Communities Committee, 10 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Official Report 119KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

I welcome everyone to the second meeting in 2003 of the Communities Committee. Stewart Stevenson has indicated that he will be slightly late.

Agenda item 1 is on subordinate legislation. I welcome Mary Mulligan, the Deputy Minister for Communities, and the officials who are accompanying her for consideration of the item: Roger Harris, Jean Waddie and Katie Wood.

The committee will note that we are dealing with five Scottish statutory instruments this morning. The first three are subject to the affirmative procedure, so the deputy minister is required under rule 10.6.2 of standing orders to propose by motion that the draft instruments be approved. She will therefore be with us for consideration of the first three instruments.

---

Draft Housing Grants (Assessment of Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2003

The first instrument before us is the draft Housing Grants (Assessment of Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2003. Members have received copies of the draft regulations and accompanying documentation. I ask the minister to speak briefly to the regulations, but not to move the motion yet.

Would it be acceptable if I spoke to the draft Housing Grants (Assessment of Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 and the draft Housing Grants (Minimum Percentage Grant) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 together, or do you want me to take them separately?

Could you take them separately? That would be easier.

Okay. Grants for the improvement or repair of private housing are made by local authorities under part 13 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 amends those provisions in a number of ways. The most significant is to introduce a national test of resources to assess the amount that the applicant can contribute to the costs of the work. That is underpinned by a system of minimum percentage grants so that, in specified circumstances, all applicants are eligible to receive a certain level of grant, regardless of their income. The draft Housing Grants (Assessment of Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 and the draft Housing Grants (Minimum Percentage Grant) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 implement the detail of those provisions.

The purpose of the draft Housing Grants (Assessment of Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 is to ensure that public funds are targeted to those on the lowest incomes. We want home owners to recognise their responsibility for the condition of their property. However, we realise that public assistance is necessary in some circumstances.

When the regulations were being drawn up, the aim was to achieve an assessment that fairly reflects how much home owners should be expected to contribute without making that assessment more complex than necessary. The proposals have been through a process of consultation and detailed comment. What we now have will ensure that public money for private housing will be spent where it is most needed.

Two types of assessment are prescribed. For owner-occupiers and disabled people, the test is based on personal income. All benefit payments are disregarded, so that anyone who is entirely dependent on benefits and anyone who receives income support, income-based jobseekers allowance or pension credit is assessed as having no income and is therefore not expected to make any contribution. Applicable income covers earnings, occupational and personal pensions, income from savings and investments and other items, such as rental income and maintenance payments.

Deductions are made for housing costs and there are allowances for children and for disability. Where an application is not eligible for a 100 per cent grant, the amount of grant reduces in 1 per cent steps according to the total applicable income.

For landlords or developers, the test assesses the cost of the works compared to the increase in value of the property attributable to those works. If the works effectively pay for themselves, no grant will be payable. If they do not, grant can be paid on the excess expense. The proportion of grant depends on other criteria, which reflect the contribution of the works to national priorities.

According to the report from the Subordinate Legislation Committee, the regulations contain three points that the Executive accepts are wrong and will soon put right. I am new to this particular form of sport, but my understanding is that a draft is a draft and can be improved until it becomes a final document. Why cannot these drafts be improved and those things corrected now, so that there is no need to introduce another statutory instrument?

The reason for the delay is so that further discussion can take place on the issues in hand. It is our intention to introduce the new instrument as quickly as possible.

It is not very satisfactory if the committee has gone through the instruments in great detail and is still concerned about several of the points. Can you give us any indication of how soon those things would be corrected?

I am taking further advice. Unfortunately, there is a procedural issue, as I am told that it is not possible to amend drafts. Instead, the whole instrument would have to fall, which would mean losing things that the committee recognises as being of benefit. We therefore have to go through the process and then amend the instruments at a later stage.

The system is a bureaucratic fix, but I understand that: life is a bureaucratic fix.

One other issue seems to be in dispute between the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Executive. The third point in the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report and in your answers concerns the words "and this regulation". Could you talk me though the Executive's position on that? Why do you think that the Subordinate Legislation Committee's criticism is wrong?

Does your question relate to report 3?

It relates to question 3 in annex A of the papers for today's meeting, which sets out the Subordinate Legislation Committee's questions to you, your answers and that committee's report on your answers. My question relates to item 3 on page 7 of our paper; it is about the words "and this regulation".

The Executive felt that we could go further to make the regulations as clear as possible. As you can see, the regulations detail generic types of income, but we needed more detail on that, so we wanted to spend more time on it.

Would any correction be included in the forthcoming SSI?

Yes, we can amend it.

We have dealt with such issues in the past. When the Subordinate Legislation Committee raises a point with the Executive and we see that point in the committee's report, it is normal for the Executive to take that point on board if it agrees with it. Could you clarify that that is what will happen with the issues that have been raised in the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report?

It is obviously helpful to have that further stage of input in passing the regulations. At all times, we would try to accede to the points that are being raised and we continue to do that.

There are no further questions, so we will move to the formal procedure. I invite the minister to move motion S2M-188.

Motion moved,

That the Communities Committee, in consideration of the draft Housing Grants (Assessment of Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2003, recommends that the regulations be approved.—[Mrs Mary Mulligan.]

Motion agreed to.

---

Draft Housing Grants <br />(Minimum Percentage Grant) (Scotland) Regulations 2003

We will now consider the draft Housing Grants (Minimum Percentage Grant) (Scotland) Regulations 2003. Members have received copies of the draft instrument and accompanying documentation. I ask the minister to speak briefly to the SSI.

The regulations specify the cases in which a set percentage of grant will be paid, irrespective of the test of resources. The cases specified are those that are agreed to be high priorities in improving the condition of Scotland's private housing. They include houses below the tolerable standard; houses that are subject to statutory action by the local authority; adaptations for disabled people; common repairs and local refurbishment schemes to encourage co-operation between neighbours; the replacement of lead plumbing; reducing exposure to radon gas; and providing a fire escape for a house in multiple occupation. All those cases will attract a minimum 50 per cent grant, except for the last of them, which attracts a minimum 20 per cent grant. If the assessment of contributions shows that the applicant is eligible for a higher rate of grant than the minimum, they will receive the higher amount.

As there are no questions, I ask the minister to move motion S2M-187.

Motion moved,

That the Communities Committee, in consideration of the draft Housing Grants (Minimum Percentage Grants) (Scotland) Regulations 2003, recommends that the regulations be approved.—[Mrs Mary Mulligan.]

Motion agreed to.

---

Draft Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Amendment Order 2003

We will now consider the draft Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Amendment Order 2003. Members have received copies of the draft order and accompanying documentation. I ask the minister to speak briefly to the SSI.

The committee will be aware that, last year, the Scottish Executive conducted a wide-ranging review of the system of mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The conclusions of that review were announced on 19 March and the Executive responded to the Social Justice Committee's report on the same subject on 24 March.

We consider that those conclusions should be implemented and the order deals with those aspects of the review's conclusions that require an amendment to the current legislation. Other points are to be taken up by a working group, which will hold its first meeting shortly. The Executive will also keep under consideration the question whether primary legislation is needed to address wider issues.

The order exempts co-ownership bodies from licensing and removes from the scheme resident landlords with no more than two lodgers or tenants. It makes it an offence for any person to act as an agent for a landlord who does not have a licence or to refuse to disclose the name and address of the owner to the licensing authority. It makes a technical change to allow the Scottish Executive to provide additional funding to local authorities in respect of HMO licensing.

Members will note that the order makes no change to the size threshold for licensing, which will be reduced to the final level of three occupants on 1 October. The review found little enthusiasm for halting or suspending the threshold at four occupants. However, the measures that we are taking will help local authorities to deal with the additional pressures of including properties with three occupants. Removing small-scale resident landlords from the scheme takes out a quantity of properties that are unlikely to be problematic.

The new offences should make it easier for authorities to identify and tackle unlicensed landlords, who will no longer be able to hide behind an agent. The Scottish Executive intends to provide £1 million in each of the next three years to help authorities to complete the task of identifying and licensing all HMOs in their areas. Once we have full coverage, and with the revised guidance and self-certification scheme to be produced by the working group, it will be much easier for authorities to deal with the turnover of new properties and renewals.

Are there any questions for the minister before I ask her to move motion S2M-186?

The thrust of the SSI is welcome, in particular the two main points about disregarding the family in the calculations and getting the agents to take responsibility. However, the Subordinate Legislation Committee expressed concern about whether the SSI was legally sound in creating new offences. Among our papers there are several paragraphs on the issue, including an argument between the committee's lawyers and the Executive's lawyers that I would not begin to understand. Will the minister assure me that the Executive has studied the matter carefully and is confident that the wording of the SSI will stand up in court? Some of the people involved in HMOs are pretty sneaky; if they can find a hole in the legislation, they will.

As I said, we take comments from the Subordinate Legislation Committee very seriously. The point that Mr Gorrie raises has been considered in some detail. I assure him that the best legal advice available to us at the moment is that our proposals are sustainable should they be challenged.

Motion moved,

That the Communities Committee, in consideration of the draft Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Amendment Order 2003, recommends that the order be approved.—[Mrs Mary Mulligan.]

Motion agreed to.

I thank the deputy minister and her officials for attending.

---

Home Energy Efficiency Scheme Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/284)<br />Improvement and Repairs Grant (Prescribed Valuation Band) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/314)

The committee will now consider two negative instruments, which could be subject to annulment under rule 10.4 of standing orders. However, no motion to annul either instrument has been lodged with the chamber desk. Committee members have been sent copies of the instruments and accompanying documentation. Do members wish to comment?

No.

Are members content with SSI 2003/284?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with SSI 2003/314?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that we should report to the Parliament that we do not wish to make any recommendation on these SSIs?

Members indicated agreement.