider Scottish Homes as a regulator.
That is right. I agree with what was said about Abbeyfield. We can take our time and get a bit of experience of such things. We must avoid over-regulation, but still achieve our object. I agree entirely with Cathie Craigie that we need a well-regarded and effective system of regulating houses in multiple occupation. The worry about charging is its potential for, if not exactly bringing the system into disrepute, making the system much more difficult to operate and perhaps driving some landlords—who ought to be registered—a little further underground than they should be. That could cause problems with the supply of rented housing. It is therefore an urgent issue—too urgent to wait until a review in a year's time.
I suggest that we should still contact all local authorities about their experiences. We should ask the clerks to give us an idea of the requests that will be made of authorities, because we should include questions about the availability of accommodation for rent in the private sector and whether that has been affected by charges. I think that we should do a case study of Glasgow, as has been argued for. Perhaps we should accept recommendations (a) and (b) from the clerks, change the reference to "Abbeyfield" to "registered social landlords", and add a third item—a case study of the experience of Glasgow City Council.
The issue does not go beyond charging.
In that case, we need not conduct a case study of Glasgow's experience, because that issue will be clear from the evidence that we receive from the council. I therefore suggest that we go with my initial proposal to study all local authorities, but that we give special attention to Glasgow's submission to find out whether there is a discrepancy between its experience and that elsewhere. Is that agreed? I would like to bring the matter to a close.
With great respect, deputy convener, I think that you are missing the point, which is that there is a particular issue about charging that has nothing to do with the order or its details, which we will—rightly—review in a year's time. Charging raises an issue now, which we must consider. Having heard what Glasgow City Council in particular has to say, we may want to make representations to the Executive about whether it is prepared to give advice, or whatever, to tighten up the system.
When we contact the local authorities, we will ask them to give responses about their experiences now—not in a year's time. We will study the submissions from all local authorities, including Glasgow City Council, which will include its experience of charging. We can put a time limit on when responses can be submitted. Then, we will be able to consider any initial action that we should take, remembering that we will review the position in a year's time. I suggest that we move forward and place a time limit on responses. That will allow the committee to take any immediate action that might be required. Is that agreed?
Meeting continued in private until 12:21.
Previous
Housing Bill