Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2011

17 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill

Ferguson, Patricia Lab Glasgow Maryhill Watch on SPTV

Although the bill is one of the last that we shall consider in this session of the Parliament, its gestation has been fairly long. Most of its provisions were originally contained within the most recent Housing (Scotland) Bill and, therefore, have perhaps received more than their fair share of scrutiny.

Nevertheless, the bill that we will pass today contains provisions that will help to strengthen existing legislation on landlord registration and houses in multiple occupation. It also attempts to offer some protection to people who may live in overcrowded conditions in the private rented sector.

I do not have time to discuss all the bill’s provisions, so I will concentrate on the two that are of most interest to my constituents: landlord registration and the licensing of houses in multiple occupation.

We all recognise the need to protect people from unscrupulous landlords, but it is also necessary to do that without putting undue pressure on the decent landlords who provide good-quality accommodation, register their properties as required and fulfil their obligations.

The bill broadly delivers on that aim, which is welcome. However, I am not sure that an increase in the level of fine that can be given for offences under the legislation will have the deterrent effect for which the minister hopes. I and others made that point during the passage of the bill and I would be grateful if the minister would indicate whether he has had an opportunity to discuss with the law officers how the courts could be persuaded to take breaches of the legislation seriously, to impose fines that we think are proper on those who are convicted and, thereby, to provide a real deterrent.

The Parliament passed HMO legislation in an earlier session because it recognised that young people and vulnerable people needed protection from unscrupulous landlords who exposed them to unsafe and sometimes downright dangerous situations. The issue came to a head when two young students died tragically in a fire in my constituency because they could not escape through the barred windows of the basement flat that they were renting.

HMO legislation has helped to make conditions safer for people who rent, but the time has come for us to look at the bigger picture and consider the effect that multiple occupation has on the fabric of properties and on the communities where those properties are located.

It is in no one’s interest for entire areas of our towns and cities to be swamped by properties that are rented out in this way. We must surely all desire vibrant, diverse communities that people want to live in. I hope that a strategy for young people’s housing will be developed and that those issues will be considered when that is done.

For those reasons, I very much welcome the amendments in the names of Pauline McNeill and Ted Brocklebank. I congratulate the minister on his Damascene conversion. It reminded me that, many years ago, a former colleague of mine said that Alex Neil could cause a fight in an empty house. I am happy that Mr Neil did not live up to that description this afternoon and that he showed that he has many qualities that are perhaps more desirable to the rest of us.

The amendments that Pauline McNeill and Ted Brocklebank lodged are important, because they address the central issue of inappropriate conversions that damage the fabric of buildings, cause nuisance—and, often, inconvenience—to neighbours and often mean that young people and vulnerable people live in properties whose standards would in all other circumstances be deemed intolerable. My only worry about Ted Brocklebank’s amendment 15 is that it leaves much of the responsibility with local authorities. However, on balance, it is probably best to allow local authorities that flexibility, so I accept the rationale that is at play.

Questions still remain in my mind about the bill’s efficacy. Will it deliver the deterrent effect that it promises? Does it put in place the right measures to deal with overcrowding, without imposing a greater burden on social landlords? Does it go far enough in controlling HMOs appropriately? I suppose that time will tell. In the meantime, I thank all those who have been involved in the bill’s passage—particularly the witnesses, whose evidence genuinely helped to shape the bill.

16:16

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2011

In the same item of business