Committee
Justice 1 Committee, 17 Dec 2002
17 Dec 2002 · S1 · Justice 1 Committee
Item of business
Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
I hope that I am successful in juggling the paperwork. I thank the convener and the committee for their patience in allowing me to move my amendments this week. I know that the committee made rapid progress last week and could have moved on further had I been present. The members of the Sheltered and Retirement Housing Owners Confederation—who are here today—and I are grateful. My amendments, which reflect the views of SHOC, are cross-party amendments. I will support the amendments in the names of Brian Adam and Michael Matheson.I welcome the bill, because it will give more control to owners and residents in managing their affairs. I will outline some of the rationale behind my amendments. SHOC and I welcome the fact that the Executive has adopted a core burdens approach to protecting residents' and sheltered housing owners' interests. However, we believe that the manner in which the bill frames that protection could be modified or improved. The Executive has accepted that the bill's definition of sheltered housing includes retirement housing and Michael Matheson and I will argue that there is therefore no good reason why that should not be made explicit in the bill.It is important to note that, although the definition of sheltered housing includes retirement housing, there is a distinction between the two. Retirement housing is for older people, whereas sheltered housing could be for older people, but might also be for younger people who are disabled, infirm or vulnerable. That distinction is important because older people who live in retirement complexes want extra security and protection, but do not need to be protected against themselves. As members will know, retirement-home owners might be older, but they are not feeble minded. They welcome the security that the core burdens approach offers, but they wish that power to be exercised by the owners. As the bill is worded, it could be argued that the high voting threshold protects the manager of a complex rather than the core burdens or the owners.Experience shows that although older people move into retirement flats with high expectations that complexes will be run with their needs in mind, they find that managers, who have been appointed by developers, put the developers' interests first. That is manifested in many ways, but usually through cutting services to save costs. Of course, not all those services will be core burdens.The principle that underpins the amendments that I wish to move and support is that, although retirement-home owners want extra protection, they do not need a guardian or intermediary to exercise that protection on their behalf. They wish to be consulted on changes to the way in which the complex is run and they wish to hold the manager to account without necessarily exercising their prerogative to get rid of the manager and to employ a new one, which would be drastic action.Those were my introductory remarks; I will speak now to amendment 227, which is to insert after the word "way" in section 50 on page 24, line 9:"(including as a warden's flat or a visitor's flat)".The meaning of the phrase "special way" in section 50(1) is not clear and the bill gives no definition of the phrase. In order to find the meaning of the phrase, one must refer to the explanatory notes, which spell out that the phrase includes such things as wardens' flats. Amendment 227 attempts to translate the explanation in the explanatory notes and to include it in the bill, because the bill is not clear. It is important to establish that a warden's flat, a visitor's flat or other flats that are owned, but sublet, by the developer are not used by the developer to maintain control, which has been done in the past. That point is important for retirement-home owners.I would like to insert the clarification that I mentioned and I would welcome the Executive's or other members' views.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
SNP
Item 3 is the continuation of our stage 2 consideration of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the committee Colin Boyd QC, who is here in pla...
Section 50—Sheltered housing
The Convener:
SNP
Although the first group of amendments appears to be tricky, it is not the tricky part of proceedings to which I referred—there are trickier things ahead. Am...
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab):
Lab
I hope that I am successful in juggling the paperwork. I thank the convener and the committee for their patience in allowing me to move my amendments this we...
The Convener:
SNP
Have you moved amendment 227?
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
Do you want me to move it now?
The Convener:
SNP
You are required to move it.
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
Will we then debate it?
The Convener:
SNP
After we have heard the minister's reply, you may, if you wish, seek the committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
In that case, I move amendment 227.
Michael Matheson:
SNP
The principal reason behind amendment 7 is similar to the concerns that Ken Macintosh expressed about the bill's definition of sheltered housing. The Lord Ad...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
As Kenneth Macintosh said at the beginning, the amendments in the group—except obviously the Executive ones—are the result of extensive discussions with thos...
The Convener:
SNP
Heaven forfend, Mr Adam.
Brian Adam:
SNP
The potential would exist even for unclever lawyers or developers to remove a warden service as a burden if they did not see the service as being in their in...
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
I would like to move amendment 118, to which I did not speak earlier.
The Convener:
SNP
That should be amendment 228 and you do not move it now.
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
I do not think that I have spoken to amendment 228 or to amendment 118.
The Convener:
SNP
What normally happens is that when I call an amendment, you would speak to it and to the other amendments in the group. However, you may speak to amendment 2...
Mr Macintosh:
Lab
Amendment 228 is in the name of Sylvia Jackson. I apologise that she is unable to be here. The amendment is in the same spirit as Michael Matheson's amendmen...
The Convener:
SNP
However, as you say, those who are 60 or near 60, can be chipper. They were the Elvis Presley people, you know. The Lord Advocate is far too young to be an E...
The Lord Advocate (Colin Boyd):
Amendment 115 is a technical amendment that will ensure that the new rights that are created by the bill will not include a right of pre-emption. Such a righ...
The Convener:
SNP
Amendment 228 has not yet been moved, as it relates to another section. It may be moved later.
The Lord Advocate:
There has been anxiety about the definition of sheltered housing and a worry that the definition might exclude what is termed "retirement housing". The issue...
The Convener:
SNP
What do mean when you talk about redefining? Are you talking about changing at stage 3 the definition of sheltered housing?
The Lord Advocate:
I would be open to discussing that with Ken Macintosh. I have difficulties with including retirement housing in the definition, but we might be able to discu...
The Convener:
SNP
Other committee members are concerned about the definition. I open the discussion to committee members, who might wish to make comments in the light of what ...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
I think that I understand what the Lord Advocate said about the difficulty with the definition. I wish to mention another difficulty with the definition in s...
Michael Matheson:
SNP
I return to what the Lord Advocate said about the possibility of revisiting the use of the phrase "sheltered housing". If we consider rephrasing the bill and...
The Convener:
SNP
Do you wish to address those questions now, Lord Advocate, or do you want to hear other points?
The Lord Advocate:
As this is my first time dealing with amendments at stage 2, I am in the convener's hands.