Hansard

I am pleased to take part in the debate as convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I am experiencing a bit of déjà vu, however, as it is not long since we debated the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which contained quite a few of the provisions that are before us today. I thank all those who gave us written and oral evidence, our committee clerks, Scottish Parliament information centre researchers and my fellow committee members.

The committee looked first at landlord registration. As the minister outlined, the bill expands the fit-and-proper person test that the landlord must meet. We will support that expansion, which provides focus and direction to local authorities about the issues, especially antisocial behaviour, that they must take into account when assessing someone’s registration.

The bill also provides for all adverts for properties to let to include the landlord’s registration number. As the minister said, it was important that we had real discussion about the measure, if it is truly to be a means of and tool for enforcement. In the evidence that we received, there was general agreement that it was a good idea. However, as has been mentioned, a number of concerns were raised about how it would work in practice. As the minister said, one issue was that, generally, registration numbers are pretty long, so the number would probably not mean much to the public unless there was some kind of explanation. To let boards would be exempt from the requirement, apparently because it was thought that it would be impractical to have different numbers on different boards. We look forward to hearing more about all that.

The alternative of having a symbol or kitemark was suggested, but we recognised that there were concerns that any symbol would not be unique and might be too easy to copy. For that reason, the committee suggested that we replicate the system that trade bodies use, under which the kitemark denotes registration but is backed up by a list of registered organisations that are given unique registration numbers. We also thought that using such a system could get round the difficulties with to let boards, so that they might not have to be exempt.

The Housing (Scotland) Bill proposed increasing the fine for non-registration to £20,000. This bill proposes that the fine should be £50,000. Although we support increasing fines as a deterrent to rogue landlords, we were concerned about the lack of prosecutions, which we saw as, in effect, allowing bad landlords to continue operating outwith the system. We heard in evidence on the bill that the City of Edinburgh Council successfully prosecuted a landlord who had failed to register three of his seven properties, but that the courts imposed a fine of only £65 per property. If we compare that with the amount that it cost, according to the council, to prosecute the case, which was about £2,000 or £3,000, we find that there is hardly an incentive to deal with rogue landlords. The current level of fines is significantly lower than the current maximum, and there are a number of difficulties in pursuing prosecutions. That toxic combination left the committee doubting whether a fine could act as a deterrent whatever the level at which it is set.

Our report makes it clear that there can be a proper deterrent only if courts recognise and impose the higher fines so that local authorities are more prepared to pursue cases. It is vital that the courts give sufficient weight both to landlord registration and to HMO licensing schemes. The committee has suggested that it might be worth having either a dedicated housing court or a housing tribunal. That said, we support the increase in the maximum fine as a step in the right direction.

During our scrutiny of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and again during our scrutiny of the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill that is now before us, one issue that was raised time and again was whether the landlord registration scheme was working as it should, even with the improvements that were being made. There were also concerns that enforcement was not consistent across all local authorities. I am pleased to hear that the minister will be encouraging best practice in that regard, as we know that some schemes could be more proactive.

It seems that landlord representatives—the good landlords—were so disillusioned that they suggested that the registration scheme should be abolished. There was a worry about people not reregistering. We do not agree with that view, but we also do not think that the scheme is working as effectively as it should. When we scrutinised the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we said that we were not sure that the proposals in that bill were sufficient to tackle rogue landlords. We say that again with regard to the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill.

We know that the Scottish Government’s private rented sector strategy group will review the current registration scheme, so we hope that the group will look at how to tackle those issues. We support the bill’s provisions on landlord registration, but we recognise that they will go only so far. Guidance that the Scottish Government will produce subsequently, and the review of the scheme, will be very important.

The substantive provisions on HMO licensing that were originally in the Housing (Scotland) Bill are replicated in the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill. In our stage 1 report on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we welcomed those provisions, as we felt that they could tackle the breaches of planning control that often result from landlords trying to maximise the letting potential of a property. We took the view that local authorities must use the tools at their disposal in housing and planning legislation to support sustainable communities and to maintain private sector housing.

The committee considered the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill’s provisions to deal with overcrowding. We know that overcrowding is a significant issue in certain parts of Glasgow—there was a lot of discussion about Govanhill and about the migrant workers who live there, as the minister mentioned. Everyone who gave evidence to us agreed that overcrowding is an issue that needs to be tackled, but a number of concerns were raised about the approach that the Government was intending to take. For instance, some organisations suggested that there should be a duty to deal with anyone who is displaced as a result of their living in overcrowded conditions.

It became clear to the committee that this is a very complex area: existing legislation can already be used to deal with overcrowding and local authorities already have duties to deal with homelessness in certain situations. On that basis, we support the bill’s provisions in that regard, although we have concerns about their practical application. We certainly do not want situations to arise where an overcrowding notice is served, but all that it does is to make someone homeless. That would mean solving one problem, but creating another. Neither do we want undue pressure to be put on the social rented sector, with private landlords quite happily breaching the legislation, knowing that local authorities will have to deal with the problem.

We noted that the minister had given reassurances that the provisions in the bill were not intended to give rise to either of those situations, but I re-emphasise the fact that the current position is complex, and it is really not possible to predict with any certainty how many cases of homelessness there are likely to be across Scotland, and therefore whether or not there will be sufficient capacity in the private and social rented sectors to house people who have been displaced.

The powers in the bill will be used at the discretion of local authorities and are likely to be used as a last resort, but there is uncertainty about how things will play out in practice and we are concerned about that. That is why we recommended that the Scottish Government consult widely on its guidance on the factors that need to be taken into account before the decision is made to issue an overcrowding notice. We also recommended that the Government monitor the number of overcrowding notices and local authorities’ reasons for issuing them. In that way we should be able to assess how effective notices are in dealing with overcrowding and what impact they have on levels of homelessness and the housing stock.

We need a fully effective landlord registration scheme to ensure that we weed out rogue landlords. We are not there yet. We welcome the improvements that the bill will bring, but it is clear that more needs to be done. Overcrowding is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. We acknowledge what the bill is trying to achieve, but we are concerned about the practicalities. With those caveats, we recommend that the general principles of the bill be agreed to.

15:21