���˿���

I recognise your point that certain co-operatives struggle to receive advice or support, whether from public agencies or elsewhere. There is a discussion to be had, of the kind that I have had with you and, indeed, with Paul Sweeney, about the importance of housing co-operatives and the need to encourage them.

I would therefore be more than happy to discuss what else could be done to ensure that we not only protect, support and encourage existing housing co-operatives, but encourage further development of the housing co-operative model. However, I am afraid that I will still ask members not to vote for the amendments in this group.

I support amendment 230 in the name of Bob Doris. It provides a three-year backstop for the commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions in part 5 of the bill. The amendment allows us to maintain progress towards those important new duties while allowing time to develop the appropriate regulations, guidance and training, in partnership with stakeholders and people with lived experience, so as to support successful implementation. Crucially, the amendment also allows us to implement the learning from the Scottish Government’s homelessness prevention pilots, as welcomed by Crisis, Homeless Network Scotland and other stakeholders. Our £4 million investment in the pilots will demonstrate how the bill’s new ask and act duties will work in reality.

I have been clear that we do not need to wait for the new duties to be formally commenced before we have improved co-operation and earlier intervention to prevent homelessness, but I am happy to support amendment 230.

Good morning again, convener. Amendments 445 and 447 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on co-housing within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. The Scottish ministers would require to define co-housing via regulations and to consult on the preparation of the guidance.

There is no need for a statutory obligation to publish guidance to be put on the Scottish ministers. They could publish guidance on the issue without having a statutory duty to do so, and I commit to doing so. I therefore ask the convener not to press amendment 445 and to work with me with a view to producing Scottish Government guidance on co-housing.

Amendments 554 and 562 would give the Scottish ministers the power to designate a public body to carry out a range of functions that would support those who want to progress a co-operative housing approach. Housing co-operatives are already a valued part of the social housing sector in Scotland, alongside other community-based social landlords and local authority landlords.

Although I understand the desire to support the development of the housing co-operative model as part of the creation of a diverse housing sector in Scotland, I have concerns about the way in which the amendments are set out. It would not be appropriate to oblige a public body to provide financial, tax or litigation advice, and a housing co-operative that acted on the advice of the designated body could seek redress against that body if the advice caused the co-operative to suffer a loss.

In addition, acting as a guarantor against demutualisation could open up the designating body to significant financial and legal risks. It is not clear how the designated body could—or, indeed, whether it should be able to—prevent demutualisation if the co-operative members vote for it.

On promoting co-operative housing, the co-operative model itself, along with—

Certainly.

That is an important point. As I said, I could feed in a number of my constituents’ experiences. It is important that, if they wish to do so, all members—not only those who are at committee today—have an opportunity to feed in their constituents’ experiences.

I have also given a lot of thought about how we need to do this work in the round. As Emma Roddick is aware, the Government can carry out consultations in a number of ways, but people need to be able to directly feed their experiences into all such processes. That can sometimes be done through representative bodies, as well as via ���˿���, or it can be done directly. We are happy to look at that, while recognising that how we do it will impact how long the review might take. However, people’s experiences are an important aspect that we need to take account of. Sadly, I recognise the experiences that Emma Roddick has laid out today.

I recognise the intent behind many of the amendments in the grouping and I appreciate that difficulties are being experienced by some who are in the property factors system. As Mark Griffin mentioned, members will have knowledge of that from their constituency work, as do I.

However, the amendments that are proposed are very wide ranging and pick out a number of discrete topics across what is a complex and interconnected system. Although I am sympathetic to what members are trying to achieve and the constituency cases that I am sure lie behind many of the amendments, I am concerned about considering issues in isolation from one another and from the wider system. I am also mindful that we have not engaged widely with stakeholders on the issues.

Instead of working in a potentially piecemeal way, I would like to look at any issues in the round and engage with stakeholders to review the system in its entirety to identify what improvements can be made. I wish to take the time to do that work properly and would welcome members contributing to it, instead of pressing forward with the range of amendments that are before us today.

I begin with amendment 507, in the name of Mark Griffin, which would require additional information to be included as part of an application to be a registered property factor. Although I appreciate that the intent is to strengthen the application process, I am not clear on the value that such additional information would provide beyond what is already in the code of conduct, with which all registered property factors must comply, and what property factor enforcement orders already allow for. As those existing provisions appear to be operating as intended, I cannot support the amendment without hearing further from stakeholders on the issues.

I turn to the Government’s amendments in the name of Paul McLennan. Amendments 387 to 392 and 397 modify the existing property factor registration regime to make it work more coherently and effectively. In particular, they clarify when a property factor number is to be disclosed; adjust matters to be considered as part of the fit-and-proper-person test; expand powers to remove property factors from the property factor register when the factor no longer exists; clarify the duty to notify property factors who have been removed from the register in cases where that is not currently possible; require refusals and removals to be noted on the register; allow property factors to seek removal from the register; and confer additional enforcement powers. The amendments will improve the registration scheme and I urge members to support them so that improvements can be brought forward before the review that I mentioned earlier.

It is not clear how amendments 508 and 513, in the name of Mark Griffin, would benefit the system overall. Scottish ministers have the responsibility to assess whether applicants are fit and proper for registration, and consideration is based on all relevant circumstances. The First-tier Tribunal would not have access to the full range of material that is used to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to carry out property factoring, so amendment 508 would narrow the scope of the fit-and-proper-person test, which would have potentially negative implications for factors’ businesses and for home owners. I therefore cannot support the amendments without more understanding of what is behind them.

I turn to amendments 509 to 511, which relate to provision of certain information to home owners. It is my view that the code of conduct for property factors already caters for the amendments propose. The code covers how fees, charges and works that have already been undertaken or are to be undertaken are handled and communicated, and how factors will co-operate with another factor to allow for a smooth transfer. Without hearing wider views, I am therefore unclear what the amendments would add to the requirements that are already in place. I cannot therefore support the amendments at this time.

On amendment 512, in the name of Mark Griffin, I note that it is already possible for individuals to search whether a property factor is registered to provide services in Scotland, who the property factor is for a certain property or area of land and the latest number of properties that a property factor manages. As already explained, amendment 390, in the name of Paul McLennan, would place a new duty on Scottish ministers to keep a note in the register of any refusal

“to enter a person in the register”

and of any removal from the register

“for the period of 3 years”,

which I hope will reassure Mr Griffin on the matter behind his amendment. Scottish ministers can provide guidance and publish information that they deem appropriate without the need for the amendment. For that reason, I do not support it.

I appreciate the aim of amendments 504 and 517, in the name of Ariane Burgess, but there are already means by which such attention is brought, in the form of evidence gathered by Scottish ministers through compliance monitoring activity, which can and is frequently informed by home owner reports, and by notice from the First-tier Tribunal that a property factor enforcement order has not been complied with. Without further discussion, it is therefore not clear what improvements the amendments would bring, so I cannot support them.

I turn to amendments 505 and 518, also in the name of Ariane Burgess. Amendment 505 would lower the current upper legal threshold that is required for property owners to dismiss a property manager and appoint someone else from “two thirds” to “a majority”,

“unless the title deeds ... provide a lower threshold”.

Existing provision is intended to ensure that title deeds do not impose an unreasonably high threshold to dismiss the manager, such as requiring a unanimous vote. Title deeds can, however, specify a lower threshold, such as a simple majority. When title deeds are silent, existing legislation provides a default rule that allows a simple majority to dismiss the manager.

When the Scottish Government last consulted on that issue in 2013, a majority of respondents did not favour reducing the threshold. Given the changes to the sector since then, it is important that we take time to look at the matter as part of a wider review, as I mentioned earlier. Removal of a property factor is, of course, the final step to address underperformance. So that we can better understand the issue, how it sits in the wider property factor system and any unintended consequences of the proposed changes, I ask Ariane Burgess not to press the amendments.

On amendment 506, in the name of Mark Griffin, I recognise, as I have said, that some users of the system are experiencing difficulties, and I have committed to working with members and stakeholders to consider those in the round, taking the time to do so properly. The amendment would drive too short a timeframe for work of that nature and set a particular scope before we have had time to consider matters. For that reason, I cannot support it, but I emphasise my offer to engage with members and stakeholders to look at the system in the round.

If I might continue, convener, as I am not finished—I nearly am.

I turn to amendment 514, in the name of Mark Griffin. The current position is, rightly, that discretion sits with the tribunal to consider on a case-by-case basis what it determines to be a reasonable payment to a home owner. I am not aware of issues of property factors being required to make excessive payments as a result of an enforcement order. It is therefore unclear to me why Mr Griffin wishes to restrict the tribunal’s discretion, so I cannot support amendment 514.

Amendment 415, in the name of Sarah Boyack, highlights an important point in relation to property factor registration. I am sympathetic to what the amendment seeks to do, but it is premature to make such changes at this stage, given the need to consult stakeholders and consider the wider work that is under way, such as the Scottish Law Commission’s work. I therefore cannot support amendment 415, but I have written to Ms Boyack on the matter.

I appreciate the intent behind amendments 476 and 476A, in the names of Pam Duncan-Glancy and Mark Griffin respectively. However, I am concerned that they could have significant impacts on local authorities and subsequent effects on the services that are provided to owners. As no consultation has taken place, it is not clear how many communities might find themselves in such situations and what the costs for local authorities might be. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 476 or 476A without further engagement.

I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to press amendment 507. I ask him, Ariane Burgess, Sarah Boyack and Pam Duncan-Glancy to work with me on the wider work to review the property factor system and engage with stakeholders that I have committed to do in the round. I also ask them not to move the other amendments in the group. If they are moved and pressed, I urge members to reject them for the reasons that I have given.

I reassure Rachael Hamilton that I absolutely share her endeavour to ensure that we deliver more homes, particularly in rural areas. The Government and the Minister for Housing were already looking at permitted development rights before the amendments were lodged; the issue was very much on his radar.

My concern is that permitted development rights are an exceptionally powerful tool. That means that, if we are to grant those rights, we must consider very seriously the implications of doing so and, indeed, the difficulty of ever taking them away, and that is why the best way to do this, even if we include the aspect that Rachael Hamilton might wish to bring in, is through consultation and secondary legislation to allow that work to continue. Permitted development rights are an exceptionally powerful part of the planning system, and I am loath for this to be done, regardless of the issue, without consultation taking place to allow people to have their say.

Certainly, on that particular matter, I will ensure that an update is given to the committee following the next board meeting, when we will discuss the update from the CIH and other members of the board.

I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendments in the name of Meghan Gallacher. A decision on the need for a charter should flow from the development of the private rented sector strategy that the board is considering. That would be a better method of developing a charter, should that be felt to be the best way forward in the strategy that is currently being designed. We do not need primary legislation to develop a charter, so it will remain an option following on from development of the strategy. As I have set out, work is under way within the board on that strategy, and I will keep members updated on that.

Amendment 135C, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to enable the charter to go beyond setting out existing legal requirements and create new rights and responsibilities. That raises concerns, because I do not think that a charter would be an appropriate or lawful way to create new rights and responsibilities. That should be done only via primary or secondary legislation.

Amendment 276, also in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the court or tribunal to take account of the charter in their decisions. Again, I understand the intention behind the amendment, but it is not required because the tribunal and the court already take into account all circumstances of a case when making a decision, and that could involve a charter in the future.

Amendment 256, in the name of Pam Gosal, would require ministers to prepare an annual report on the operation of the legislation in the private rented sector. I agree that it is important to monitor the operation of the legislation, but an inflexible statutory duty is not the best way to achieve that. Members will remember that, during discussions on an earlier grouping, I committed to working with Graham Simpson on an amendment on a five-yearly review of part 1 of the act. As part of that work, we will consider whether anything more is needed. I hope that that reassures Pam Gosal.

I appreciate the need for movement. As I mentioned at a previous meeting, the Government will work on a number of areas between stages 2 and 3, and we will be undertaking work on other areas after the bill is—I hope—passed by the Parliament.

Once stage 2 is over and I have a full understanding of all the work that I have offered to undertake, I intend to write back to the committee to detail the prioritisation and the timescales on those points, so that the committee can take a view on whether it will potentially have different priorities and suggestions.

If Mr Griffin will forgive me, the only reason that I will not suggest a date at that point is that I will wrap it into all the work that I have suggested we progress on the bill, which will allow the committee to have a view of the priorities that the Government will set as part of that process. He might wish to suggest that the issue is more of a priority than some of the other work that we have done, but, if he will forgive me for not putting a timescale on it today, that is the way that I intend to take the issue forward.