Hansard

I, too, am pleased to take part in the stage 1 debate on the Property Factors (Scotland) Bill. I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on getting the bill to this stage, and I thank Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre for his contribution and support. No MSP in the Parliament will not at some time have been contacted by a constituent who is having problems with their property factor. However, it was the experience of Mike Dailly and other legal colleagues that showed the need for a legislative solution to the problems. Since Patricia Ferguson led a debate in the Parliament on the issue earlier this year, the Local Government and Communities Committee has worked hard to examine the bill’s proposals. I think that all members are supportive of the policy intention but, as is often the case with proposed legislation, the detailed discussions have been about ensuring that parts of the bill deliver those intentions. I thank the witnesses who have helped the committee.

As we would expect of a bill from Patricia Ferguson, the bill is clear and logical in what it seeks to achieve. It seeks a statutory framework for property factors, registration of those property factors, a code of conduct, a framework for dispute resolution and an ability to deregister property factors that is linked to a power for people to switch factors. Before I turn to some of the key issues, I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s work in considering a voluntary accreditation scheme. It appears as though the Government was heading in the same direction as Patricia Ferguson’s bill. I suppose that the only surprise is that it has taken so long, although I appreciate the contribution that the minister has made to the debate.

The bill starts at part 1 with the provision of a register of property factors, which will be available for public inspection. At that early stage, the committee came across its first challenge, when some people questioned whether land-owning property factors should be part of the register. The previous speakers in the debate have referred to that issue. Given that the activities of land-owning property factors are similar to those of what we might call traditional property factors, it became clear to me early on that they should be included. My experience of property factors has very much been with those land-owning factors. In my constituency, I do not have the kind of traditional tenements that are found in Patricia Ferguson’s Maryhill constituency or here in central Edinburgh. In Linlithgow, property factors are in the new estates. They manage flatted properties, but they also manage open spaces, including play parks, wooded areas and drainage facilities and, in the majority of cases, they own that land. They fulfil their role in the same way as a traditional property factor. I agree with others that there is an unresolved issue to do with how a property factor could be switched if they own the land. I will come back to that. The committee is correct to say that all property factors should be included in the register, whether or not they own land.

I agree with Consumer Focus Scotland, which in its helpful briefing for the debate welcomed the definition of “property factor” in section 2. It recognised that there might need to be further amendments at stage 2 to fully encompass the land-owning property factors. I give this assurance to the chamber: should we not be able to resolve the issue through the amendments that Patricia Ferguson spoke about today, I pledge that Labour will introduce further measures to ensure that that group of property factors is included, should we be in a position to do so after the May election.

Another issue that arose was whether local authorities and housing associations that have a property factor function will need to register, given the other ways in which they are regulated. The committee is correct to say that, where local authorities and housing associations have that role, they should be registered in the same way as other property factors.

Time does not allow me to go into detail on issues such as dispute resolution, switching factors and the code of practice. I am sure that other speakers will cover many of those areas. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately for some, I will be closing the debate on behalf of the Labour Party so I will have an opportunity not just to respond to the debate but to pick up on any issues that I feel need further elaboration. However, at this stage, on behalf of the Labour Party, I am happy to support the general principles of the bill.

16:07