Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice 1 Committee, 17 Dec 2002

17 Dec 2002 · S1 · Justice 1 Committee

Item of business

Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Macintosh, Ken Lab Eastwood Watch on SPTV

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 amendment 7 and would merely add the term "retirement accommodation" to the term "retirement housing" and would put it in a different section.Properties are rarely sold as sheltered housing; they are more commonly referred to as retirement accommodation or retirement housing. Judging by the responses that the minister and the Minister for Justice gave in the chamber earlier, the Executive accepts that "sheltered housing development" includes retirement housing. There is therefore no reason not to include it in the bill.It is important that the matter be clarified for the purposes of the bill because the definition in section 50(4) is vague and involves the provision of"(i) a facility; or(ii) a service,which is one of those which make a sheltered housing development particularly suitable for such occupation".Brian Adam's amendment is intended to highlight the fact that the section is vague: inclusion in the section of warden services would make it more specific. One can imagine a situation in which a developer framed a deed which—although it would provide some services—did not provide all the services that one might expect in a sheltered housing development; for example, a lift or fire doors. It would state specifically in the title that the property was being sold as retirement accommodation rather than as sheltered housing accommodation under the terms of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill and therefore the residents of that complex would not enjoy the protection of the bill. If an errant developer proceeded along those lines, it would be difficult to argue that the intention was anything other than to exclude the provisions of the bill. That is why I support amendment 228.Amendment 118 would insert in section 50 the words: "no real burden may impose a minimum age on the ownership of units in the development which is less than sixty years."That was accepted in principle at stage 1, but the committee was tempted to include an element of "flexibility"—as it was called in the committee report—and to reduce that limit to 55 years.Amendment 118 is intended to deter those who wish to acquire property at a reduced market value because it is in a sheltered housing development. Those who live in retirement housing complexes do so because such accommodation is suitable for their interests and age. The flexibility might suit the developer because it would increase the size of the market; however, it is in the interests of those who live in retirement accommodation for everyone who lives in their complex to be above the age of 60.I give the example of a developer who was able to move into such housing a young man in his mid-30s who was in a wheelchair. The man undoubtedly needed sheltered accommodation, but his behaviour was more defined by his age than by the fact that he was in a wheelchair—he was inappropriately housed in that development. The age of 60 should be the appropriate threshold and it should be the key for buying a flat in retirement accommodation.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice 1 Committee, 17 Dec 2002

In the same item of business