Hansard

Like other members, I congratulate Patricia Ferguson, the bill’s sponsor, on her persistence and dedication in bringing this measure to Parliament and, I might also say, on her determination to make it through from Glasgow for this debate, notwithstanding the disruption to rail services.

The Parliament last debated the subject in March this year. At that time, I said that the Conservatives would give fair consideration to the bill and measure its proposals against the alternative of a voluntary accreditation scheme that the Scottish Government was pursuing with stakeholders in the sector in line with the recommendation made in the report of the Office of Fair Trading, which has been alluded to.

In that context, it is worth noting that the OFT report recommended that such a scheme should be up and running within 18 months and, should it not prove effective within two years, that the Parliament should legislate for a statutory scheme. Those of us who were prepared to give a fair wind to a voluntary accreditation scheme have been badly let down by both the Government and the sector. Despite the urgency of the OFT recommendation, we have seen a leisurely approach, suggesting a casual indifference to the problems that have been highlighted, or an inability in the sector to sort itself out. For example, for a group that was launched in May 2009 to take over a year to launch a public consultation on core standards for an accreditation scheme is clear evidence of procrastination.

Members will recall the minister’s rather defensive performance in our debate last March on the subject of timescales. Now we have learned from the minister, in evidence given to the committee, that the Government will devote no more resources to progressing the accreditation scheme while the bill is being considered by Parliament.

All that suggests that the Government has given up on voluntary accreditation, but we as a Parliament certainly cannot give up on the many people who receive a poor standard of factoring services or who—worse still—are victims of the appalling sharp practices that have been described graphically by Patricia Ferguson today and by other members in other parliamentary debates.

In evidence to the committee, Consumer Focus Scotland said:

“We are still hopeful that a scheme”—

the accreditation scheme—

“will be established soon, but it has been a long process to get here ... there seems to be a reluctance among those in the industry to take ownership of the scheme. So we are now of the mind that the consumer interest in the market would be best served by some form of statutory regulation.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 15 September 2010; c 3415.]

That sums up my view and that of my Conservative colleagues.

I welcome the bill’s wide scope and its intention to include registered social landlords and land-owning maintenance companies—which have been much discussed—even if drafting amendments might be required to bring them fully within the bill’s scope.

I also welcome the fact that the registration scheme will sit on top of a statutory code of conduct that will set out the service standards that owners and tenants can expect. I have no doubt that that can build on the Herculean labours of those who participated in the voluntary accreditation scheme group, but—I trust—with a good deal more urgency than they have evidenced so far. With a statutory code of conduct, the Scottish Government of whatever complexion will at least have a responsibility as the driver of a code of conduct rather than the facilitator of a voluntary scheme, which I suspect is half the problem.

Of course, what I have said does not mean that the bill in its present form is perfect. Several concerns were expressed in evidence to the committee, are highlighted in its report, have been described today by Patricia Ferguson, Duncan McNeil, the minister and Mary Mulligan and—I have no doubt—will be described by members who follow me. We need to ensure that appropriate transition measures are in place if a property factor is deregistered. A genuine debate must be had about the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. On balance, I prefer the option of using the home owner housing panel as the appropriate body, rather than the ombudsman scheme, which the Government prefers.

It is to be hoped that a registration scheme will improve standards among service providers, but I believe firmly in the power of the market as a driver of standards. One issue that remains to be addressed properly is the barriers to switching property factors, which exist as a result of entrenched title conditions that favour the status quo and, in many instances, the factor that the developer of an estate or block of flats selected.

The relevant legislation is complex—it involves the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, which the Parliament has passed. However, an overriding statutory provision is needed to facilitate the ability to switch factors on a majority vote of the property owners who cast their votes. I appreciate that Patricia Ferguson’s bill does not cover that and I suspect that the issue requires a more thorough review of existing law. However, I noted that the minister referred to the 2003 act in the context of land-owning maintenance companies. Perhaps that is an avenue for further examination. Whatever happens, if need be, I hope that an incoming Government will consider the wider competition-driven requirement as a priority for the next parliamentary session.

I support the bill, which enjoys wide public support, if my mailbag is anything to go by. Patricia Ferguson has struck a chord with her bill and I look forward to it proceeding at subsequent stages.

16:14