Scottish Government

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This report provides an analysis to the Scottish Government consultation "Draft Housing (Scotland) Bill - A Consultation". The consultation paper set out proposals to reform the Right to Buy ( RTB) for social housing tenants and modernise regulation of the social housing sector.

Overview of the response

• There were 319 responses to the consultation exercise. There was a strong response from Registered Tenants Organisations ( RTOs) and other tenant representative bodies, with more than a third of responses coming from this group. This represented 16 per cent of RTOs / tenant representative bodies receiving the consultation paper. Ninety per cent of local authorities and 40 per cent of Registered Social Landlords ( RSLs) gave a response to the consultation.

Reforming the Right to Buy

• Respondents were positive about the financial impact of the proposed reforms which most felt would be limited, offset by rental income over the longer term, and outweighed by the positive benefits of reforming the RTB more generally. However, there were concerns that RSLs that are more dependent on RTB receipts may have difficulty bringing housing up to the Scottish Housing Quality Standard ( SHQS) by 2015.
• Most respondents supported the definition of 'new supply social housing' used in the proposed reforms to RTB.
• A majority supported the proposed safeguards for existing tenants on grounds that they balanced a commitment to preserve existing tenants' rights with protecting new social housing stock. However, there were concerns about tenants regaining RTB after a spell in new supply housing, and safeguards for tenants affected by demolition.
• Consultees broadly agreed that new tenants entering the sector after the relevant section has come into force should no longer have the RTB. But there were concerns about the loss of some of the positive impacts that RTB has had ( e.g. in promoting tenure diversification) and difficulties with a system where tenants have multiple categories of RTB entitlement.
• There was strong support for proposals to strengthen pressured-area designations. Most respondents agreed that the maximum designation period should be increased from five to ten years. There was widespread support for the proposal to allow particular types of housing to be designated as pressured. And a majority of respondents agreed that Ministers should devolve pressured area decision-making to councils.
• Most respondents agreed with the approach set out for developing guidance for applications from RSLs to extend the ten-year RTB suspension. Some stressed that the criteria for this should include fitting with wider strategic objectives (in line with Local Housing Strategies).
• There were more mixed views on whether landlords should be encouraged to use their continuous occupation discretionary powers in cases of ex-service personnel transferring to social housing. Many agreed with a flexible approach since ex-service personnel tend to have less control over their housing pattern than others, and supported discretion since individual circumstances need to be considered. Others felt that this issue should be dealt with in legislation and some respondents felt that ex-service personnel should not be treated differently from other groups in relation to the RTB.
• A majority of respondents felt that landlords should be encouraged to use their discretionary powers in relation to other groups such as those living in tied accommodation ( e.g. nurses, fire-fighters and other emergency service personnel) or tenants in other circumstances. Examples of these included: emergencies such as fire and flood damage; fleeing domestic abuse; and ill health resulting in spells in hospital.

Modernising regulation

• Most consultees agreed with the proposed purpose for the modernised regime of regulation. Although there was broad support for the focus on tenants some felt that there were 'gaps' in the stated purpose, and that the reference to tenants should be more inclusive and relate to future tenants as well as homeless people and minority groups.
• There were a range of views expressed on the proposals to streamline regulation of RSLs and council housing and homelessness services. The approach was generally supported on grounds that it fitted with the recommendations of the Crerar Review of Scrutiny. Concerns related to ensuring equal and proportionate scrutiny on all social landlords and ensuring close scrutiny of local authority housing and homelessness services. Those expressing concern believed the approach to regulation of housing services should be consistent, irrespective of landlord.
• There was strong support for the SHR regulating services in respect of homelessness, Gypsies / Travellers and factored owners.
• There was support for a more risk-based approach to regulation. Respondents stressed the role for tenants in monitoring performance standards. Consultees felt that regulation could be streamlined through better co-ordination between regulators and less duplication between the requirements of Audit Scotland and the SHR.
• Many consultees felt that the term "social landlord" was problematic but a significant number of the respondents argued that stigmatisation of the sector is not due to the name. Among those proposing alternative terms "Community Housing" was the most common term.
• A strong majority of respondents supported the proposals for a Scottish Social Housing Charter on grounds that it would provide a consistent approach between landlords and fit with other outcome focused frameworks. There was broad agreement that further consultation and development is required on this topic.
• There was broad agreement that the SHR should be established as a non-Ministerial department under its own Board. This was supported since it would give greater independence to the Regulator but there was some discussion about the amount of power that Ministers would retain ( e.g. in appointing Board members).
• The vast majority of respondents agreed that the SHR should have powers to assess, report on and enforce performance improvements to increase value for tenants and taxpayers. But there was some concern among landlords about proposals to report publicly on performance and requests for clarity on the word "value" to ensure that it wasn't taken in a purely financial sense. Most respondents felt that the proposed powers and duties outlined in the draft Bill would enable the SHR to do its work.
• Most respondents agreed that the current inspection powers should be replaced, with many arguing that this would be more consistent with a risk-based approach to regulation. A small majority felt that the proposed inquiry powers would be a satisfactory replacement. However, some felt that there would need to be greater clarity on how regulation would be implemented (in terms of respective roles of Audit Scotland and the SHR) and there were concerns about whether the powers matched the aim of greater flexibility and a more proportionate approach.
• A majority agreed that the powers in the draft Bill struck the right balance in terms of allowing the Regulator to intervene where required. Those who were less supportive generally highlighted the importance of further detailed consultation on how the powers would be implemented.
• Just over half of those responding broadly supported the abolition of Part 1 of Schedule 7 on payments and benefits and its replacement with a code of conduct, although several RSLs felt that more detail was required and that there would need to be further consultation on this issue.
• There were mixed views on whether Ministers should set the criteria for eligibility to seek registration as an RSL, with the SHR setting criteria against which it tests applications. Less than half of RSLs responding supported the proposal. Others were opposed to the requirement for existing RSLs to re-register within two years of the Act coming into force.
• There was strong opposition to the proposal that this power should extend to allowing profit-distributing bodies to become eligible for registration with particular concern expressed by RSLs and RTOs / tenant representative bodies. Several stated that the proposals went further than those outlined in 'Firm Foundations' to allow profit-distributing bodies to be eligible to build social housing. However, there was some support, subject to profit-distributing bodies being under similar scrutiny and regulation as other social housing providers.
• Respondents did not give a clear view in relation to the enforcement powers set out for profit-distributing registered landlords, with many reiterating their opposition to their inclusion. Several felt that there was a lack of clarity in this area and further detail was required. Some respondents stressed that the Scottish Government should ensure equal protection for all tenants and for the public purse.
• A majority of respondents agreed that RSLs should only have to seek consent for the three areas of rule changes proposed in the consultation paper. A strong majority of local authorities and RSLs supported this proposal. Some RSLs and representative bodies highlighted the potential risk that a rule change could be voted through that was not in the best interest of an RSL. Consideration should be given to how such a risk could be managed without the 'safety check' of Regulator consent.