Official Report 206KB pdf
Private Landlord Registration (Modification) (Scotland) Order 2005 (Draft)<br />Private Landlord Registration (Advice and Assistance) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/557)
Private Landlord Registration (Information and Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/558)<br />Private Landlord Registration (Appeals against Decision as to Rent Payable) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/559)
Antisocial Behaviour Notice (Appeal against Order as to Rent Payable) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/560)<br />Antisocial Behaviour Notice (Management Control Orders) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/561)
Antisocial Behaviour Notice (Landlord Liability) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 <br />(SSI 2005/562)<br />Antisocial Behaviour Notice (Advice and Assistance) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (SSI 2005/563)
I welcome people to the 29th meeting of the Communities Committee in 2005. I remind members that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off.
For the avoidance of doubt, I remind members of my entry in the register of members' interests that says that I am a very dormant partner in a family farming business that includes some privately rented houses.
Thank you. The minister may now make an opening statement.
Parts 7 and 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 support two policy priorities: dealing with antisocial behaviour and improving the private rented sector. Those issues are linked, because a poor landlord often fails to address antisocial behaviour, which exacerbates problems for the neighbourhood.
You mentioned the dissemination of information, which is one issue that has been raised with the committee. We must ensure not only that landlords are aware of the new scheme but that tenants are aware of their rights under the scheme. Will you give the committee further information about how the Executive intends to publicise the scheme nationally?
Many of the existing networks of tenants organisations and landlords organisations that we have consulted will be a good place to start. Other networks involve local authorities and community organisations. We might want to flag up to MSPs the fact that they should provide information if they come across folk who have a problem.
We heard in evidence the suggestion that a national advertising campaign was needed to make people aware of their new rights. Some organisations were concerned that the most vulnerable tenants, who need the scheme's protection, might be the most difficult to reach, whereas the people who are most likely to know about the scheme will be those with landlords who comply. A national advertising campaign might reach vulnerable tenants more easily.
That may be so. A judgment would need to be made about the effectiveness of such a campaign. Some advertising campaigns, such as the one on domestic abuse, are more effective because people tune into them, as they hear something that makes them react. An information campaign is not quite the same.
The Scottish Association of Landlords was particularly keen that there should be an easily understood, step-by-step guide to the legislation. It was concerned that while larger landlords would find it easier to engage with the new system, smaller landlords with only a couple of properties might find it more difficult. It is looking for something simple, such as a flow chart that lays out what landlords have to do to ensure that they comply with the new regulations.
That makes sense. We should examine that. I am clear that the registration of landlords in the private sector will strengthen the sector, rather than diminish it, because it will ensure that the reputations of those who provide a service in the sector are not tarnished by those who abuse the sector. We must ensure that people do not fall foul of the system through ignorance. The system should be relatively straightforward and easy for them to comply with. The big organisations such as the Scottish Association of Landlords will want to ensure that its members are informed, but we all know that there will be landlords with only one or two houses. It is important that they do not default by accident. We will have to examine how to get into the public domain information on the simple steps that landlords need to take to ensure that they are registered. In that context, we have to be clear that the system will help the sector, rather than attack it.
The Scottish Executive is always keen to ensure that its legislation is equality proofed. What steps did the Executive take to ensure that equality issues were considered in the legislation? How will that feed into implementation?
As with all Scottish Executive consultations, we consulted a range of equalities bodies, such as Age Concern Scotland, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission, Engender, the Equal Opportunities Commission, Help the Aged, Ownership Options in Scotland, Positive Action in Housing, the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish disability and housing network, Scottish Women's Aid, the Scottish Women's Convention, Young Scot and YouthLink Scotland. Good practice was followed on the consultation. Some of the changes that we made in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, for example in relation to the register itself, were made in recognition of the comments of some of those groups.
The Executive proposes that the scheme will have a light touch. I am interested in the balance between satisfying local authorities and satisfying landlords. Last week, we heard from local authorities that the scheme will be light touch, but we heard a contrary view from landlords, who were concerned that perhaps the scheme will not be as light touch as they had first anticipated. What is your view? Do you think that the Executive has struck the right balance and that the scheme will provide the necessary protection without being too onerously bureaucratic for landlords?
There is nothing in the system to make it bureaucratic and overly burdensome—local authorities would not want it to be like that, we would not want it to be like that, and it would not be in the interests of landlords for it to be like that. Some landlords do not want registration, so they will find whatever they are asked to do too onerous. They feel that the scheme is an unnecessary step. However, people who are resistant to registration would say that, would they not?
I am sure that everybody concerned will welcome the intention expressed by the minister and local authorities to apply a light touch to the scheme, but that kind of term is all too easy to use. It might be helpful if the minister would illustrate briefly the process that a landlord will have to go through. For example, if somebody were about to inherit one or two properties from a granny somewhere and was thinking about letting them, in a nutshell, what process would have to be followed? Will people simply fill in one form, submit it to the local authority, pay whatever fee is asked—we will come to that later—and the application will stay on the register until somebody takes it off, or is it a repeat process? Is there monitoring? Just how light will the touch be?
In the interests of clarity and so that we can avoid a bureaucratic system, I ask a bureaucrat to briefly capture what the process is. I will answer any further questions.
In the background of all this legislation, we are trying to produce an internet-based information technology system around which the application process will centre. Those landlords and agents who are able to get access to and make use of an internet-based system—whether they use the internet regularly or go to the local library where there are usually IT facilities—will be able to apply online.
Thank you very much. That is helpful.
I congratulate you on thinking through the internet scheme, which is a great idea, but I have questions on behalf of the luddites who do not use the internet. I do not understand how people will know that they need to register. How will they know that the regulations are in force? Who will tell a private landlord who has rented for 30 years about the regulations? Who will flag up their need to register?
I would like to develop a point, if I may. We have already discussed advertising and so on. Our experience from HMO licensing suggests that it can be difficult to catch or contact everyone, particularly as many landlords have only one or two properties. However, most landlords who are involved in the buy-to-let market, for example, receive certain mortgage products, so a route exists there. We are in discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders on disseminating information through such routes. Most landlords will deal with a professional at some point, so we have a number of ways of getting to them.
Automatic registration seems to me to be a cost-effective process, but will there be a facility for spot checks on, say, one in 20 cases or one in 30 cases to ensure that all the information is correct and that nobody is at it?
To some extent, that will be a matter for the local authority. We want to work closely with local authorities to ensure that such issues are considered.
What was the rationale for the range of exclusions in the draft Private Landlord Registration (Modification) (Scotland) Order 2005?
Let me find my notes so that I get this right.
You suggested that there is a distinction between manses and other more traditional forms of tied housing. In its evidence, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association appeared to suggest that greater clarification was required on the different forms of agricultural tenancies, because agricultural and crofting tenancies are excluded but tied housing is not.
We always want to be clear and to avoid doubt. During the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we debated why people felt that tied houses should be covered. A tied house is not like a free house; it is something that people pay for, in some cases with their labour. I acknowledge that there are technical distinctions that we have to be aware of. Agricultural and crofting tenancies are excluded but tied houses are kept in. In the debates in committee and in the Parliament, people seemed to be happy with the balance that we struck. However, we are always alive to the need to ensure that things are as clear as possible. When people seek advice on whether they need to register, they have to be given clear advice.
The draft Private Landlord Registration (Modification) (Scotland) Order 2005 provides for an exemption for a house that is
We would not encourage the use of loopholes and we would keep an eye out for that. We wanted to capture what a manse is but we acknowledged that the definition had to be broader than that. In any court, the word "manse" would signify what we are talking about, but it is important that we couch the order in broader terms. However, we are alive to the issues that you raise. We will keep an eye on them.
I want to move on to Scottish statutory instrument 2005/557 on private landlord registration, and SSI 2005/563 on antisocial behaviour notices. Both instruments deal with advice and assistance to landlords. Will the quality and range of advice to landlords and tenants be consistent throughout the country? Concern has been expressed that local authorities might go off and do their own thing or do as little, or as much, as possible. Are you confident that quality advice and assistance will be provided throughout the country?
It is important that the advice should be consistent, but it will also have to be appropriate to each area. As Scott Barrie mentioned, some local authorities will need to be much more versed in the technicalities of tied housing than Glasgow City Council may have to be. We will ask local authorities to ensure that the advice is appropriate for their area and that it is consistent. We will issue guidance on that, because we would not want people to be able to say that they operated out of ignorance, because although they sought advice, it was not helpful or appropriate. The guidance will aim to ensure consistency and a clear understanding of what advice should encapsulate, while recognising the differences throughout the country.
Local authorities have also raised a concern about resources—they feel that the advisory role will have implications for local authority budgets. How will we ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced to take on that role?
We have taken powers to support grant allocation to local authorities. We need to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on how the resources will be distributed among local authorities. It is clear that start-up costs may be involved and we accept that those should be funded. Funding has been identified, as it is not in any of our interests if a scheme fails because it is not adequately resourced. We must have a clear idea about what the resource is and where the pressures will be.
In general, do local authorities give advice and assistance to private landlords at present?
Some do, although I cannot comment on what every local authority does. Some areas have private landlord forums, but they are often mainly about how the housing benefit system is organised and run. Many local authorities accept that they need to engage with the sector. I hope that the sector will understand that it needs to engage with local authorities on more than simply the housing benefit system. We have an opportunity to build on that work. We want to work closely with COSLA to ensure that the advice schemes are effective.
Will a tension arise because local authorities will be the advice giver—to tenants who have problems and to landlords when they register—and also the enforcer? Local authorities will give advice to all parties, but they will also be asked to take an enforcement role if private landlords come up short. Are there inherent tensions in that?
I do not think that a tension will arise, because the same applies to a range of services for which local authorities are responsible. For example, on HMO licensing or environmental health issues, local authorities provide information, but they also have an enforcing role. I do not see those roles as contradictory, given that local authorities' responsibility is to the general good—I am not sure of the technical term.
Well-being.
Local authorities are responsible to the general good and well-being. They have an important role, because the private rented sector operates inside the local authority area. People live in houses provided by the private rented sector, people provide a business in it and people live beside it, so local authorities have a general role in relation to the sector. There is no contradiction between that and intervening to say, "But you do not meet our standards." That applies in other situations.
I will move on to SSI 2005/558, which deals with costs, fees, information and matters of that nature for the registration of private landlords. I understand that the regulations prescribe the information that will be required to be given to local authorities so that they can determine the application for registration. One item that has been left out is that the applicant does not have to declare any information on spent convictions. Is enough information required to be given by the landlord to allow a local authority to determine whether they are a fit and proper person to act as a landlord?
The judgment has been made that that is sufficient information. We take the view that what we are asking for is sufficient for the purpose of the registration scheme. The information must be sufficient to determine two matters. One is whether the person is a fit and proper person to be a landlord. The other is that they are accessible and accountable for the service that they provide. That could be important in dealing with someone who is deemed to be fit and proper, but who over time begins to neglect the property and the area. I think that we have got the balance right on the information that is being sought.
Fife Council's evidence expressed concern—it was Fife Council's opinion and it was not shared by COSLA—that the onus of responsibility for determining the application falls on the council; if there was information that it should have been aware of, it could be liable for any damages that were caused as a result of the failure to pick up on that information. Fife Council therefore felt that a disclosure check should be the norm across all applications. I presume that that option was considered. Why was it ruled out?
Again, we judge that sufficient information is being sought. The provision does not preclude anybody who enters into a contract with a private landlord from seeking further information from them. The contract is between a landlord and a tenant, so the tenant has a responsibility. It is not the same as the situation in which a local authority lets properties from the private sector and sublets them to their own tenants. That is a different relationship.
At an early stage, we considered having a full disclosure check for every applicant for registration. That would be a substantial undertaking that would be relevant to only a few people. What is possible is that a local authority could ask an applicant whether they have any reason to suspect that there might be a relevant history or it could ask the applicant to obtain a relevant disclosure check. We are in the process of dealing with colleagues to make the necessary adjustments to the legislation to allow that. If the applicant says no, that would in itself be a cause for the local authority to be suspicious. At that point, there would be an opportunity to go further. However, that did not need to be allowed for in these regulations, as it would be on a voluntary basis.
Earlier, Tricia Marwick asked about local authorities doing spot checks. I suppose that, if a local authority had a suspicion about something, it would be entitled to seek further information from the applicant.
Yes, the corollary of the fact that it is easy to be registered is that it is easy for the local authority to act if it has suspicions. As has been said, checks could also be made on a random basis.
Applicants will be able to make one application, even though they might have properties in more than one local authority area. I am pleased that the legislation enables local authorities and other authorities, such as the police, to get information about landlords in a simple way. How easy will that be? What arrangements have been made in relation to cross-boundary property portfolios?
We will work closely with COSLA on that issue. Certainly, it will be possible for local authorities to exchange information through the system.
How will that work? If a person has properties in, for example, North Lanarkshire Council's area and Glasgow City Council's area, but makes only one application, how will that be administered? Will it be bureaucratic or will it be simple?
It is sometimes possible to be bureaucratic and simple at the same time. Computers do remarkably complicated things without requiring big piles of paper to be used. My understanding is that an applicant would apply on one system and that that would match that person with the various local authorities, which would be able to pull in that information.
Karen Whitefield and Tricia Marwick asked about guidance for tenants. We all want the system to work, but there is concern about how we can get the information out to people. Obviously, we MSPs will do our best to let our constituents know that the system is up and running. However, I feel that the Scottish Executive should take a lead role in making up leaflets that can be used to get information to tenants. If a tenant's landlord is not registered, how will that tenant know what to do about that? There is a need for publications to be produced that could be issued to citizens advice bureaux, tenants' information places and the local press and media, which Roger Harris spoke about earlier.
There is a need for general campaign material that will let people know that this is something that matters. However, what is critical is that people who need help know about the register and that they can find out who the landlord is. It is not so much, "I would be quite interested to know who owns the property up the stairs," as "I need to get hold of this person because there is a problem."
I do not expect the minister to make any spending commitments today, but it would not cost a lot for the Executive to prepare for tenants and landlords a concise step-by-step guide—it need be only a couple of sides of A4—that local authorities could adapt to their needs.
We are doing that.
Very good.
We continue to engage in dialogue with the DWP on people's right to housing benefit to meet their rent liability when the landlord to whom the benefit is given is committing an offence. It is not easy to solve that problem, but I very much recognise the need to find a way of addressing the issue. Given that local authorities will have access to the national register and will know whether a landlord is on the register, we need to do some hard work on whether anything would prohibit people from consulting the register whenever someone makes a request for their rent liability to be met. However, it would be dishonest of me to say that it is obvious that the problem has been sorted, as other issues can arise. For example, we need to consider whether a person's entitlement to have their rent liability met should be separate to them as an individual rather than be dependent on the property. I assure you that we are continuing to explore the matter, because, as you have pointed out, it is important. If a local authority can bring together the different bits of information, it would certainly inform housing benefit decisions and allow determinations to be made. However, more work needs to be carried out on that.
COSLA and other witnesses have expressed some scepticism about the Executive's intention for the registration scheme to be self-financing. For example, they have pointed out that, although the Executive has said that it will meet the set-up costs, it has not made it clear whether it will meet 100 per cent of those costs. I imagine that the local authorities will want that to be clarified.
We acknowledge that the scheme will incur costs that will have to be supported. The scheme's running costs will be met by the fees, and we will negotiate with COSLA on what the real set-up costs will be. I should point out that, given our commitment to introducing an effective system, it would be perverse to put ourselves in a position where we say, "We can't do this because we haven't got the money." It is not a default position; as I have said, it is a matter for negotiation. We want the system to work. We will deal with the issue of fees once the scheme is up and running; however, we need to explore the balance of costs with COSLA, which is content to be party to that negotiation.
Your response on the set-up costs will probably provide some comfort to the witnesses who gave evidence last week.
We must continue to discuss the matter with COSLA and individual local authorities that find the situation particularly problematic. If the proposed fee mechanisms do not achieve what we want them to achieve, we will have to revisit the matter. After all, as I have said, our policy is to set up an effective registration scheme.
You have addressed some of the points that I was going to raise, one of which was about the fees. The regulations propose a fee structure in which each local authority will set its own fee. First, what happens when landlords' portfolios straddle several local authority areas? Secondly, does the Executive believe that there should be a cap on the fees? What process could be followed if it was felt that a local authority had set its fee unjustifiably high? As you have recognised, if the fees were unjustifiably high, that would undermine the system that we hope to put in place.
We want to work with the grain of local authorities in establishing fees, and local authorities will give us estimates of what they believe would be reasonable costs. If we set a maximum fee, all local authorities would set their fees at the maximum. We will try to ensure that the fees are reasonable through the scheme that is operated. Local authorities are aware that we could regulate again to cap fees, if necessary. In relation to HMO licensing, people felt that there was huge variation throughout the country. Some of that is down to the complexity of what people are dealing with. Consistency is not the same as uniformity. We are keen to work with local authorities on the basis of what they think is appropriate; however, we reserve the right to regulate again to cap fees if we observe the problem that you have identified.
I have one final point on the subject. The Association of Residential Letting Agents thinks that landlords whose properties are managed by professional firms that are members of ARLA, the Law Society of Scotland and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors should not have to pay fees. ARLA believes that, because those premises are managed well by professional agencies, they already meet the standard to which the Executive aspires for private landlords. Does that position find sympathy with you, minister? If not, can you explain the Executive's thinking a bit more?
We take the view that the owner of the property is ultimately responsible and must be part of the scheme. Although people might make a case for exemption, we feel that consistency across the board is more important.
The consultation paper states that the basic fee will be £50, with a £10 supplementary charge. Given the fact that you have had considerable dialogue with COSLA since the consultation paper was issued, and bearing in mind Tricia Marwick's questions and the need for the scheme to be self-financing, does £50 still seem a realistic figure?
That is something that we need to talk to the local authorities about. The figure that we started with was the figure that you have identified, and we will talk to local authorities about whether that is a reasonable figure.
So, you do not know, at the moment, whether that figure is realistic?
Well, we are getting information and it seems to be a reasonable starting point. It is stated in the consultation paper, which people have looked at. It is a preliminary figure based on a reasonable assumption; however, we are not going to scaffold against the possibility of changing it if people can persuade us that certain things have not been taken into account. We want the scheme to work, so we want the fee system to work, but it must not be unfair or too onerous.
Schedule 2 to SSI 2005/558 contains no provision to cover what might be called de minimis cases in which a very small property is being let for a notional sum. In such cases, the registration fee might exceed the monthly rental. I presume that the implication of schedule 2 is that the local authority has discretion when setting the fee level and can take such circumstances into account. They will occur from time to time.
As in any business, people will make judgments on what is worth their while. The registration is for three years, and nobody is compelling anybody else to do anything—to rent out their properties or to do so at a certain level. Because the scheme is for three years, the fees should not be unduly onerous. We do not want to include something in the system that means that it is in people's interests to find ways of avoiding registration.
Another interesting subject about which there has been discussion concerns the situation if a landlord is not allowed to charge rent because of a court order. If a sheriff then overturns such a ruling, should there be a way in which tenants can pay into what might be described as a third-party fund, with an independent third party managing the rent for the property during the period when the landlord's right to raise rent is discontinued? Why did the Executive reject the idea of a third party being able to hold money on behalf of a tenant? That would ensure that, in case a subsequent appeal against an order was upheld by a sheriff, the tenant had not used the money for other purposes.
That is a really important point. In action against landlords, we did not want to create situations in which people who have limited incomes could get into financial difficulties because they do not have to pay rent for a while. It is important that people are advised early about such situations and that they are directed towards advice on money. Advice organisations have to be geared up for that. People have to find ways of holding on to money that they are not paying, in case the landlord's appeal is successful.
A sheriff will obviously take circumstances into account; it may be that the sheriff will say that rent during the period of the appeal should not be paid. However, it is important to ensure that support and guidance are available, and I imagine that citizens advice bureaux would be particularly helpful in that regard. I understand that the Executive will produce guidance for local authorities, and material that could be distributed through citizens advice bureaux to assist in informing tenants.
That is important; we need to progress that work. However, just because a landlord is in difficulties and is being dealt with, that does not mean that the tenant has no responsibilities. The landlord should not be liable to receive the rent, but that does not mean that the person living in a property should expect not to pay any rent. We have to get away from that, so we must support people and ensure that they are putting aside money to meet their responsibilities. We recognise that people are under pressure with their incomes and that such things can happen, so people need appropriate advice and support about where that money could go.
Like the minister, I believe that the issue concerns every member of the committee. Many people who are in private lets are vulnerable; they are among the most vulnerable people in our communities. The make-up of the private rented sector is changing, but a number of older people and people who are vulnerable for other reasons still live in private rented accommodation. The minister said, "We would write to the tenants." That worries me, because I do not think that writing to tenants to tell them about their landlord will be sufficient in all cases. Could you consider further engaging local authorities, particularly for face-to-face visits, if such circumstances arise?
That second question is one that we are in dialogue about; those things are all wrapped up together. Some of the processes around housing benefit are quite important in relation to what we are discussing, and we have seen people getting into bother in the past because they were deemed to be in arrears when, in fact, it was the system itself that was problematic. Tricia Marwick makes a fair point.
I have a technical point about the housing benefit issue, which has arisen from a discussion on protecting people when there is an appeal against a rent penalty notice. If rent is paid through housing benefit and the rent liability ceases, then the housing benefit entitlement ceases. We are in close discussion with the Department for Work and Pensions about the mechanics of ensuring that that is communicated—we will produce joint guidance. The DWP is working on minor adjustments to the housing benefit regulations in order to catch particular difficulties that might arise. If a landlord whose tenant is on housing benefit makes a successful appeal, the back payment that would be required in that circumstance would be dealt with by the housing benefit authorities as a back payment—a new claim would not be needed.
I am pleased that discussions are on-going about the possibility of a third party holding the rent in such situations. I appreciate the minister's point that few people will probably be affected, but the issue is important nevertheless. Under the regulations, sheriffs will be responsible for deciding whether a rent penalty notice will be given. Will sheriffs also have the power to take into account the circumstances of the tenancy? Perhaps—to avoid the need for legislation on the matter—sheriffs could decide that the rent should be paid to a third party or into a bank account.
Advice on that would come at an earlier stage, before the matter went to court. People need to understand that a case is important if it gets to court. A judicial awareness-raising process may be necessary. However, when such matters get to court, the tenant might not be there and the issue might not affect them. We need other parts of the system to be much more proactive when necessary. We need good advice from Money Advice Scotland and others, and we need triggers so that they know that they need to talk to people and think about the options for them.
I want to return to the fee level, which Euan Robson mentioned. The minister explained that the first stab at the level is a basic fee of £50 for a three-year registration. It is important to be reasonably clear on the matter, because it is a fair bet that the fee will be passed on to tenants. I want to approach the issue from a different angle. In informal discussions with my local authority, it was suggested that it will probably be necessary to appoint an extra member of staff and to provide support, certainly to set up the scheme, and probably to keep it going. I have no idea how many private rented properties there are in East Lothian. To establish the cost and the fees that will have to be charged to break even, we first need an idea of how many private rented houses there are in Scotland. We need to work out how many staff will have to be paid for, and the other costs for local authorities, and then do the calculation to come up with a figure. Has that work been done?
It is a chicken-and-egg situation. We are creating a private landlord registration scheme in the first place because we need to establish the size of the sector and to identify the problem areas that cause all the disjuncture in local communities. We could estimate the size of the sector but, if the registration scheme is effective, that might give us a far better picture.
I think that we are all agreed on that. It is a question of clarifying the level at which the fee is likely to be set. Have the minister's officials had a stab at calculating the overall cost in relation to the approximate number of private rented houses? Does that relate back to the £50 figure that we are talking about? If it does, that will be fine.
As the minister said, it is a chicken-and-egg situation for local authorities as well as for us, because we are trying to estimate something while moving into new territory. We have established a lead contact in every authority, and we will build a network with them. Those contacts will exchange good practice. We have asked them to estimate their costs; they will start with general information from census data and so on on the size of the sector in their areas, which is not particularly helpful, but it will give them an idea. We gave them a lengthy walk-through of what staff will have to do at various stages of the process, and we have asked them to put against that their estimates of time and cost according to the number of registrations that will be needed and the amount of enforcement work that will be necessary.
At this stage, no alarm bells are ringing in relation to the £50 fee.
The figure of £50 was an example around which to talk about the structures. We gave clear signals that it was not based on our estimate of what the scheme was going to cost. It would be fine if the fee was at that level, but we will not be surprised if local authorities come back to us and say that that amount would make things difficult. The equation involves their costs, the start-up funding that we will contribute and what the fees should be. It is quite a complicated equation, and we are still working through it.
When a landlord fails to comply with an antisocial behaviour order, local authorities will have to intervene and take steps, which will involve costs. COSLA has made the case to the committee that a charging order mechanism should be established that could recover costs from defaulting landlords. As things stand, authorities will have to recoup charges through the normal debt process. Have you given any further thought to that?
We hope that charges would be recouped through the normal system. We need to consider further the issue of potential charging orders. That issue is neither out nor in. We can see the case for it, but we need to do more work on it because there may be other implications to consider before we can say that we will definitely look at it. Again, we need to be in dialogue with local authorities about that, and we need to know whether there are legal implications that would have a knock-on effect elsewhere.
You could consider the matter in the future, if necessary.
We are considering it. We can see the argument for such a mechanism, but we need to be sure that there are no unintended consequences if we choose to go down that road.
There is always the risk of wild discrepancies in what different local authorities will charge for the same sort of services. Does the Executive intend to keep an eye on that and to apply any kind of regulation?
Yes. We need to keep a close eye across the local authorities to ensure that there is consistency, that the legislation is applied appropriately and that there are no obvious discrepancies that cannot be explained.
Holiday lets were mentioned. Such lets are obviously a huge issue in the Highlands, and many people hope that holiday lets will not be included in the guidance. Is there evidence to substantiate the inclusion of holiday lets, or are you happy to leave them well alone?
Unlike the other exemptions, Parliament made the decision to exclude holiday lets. Therefore you would have to justify to Parliament revisiting the issue, which would obviously happen if there were evidence to support such an exemption. If there was compelling evidence, I am absolutely sure—even if the Executive is not—that the Executive would have to take a view on it. You could not say that at some point it will not be considered; it would be considered if there were demand. However, it weighs heavily that Parliament has already decided that holiday lets should be excluded.
That is fine; thank you.
On that specific point, I would like to draw to the minister's attention the examples of holiday lets or properties that are holiday lets for part of the year and so are covered by the exemption but that are not holiday lets for the remainder of the year. I can think of a number of such examples in my constituency. There are holiday lets on golf courses all through the summer that can, in the winter, be more conventional short-term lets. That could give certain people scope to take advantage of an exemption that might not be appropriate.
The legislation talks about properties that are let for holiday purposes. If lets are changed so that they are for occasional holiday purposes only, we would need to consider the legislation. The scheme cannot be undermined by folk seeking loopholes. That is the kind of change to which we must be open, and we should consider further regulation if necessary.
That concludes the committee's questions. I thank you and your officials for engaging with the committee. The committee will be aware that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has already considered the instruments and has commented on the issues of drafting and meaning in one of the Scottish statutory instruments.
Members indicated agreement.
Agenda item 2 is consideration of motion S2M-3564, in the name of Johann Lamont MSP, on the draft Private Landlord Registration Modification (Scotland) Order 2005. As members are aware, the instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure. The Deputy Minister for Communities is therefore required, under rule 10.6.2 of the standing orders, to propose by motion that it be approved.
Motion moved,
That the Communities Committee recommends that the draft Private Landlord Registration Modification (Scotland) Order 2005 be approved.—[Johann Lamont.]
Motion agreed to.
Do members agree that we will report to Parliament on our decision on the order?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the minister and her officials for attending the meeting for agenda items 1 and 2. The meeting will now be briefly suspended to allow the minister and her officials to leave.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—