I open the Communities Committee's 10th meeting in 2005 and remind everybody that mobile phones should be switched off.
Thank you for the opportunity to meet the committee today. It is important that COSLA is heard through this channel on what is an important bill. We welcome the bill, which is a major step forward in the legislative and policy framework for management of the private rented sector. We accept the basic principles that underpin the bill—we believe firmly that householders have the basic responsibility for maintaining their homes and we are pleased that that is the framework within which the bill is set. Equally, local authorities have a responsibility to intervene if failure to maintain housing has an adverse effect on the neighbourhood or the community. The issue is to get the balance right so that local authorities have the power to intervene when necessary; the bill will provide an effective framework in that regard.
You touched on one issue that I want to raise—the consultation on the bill proposals. As you rightly say, much of the bill affects the remit and role of local authorities and how you interact with the private rented sector. You said that the consultation process was positive: will you say what was positive about it and why the Executive got it right?
The process was good, but lengthy, although we must be honest and point out that that was to ensure that the bill was right. It was also inclusive and reached the nether or far parts of Scotland. The bill team took a series of roadshows directly to practitioners to consider the practical implications of the proposals. That was an open and straightforward process, during which the Executive team was receptive to feedback from practitioners. So, it was an excellent process from the perspective of having input before the bill even appeared on paper, which we commend. As in all consultations, we did not get everything we wanted, but that is a reality of life. The end-product is workable and can be developed.
I would like to concentrate on the part of the bill that deals with housing renewal. The consultation showed quite widespread support for changing from housing action areas to housing renewal areas for dealing with houses that are below the tolerable standard, as well as with the wider issues of poorly maintained stock, poorly managed housing stock, derelict land and so on. Do you believe that housing renewal area orders will be a more flexible tool for dealing with the many different issues that concern communities?
We think that housing renewal area orders will be a much more flexible tool. It is important that the housing renewal area orders will go beyond addressing traditional tolerable standard issues, because other issues come up and there are different issues in different areas. The flexibility that housing renewal areas offer is in their geography and size. It is important that, according to local needs and circumstances and after consultation, housing renewal areas are of whatever size is necessary. They could be very small in some cases. When the task force originally considered the proposal, we were talking about a housing renewal area as small as one multistorey block, one street or part of a street. Equally, however, a much wider area might be appropriate—that will flow from the specific local needs, what the issues are and what is being addressed.
That is right. In considering the move from housing action areas to housing renewal areas, flexibility was added to reflect the change in some of the challenges that we face. For example, housing action areas were relatively effective in dealing with older, largely privately owned pre-war tenements in the cities. The housing renewal area power has been designed with mixed-tenure regeneration in mind. The challenge that we have faced in regeneration areas has sometimes been the impact of the right to buy and the need to get other owners who have bought under the right to buy or through the resale of the right to buy to agree to contribute to regeneration and improved housing in their areas. The housing renewal area power and the process of consultation that will lead to a designation will help us to do that.
Will the need for a housing renewal area be identified through local authorities' preparing their housing strategies, so that it will not come as a surprise to communities and owners that the council is moving in that direction?
As Sheila Gilmore said, it is essential that local authorities bring the people who live in the areas with them, so that what appears in a local housing strategy does not come as a surprise to them. The process of consultation must begin quite early so that there are no surprises for people. One of the biggest challenges in making a housing renewal area effective will be to take people with us by explaining to the people who live in an area the advantages of the regeneration or renewal of that area.
It is also fair to say that local housing strategies are an integral part of community planning, particularly local community planning. To back up what Michael Thain said, designations should come as no surprise to anyone, because the matter should have been gone through. They should all be part of a strategy that the local authority is following for an area, and the relevant mechanisms should be gone through. The process must be much more inclusive than it was previously. I think that it will work better.
The process for designating housing action areas, from the early discussions to seeing an area completed, was notoriously long. Do you believe that the process that is proposed in the bill will be speedier and that people might see developments completed in their lifetime?
As Councillor Gilmore said, because we can identify much tighter areas where the problems are and the process is much more flexible, things should move much faster than they did under the previous procedure.
In the preliminary discussion and decision-making process it will be important to consider the practicalities of what is achievable and what people are willing to sign up to. A lot of work goes in at the front end. Local authorities are concerned about how that will be supported and resourced. Getting things right at the beginning is not just about giving people financial assistance or seeking the contributions of owners—it is also about carrying out planning and preparation and talking to people, which is quite resource intensive for local authorities. It will be worth it, but we are clear that if we want the process to work, we need council staff to be out there talking to people, holding meetings and putting out information. Sometimes, we do not allow for that resource requirement but concentrate on what it costs to do the work at the end of the process. If we get the first bit right, it can make the rest easier, especially in relation to getting owner sign-up and contributions.
From my experience of housing action areas, some people delay the process and unreasonably withhold their support—I am sure that a lot of people would share that opinion. Does the bill give local authorities enough powers to deal with people who unreasonably withhold support?
Yes, I think it does. The description of the process that Councillor Gilmore just gave is absolutely right, especially in relation to the time that is involved. I remember experiencing days, weeks, months and years of anguish trying to put together packages; the recalcitrant owner and absentee landlord are prime examples of the problems that we faced. The bill goes a long way towards resolving many of those issues.
Could the bill be strengthened with additional powers to assist local authorities?
There are so many acronyms in housing that it was inevitable that we would run out of combinations of letters at one point.
The proposals are an improvement and I am keen to get them into operation to see how they work in practice.
I cannot find the exact place, but I remember reading in your written evidence that COSLA is unhappy with the proposal that the local housing strategy will have to include an estimate of the amount of HRA stock that is below tolerable standard, as well as a plan to improve that part of the stock. Will you expand on that?
We said that we are not keen on a requirement to include in the local housing strategies action plans for the stock that is below tolerable standard because we have seen no clear demonstration of the benefits of that.
As I said, I cannot find the exact place, but I think that you also said that the measure would mean that local authorities would have to survey up front all the properties and carry out a lot of on-going work and monitoring. Is that the reason for your view?
The issue is one of balance and necessity. Important though the below-tolerable-standard issue is, and although the bill will increase the standard to a degree, most authorities feel that it is possible to become over-obsessed with the issue. Certainly, on the housing improvement task force, it sometimes felt as if we were going down narrower and narrower avenues in discussing the issue. Some properties will be below tolerable standard and local authorities should consider that as part of their local housing strategies. However, we do not agree that there should be a specific duty to carry out a separate up-front audit, which may in some areas yield very few properties that fall into the category. If the target was to deal with such properties, we would be happy with that.
That is fine.
I will allow Christine Grahame in as long as she keeps her remarks to housing action areas and not to tolerable standards.
The tolerable standard was raised by the evidence of Councillor Gilmore.
Christine—
This is a supplementary question to the issue of annual costs, which was raised during evidence on housing renewal areas. I see no question on this in the papers.
I think that you will find—
In the financial memorandum, the £3 million is said to be a maximum, but Councillor Gilmore seems to think that it is a minimum. There is a big disparity there.
I am sure that we will talk about the issue in more detail later. The figures in the financial memorandum are based on the situation in Glasgow.
I see that in your submission.
We feel very strongly that suggesting that £3 million would be a maximum because it is based on the Glasgow situation misses factors that come into play when we consider rural and other urban areas across the country that face the same problems as Glasgow and, in some cases, more problems.
Are we talking 10 times too little money or five times too little? How off the mark is £3 million? We must get the money right.
Much of the calculation will be done when we see the depth of detail that comes with the bill. One of the problems that we have at the moment is that so much supplementary information will follow the bill.
I take it that we have to disregard that maximum £3 million per annum for local authorities for staffing and other resources that the financial memorandum says will be required. That cannot be right.
We will talk about the financial memorandum later, so we can cover that question in more detail then. Our main point is that the financial memorandum's assumption that £3 million would be a minimum was based largely on costs that were provided by Glasgow City Council, which ran significant improvement programmes in mixed tenure areas to support the Scottish housing quality standard and older tenemental stock. Many urban authorities face similar challenges. Local housing strategies require housing departments and registered social landlords to bring their properties up to the quality standard in all areas of Scotland.
You have touched on aspects of section 11 of the bill, which is on the tolerable standard, and I want to return to that subject. In general, are you happy with the extension of the definition of houses that meet the tolerable standard to ensure that they have thermal efficiency and that all electrical installations comply with the relevant requirements?
Yes, we are broadly happy with the extension of the definition in those areas. There was, during the consultation, a lot of discussion with the task force about adding other standards to the tolerable standard, but we must be careful with that standard because it is ultimately a condemnatory standard. Local authorities have strong powers ultimately to close down and demolish buildings, so a balance must be struck between using the tolerable standard as a minimum and condemnatory standard and adding other standards to it. The provision of safe electrical wiring and a minimum level of thermal efficiency in houses will be welcome. We also welcome the opportunity to develop further guidance in order to get those standards and their technical aspects right.
Would you like to take this opportunity to say a word about any other considerations that you have been thinking about? Should other elements be added to the tolerable standard list?
I do not think that we need to say any more. We are broadly happy with the approach that has been taken and with the balance. A range of other bodies proposed other standards during the task force process, but they often reflected the interests of those bodies. It is important to accept that the tolerable standard is a condemnatory standard. Ultimately, we need to ensure that the standards that it covers are realistic and reflect its condemnatory nature.
There has sometimes been confusion and criticism, especially about energy efficiency and raising thermal standards. Obviously, people have high aspirations for improving the quality of housing in Scotland in order to meet those standards—nobody is saying that that is not the aim. Through the task force at the beginning of the process, we distinguished between the tolerable standard—which could lead to a house being condemned as being unfit to live in—and the quality standard that people want to move towards. There should be no question of saying that the country is satisfied with the tolerable standard. Indeed, the most recent Scottish house condition survey showed that most local authorities and other public housing providers have done a great deal to raise their standards considerably above that level, although there are still issues in particular areas—for example, standards have not yet been reached in parts of the private rented sector. However, we thought that it was unnecessary to include the stringent quality standard in the bill, although that should not be taken by those who are lobbying for much more effective resources and so on to mean that we should not aspire to that standard. We have two standards in mind, and the aim is to move towards the quality standard.
What was tolerable a few years ago might not be tolerable today. Standards are rising and you think that it is appropriate to focus on these things at this stage.
Standards are undoubtedly organic. Everyone aspires to raise building standards in relation to what we are actually building, but the aspirational approach comes up against reality. As Michael Thain said, it is a condemnatory standard because it sets the bare minimum and says simply, "This is what people should not be in." However, we should always aspire to be better than the bare minimum.
I gather that there is consensus between you and the Executive on what has been done.
No.
Seriously, though, that is the problem. If we are going to set a national standard, we will be placing on local authorities a duty to identify those houses and to do something about them.
That comes back to what we were saying about maintenance of the tolerable standard register. The national home energy rating is a standard that, again, some have argued should be higher and some have argued should be lower. However, in the end, it is a scientific assessment.
Has that come out in the house conditions surveys that have been undertaken? Will it be possible to find the substandard houses?
The substandard houses can be found by using thermal imaging and a variety of analytical techniques. There is no doubt about that, but the question comes down to the resources and the time that it would take to do the work. The work that has been done so far has relied on broad statistical analysis based on sampling. If one wanted to identify individual properties, in effect one would have to sample each property.
You might expect tenants who feel that their rented accommodation is substandard to blow the whistle or invite local authorities to have a look.
That can and does happen.
Through our constituency work, we have all heard about the alleged idiosyncrasies of building inspectors. Do you think that the Executive's issuing of guidance on the tolerable standard will help to prevent varying interpretations across the country? If so, will that be useful?
I think that it will. We look forward to having more detailed discussions on the guidance that will enable us to strike a balance between establishing some national consistency across local authorities and retaining flexibility. Buildings are quite complicated—
Tell me about it.
I am sure that I do not need to tell you that.
John, I thought that you wanted to bury that controversy.
We all recognise that achieving greater consistency across local authorities would be valuable, particularly for those of you who get complaints about the inconsistencies of building inspectors. However, we also need to ensure that we do not arrive at guidance that is so prescriptive that we cannot respond flexibly to the needs of an individual or a building. That is a tricky balance to strike, but that would be our aim.
Do you think that the proposed changes to the repairing standard for private landlords will be effective in promoting a higher level of physical condition and comfort in private rented properties?
The introduction of the repairing standard brings the situation into line with elements of the standard for social landlords and identifies issues relating to furniture and fittings and so on that would be specific to the private rented sector.
So you do not propose any changes on top of those that are outlined in the bill.
No, because the repairing standard will raise the benchmark for the private rented sector considerably. We must be careful to ensure that we get the balance right between improving quality and protecting supply in the sector. Local authorities, consumer groups and industry bodies want an overall improvement in management and property standards in the sector, but we do not want to raise the benchmark so high that we price landlords out of the sector.
In my experience, people who are on benefit tend to move into the private rented sector, because they have limited choices from the local authority and they certainly cannot afford owner-occupation. I am slightly concerned about who will meet the cost of the new regulation, although I support it. Good examples exist in the private rented sector, but there are also some poor examples and I would not like the burden of the costs to be put on tenants. There is a difference between what the local authority pays in housing benefit and private sector charges. Many people use their benefit to pay rent, but the benefit levels are low. It is a crying shame that people use £30 to £40 a week of their benefit just to live in the house that they want. As Michael Thain said, we must ensure that we get the balance right.
I am glad that you highlighted that point, because in the Highlands just now benefits barely cover private rents.
There is a fear that the bill might price out not only the tenants but some of the landlords, because the prices that they have to charge could become higher than the average market price for the area. That is something that we do not know much about at the moment and, to be quite honest, we need to do a lot more detailed work on what the levels and impacts might be. All the benefits that have been described by my colleagues are absolutely correct. We have no objection to the bill, which is valiant and valuable. It is doing what it should be doing, which is raising standards, but there is concern that the infrastructure costs of raising those standards, if they are fully passed on to the marketplace, might overwhelm the marketplace in specific areas and for specific types of property.
If you take the cost for cities, you must then add on the cost of maintaining that standard in remote areas and on the islands, where some housing can be quite poor.
The private rented sector is hugely variable. In dealing with any form of regulation, it is important to understand that the sector is not one single thing that is easily described; it ranges from the quite expensive and often extremely good-quality properties in some cities—and people who enter that market can afford the cost of maintenance—right through a whole range of housing that fulfils a function in cities and rural areas. When we have dealt with the private rented sector in the past, we have seen that what appear to be quite small changes can have a dramatic effect.
Have you done any research on that subject? Does the Scottish Association of Landlords have any information that would give an idea of how many people may be willing to sell up and move on?
No concrete research has been done on the impact of increased regulation on the private rented sector. I am sure that the Scottish Association of Landlords and other industry bodies will provide their own evidence and views on the potential impact on the sector. It is important to take a step back and look at the purpose of the bill. We are all agreed, and the private rented industry is agreed, that the fundamental purpose of the bill is to raise standards in the private rented sector, for a range of reasons.
I realise that we have to move on, but this issue is huge. For example, I am surprised by the financial memorandum's statement that at the upper end of the market any higher compliance costs will be passed on through higher rents. Surely the repairing standard is just as essential at the lower end of the market and costs will be passed on there as well.
The private rented housing panel will have a range of powers that it will be able to use where private landlords do not meet the repairing standard or do not meet the actions that the panel requires of them. I suppose that, as the ultimate sanction, the panel can ask the local authority to carry out the repairs that it has identified as necessary. One element of developing the process will be the effectiveness of the relationship between the panel and the local authority.
From my experience of the private rented sector, I do not think that very many landlords are scrimmaging in their pockets trying to find a shilling to pay for repairs. Perhaps I am biased in that respect.
Absolutely. Two issues emerge from this matter. I agree that the impact on rents will depend on many other circumstances including supply of and demand for property in the area. However, I am more concerned that we have moved from a sector that was relatively unregulated to one in which a substantial part is covered by houses in multiple occupation licensing and which is subject to the registration provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the additional registration measures in the bill. The regulatory framework is complex, particularly for landlords who are not necessarily bad but who have got into the sector through buy to let and rent out one or two properties. There is a hell of a lot of regulation that is new to them, and part of the purpose of our carrying out the training programme is to help to keep those people on board. So, there are two issues: one is about the cost, which is a complex issue, and the other is about the impact of introducing a lot of complex regulation in a relatively short period and what that may do for people.
It is fair to say that private sector landlords throughout Scotland have welcomed the raising of standards, are co-operating fully with the principles of the 2004 act and are desperately keen to learn and move on. Local authorities must concentrate their efforts on the small number of recalcitrant landlords who are bad landlords, who do not want to come into the family and be part of the new regime. From our perspective, co-operation with the private sector has been extremely good. Major and small private sector landlords are asking for more information and are willing to co-operate to take the proposal forward.
Before I allow Mr Home Robertson to ask a brief question, I inform committee members that we will have two evidence sessions with representatives of the private rented sector at which they will be able to engage with the committee on some of their concerns.
This is a quick, technical point. In an earlier evidence session, I raised the question of tied housing. When you talk about private sector landlords, do you include the owners of tied housing in your assessment? Is there a problem with tied housing such as farm cottages?
We have brought the private sector landlords on board in our rural area. The big estates and farms have been more than willing to co-operate.
So you include tied-house proprietors.
Yes.
The single statutory notice is generally welcomed by local authorities because it makes sense. How do you think that it will be used when a house is likely to fall into serious disrepair or to affect adjoining properties—rather than when the house is already in an obvious state of serious disrepair? That is a fairly new power. How often do you think that it will be used by local authorities, how easy and convenient will it be to implement, and what level of enforcement will be available?
The ability to require work to be undertaken in circumstances in which failure to do so could lead to serious disrepair was something that the task force found lacking in the current repair and improvement order system. The power will come into play especially when failure to carry out work will have an impact on other buildings, neighbours or the rest of the community.
That is perfectly true. It is about the technicalities of what is immediate versus what is long term and what is required as a bare minimum to take a property back to the standard. Those become highly technical issues. At the moment, they are extremely complex and, although the new power is welcome, I do not pretend that it will be an easy ride. It certainly is not, especially where properties are in multi-ownership.
Let us try to look at this from the point of view of the owner-occupier or the private landlord, who may feel that the local authority is abusing its power—whether that is right or whether there is only a perceived abuse of power. How would you deal with that? Is the appeals system adequate? Will your member councils shy away from conflict situations such as that, because of resources as much as anything else, or do you get a feeling from your members that they would be quite willing to take that on board?
As with all new legislation, to some extent we will have to try it to see how it works. We can speculate endlessly about how many objectives we will achieve and how expensive the new powers will be. Judgment has to be exercised, which is why there must be local discretion. In much of the discussion about the new powers, it has been quite hard to pin them down. It is the kind of thing that becomes much clearer when people are able to identify a specific example and say, "Oh yes, that's what it means." Talked about in the abstract, it can be quite difficult to grasp.
On a technical point, how do you feel that the provisions in the bill interact with the provisions of other legislation, such as the Building (Scotland) Act 2003? The policy memorandum says that the bill should interact with that act. I do not know whether there are any technical experts among you, but do you feel that the legislation is complementary?
I think that it is, but we probably need to do more work with the Executive and with other local authorities on how we use the powers on defective buildings that we have under the 2003 act and the powers that we will have under this bill. In my authority we have a range of byelaws, which further complicates matters. What is important is that local authorities are able to consider the range of powers that they have in legislation and, rather than getting into too much technical detail, to develop policies that apply those powers in a way that owners or members of the public can understand. My authority does not use repair notices and improvement orders as they are under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 because we have other byelaws that do the same thing in effect and address some of the weaknesses in the current system.
We have not studied in any great depth whether the legislation is complementary, but we have certainly studied whether it is contradictory, and it is not. We take that as a plus point.
Following on from where Linda Fabiani left off, I turn to maintenance orders. What are the key benefits to local authorities of the power to serve such orders?
One of the advantages of maintenance orders is in dealing with buildings in multi-ownership, such as tenements and blocks of flats. The Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 made significant improvements to the basic law behind the management of tenements. However, one of the weaknesses in enforcing the provisions of that act is that, where a scheme decision is made to carry out common repairs—or common maintenance as it is called—and an owner refuses to meet their share of the cost of that scheme decision, it is up to the other owners to take them through the debt recovery process and through the sheriff court to get the money back.
I think that the power to serve maintenance orders will improve the situation. It used to be the case that when we went round a council estate we could always tell who had bought their house because the owner-occupiers had the better properties. Now the opposite is the case, because councils have got their act together and made improvements. The houses of owner-occupiers now look shabby, with pipes hanging down and all the rest of it. We certainly welcome the improvements as they enable us to ensure that all the houses are kept up to scratch.
Following on from Michael Thain's comments, I confirm that we must consider how the costs are recovered because that could become quite a large burden on local authorities. We must consider matters such as charging orders or whatever. We would perhaps want to discuss the matter further.
That is a significant point. There is no point in encumbering local authorities with additional expense for something that is essentially an owner-occupier's responsibility, as Councillor Gilmore said.
It is always a difficult balancing act, but basically the answer is yes. You are right to suggest that there will always be a compromise. It is difficult, because in many instances we are interfering in someone's property, which is something that they have bought and paid for and which is theirs, but it is necessary to balance that with the long-term benefit to the community, neighbours, other people who might be affected and so on. The balance is about right, but I make no bones about the fact that the decision is a difficult one.
Finally, individual owners would have the capacity to prepare and implement the maintenance plans. What sort of support do you envisage local authorities providing in the scenario that you outlined? It is one thing to identify the problem, but it is another matter to ensure that the requisite work is undertaken. What role will local authorities have in enabling the process to operate?
It is inevitable that local authorities will have to provide a substantial amount of advice and information to owners to enable them to have a reasonable chance of implementing the requirements of a maintenance order in the first place, whether it involves a maintenance plan, establishing a maintenance fund or whatever. We need to do that work across local authorities and involve the Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland to ensure that there are models for a maintenance plan, setting up a maintenance fund or whatever that can easily be implemented by a group of owners.
In many instances, that sort of support mechanism for owners could be provided not by local authorities directly but by voluntary sector partners, especially if there are special needs involved. An excellent example is the concept behind the Care and Repair Forum Scotland, which already helps owners to maintain properties. There could be an expanded role for such voluntary organisations.
Like many of the bill's provisions, the provisions on maintenance plans will work only if local authorities are able to perform a slightly different role from their traditional one. Many authorities have been moving in that direction anyway, but staffing, training and resource issues will be involved. Councils will need to be concerned with not just enforcement but trying to avoid reaching the enforcement stage. If we can achieve the move to that slightly different role, it will be worth while in the long term to go through the pain involved in reorganisation. Resources will need to be put in if we are not to be seen as just the ogres who force people to do things. However, not only would the alternative not work, it would simply give the owners somebody to hate. If the council becomes the bogeyman in the situation, that does not help the people in the tenement or block to move on and deal with the problem rather than just mutter about the council. We need to be able to tell owners that, although their problem with their roof is a one-off, such repairs are an inevitable part of owning a property. That will need a change in the balance within which local authorities have operated. Although people are not unwilling to take that on board, we need to realise that local authorities will need to take on a slightly different role from the traditional one.
I take the point about the need for a change in the culture. The bill is not just about local authorities requiring that work be done on a property to bring it up to the minimum standard and then, at a later date, requiring some other repair to be done; it is about getting people to take responsibility. That is a valid point.
Before we move on, Linda Fabiani has a brief supplementary question.
Like everyone else, I can see the logic and the benefit of the provisions on maintenance plans, but I worry about how they will be implemented. Let me put Ron Ashton on the spot. As a director of housing, how would he expect a member of staff in his department to go about identifying and sorting out such a problem?
We would try to be proactive. The worst-case scenario would be that we had to react to a problem that had arisen. We would proactively look at the properties within our custodianship—both in the private sector and in the council sector—to spot problems before they arise. It is important to communicate and get in contact with the owners concerned. We need to try to persuade them and move them through a process. Ultimately, if they cannot be persuaded to move through a process, we can issue a maintenance order as a last resort. The trick is to try to support the individuals concerned. Very few people are totally and absolutely recalcitrant right down the line. In a sense, we need to help them to change direction.
On adaptations for the disabled and COSLA's response to the Executive's consultation, concerns were raised about the cost of reinstating adaptations after installation. Does Mr Ashton think that the bill and the provisions to cover such expenses address the issues that COSLA raised initially?
There are still some questions to be answered, especially on the potential enhancement of value that might result from adaptations and so on. This might sound hard-hearted, but I am still slightly unclear about the system that would be gone through. Undoubtedly, aids and adaptations must be considered in the context of the overall package—the minister is looking at housing across all sectors at the moment—because the picture in relation to where aids and adaptations come in, both from the perspective of local authority resources and the National Health Service, remains confused.
There might be a huge difference between some types of grant-aided adaptations and others, although nobody wants to get involved in valuing the difference a small adaptation can make. For example, I hope that an extension to a family home will begin shortly in my ward. The extension will create a downstairs bathroom, which is essential for the family's needs, but at this point in their lives, the family are unable to fund the adaptation because the additional costs of having a disabled child are substantial. Nevertheless, if and when the family moves on from the house, a bigger house with certain advantages will have been created, which, although it is particularly useful for people with disabilities, is also useful for everybody.
Section 57, in chapter 8 of the bill, is on the recovery of expenses. In your written evidence, you have expressed concern that the section is unhelpful to local authorities because they are not offered the possibility of flexible charging arrangements. So that it is on the record, will you describe your concern? Why do you feel that the Executive's retreat on the issue was unnecessary?
Two issues arise, the first of which is on the principle of exercising a charging order power when local authorities have incurred costs when taking enforcement action. The second issue is whether the charging order power that currently exists under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 should be amended. The housing improvement task force made a number of recommendations on amending the power.
That summarises the situation fairly.
Thank you. It is helpful to have that on the record. No doubt if your discussions are not satisfactory, you will send us suggested amendments in anonymous brown envelopes, or however you operate.
We are content that the section is reasonable and workable.
We will move on hastily in that case. I have some questions about the scheme of assistance. Some of the issues have already come up, so you need not duplicate what you said. First, there is the permanent issue of achieving a balance between flexibility for local authorities to respond to local conditions and the desire of the national Government to have uniformity so that somebody in Fife does not complain that their auntie in North Lanarkshire got a much better deal than they did. Does the bill achieve that balance between a level playing field and local flexibility or have you suggestions for how that could be done better?
We broadly support the approach in the bill, which proposes a much higher degree of flexibility around the provision of assistance in a local area and expands that assistance to include information and advice. As we have touched on, in many cases information and advice are what are needed to encourage owners to take more responsibility, because they simply do not know what to do.
The reality of a prescriptive system, particularly if it is a grant-loaded one, is that one ends up not doing things because resources are not unlimited and we face a stark choice between having grant available to do certain things and putting those things off for another two, three or five years.
The issue is not only the physical improvement of property; there is the wider community interest—in effect, the community planning interest—which might be about economic and social regeneration. By the operation of such a scheme, we might be doing all sorts of things, such as moving properties from negative equity to positive equity. Therefore, we must think differently; we must conceive of it as a package of measures to achieve not only physical improvement but something for the community. That requires flexibility, not—dare I say it—an overly burdensome, centralist system.
Your written evidence suggests the creation of a national loan fund to support equity share schemes. Should we press the Executive to create such a scheme, or would that come under the heading of burdensome national over-regulation?
It has been stated in the past that one of the advantages of using loans or equity release schemes is the ability to use public resources to lever additional money from banks and building societies into loan funds—I think that the housing improvement task force discussed that to some extent.
You talked about giving advice. Government in the UK has a long and ignoble history of well-intentioned schemes that were so complicated that most people never clicked on to them—the benefits system is an example. Will we achieve a comprehensible system that you—the people at the front line—can explain to your citizenry, so that they will use all the well-meant provisions in the bill?
We need to consider that. We have raised issues about the current test of resources for grants, which will be applied to grants and subsidised loans. The test of resources can be quite difficult to explain—it is a bit like the bureaucracy of the benefits system.
The challenge is that we must keep whatever we do relatively simple, so that people understand it and owners sign on for it. Instead of being enforced, the measure should be one in which people are willing to participate. The challenge for us is to make the system easy, understandable and simple.
The area that I represent has had a large take-up of the right to buy and people who are sitting with fixed incomes and quite a lot of equity would welcome the proposed idea. Michael Thain explained the system simply, and councils must convey the message that the system is quite simple and straightforward. Often, councils are guilty of making matters difficult and overly bureaucratic, but our job is to make the system as simple and straightforward as possible.
I will ask about your resources. Assessing what more needs to be done to people's houses for energy conservation is labour intensive. Do you have the people to do that? Running a loans system is financially intensive. Will your directors of finance read section 79 and go to sleep muttering, "G divided by A times W"? Are those matters a problem?
The first point is only a problem of capacity. People out there can certainly undertake the surveys that you are talking about, especially on heating, for example. An industry has suddenly grown in the past year or so as all the RSLs have become involved in recalculating their NHERs for the quality standard. We mentioned earlier in our evidence the capacity to do everything at once. We need to work in stages by examining risk assessments of major problems and considering how we proceed on a controlled basis.
Are there any other questions about assistance schemes that I should have asked?
There is a general issue about ensuring that we understand the resourcing. It is not just about saying, "Here's the money to do the work." Making everything work will require staffing resources. That is not a waste; it is not about employing people who are not directly productive. We all know that in operating any scheme we have to do a lot of groundwork to explain what is possible and give people the necessary information and reassurance that the scheme is manageable. In practice, working on a particular street will involve basic tasks such as our calling on each individual living there and speaking to them on a one-to-one basis. Everybody's finances are different; people will not come and talk about them at a meeting in front of lots of other people. It is worth putting in the staffing resources, otherwise a lot of the work will not happen.
I am conscious that we are running short of time, so I cannot allow Christine Grahame to come in at this point. We still have a number of lines of questioning to explore so I ask committee members to keep their questions short.
I will do just that and roll my three questions into one; the witnesses can decide who will reply.
I think that we should carry on with the single survey scheme, despite only 74 surveys being provided during the pilot—that is why we need to legislate for it. You asked whether the single survey would change the behaviour of buyers and sellers. The importance of the scheme is that it will make owners more concerned about the condition of their property. If sellers have to provide information on the condition of their property, there is a much greater chance that they will improve it or do repairs before they come to sell it. At the moment, the condition of a property is often a small consideration when people come to buy, particularly in areas of high demand.
I am quite satisfied with those answers, although someone else may have burning issues to raise.
The answers were very succinct.
Is COSLA opposed to the single survey and the provision of information for houses that are sold under the right to buy?
It is fair to say that we would not be in favour of the full single survey for right-to-buy properties.
I will explain why. First, when people buy under the right to buy, they are buying their home, so they already know more about their home. Secondly, one of the secondary objectives of the single survey is to deal with the issue of multiple surveys, and there is no competition from other buyers for a right-to-buy home. Although we need to consider them more closely to see whether they are workable, the requirements to provide additional information to tenants who are thinking about buying their home under the right to buy meet our desire for those tenants to know more about their home before they buy it.
Some tenants do not know what they are buying when they exercise the right to buy—or what they are renting when they rent a house. The house may, for example, be filled with asbestos. Also, houses do not always remain with the people who buy them under the right to buy, but are sold on to other people. Why should not the provision of information start with the first sale of a house under the terms of the bill?
There probably should be more provision of information; it is a matter of putting that information together. It is an area in which we need to have a bit more discussion so that we get the guidance and whatever goes into regulation right. I do not think that anybody is saying that the information should not be provided. Indeed, it could be useful for people who are deciding whether to buy. In the past, councils were discouraged from providing any information to those people, as it may have stopped them buying their homes. There is some basic information that people should know so that they can exercise their judgment, and it will probably help, later down the track, when repairs are necessary because it will not come as such a surprise to people that the roof needs to be repaired, or whatever.
For members' information, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 addresses some of those issues under its provisions on the right to buy and the new tenancy arrangements. If somebody chooses to exercise their right to buy, they must get information about the obligations that will be placed on them as owners, including the maintenance obligations that accompany their decision to buy.
There is an issue about the independence of the process of information provision, which is worth exploring. I am willing to consider whether some compromise can be reached in relation to houses that are being sold by a local authority as opposed to houses that are being sold on the open market. Nevertheless, if we are trying to implement a policy of having a single system that should cover all sales throughout the country, I have problems with straight exemptions being made right at the beginning.
It is not in the interests of local authorities not to release the information. Indeed, the frustration in the past was the fact that people were buying blind and local authorities that tried to give information were seen as somehow discouraging them. I had prefabs in my ward, for instance, and people should have known a bit more about what they were buying. You might think that they would have known more, but that did not always happen. Folk came to the council after they had bought the houses and said, "We didn't know about that problem. The council should make it up to us now by giving us money to sort it."
I understand where the member is coming from on the single survey. There should be a single system but, as Michael Thain said earlier, the fundamental difference with the right to buy is the long-term relationship that exists between the individual who is purchasing the property and the local authority. Concern has been expressed about councils not pointing up the dangers, but everyone is in favour of buyers knowing exactly what they are getting hold of.
I will not labour the point, although I think that the subject is worthy of further discussion, particularly in view of the implications for the first buyer and for subsequent buyers further down the line. There is also a question of liability if there is a lack of independent information given at the start of the process.
If I could continue on that point—
No. I am afraid that we do not have sufficient time.
I am sorry about that. I will try to get the question in another way.
I advise you that that would not be particularly wise. If you did so, I would ask you to stop your questioning. As I have already pointed out, time is very short. I ask you to refer solely to your lines of questioning.
Okay. I will return to the subject of private landlords, which we discussed earlier. We touched on some of the areas on which the committee seeks answers, and I apologise if we appear to be going back over old ground. Do the provisions in the bill that amend the existing registration scheme for private sector landlords take into account the financial and administrative resources that local authorities require to get the amended scheme up and running?
The initial work that we have done indicates that the resources that will be required to implement the full scheme could be considerable. Again, that depends on what the letting code looks like, on which further discussions are to take place.
If the process becomes resource intensive, will it be worth while? Will it protect people in your local authority area who rent from private sector landlords?
Undoubtedly. I have no doubt whatsoever that private sector landlord registration will be a positive benefit both for the condition of the stock and for letting standards in the country.
Provision was made for landlords as part of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and further provision will be made for private rented housing in the bill. Those measures are modernising and bringing into the 21st century the way in which the private sector is managed and monitored. Are there any other ways in which the registration scheme could be extended or improved?
The devil will come when we consider the code that is produced under the bill on the registration scheme and on the depth and level of assessments that we make on management and maintenance issues. I make a plea that we get the measures from the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 in and settled—so that we register landlords—before the further provision in the bill is implemented. Let us be honest: that provision is really just an enabling paragraph, so there is a fair bit of work to be done on it. I ask for time for that work to be done, after which the code could be introduced as a second phase. That would not have to be far into the future, but we need time to stabilise the measures from the 2004 act before we move on.
The City of Edinburgh Council runs one of the pilot voluntary accreditation schemes. I ask Michael Thain to share some of the experiences that the authority has gained on that. He has already told us a bit about that in briefings to the committee and this morning, but I ask him to share some more information with us.
Four local authorities have been piloting accreditation schemes for about nine months. So far, the work has concentrated on developing the schemes in partnership with local landlord organisations and letting agents. We are nearly ready to start signing up landlords, with the aim of launching the scheme more widely towards August or September. We have developed the scheme through a board that is made up largely of landlords and letting agents and through a wider group that represents other interests. There is general support for accreditation among the landlords and letting agents who want to go above and beyond the minimum statutory requirements. We have found that the better landlords will sign up to accreditation.
Do you agree with the measure that will require ministers to assess what provision local authorities have in place before a letting code is issued? As I read the bill, if the City of Edinburgh Council or another authority had a voluntary accreditation scheme up and running, the minister probably would not issue a letting code that the authority would have to comply with. Is that correct?
We must consider what needs to be assessed before the letting code is published. Some local authorities have accreditation schemes but, as I said, that process is designed to accredit only the better landlords, whereas registration is intended to establish a benchmark below which landlords should not fall. To return to the previous discussion about regulation in the private rented market, we already have HMO licensing, the registration scheme, the pilot accreditation schemes in four authorities, possible pilots in other authorities—which will learn from the experiences of the four authorities that are already involved—and the measures in the bill.
I move on to deal with rights of entry, which are dealt with in part 7 of the bill, from section 156 onwards. In your submission, you state:
The bill offers improvements in right-of-entry powers. It gives local authorities the ability to take action when there is substantial reason for them to do so. The new powers represent an improvement. The task force considered them during its work. We are talking about a detailed area in which the interests of the community—which, broadly speaking, the local authority represents—and the interests and rights of individual homeowners need to be balanced.
The powers seem to relate to much more serious matters than a house not having thermal insulation, such as an owner's failure to comply with maintenance orders or to tackle a bad state of disrepair. I just want to find out whether the bill contains new rights of entry—in other words, rights that are not available under current legislation—to allow local authorities to enter property either with consent or under warrant from a sheriff, in the circumstances that are detailed in section 157. I do not know whether the bill's provisions on rights of entry are new; that is why I am asking you.
The complication is that the provisions on rights of entry relate to new powers and new circumstances. We might be able to get back to you with a briefing note on the detail of where we think the differences are. The differences relate to the new powers that the bill will give us.
The differences are mainly to do with the new powers that the bill will bring. Christine Grahame is right to say that we already have rights of entry, but they are not easily enforceable; in fact, they are extremely difficult to enforce. Exercising rights of entry is the nuclear option, which is taken only at the end of a long and difficult process.
I was talking about the process. The new powers will give you the authority to exercise rights of entry. I want to find out whether the core process—which, in some cases, can be fairly draconian—is different from the processes that you use to deal with other circumstances.
Not really. We have the ability to gain orders to enter properties at the moment.
So the process is much the same as existing processes.
I am keen to get on the record at an early stage COSLA's concerns about the financial memorandum, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Ashton has said that it is difficult to voice those concerns at this stage. The committee would find it helpful to have an indication of the areas in which COSLA is worried about the financial implications of the bill's proposals, especially as most of those proposals relate to discretionary powers for local authorities, which they may choose to implement. However, COSLA pointed out, rightly, in its written submission that many local authorities recognise those issues in their communities and will, in fact, implement the discretionary powers.
Your point is quite correct. We have expressed concerns about the levels of funding that are outlined in the financial memorandum. Given the discretionary nature of the powers, it will be a straightforward case that, if the local authorities do not have adequate resources, those powers will not be enacted.
What discussions are you having with the Executive about the likely cost impact of those new powers on local authorities?
We have had discussions with several people from the Executive, including economists. Four local authorities were contacted about the possible resource implications. We would welcome further discussions, and we hope that we can make more progress over the coming weeks.
The committee may want to pursue that issue in its evidence session with the minister. Any supplementary evidence that COSLA may have from individual authority members about how much they anticipate the bill will cost would also be appreciated.
The COSLA submission contains only a small paragraph about a national loan fund and the matter was opened up in the evidence. Could the witnesses develop their statement and say how they think that such a fund would operate?
If COSLA can do that, I am sure that it will attempt to assist us.
As someone from a rural authority, I would hate to try to differentiate and draw that difference. Every authority has differences and problems. There is undoubtedly a huge BTS problem in rural areas, which is difficult to manage, but there are not huge numbers of such properties in comparison with what there might be in cities. The number of such properties in one area in a city might be the same as the number across an entire rural local authority area. The difficulty lies in dealing with the problem, because it tends to involve very small groups of properties, or individual properties, which are sometimes in quite difficult and tenuous ownership regimes.
Thank you very much for attending, for giving us so much of your time and for your written evidence, which was supplied in advance of the committee meeting.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our next witnesses, who are Robert Thomson, the national co-ordinator of the Care and Repair Forum Scotland, and Angela Yih, who is Age Concern Scotland's policy officer. I thank them for attending and for their patience in waiting to be called.
Yes. Indeed, even as far back as the time of the housing improvement task force, the minutes of the meetings were made public and discussion papers were available. If we take the bill as an extension of that process, there has been ample opportunity to comment.
I agree, to an extent. Given its long history of concentrating our efforts on private sector housing conditions and older people, Age Concern Scotland was disappointed not to be invited to join the housing improvement task force. However, we were asked to join various sub-groups to consider issues such as equalities proofing and asked for our opinions of various matters.
Will you give us a brief overview of the main problems that elderly and disabled people face in trying to repair and improve their homes?
We do not come across many home owners who try to avoid their responsibility; in fact, most of the people whom we meet are well aware of the problems with their property. However, they usually have to overcome two main difficulties in repairing their house. First, to get the repair done, they face the problem of bringing together the various components of funding and technical information such as building control, the planning system, the grants system and the loans system. The second problem, of course, is funding. For example, those in the over-70 age group have been brought up in a culture that has made them uneasy about the idea of loans or borrowing money. The combination of those two elements is the main issue that we face.
I agree with all that. I should add that, although we do not have a clear picture of this yet, we think that the means testing of grants might create barriers to home improvement. In some respects, we welcomed that approach because it would allow more money to be targeted at people who are on the lowest incomes. However, there is a big difference between dealing with home repairs and improvements and dealing with houses that require adaptations to be made because of someone's physical disability. With the means-testing system, there is now confusion over whether social work will contribute funding and a ceiling of £20,000, which makes it difficult to carry out major adaptations. I believe that the Executive is reviewing matters such as adaptations and funding. That review is long overdue; barriers to accessing adaptations have been with us for years and we do not seem to have moved on.
Do you agree with the bill's proposed changes to the repairing standard? Do any additional elements need to be included?
We are happy with the elements that are included in the repairing standard and happy that the standard will be put into statute. Much of the repairing standard was covered by common law, but it is much better to cover it in legislation.
I agree with that last point. In essence, the Care and Repair Forum Scotland is in the business of giving advice and assistance. We broadly welcome the new terms, but we realise that within the new framework there will still be a need to advise tenants and even landlords. The key to the process is information and having the ability to spend time with people. In some cases, we will have to negotiate with landlords on behalf of tenants. Advice and information will be the key to the implementation of the scheme.
Do you have concerns that if the standards are thought to be too onerous or too expensive that might lead to a reduction in the rented housing stock?
I was not sure what was being said by members of the first witness panel with regard to the standards leading to such an increase in costs. The standards are fairly basic. The additions to the common law are that the furnishings must be fit for purpose and the appliances for space heating and water heating must work. The rest was already included in the common law. I am confused by the idea that the standards should lead to a vast increase in costs.
Whether we like it or not, there must be interaction with landlords; the issue is when or how that interaction takes place. We are interested in how the local authorities propose to have such interaction and discussion, because it seems to me that often they do not happen. It is assumed, therefore, that the landlords are unco-operative, but perhaps they—like us all—are not willing to get involved in repairs until they are clear about the financial implications.
Do you think that the provisions in the bill will promote the carrying out of disabled adaptations or do you have concerns about the possibility that they might have a negative impact on the willingness of landlords to let to disabled tenants, because demands might be made to adapt property in the future?
I do not have any evidence that would enable me to give an opinion on that. I am not sure how many people who are already living in the properties would want to take advantage of the right to make adaptations if they had to pay for everything. If they are on extremely low incomes, of course, they might be able to get a grant.
As you said, landlords would still have to agree to the work being done and there is a list of grounds on which a landlord could refuse such a request. Do you think that those grounds are legitimate? How might disputes be dealt with between a tenant who wished to carry out an adaptation and a landlord who refused permission?
I have forgotten about the other provisions in the bill, but I assume that the proposed private rented housing panel could have a role in such disputes. Although the panel is being set up to deal with disputes over repairs, it would seem natural for it to be extended to deal with the sort of disputes that you mention.
I want to ask about the scheme of assistance, which you have touched on in some of your answers. Are you satisfied that the range of objectives that the scheme of assistance is supposed to deliver and the various forms that it takes in section 68 cover the ground reasonably well?
We welcome the broad choice that has been offered to an owner. We think that the scheme of assistance, in the form that has been proposed, would be beneficial. Our one concern relates to the practical issue of what will happen when an owner presents themselves to a housing department. Who will make the decision on what is offered to the owner? Will the owner be offered all the items on the menu or will an individual officer be able to decide that, for example, the owner needs only advice and will therefore not be offered information about loans, equity release or grants? We have concerns about that situation. We would tend to favour what was discussed earlier on, but, obviously, COSLA would not be happy about that, for its own reasons.
Are there any other specific points that you would like to make about the different forms of assistance? You have mentioned the importance of one-to-one discussions and negotiations, which COSLA also mentioned, and you have raised the point that individual council officials will react in different ways. I do not think that legislation can remedy that entirely, but we can certainly look at that. Do you have any further observations on the scheme of assistance?
We were very pleased to see recognition of the importance of the provision of advice and assistance to owners. As I said, since around 1986, the Care and Repair Forum Scotland has recognised that the way forward is to give owners advice. Although we understand that it is not possible for local authorities to do this, all our advice is delivered in a home environment, which we find helpful. It is helpful to be able to meet family members, general practitioners and other people who are involved in a person's life. That helps us to move the process forward. We do not meet many people who are trying to avoid their responsibility; however, we meet a lot of people who have fears about, for example, finding suitable builders or about the long-term implications of taking out a loan. We therefore welcome the new status that has been given in the bill to the provision of advice and information.
Are there any specific issues that we should address regarding the problems that elderly or disabled people face? You mentioned that some elderly people are unenthusiastic about taking out loans and that some are suspicious of public authorities in general. Do you think that there are ways in which we could deal with that better?
If local authorities want to pursue the strategy in relation to vulnerable older or disabled people, we need stronger care and repair projects. We need more of that type of approach, even if it is not simply all care and repair. However, the local authority officials appeared to state earlier that they would not be able to pursue that course.
On a national standard, you spoke about having reasonable conformity between two parts of a street in Glasgow. From your experience in your spheres of work, is there an issue about more rural and remote areas having to be treated in different ways? There could be a lack of local tradesmen in such areas or other issues. With a national system, is there scope for flexibility in different types of community?
I think that there is. There could be flexibility, and builders are a classic example in that respect. Many councils have fairly rigorous selection processes for the contractors that they use; they may have good reasons for using those processes for their own repair schemes, but there could simply be a relaxing of some rules. I will give an example. A number of local authorities insist that contractors who are on their approved list go through equal opportunities training. There are highly capable tradesmen in rural areas, but they may not wish to go on equal opportunities training courses. Last week, I returned from Shetland, where payment of bills rather than tradesmen getting involved with local authorities is a huge issue. A balance could be achieved if local authorities could find ways of relaxing some rules. Doing so would not really impact on the overall national scheme, but would simply make it easier for rural tradespeople to become involved.
Given that you have not provided a written submission—although I understand that you will send one later—I am sure that you will take the opportunity to highlight concerns that we have not been forewarned about. In response to Donald Gorrie, you mentioned the fact that you welcome the broad choice and flexibility that will result from the move from grant to mandatory assistance. How will that help to meet the specific needs of disabled people? As you were speaking, I wondered whether your research had found that elderly people are less likely to complain to their landlords. Not wanting to cause a fuss or raise concerns might be part of their general culture. Is that a factor that might inhibit achievement of the repairing standard?
Older people tend to put up with things across the board, not only in their dealings with landlords. For example, I refer to the recent Scottish Executive central heating scheme, which is administered by the Eaga Partnership. The view of many people was expressed by a man in Sutherland who said, "I've always been cold, son, so why should I apply for free central heating?" There is an acceptance among older people of situations that a younger person might not accept. We need to provide intensive advice and support to get people to see that free central heating would be helpful and beneficial.
That is perhaps the view in rural areas, particularly in Sutherland, where people have been much more independent.
To put it simply, if someone lives in a rural area, they might not have neighbours who are saying, "You shouldn't be living like this. You can get help." On your question about schemes of assistance, I hope that I have not given the wrong impression: we would want the menu still to include grants. The recent change in the grants system and the move towards the test of income have been beneficial for our clients. A large number of our clients—more than 90 per cent—have had the test of income and still get 100 per cent grants. The test has been beneficial for us, because in effect it has moved the focus of the grants system towards our clients.
One of the advantages of Age Concern Scotland is that it can reach out to so many people in remote and rural areas. Obviously, there is a communication job to be done by politicians and your organisations.
Recently, I have given talks at the Glasgow mosque to representatives from throughout Scotland. Not only is there a reluctance to get loans; there is a reluctance to allow people from outside the community to be involved at all. That is still a huge hurdle.
There is a reluctance to let people into the house to decide whether it is below or near the tolerable standard.
Yes.
How can that be overcome?
It is certainly not easy. I presume that most authorities now have translated leaflets available. A person might be given a leaflet, but that is only the initial stage. If they respond to the leaflet, they will still find themselves dealing with architects, builders and planners who are not able to speak their language and who do not understand their culture very well. If we really want to address the issue, we will need a lot of resources. All Bradford Care and Repair contractors are ethnic minority contractors, as are its surveyors and building control people. As you can imagine, it has taken a lot of investment to achieve that.
That might take quite some time. Some local authority housing providers acknowledge that if they have identified a problem within a minority ethnic group, one way forward is to employ minority ethnic staff. There are not necessarily minority ethnic staff across the board but one or two such staff, who act as the liaison between the family or older people and the local authority. That is the role that the Care and Repair Forum Scotland plays.
That is a good point. I imagine that the same thing that I said about vulnerable, elderly people—that they might not want to cause a fuss or rock the boat—might apply to minority ethnic groups. Many minority ethnic private sector tenants might be unaware that they have rights that can lead to a higher standard of property, and as a result they might fall through the net of the legislation. Is that a possibility?
That is one of the reasons why we are speaking at lunchtime clubs. Generally, the response is good at such meetings. The common reaction of many homeowners is: "We thought that because we owned our own home we wouldn't get any help." Trying to provide as much information as possible is a constant process.
I have a follow-up question to a point that you raised in reply to one of Mary Scanlon's questions about the free central heating scheme. I have picked up some snippets of evidence of landlords refusing to allow insulation under that scheme. Have you come across that?
In all honesty, I cannot say that I have, but when we make our written submission—
There seem to have been one or two cases around Scotland. It would be a matter of concern if a significant number of elderly people—or other people—in difficult circumstances who could get free central heating were being turned down because of an obstructive landlord. If you have any information on that, it would be useful to supplement what we have already.
I will look into that.
Incidentally, I express my appreciation for the Care and Repair Forum Scotland's excellent work in East Lothian, which has been useful for groups of elderly people in their own properties who might have found it difficult to get repairs undertaken.
I was waiting to hear COSLA's response to that question. The one weakness that comes across is in what happens when an owner approaches a local authority. How is the scheme of assistance brought into that person's life? Shetland Islands Council has decided that the way forward is to provide information and assistance in people's homes. It has set up what it is calling a one-stop shop, not just for older people or disabled people but for everyone who feels that they need assistance. It has set up an arm's-length organisation. If you go to Shetland Islands Council's housing office and say, "I'm a homeowner. I need help," you will be referred immediately to the one-stop shop, which will visit you in your own home and will presumably work its way through the proposed scheme of assistance. Administering the scheme of assistance from behind reception desks in housing departments throughout Scotland will not work. There has to be contact with the owner.
I agree with Robert Thomson about the implementation of the scheme. Welcome as the bill is, its focus links much of the mandatory assistance with the serving of a notice. I hope that we are looking towards a culture in which homeowners will be aware that they can get assistance and will know that they can go to a local authority and ask for advice. The issue is how to flag up that assistance. I am not sure that local authorities will identify problems of disrepair so easily. Rather than there being a proactive approach from the local authority—which is what we are hoping for—I imagine that local authorities will still respond to a request from an owner who is in distress because of disrepair.
Thank you for attending the committee. I am sure that members look forward to receiving your written submissions to supplement the oral evidence that you have given us.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—