HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
5.3. Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill 2020 – Consideration of clauses commenced
Mr Baker to move.
The Speaker: We turn then to the Landlord Bill and on this occasion, to start us off, we will look 2130 at the amendments to the long title. I therefore call on Mr Hooper to move his amendments number 1 and 2.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As Hon. Members are no doubt aware, I had some significant reservations about this Bill at 2135 Second Reading, and I just would like to place on record my thanks to the Minister, his team and to the drafters for all the work that has gone into the Bill since that Second Reading to produce a long list of what I hope are very comprehensive amendments. I would just like to place on record my thanks really for that engagement. The two amendments that I am going to be moving to start with, amendments number 1 and 2, 2140 amend the long title of the Bill very specifically to allow the inclusion of a landlord’s representative as a concept in the Bill, to allow them to be registered separately. So the long title of the Act would provide for the registration of landlords and landlords’ representatives. The reason for this is that a landlord’s representative can range from a family member or a friend, right the way through to a professional firm like an estate agent. The Bill as originally 2145 drafted tied the representative directly into the landlord’s own registration, which would have made it quite difficult I think to separate out the two in legal or regulatory terms. If regulatory action then needed to be taken, it was only really possible to take it against the landlord because it was the landlord that had the registration, whereas it may actually have been the representative that the regulator would be needing to take action against. 2150 The original draft of the Bill also had a bit of a quirk in that the landlord would have been responsible for a range of actions of the representative. For example, ensuring their representative complied with certain minimum standards, which would clearly have been unworkable from the perspective of individual landlords. So the change of approach really that this changing long title sets out to ensure that landlords and their representatives are treated as 2155 two distinct groups in the Bill, each with their own registration entry and each subject to regulation in their own right is the underlying cause of the overwhelming number of amendments that I will be bringing to this Bill today. In essence, the related amendments to this long title change simply replicate the provisions for landlords and apply them separately to landlords’ representatives as well to ensure that what 2160 we end up with is a register of landlords and landlords’ representatives, and that the Bill will treat each group of persons appropriately. This is not a big step from the original position, it is not as big a step as it would sound, and that is because through the way the Bill was originally worded the representatives would have been regulated by the Department via the landlords’ registration. So this is not going to place any additional burden on the representatives than they would already 2165 have had under the original Bill. It simply sets that out in a clearer way and allows that additional registration to take place that the representative can then take ownership of and be responsible for. So, in very simple terms, it is not increasing any of that burden. It is just placing it perhaps in a better place. The approach that I have taken with these amendments, to separate out landlords and their 2170 representatives, and many of the amendments, it mirrors the approach that is taken in Scotland, where they have had landlords registration legislation in place since around 2002 and the Scottish legislation has been a very good point of reference and a very good source for a number of these proposals and changes. I hope Hon. Members can see the sense in this approach and will support the amendments that I am bringing today in this context.
______Hansard Extract Page 1 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
2175 Like I say, the vast majority of amendments I am bringing will flow from this very simple change to the long title of the Bill. So really, with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move the changes to the long title, amendments number 1 and 2:
Amendments to the long title 1. Page 17, line 1, after ‘landlords’ insert « and landlords’ representatives». 2. Page 17, line 2, after ‘landlords’ insert «, landlords’ representatives».
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Callister. 2180 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Baker. Mr Baker? 2185 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker – just coming off mute. Thank you very much, and I would like to start again by responding to the Hon. Member for Ramsey and also put on record my sincere thanks for his open and collaborative approach in bringing forward his amendments over the past three months, since the Second Reading, and also 2190 for sharing this intent with Hon. Members in advance of this sitting. Mr Speaker, the thrust of this Bill is to protect occupiers of rented dwellings. Both the Bill as introduced and the amendments that are being put forward by the Hon. Member for Ramsey today recognise the significant role that landlords’ representatives play in that process. This ranges from introducing would-be tenants to landlords, for example, through the management of 2195 the property and the liaison between landlords and their tenants. Both the Bill as introduced and the proposals being put forward by the Hon. Member ensure that a landlord’s representative may only act if he or she meets at least the minimum standards referred to in the Bill. The Bill as introduced requires the landlord to ensure that the representative meets those standards and to change the representative if he or she does not meet the standards. Hon. 2200 Members, Mr Speaker, Mr Hooper’s amendments will achieve the same outcome. The difference being that the evidence of the representative being of the required standard is in the formal representative’s registration, which will be a separate registration to that of the landlord. Either model will work. The Department would be able to achieve its aims of protecting tenants and improving rented housing standards equally by the Bill as introduced or by the Bill as amended in 2205 the manner advocated by my hon. friend. Mr Hooper clearly believes that his amendments will make the Bill more workable and in that he draws on his research and experience from the Scottish model. Whilst I am content with the Bill as drafted, I have seen nothing to suggest that Mr Hooper’s perspective is incorrect. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2210 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Baker. I call on Mr Hooper to reply to the debate on amendments 1 and 2 to the long title. Sorry, Mr Thomas. You just made it in time. Mr Thomas.
2215 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to the mover of the amendment for doing all of the research in Scotland and for coming forward with these proposals today. Can the Member just advise the extent to which he has engaged with the profession and the people who carry out this function in respect of these amendments, in case there is any other professionally informed opinion that might be relevant to hear in respect of the proposals before 2220 us today?
______Hansard Extract Page 2 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
As far as I am aware, Mr Hooper is very diligent and I believe he will have circulated it to some people, and obviously it has been on the Order Paper since Thursday, but I think as a general principle it is a good idea to make such a substantial change after engagement with the professionals, chartered surveyors, estate agents and so on of the like, to see if there are any 2225 issues that have arisen in Scotland that the Member has not discovered in his very diligent research. The second point is that even in the Member’s own words, as he was moving for these amendments, these 90 amendments to bring into force this change, he talked about there being a range of people engaged in this function of being a landlord representative. Obviously, this 2230 affects only 28% of the privately rented properties on the Island, 72% of them being directly managed by the owner themselves, as we know from the excellent Private Sector House Condition Survey. But at one end, we have estate agents. Well, obviously for years, for decades even – I think going back 50 years – the Office of Fair Trading has been involved in estate agent regulation and for about 25 years they have been trying to amend the Estate Agents Act unsuccessfully. Indeed, 2235 it was promised to us most recently as being due before the House of Keys in June 2020. So I wondered whether the Office of Fair Trading had had time to reflect on this change, especially in the context of estate agents having been mentioned and the Office of Fair Trading’s decade-long experience of dealing with this type of professional, these qualified people, with years of experience and lots of obligations to their clients. 2240 The third question is that landlord representatives … I am just imagining that conceivably public sector landlords, agricultural sector landlords and tourist sector landlords also have representatives. I wonder why a certain type of representatives when they are servicing a particular type of client should be covered, but not the other type. Could we not end up in a situation where we have different law applying to different people when they are carrying out the 2245 same function? We were just in the process of considering the Competition Bill and a very important part of that is that we treat people the same regardless of the nature of their ownership and nationality. I just wondered why it was the hon. mover of these amendments felt that landlord representatives needed to be registered differently when they were working for one type of client, rather than another type. 2250 There are just some initial questions to be going with. I know Mr Hooper has got a great respect for consultation, for engagement with experts and for treating the legislation process carefully and so I hope he can answer those questions. Thank you.
2255 The Speaker: Mr Hooper to reply to the debate.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister put it quite well when he said that the purpose of the Bill is to protect occupiers of dwellings, it is to protect tenants, whilst providing that proper, balanced regulatory 2260 regime for landlords and those who manage property on their behalf. The Minister is completely correct when he talks about the Bill, as introduced, would have placed the onus of legal responsibility on landlords to ensure that their representatives were up to scratch, as it were. The only real change that my amendments make is they move that onus away from an individual landlord and place it on the Department as a regulatory body, making it 2265 much more simple for landlords to determine if someone is fit and proper or not because there will be a register. They can quite simply just check the register to see if their proposed representative is on it or not, which I think, from an operational perspective, is a lot more straightforward than the complexities that the Bill as originally drafted would have resulted in. What this does not do, though, is take away the responsibility there for a landlord to ensure 2270 that they are appointing a representative who is registered to make sure that the landlord is still responsible for their own property. None of the amendments that I am bringing try and change that relationship in any way.
______Hansard Extract Page 3 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
In response to Mr Thomas’s questions, I have sent the amendments as drafted to the Landlords’ Association and to a representative of the RICS on the Island. Neither came back with 2275 any significant queries or concerns, or any queries or concerns at all, actually, in respect of the amendments, other than the long clause-by-clause assessment that I think has been circulated to all Members. I do not think I have received anything above and beyond that. I am not really sure where Mr Thomas was going with his views on the type of representative. I have not decided on the scope of the Bill. The scope of the Bill is very clearly set out to only relate 2280 to a certain type of property, a certain type of relationship, a certain type of landlord. I have not set out to alter the scope of the Bill in any way. All I have sought to do is to try and clarify and improve the process the Bill sets out. So if Mr Thomas has questions, queries and concerns around the scope of the Bill and whether it should include all those other types of landlords that he referenced, they are perfectly valid 2285 questions to ask, but they are not questions I am able to answer. I certainly did not set out to extend the scope of the Bill from its original remit. So with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
The Speaker: Thank you. 2290 I put the question that the amendments to the long title, amendments number 1 and 2 in your list of amendments, be approved. I will assume that that is approved, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. I call on Mr Baker to move clauses 1 and 2, please. 2295 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clauses 1 and 2 provide the short title of the Act and the commencement provisions, namely that the Act will come into operation by one or more appointed day orders at an appropriate time, following the announcement of Royal Assent to Tynwald. 2300 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 2305 The Speaker: Thank you. Now, if no Member wishes to speak – Oh, Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 2310 My understanding is that the Minister has made a huge commitment already, which is relevant to the commencement provision. The mover has actually stated that the Bill will not be brought into force until the regulations which will be made under it are accepted. I, in the past, when there is a Bill of this magnitude and of this complexity, for which the policy principles were not actually universally agreed, have put in a clause successfully whereby the Bill could not be brought into 2315 force as in-force legislation until the regulations have been made. I have not done that today. Obviously that would have lost, given the number of Members who will be voting for this vote because of their positions. But can the Minister make a clear commitment that he will keep his promise, which is that this Bill will not be made law that is in force until there has been much more detailed and much more extensive consultation about all of the technical aspects of this Bill, which 2320 would not be until after the general election, for instance. Can the Minister also confirm that he has noticed how valuable the extensive, publicised consultation has been for the Office of Fair Trading regarding the previous Competition Bill, whereby Mr Callister was making amendments which have been worked up very fully with members of the Law Society, the Chamber of Commerce, professionals involved, and so therefore
______Hansard Extract Page 4 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
2325 he needs to make a clear commitment the will not actually attempt to bring this piece of legislation into force until there has been much better and wider engagement with those who will be affected and the professionals involved? Thank you, Mr Speaker.
2330 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.
Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I concur with everything that the previous speaker, Mr Thomas has just stated. What I would like to ask … Well, I really want to make the House aware, and I am sure 2335 everybody has received an awful lot of correspondence/emails with regard to this. Obviously there are not many Bills that you get such interest in, and I think that the views of all individuals that have contacted various Members should be considered. But one of the biggest concerns was the fact that the regulations are coming later with regard to standards and, just really to reiterate what the previous speakers said, the Minister does really 2340 need to give some form of commitment today and state when he will start engagement on the regulations to make sure that people are involved in the standards coming forward. We are moving a Bill today which talks about standards, but the landlords are not aware of what these standards are to date, and I think that is quite a critical consideration for all of us. Legislation should be the best, and I think from the amount of amendments that we have got 2345 before us, it is quite clear that there are a lot of concerns, and perhaps the Bill was not quite ready to come before the Branches, with so many amendments in it. But I would like, if the Minister would not mind saying when the regulations will be put out for consultation. He must by now have an idea when that will be. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2350 The Speaker: I call on the mover, Mr Baker, to reply.
Mr Baker: Thank you very much, and I thank Mr Thomas and Ms Edge for their comments. As Mr Thomas says, I have already made it clear that the regulations and guidance that are 2355 needed to bring this Bill into force need to be put in place, and we will be going through an extensive consultation process on those. Clearly it is not in my gift to determine who actually responds to that consultation, but that consultation will be intended to solicit a wide range of responses from interested parties. The scheme will not become mandatory until those regulations are in place. There were a very 2360 early draft set of supporting regulations which were circulated previously during the consultation process that has been undertaken, but with a clear acknowledgement that those were very draft and a substantial amount of work was required to get us into final shape. They will be subject to consultation. They will also be subject to Tynwald approval. So that should provide the assurance that Hon. Members are looking for. 2365 I would highlight, whilst talking about this, that the Department’s intention is to bring forward a voluntary scheme prior to making it mandatory, and obviously that will be something for landlords to opt-in to, should they choose to do so. The comments from Ms Edge. I think she echoed Mr Thomas’s broad comments and also commented on the correspondence that I understand all Hon. Members, or the vast majority of 2370 Hon. Members, have received from landlords. And that is not surprising. This is a significant Bill. It is bringing this activity into a regulated framework and clearly that is a change for landlords. What we need to remember, Hon. Members, is that this Bill is necessary to protect those who actually do not have a significant voice in this process, and to improve our whole residential dwelling situation on the Island. So whilst most of the correspondence has been received, I 2375 believe, from landlords who would in all likelihood prefer not to be part of a regulated environment, there is the silent voice of the tenants who need this. Indeed, Members will recall
______Hansard Extract Page 5 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
correspondence from some of the third-sector organisations very much welcoming this direction of travel. In closing on this point, Mr Speaker, Ms Edge talked about the number of amendments, and 2380 she is absolutely right: there is a huge number of amendments to this Bill, and that is exactly endorsing what she has actually asked for. She says ‘the legislation to be the best that it can possibly be’. The Department heard the voice of the Keys at Second Reading and worked extensively; and I must pay tribute to the officers and the drafters who have worked exhaustively on this, and we have had tremendous engagement, particularly from Mr Hooper. Mrs Barber, in 2385 addition, has also brought forward a number of amendments, and there has been good engagement in the various briefings and dialogue behind the scenes through during this period. So I believe that the amended Bill absolutely fits the requirement that Ms Edge has outlined of having good quality legislation. But legislation is not going to please everybody and clearly the views that have been expressed by a number of people are from people who would either prefer 2390 for there not be any legislation in this space or for it to be drafted differently. But with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.
The Speaker: I put the question that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill, and I will presume that that is carried, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now please. No 2395 dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. Hon. Members, that seems like an appropriate time for us to take our lunch break. The House is suspended and will reconvene at 2.30. Thank you, Hon. Members
The House adjourned at 1.06 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.
Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill 2020 – Consideration of clauses continued
The Speaker: Fastyr mie, good afternoon, Hon. Members. 2400 We pick up our consideration of the Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill at clause 3, and I call on the Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Baker to move.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 3 defines terms used in the Bill and cross-refers to terms that are defined elsewhere in 2405 the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 3 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
2410 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, please. 2415 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 it is. Just for clarity, Hon. Members, I will go through all of these one at a time.
______Hansard Extract Page 6 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Amendment 3 updates the definition of ‘key officer’. This amendment is specifically to tidy up 2420 a potential issue whereby the original, as-drafted definition encompassed people who perhaps were not intended to be encompassed when the Bill was drafted. The amended definition, instead, applies the definition of ‘key officer’ to those in positions of significant influence or control over a particular association; for example, directors, secretaries or similar officers or people in similar positions. The logic behind this change is that, as the Department of 2425 Infrastructure will be acting in the capacity as a regulator, it would make sense that it regulates the governance and management structures of any corporate vehicles that fall under the categories of landlord or landlord’s representative, as opposed to trying to regulate every single individual involved within a firm that may be relevant. This is a similar approach to that as adopted by other regulatory bodies on the Isle of Man. 2430 Amendment number 4 is in connection with the change to the long title of the Bill, encompassing the changes to landlords’ representatives. It simply omits the words ‘a resident’, and ‘who is’ from the definition of a landlord’s representative. This is because the definition of a landlord’s representative is moved to elsewhere in the Bill; I think it is amendment number 22 further down the piece, but essentially it moves it out from the definitions and into a separate 2435 area of the Bill. Amendment number 5 is a very straightforward amendment, as the Bill now be seeking to regulate landlords’ representatives in a more comprehensive way. The definition of minimum standards has been extended to also encompass minimum standards that would apply to a representative, so those words have simply been added to the definition. 2440 The same goes for amendment number 6, personal conduct requirements, just simply adding the words ‘landlord’s representative’ into that definition, and number 8 as well; that is exactly the same thing, adding in ‘landlords’ representatives’ to the clause. So those last few amendments are all in connection with the change to the way the representatives will be dealt with by the Bill. The only one of the amendments that is not is the definition of ‘key officer’ that is changing to 2445 align it more with the best regulatory practice. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments number 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8:
Amendments to clause 3 3. Page 18, lines 15 to 19, for the definition of “key officer” substitute — «“key officer”, in the case of a relevant landlord or a landlord’s representative that is an association undertaking any property management activity, means a person who is a director, secretary or other similar officer of the association or who is otherwise in the senior management of, or in control of, or has significant influence over, the association;». 4. Page 18, line 23, omit “a resident and who is”. 5. Page 18, lines 37 to 39 and page 19, lines 1 to 4, for the definition of “minimum standards” substitute — «“minimum standards” means the minimum standards required of a relevant landlord, a landlord’s representative and a rented dwelling set out in regulations made under section 23(1) (minimum standards), and a reference to the minimum standards in connection with a relevant landlord or a landlord’s representative, or to the minimum standards in connection with a rented dwelling, means the minimum standards required of a relevant landlord, a landlord’s representative or a rented dwelling (as the case may be) as specified in those regulations;». 6. Page 19, lines 10 to 15, for the definition of “personal conduct requirements” substitute — «“personal conduct requirements” are the standards of personal conduct that a relevant landlord is required to meet under section 11(1)(c) (registration requirements) and that a landlord’s representative is required to meet under section [NC3(2)], as determined by the Department in accordance with section 16 (personal conduct requirements) and 17 (personal conduct requirements: further investigation);». 8 Page 19, line 37, after “landlords” insert «and landlords’ representatives».
______Hansard Extract Page 7 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The Speaker: Thank you very much. I need a seconder for that.
2450 Mr Callister: I am happy to second that, Mr Speaker – it is Rob Callister.
The Speaker: Mr Callister, you have an amendment of your own, so you will not be able to second this one.
2455 Mr Robertshaw: I beg to second, Mr Speaker – this is Chris Robertshaw.
The Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr Robertshaw. Mr Callister, you have amendment number 7.
2460 Mr Callister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move an amendment to clause 3, the purpose of which is to make it clear that the definition of ‘public sector dwellings’ includes all public sector dwellings, including public sector housing that is generally regarded as sheltered accommodation – that is, housing where there is a warden present or housing that is specifically adapted or is managed in a particular way to make 2465 it suitable accommodation for persons with physical challenges or learning difficulties. To be clear, no public sector dwellings are to be registered, but sheltered accommodation made available by the private sector is not to be automatically excluded from the requirement to be registered. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:
Amendment to clause 3 7. Page 19, lines 25 to 35, for the definition of “public sector dwelling” substitute — «“public sector dwelling” means a dwelling provided under a lease, licence or other agreement (whether or not the dwelling is managed or adapted for occupation by a particular class of person) by — (a) the Department; (b) a local authority; (c) local authorities acting jointly; or (d) a local authority acting jointly with the Department, as part of the statutory functions of the Department or the local authority with respect to the provision of housing accommodation;».
2470 The Speaker: I need a seconder for Mr Callister’s motion. Mr Boot, is that a volunteer?
Mr Boot: Mr Speaker, I am happy to volunteer to second.
2475 The Speaker: That is very kind of you. You know you can turn your video off! (Laughter) (Mr Boot: Okay!) Thank you very much. Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2480 There is quite a lot that is defined in this interpretation section and I believe it would be very helpful to put on the Hansard some questions and following statements about some of the things that are defined, so we can all understand it, and people who come after us can understand it. The first one is that the Department is defined as the Department of Infrastructure, and as Mr Hooper has just said, the Department is becoming a regulator of private housing that it has 2485 not had before – a function, in fact, that has always been the function of local authorities,
______Hansard Extract Page 8 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Department of Environment, before that DoLGE. In fact, it is becoming the senior partner because it is the Department of Infrastructure that actually authorises, according to the definition of authorised officer, the members of DEFA, the officers in DEFA, who actually carry out the function of whatever happens after the registration. 2490 So I just wanted to understand that that is the policy intention that is clearly in this and to ask a question consequent on that, because obviously Tynwald has never debated that policy change to make the DoI much greater involved in housing regulation. So my question is, after all this is finished and this Bill becomes law, will we have two, rather than just one, sets of people in silos looking after environmental health issues? Will DEFA carry on 2495 with the responsibility of actually regulating the environmental health of the public sector dwellings, whereas the DoI, perhaps using officers from DEFA, will then take on responsibility for the new scoped regime inside this Bill? Have we moved from one Government to a new set of silos and are the local authorities fully aware – and have they responded as such – that they are fully aware that decades of practice are being transferred away from them through things like 2500 clause 29 later on in the Bill? And secondly, in terms of the Department of Infrastructure, are we all fully aware that the registry – we have a Central Registry now that has lots of functions to do with registering parts of housing and various functions in respect of housing – is actually not involved in this process? We have made the decision to actually set up a new registry a while back; even a couple of years back, 2505 we were moving functions over to the Central Registry. Now, we are creating a new registry outside that function. And finally, I just wanted to know the extent to which the Department of Infrastructure has actually involved itself in terms of the process of ‘tell us once’. As I established beyond doubt on 3rd November in the House of Keys, lots of people already have the names and correspondence 2510 addresses of the landlords of flats. I asked about 6 Mona Street and 29 Tynwald Street. So when we have this new, up-to-date, modern register of landlords for this purpose, we will not be updating all the other people who have the information about these landlords, according to this piece of legislation. There will not be any exchange of information, as far as I can see with the other six or seven data sets that already hold this basic landlord information. There would have 2515 been another way to approach this, which is actually to have a ‘tell us once’ approach for basic landlord information. I am always very impressed when I go into Douglas Borough Council; I can already see all the information that I am allowed to see by law and they have it efficiently filed, and I get the impression that that process is not integrated into this. 2520 Another definition in this interpretation section is minimum standards and they come up further when we get to clause 23(1) about minimum standards. Obviously, the Department – because if this is policy decision, it is not a drafting decision, it is not something that the legal officers can help us with – the policy decision has been taken that we might potentially have different minimum standards for different types of houses, and different types of flats, and 2525 different types of multiple occupation situations and different uses of those houses, which is clearly contrary to established Tynwald policy. So recommendation 5, back for the Bill Committee last time, was that standards should be defined in a Schedule to the Bill, and that they should be universal across all the different types of houses to make for simple, effective legislation and simple, effective, one public service and carrying out those processes. 2530 Now, personal conduct requirements are also defined in this interpretation section, and then then they are used later on in clause 11, clause 16 and so on. Obviously there are people involved in the other sectors and so we might end up, we probably will end up, with a situation where people carrying out the functions of registration and regulation and enforcement have personal conduct requirements imposed on them in one sector but not in the other sector, and that 2535 potentially could be politically fraught. Well then, we move on in this interpretation section to define ‘landlord’, to define ‘licence’, to define ‘lease’, and in clause 62 later on, we talk about the landlord and tenant laws and other laws
______Hansard Extract Page 9 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
are not affected unless they are expressly provided for in this Act. We can come to that later on when we get to clause 62. So, an example of an express provision is clause 23, where we basically 2540 say that, despite any provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, applying to a relevant landlord, regulations made under this piece of legislation will provide something different than what is in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. I would like the Minister to comment on whether or not it has been fully thought through, all of the potential conflicts between laws in the decades-old landlord and tenant legislation, even 2545 housing legislation, and are we not in danger of putting a registration process and a regulatory process in front of the law and the courts, which is always a very dangerous thing to do? It is a precedent that should not normally be followed. There is also the concept of landlord’s representative, property management activity and key officer, as amended by Mr Hooper, defined in this interpretation section. Tynwald-established 2550 policy is obviously not being adhered to in this respect, as I pointed out earlier, because now the Department of Infrastructure is entering into the space that has traditionally been left to the Office of Fair Trading in terms of estate agents and property management more generally. So recommendation 3 that was approved in Tynwald is that the Bill that came forward should basically be linked into the Bill that has been in Government Programme for a great number of 2555 years in respect of estate agents and then around that was hinted other aspects of property management. So can the Minister comment on whether or not we are in danger of having different definitions in the existing and extant legislation that govern these activities and those that are being introduced in this Bill today? And then, as I begin to move to a close, we have, as helpfully explained by Mr Callister just 2560 now, quite lengthy definitions of ‘private dwelling’, ‘public sector dwellings’, and I am particularly intrigued by the housing association aspect of all of this and also intrigued by the amendments that we have been making to the Competition Bill about treating the public sector and the private sector equally. I just wanted the Minister to comment on what his policy was towards the establishment of housing associations and the criteria that would be taken into account under the 2565 1976 law, which has not been used very much, admittedly, in the Isle of Man because we have had a local authority tradition of providing housing for rent, especially affordable housing. But it seems to me very interesting, and it would be absolutely wrong if the Department of Infrastructure, when it is exercising its powers in respect of housing associations, ended up being the first person challenged under the new Competition Act when it comes into force, as it is 2570 currently that the person is being challenged under the Fair Trading Act 1996 to do with unfair competition between the public and the private sector. So with that, Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, I would like to leave the case that I have made and actually hope that the Minister can answer the questions in his summing up.
2575 The Speaker: Thank you. Next up, Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.
Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mine is just a really quick one with regard to the registration requirements, now that the 2580 landlord’s representative has also been there and what the additional costs are going to be with regard to the representatives. A number of these people get support from friends, etc. to look after their properties if they, perhaps, have to go off the Island. It is just, really, a quick answer from the Minister if he knows where is that cost going to lie, and also with regard to retaining the registers and details of the individuals for periods of time if 2585 it is just literally a stand-in for one application.
The Speaker: Thank you. Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw to speak to Mr Callister’s amendment.
______Hansard Extract Page 10 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
2590 Mr Robertshaw: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I wanted to speak more generally. I withdraw for the moment.
The Speaker: Well, this is the only opportunity you are going to get at clause 3, Mr Robertshaw, so – 2595 Mr Robertshaw: Okay, well, all right then. My question to the Minister, then, relates to the definition of ‘licence’. I will read this:
“licence” means a licence, whether or not in writing, to occupy a rented dwelling, and a reference to a “licensee” is to be construed accordingly;
What is the meaning and value of a licence that is not even in writing? I would be interested to explore that with the Minister a little bit, please, Mr Speaker. 2600 Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you. Now that we are through to the end of the speaking list, I will revert first to Mr Callister to comment on his amendment. 2605 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will leave it up to the Minister to define the role being played by DEFA, the role to be played by DOI, which is one of the questions that was raised by my colleague from Douglas Central, Mr Thomas. 2610 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Hooper to respond to your amendment.
2615 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am not sure I heard any comments in relation to the changes I am proposing to make, so I really have nothing else to add. Thank you very much.
2620 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Baker to reply to the debate on the clause.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker; and thanks to all those who have contributed. Mr Speaker, this Bill sits underneath the overarching Housing Act, and I can also confirm in 2625 response to Mr Thomas’s question, under the authorised officer aspects, the Department of Infrastructure or DEFA is covered. DEFA’s officers already operate as Environmental Health officers and inspectors and DEFA have also been involved in the formulation of the Bill. Standards already exist in other pieces of legislation and the aim of this Bill is not to override existing landlord and tenant housing legislation, but to complement that in this important sector. 2630 Mr Thomas talks about information sharing and how it was going to be done and the information regulations, I am advised, would allow appropriate sharing of information, but of course that is going to obviously have to be addressed on an item-by-item basis, through the appropriate channels. In terms of costs for the landlords’ representatives, the intention is to keep those costs very 2635 low. Hon. Members will note that landlords have a charge of £50 registration and £10 per property, and that covers five years’ worth of registration. The intention for landlord registrations is certainly to be no higher than that, and we may well be able to get some efficiencies in terms
______Hansard Extract Page 11 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
of many of the landlord representatives may act for multiple landlords, so it may be possible to make economies against that cost, but they are not going to be particularly onerous to anybody 2640 involved. The question from the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw, around licences: licences can actually be created sometimes unknowingly on the part of a tenant and are not always in writing, so we do need to bring them into the terms of the Bill. If it got to any sort of legal action, the level of proof that would be required would be for any other similar types of 2645 matters to prove that a licence existed. One of the things that I have discovered through this process is that the arrangements between landlords and tenants at times are incredibly informal and that can lead to problems which are not beneficial to either the landlord or tenant. So, it is certainly a hope of mine that through this process as we start this journey of addressing and regulating this sector, we end up with more 2650 appropriate arrangements in place to increase the transparency of these relationships and avoid issues that arise, not through intent, but purely through differences of opinion or lack of clarity. I can also confirm, Mr Speaker, that irrespective of the tenure of the properties, enforcement will still sit with DEFA. Just sweeping up the other bits and pieces that were mentioned: Mr Thomas, again, mentioned 2655 the principles, which I know he is a strong advocate of, of tell us once and of making effective use of existing mechanisms within the public service. Of course, that is an intention that we need to and intend to reflect in the implementation of this. We know there is an amount of work to move forward once this Bill is approved, but of course we are going to look to do it in the most effective and administratively slick manner that we can. 2660 Mr Thomas also took us on a bit of a whistle-stop tour of actual legislation, pending legislation and potential legislation, in terms of his concerns about how this would all fit together. Clearly, we are bringing forward a Bill to do a defined purpose here. It has been drafted through the good offices of the Attorney General’s Chambers, and in my view is fit for purpose. Like any other piece of legislation, it will sit within the suite of legislation and will need to evolve as other pieces of 2665 legislation change. So if the Estate Agents Bill was to come in in due course, then clearly that would need to sit around this, but I would of course point out that landlord representatives do not need to be estate agents or, indeed, any other form of professional; they just need to be suitable representatives for the landlord. The final point from Mr Thomas was around housing associations and clearly, that is an 2670 evolving area we have. We do have housing associations on the Island. Potentially we may have more in future, depending on the Government’s housing policy direction, and of course those will need to be worked into the legislative framework going forward. So, I do not think that that is pertinent to this particular Bill, but it is something that is right to flag for the future. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move. 2675 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Baker. Now, I did not hear any particular objections to the amendments, so I will put Mr Hooper’s amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 for the approval of the House – [A phone rings.] and Mr Baker can get his very important phone call while we do this. I will presume that Hon. Members are in 2680 agreement with that unless they indicate dissent which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are carried. I put to you next amendment number 7 in the name of Mr Callister. I will presume that that amendment carries unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, I put to you clause 3, as amended, that stand part of the Bill, 2685 and I will presume that that motion carries unless any Member indicates otherwise. No dissent having been indicated, the motion therefore carries. We turn then to clause 4, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
______Hansard Extract Page 12 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
2690 Clause 4 specifically defines property management activity for the purposes of the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 4 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
2695 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. Amendment number 9, Mr Callister. 2700 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move an amendment to clause 4, the purpose of which is to clarify that property management activities include all activities listed in clause 4(2) that are undertaken by a landlord or a landlord’s representative in connection with the occupancy or proposed occupancy by 2705 someone and where that activity requires direct contact with the occupier or a member of the occupier’s household. The reason for this small amendment is that there is a misconception that ‘property management activity’ is referred to in clause 4(1), where the activities are more particularly described in clause 4(2). This minor amendment makes it clear that all activities in clause 4(2) and 2710 property management activities may only be undertaken either by the landlord or the landlord’s representative in the circumstances set out in clause 4(1). To be clear, Mr Speaker, the management activities relate to activities undertaken or arranged by the landlord or the landlord’s representative. This Bill does not require a tradesman undertaking work on a property at the request of the landlord or the landlord’s representative to 2715 be registered under the Act. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:
Amendment to clause 4 9. Page 20 — (a) line 36, after ‘an activity’, insert «described in subsection (2) which is undertaken»; and (b) line 37, omit ‘undertaken’.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Boot.
2720 Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. Amendment number 10, Mrs Barber, please.
2725 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I first start by declaring an interest in that I am a landlord, as declared under my Register of Member’s Interests. I beg to move amendment number 10, which makes an alteration to clause 4 by removing section (1)(a). Clause 4(1) as drafted is contradictory when read in conjunction with clause 2730 37(2)(a), as if a person other than the landlord or landlord representative undertakes property management activity, then it is not a property management activity as defined, so therefore would not be an offence. This amendment seeks to complement those drafted already and resolve this current technical incompatibility. I beg to move the amendment, Mr Speaker:
______Hansard Extract Page 13 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Amendment to clause 4 10. Page 20, line 37, omit subsection (1)(a). Renumber subsequent paragraphs.
2735 The Speaker: Thank you. Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mrs Corlett.
Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second the amendment proposed by Mrs Barber.
2740 The Speaker: Thank you very much. The clause and the amendments having been moved and seconded, if nobody wishes to speak, I will ask Mr Callister if he wishes to say anything on Mrs Barber’s amendment.
Mr Callister: Nothing to add, Mr Speaker. 2745 The Speaker: I ask Mr Baker to sum up regarding the clause.
Mr Baker: Thank you very much. I thank Mr Callister and Mrs Barber for their amendments, and I am happy to support them. 2750 Thank you. With that, I beg to move.
The Speaker: Thank you. I put first amendment number 10 in the name of Mrs Barber. I will presume that that motion carries unless any Member indicates otherwise. No dissent having been indicated, that motion 2755 therefore carries. Amendments 9 and 10 being mutually exclusive that means that amendment number 9 falls, as they cross over each other. So I will put to you clause 4 as amended by Mrs Barber’s amendment. Again, I will assume – Sorry, Mr Baker, you wish to interject? No? Okay.
2760 Mr Baker: Yes, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for that. I just wanted clarification as to the reason those two were mutually exclusive?
The Speaker: Certainly … well, inasmuch as in line 37, where it omits the word ‘undertaken’, you cannot just omit the word ‘undertaken’ if the whole subsection has been omitted. 2765 Mr Baker: Okay.
The Speaker: So having approved Mrs Barber’s amendment, you cannot then change the word of something that you have removed. (Interjection by the Secretary) Yes, so 9(a), sorry, is still live, 2770 but 9(b) is not. So thank you – Yes?
Mr Baker: So does that mean we can –
The Speaker: We will vote on whether you accept 9(a) also. 2775 Mr Baker: Okay. Thank you very much for that helpful clarification. Thank you.
The Speaker: So putting to you then amendment number 9, part (a) only, in the name of Mr Callister, I will presume that that is agreed unless any Member indicates dissent. That is 2780 agreed.
______Hansard Extract Page 14 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Now putting clause 4, as amended by amendments 9(a) and 10. No dissent having been indicated, that motion is carried. Clause 4, as amended by amendments 9(a) and 10 stands part of the Bill. I hope that is nice and clear. Clause 5, Mr Baker. 2785 Mr Baker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Clause 5 provides a power for the definitions in clauses 3 and 4 to be amended by order with the approval of Tynwald. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 5 stands part of the Bill. 2790 The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
2795 The Speaker: Thank you. If no Member wishes to speak, I will put the question that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I will assume that motion is carried unless anyone indicates otherwise. No dissent having been indicated, clause 5 stands part of the Bill. Clause 6 and the Schedule, Mr Baker. 2800 Mr Baker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Clause 6 allows the Department to establish and maintain a register of relevant landlords. The register must contain the information specified in Part A of the Schedule to the Bill and may contain the information in Part B of the Schedule. The Schedule to the Bill may be amended by 2805 order by the Department with the approval of Tynwald. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 6 and the Schedule stand part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
2810 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. Now, turning to Mr Hooper to move amendments 11 to 13 and 145, please.
2815 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 11, 12 and 13 are simply including landlords’ representatives in the relevant clauses alongside landlords so that the register and the registration would apply to both. So really, the amendment is very straightforward, following on from the change to the long title earlier on. In connection with amendment 145, which is amending the Schedule, it is exactly the same 2820 principle. It is simply added into the Schedule information in respect of a landlord’s representative that would be required to be contained inside the register. Against, it is a mirror of the existing provisions. With that, I think, Mr Speaker, I have just described all the amendments that I am about to move. (The Speaker: Indeed.) The original intention was Mr Callister to second these. 2825 Unfortunately, Mr Callister is moving his own amendments. So I would very much appreciate another seconder stepping into the breach. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendments 11, 12, 13 and 145:
Amendments to clause 6 11. Page 21, line 28, after ‘landlord’; insert «and landlords’ representatives». 12. Page 21, lines 29 to 30, for subsection (1) substitute — «(1) The Department must establish and maintain a register containing entries relating to —
______Hansard Extract Page 15 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
(a) relevant landlords registered under this Act; and (b) landlords’ representatives registered under this Act.». 13. Page 21, line 34, after “landlord” insert « or a landlord’s representative».
Amendment to Schedule 145. Page 66, line 4, after paragraph 1 insert — «2. Information in respect of a landlord’s representative An entry in the register concerning a landlord’s representative must record the following — (a) the name and correspondence address, email address and telephone number of the landlord’s representative; (b) if the landlord’s representative is an individual, the landlord’s representative’s principal residential address; (c) if the landlord’s representative is a legal entity or association— (i) the address of the landlord’s representative’s registered or principal office and (if different) its established place of business in the Island; and (ii) the names of the landlord’s representative’s directors or members (where its affairs are managed by its members) and key officers; (d) the relevant landlord’s representative’s registration number; (e) the date of initial registration; (f) the date of each subsequent grant of registration, if applicable; (g) where registration has expired, the date of expiry; (h) where an application for registration has been refused — (i) the fact and date of refusal; (ii) the reasons for the refusal; and (iii) whether the refusal was appealed against and the outcome of any appeal; (i) where registration has been revoked under section [NC4] (revocation of registration: landlord’s representative) — (i) the fact and date of the revocation; (ii) the reasons for the revocation; and (iii) whether the decision to revoke registration was appealed against and the outcome of any appeal; (j) the date of any changes in the details of the register and the date on which the Department was notified of such change; (k) details of any notices issued to the relevant landlord’s representative, including the date of the notice and the date on which the notice takes effect; and (l) details of any appeals against decisions under this Act in relation to the landlord’s representative, or any of the relevant landlord’s rented dwellings, and the outcome of any such appeals.». Renumber subsequent paragraphs and cross references throughout.
Mr Robertshaw: Mr Speaker? Chris Robertshaw. May I second?
2830 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Robertshaw. You can and at this point, if you wish to speak to any other part of the clause, now would be the time.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you; no thank you. 2835 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Callister to move amendments 14, 142, 143, 144, 146 and 147, please.
Mr Callister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker.
______Hansard Extract Page 16 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
2840 I beg to move an amendment to clause 6, the purpose of which is to reinforce the Department’s intention to hold the register electronically. The amendment as drafted provides more weight to the digital-by-default philosophy. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment and clauses standing in my name:
Amendment to clause 6: 14. Page 22, lines 1 and 2, for subsection (4) substitute — «(4) The Department must keep the register in electronic form, where practicable, and may keep it in any other manner the Department considers appropriate.».
Amendments to Schedule 142. Page 65, line 7, after ‘address’ insert «, email address and telephone number». 143. Page 65, line 15, for ‘officers)’ substitute «officers». 144. Page 66 — (a) line 2, omit ‘and’; (b) line 4, after paragraph 1(m) insert — «and (n) details of any appeals against any other decisions under this Act in relation to the relevant landlord and the outcome of any such appeals.». 146. Page 67, lines 1 to 3, omit subparagraph (d). Renumber following subparagraphs. 147. Page 67, after line 25, insert — «4. Information on register entry for a relevant landlord or landlord’s representative An entry in the register concerning a relevant landlord may record the following — The name and correspondence address of any person other than the relevant landlord who has an estate or interest in the rented dwelling.».
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Callister. 2845 Just checking that you are moving the amendments to the Schedule at this point as well, 142 to 147?
Mr Callister: That is correct, Mr Speaker. Apologies.
2850 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
2855 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, the clause, the Schedule and the amendments having been proposed and seconded, I call on Mr Thomas to speak.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2860 The first point is just to pick up on the GDPR point which we have been told will be reflected in implementation. Later on in the Bill there is a clause about how the GDPR prevails and the data protection legislation of the Isle of Man’s prevails. But can the Minister clarify in his summing up whether or not what is specified in this clause about how the register is actually compliant with data protection legislation? Obviously overnight we had a comment from officers raising that very 2865 point as being a point that was worthy of consideration. Also, given that the Minister mentioned that I was a fan of ‘tell us once’, can the Minister put it on the record that what he means is by giving this data you are not giving permission automatically for your tax records, your rates records, your records with the Fire Service, all the
______Hansard Extract Page 17 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
other people who have basic landlord correspondence information to have that automatically? 2870 What you are talking about is proceeding through a regime of consent eventually to do this, even though this whole process could have been done in a different way. The next point is about the mention of the DoI doing all of this and taking responsibility for the Landlord (Private Registration) Bill under the housing Acts. That is something that the Minister mentioned 10 to 15 minutes ago. By the end of this clause, in his summing up, can the Minister 2875 give me the precise reference in the housing Act that basically gives permission for the DoI to set up this register? That might be helpful later on, and we need to clarify exactly what the scope in the legislation is for this sort of involvement by the DoI, it seems to me. Certainly, in terms of this huge transfer of housing policy responsibility that has not been debated in Tynwald. Admittedly, back in 2014, the function was transferred to the Department of 2880 Infrastructure after Mr Robertshaw lost a little squabble he had about keeping housing as a social function, and obviously previously it had been linked with local government in DOLGE. But to me, it would be very helpful to understand exactly where it was that Tynwald signed up to this massive change in policy regarding housing policy responsibility. I will not be speaking about a great many of the clauses. I am making some quite general points 2885 that will be considered. The first general point I have got is that people are supporting this legislation, it seems to me, in large part because we have an issue with 4.4% of tenants having problems with the housing in which they live. Ninety-five per cent of tenants in the private rented sector quite clearly told the consultants engaged by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture to look at the condition of private housing in the Isle of Man that they either had a 2890 ‘good’ or a ‘fair’ relationship with their landlord, and also that they were happy with the condition of the home in which they were living while they were renting that property. Also, it is quite clear from the evidence, as in the Answer that DEFA provided in August 2020 in a Written Answer to my Question, that there has not really been a lot of difficulty with finding out who the landlords are in respect of properties. So what DEFA actually said in response to my 2895 Question back in August 2020 was that:
Having contact information for landlords would be helpful in allowing cases to be addressed more effectively.
So this is a challenge for the Minister that I hope he would answer today, which is has there been any occasion last year, the year before, the year before that, when there has actually been a difficulty of exercising the rights in respect of the huge amounts of registration requirements and the standards of rented property? Has there actually been an issue in finding out who is 2900 responsible as a landlord in those three years? It might be that we are actually telling people that we are going to solve a problem, the fact that £20 million or thereabouts – and I am estimating from the fact that the sort of figure in that Private Sector House Condition Survey is a total bill of £70 million that needs to be found to rectify the issues and the proportion of private sector rented accommodation is roughly a quarter and it 2905 seems like there are slightly more issues in that sector than in the owned sector; so therefore, that is where my £20 million is from. Can the Minister provide any evidence that this Landlord Registration Bill will actually address any of the issues in getting £20 million spent on that problem that people are welcoming this legislation because they think it will deal with that problem? That leads on to my third general observation at this stage, which is the first clause considering 2910 the whole process of registration. Can the Minister confirm my understanding that there is no published impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis of the implication of this Bill? I am hoping that one has been completed and we have thought through what the implications will be on the housing market, house prices, the amount of space that is available for renting in the future, but I am at a loss to find the detailed impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis that has to 2915 accompany legislation, especially such complex, transformational legislation as this. Also, numbers have been bandied about that I would hope that the Minister could take this as an opportunity to confirm. So I hear it bandied about that the landlords get 6% return on their
______Hansard Extract Page 18 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
capital invested in private rented capital. I hear it bandied about that they also expect to get capital gains. Can the Minister take this as an opportunity to actually verify the source of that 2920 information and also the veracity of that information? I am hoping that sort of thing has been covered in the impact assessment that must have been done if we are going to comply with normal practice that Government follows for bringing forward major pieces of legislation. Finally, it can be seen that what we are doing here is we are collecting money off people to set up a bureaucratic process that is not actually going to achieve the purpose that has been 2925 presented that it is going to achieve. I have got absolutely no problem with the officers in DoI working on this. They are doing a heroic job satisfying social and political expectations to do something, but it is not right to set up a new bureaucracy in a new place without any direct experience of this in the past just to be seen to be doing something, particularly in an election year. 2930 Basically, this is a complex Bill that will affect a multi-million pound sector, lots of private individuals, and we are considering it during a lockdown, in Teams, when we could easily have come back in two or three weeks’ time to consider this properly on the floor of the House of Keys. I wrote that a week or so ago to the Minister and was dismissed. I am basically saying that we all need to understand the seriousness of the legislation that is before us and how it might have a 2935 huge impact, not in the way that is currently intended or envisaged. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and Hon. Members.
The Speaker: No other Member having indicated a desire to speak, I will go back up through the people who moved amendments. 2940 Mr Callister first.
Mr Callister: Nothing further from me, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
2945 The Speaker: Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: No, thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I apologise if I do not respond to an issue that is raised, but I struggle to find anything in what was said that actually related to the clause we are discussing. 2950 The Speaker: Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, I am really encouraged to hear the response from my hon. friend from Ramsey because 2955 I thought it was maybe me being a little bit defensive under the tirade of verbosity from Mr Thomas yet again. I understood, Mr Speaker, we are in the clauses stage of the Bill, having gone through Second Reading back in December. I also was under the impression we were on clause 6, which I am not sure has much to do with the vast majority of what Mr Thomas talked about there. 2960 But trying to pick some sort of sense out of what he said, clearly the Department is going to ensure that the arrangements it puts in place here are compliant with data protection legislation. Clearly the collection of data for this purpose does not give carte blanche to collect all the other information to do with people’s personal data that Mr Thomas implied earlier. It is about collecting the information that is needed to make this Bill work. 2965 It is quite clear that the Hon. Member does not believe in the purpose of this Bill and seems to think it is not required – but it is. We are taking it through this Hon. House; this Hon. House will decide whether it feels that this legislation is required or not. But as the Minister for this Department, I am adamant that this is required and that it is a fundamental piece of bringing the Isle of Man into the 21st century in terms of the rented accommodation sector in the Isle of Man.
______Hansard Extract Page 19 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
2970 As the Hon. Member for Ramsey said in the Second Reading stage, the Isle of Man lags way behind the rest of the British Isles in terms of having any form of regulation and protection around tenants, and that actually, the debate should not be about why we are bringing this forward, it should be about why we have not brought it forward before now. So with that, Mr Speaker, I am not going to comment on figures of £20 million and ‘95% of a 2975 sample said’, I am not going to try and identify the source or the veracity of figures that Mr Thomas has quoted at me around 6% return on capital and capital gains. I am simply going to move forward and advocate to this Hon. House that this Bill is absolutely required. If anybody has any concerns about this not being sat in the right part of Government, then I am sure that as part of the wider approach to housing policy going forward that is a matter that 2980 the Council of Ministers and can consider, along with the Minister for Policy and Reform who is leading, as Mr Thomas knows, the workstream on housing policy with the integrated National Housing Strategy. But at the moment this sits with the Department of Infrastructure. We have got a choice of doing something or doing nothing. Unlike the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, I believe in getting something done. That is why we are pressing ahead with this Bill. 2985 With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
The Speaker: I put to you first amendments 11, 12, 13 and 145 in the name of Mr Hooper. I will presume that those amendments are agreed, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated that therefore carries. 2990 Putting to you next amendments 14, 142, 143, 144, 146 and 147 in the name of Mr Callister. I will presume that they are approved unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, those amendments therefore carry. Putting to you then clause 6 and the Schedule, as amended. I will presume that that carries unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been 2995 indicated, that motion therefore carries. Clause 7, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 7 provides the requirement for a landlord and each rented dwelling to be registered 3000 with the Department. It also provides for periods during which the requirement to be registered is not contravened by a relevant landlord. Not being registered where it is a requirement to be, and without reasonable excuse, is an offence. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 7 stands part of the Bill.
3005 The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 3010 Amendment number 15, Mr Callister.
Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move an amendment to clause 7, the purpose of which is to remove the custodial element of the penalties and also to reduce the maximum fine to the equivalent of similar 3015 legislation. It has always been the case that this is a matter for the courts to decide the penalty, though it is not easily understood at times. Removing the court’s power to impose the custodial sentence is reflective of the representations made to the Department and it will result in a more proportional response. 3020 Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:
______Hansard Extract Page 20 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Amendment to clause 7: 15. Page 22, line 13, for ‘6 months’ custody and a fine of 5 times’, substitute «a fine of 4 times».
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 3025 The Speaker: Thank you. Amendment number 16, Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 3030 Amendment number 16 –again, very straightforward. The clause makes reference to another clause in the Bill, and that clause is headed ‘registration’. This is just substituting ‘registration: relevant landlords’ to make it clear that the clause is referencing a landlord registration as opposed to a landlord’s representative’s registration. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendment number 16:
Amendment to clause 7: 16. Page 22, line 17, for ‘registration’ substitute «registration: relevant landlords».
3035 The Speaker: Thank you. Dr Allinson.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second the amendment from Mr Hooper and reserve my remarks. 3040 The Speaker: Thank you. No indication that any Member wishes to speak to clause 7. In which case, I will put the question that amendment 15 in the name of Mr Callister be approved, and I will assume that motion carries, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent 3045 having been indicated, that motion carries. Amendment 16 in the name of Mr Hooper. I will presume that carries unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. Putting to you clause 7, as amended by amendments 15 and 16. I presume that motion is 3050 carried unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. That motion therefore carries. New clause 1, Mr Hooper. Amendment 17. Mr Hooper, are you ready to move new clause 1?
Mr Hooper: Apologies, Mr Speaker; yes, I am. 3055 New clause 1, amendment number 17 – again, very straightforward, Mr Speaker, Hon. Members. This includes a mirrored provision for landlords’ representatives to the one that already exists in respect of landlords. So that clause we have just approved relates to the requirement of a relevant landlord to be registered, this clause is the one that would require a landlord’s representative to be registered and has the according element of that. So this is the first part, I 3060 suppose, of the clauses that were approved in terms of that change to the long title. A very straightforward amendment, Mr Speaker. In principle, I beg to move amendment number 17, new clause 1:
Insertion of new clause NC1 17. Page 22, line 36, after clause 7 insert —
______Hansard Extract Page 21 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
«NC1 Requirement for a relevant landlord’s representative to be registered (1) A person must not act as a landlord’s representative in respect of a rented dwelling unless the person is — (a) registered with the Department as a landlord’s representative; and (b) registered in respect of the rented dwelling, in accordance with this Part, unless an exception under section [8(11)(b)] (exceptions to the requirement to be registered) applies. (2) A landlord’s representative who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence. Maximum penalty (summary) —a fine of 4 times level 5 on the standard scale. ». Renumber subsequent sections and cross references throughout.
The Speaker: Now, in the rush, Dr Allinson got there first to second the proposal. Dr Allinson. 3065 Dr Allinson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. If no Member wishes to speak, I will put the question that new clause 1 be approved in 3070 principle. I will take that motion to be approved, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. Mr Hooper to move new clause 1 in detail.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; thank you very much, Hon. Members. 3075 The first part of new clause 1 states that an individual must not act as a landlord’s representative in respect of a rented dwelling unless they are registered with the Department as a landlord’s representative and registered in respect of the particular rented dwelling. The clause also makes it an offence for a landlord’s representative who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes this requirement. Maximum penalty is subject to a fine of four times level 5 on the 3080 standard scale. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to move.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Perhaps, Mr Callister, you would like to do this time. 3085 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. There you go, something for everybody! If no Member wishes to speak, I will put the motion that new clause 1 be approved in detail 3090 and stand part of the Bill. I will presume that motion is carried unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. We turn then to clause 8, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3095 Clause 8 provides the circumstances in which a landlord would not be considered to be a relevant landlord for the purposes of the Bill and is therefore exempted from the requirement to be registered. These include landlords of certain types of premises and situations of a temporary nature such as the winding up of estates and businesses. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 8 stands part of the Bill. 3100 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mrs Christian.
______Hansard Extract Page 22 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
3105 The Speaker: Thank you. Now, I call on Mrs Barber to move amendments 18 to 21 and 24, please.
Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21 to clause 8. I will move them all together, but 3110 obviously they would be voted on separately. I would request the Minister to provide a clear justification for excluding those landlords who are providing residential accommodation to employees and also those landlords who have agricultural holdings, farm businesses or business tenancies that could potentially include associated residential accommodation from the requirement to register and the corresponding 3115 standards as outlined within the Bill. It would seem to me that we should be aspiring to a position where all tenants, whether they be public sector, private sector, employment tenancies, or any other, should be subject to the same protections and hence my seeking clarity and moving these amendments. So I would also then beg to move amendment 24 to clause 8, which is slightly different. A 3120 simple amendment providing that remoter direct relatives be considered as close relatives of the landlord and my amendment in this regard seeks to include great grandparents and great grandchildren, which is not an unimaginable position in terms of renting to those remoter forebears. So I beg to move those amendments standing in my name:
Amendments to clause 8 18. Page 23, lines 4 to 12, omit subsection (1)(a). 19. Page 23, lines 13 and 14, omit subsection (1)(b). 20. Page 23, lines 15 and 16, omit subsection (1)(c). 21. Page 23, lines 17 to 19, omit subsection (1)(d). Renumber paragraphs accordingly. 24. Page 24, line 30, for ‘grandparent, child or grandchild’ substitute «grandparent, great grandparent, child, grandchild or great grandchild».
3125 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mrs Corlett.
Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second Mrs Barber’s amendments 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24. 3130 Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Callister to move amendments 22 and 23, please.
3135 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your leave, I would like to move amendments 22 and 23 together. I beg to move the two amendments at clause 8, which extend the period of exemption for the registration for operators within the tourism sector. The Bill as introduced set a maximum period of four weeks. The Department has since had 3140 representation and correspondence with various stakeholders and now considers that extending the period is the correct way to go forward, which will apply to only tourist accommodation already registered under the Tourism Act and therefore operated within the standards set out by the Tourism General Regulations, and who have all the necessary permission to do so. So they can be allowed to enjoy a longer period of exemption where it applies.
______Hansard Extract Page 23 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
3145 To be clear, this amendment will allow for an exemption of the maximum period of up to six months for guest booking, even in one block of time, or in separate bookings from time, up to a maximum of six months. After that time, guests will be required to vacate the tourist accommodation, but they are free to book again if they so wish to do so. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendments standing in my name.
Amendments to clause 8 22. Page 23, line 26, for ‘4 weeks’ substitute «6 months». 23. Page 23, line 29, for ‘4 weeks’ substitute «6 months».
3150 The Speaker: Thank you. Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba, Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Pleased to second amendments 22 and 23.
3155 The Speaker: Thank you very much. We turn now to the Hon. Member for Ramsey to move amendments 25 and 26. Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment number 25 is necessary following on from the requirement for landlord 3160 representatives to be registered, on the understanding of course that many representatives will also provide services to landlords who are not required to be a registered landlord under the Bill. This amendment would allow those landlord representatives to carry on undertaking property management activities on behalf of those individuals. Amendment 26 is simply an amendment to the powers by which the Department may by order 3165 amend this section to include they may also amount in respect of definitions of landlord and also who may or may not be a relevant landlord’s representative in terms of registration requirements. I beg to move amendments 25 and 26, Mr Speaker.
Amendments to clause 8 25 Page 25, line 10, After subsection (10), insert — «(11) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a landlord’s representative from undertaking property management activities on behalf of a landlord who is not a relevant landlord by virtue of this section.». Renumber subsequent subsection. 26 Page 25, line 11 in subsection (11) for ‘section’ substitute — «section — (a) to add or remove a person who is or is not a relevant landlord in respect of a rented dwelling; or (b) to provide for an exception to the requirement for a relevant landlord’s representative to be registered.».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson. 3170 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second the amendments 25 and 26 by Mr Hooper and reserve my remarks. Thank you.
3175 The Speaker: Thank you very much. I call on Mr Baker to speak to the amendments.
______Hansard Extract Page 24 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to amendments 18 to 21 from Mrs Barber, and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Douglas East for bringing forward these amendments and for her opening remarks. 3180 However, I cannot support those particular amendments, although I can support her amendment number 24. Just in response to her request for clarification, I feel it is useful to articulate the reasons why these were taken outside the scope of the Bill and hence why I have the position I have in terms of her amendment. So I do completely understand and respect the Hon. Member for Douglas East, 3185 Mrs Barber’s desire to afford the same level of protection to all tenants, no matter who their landlord might be. But herein, Hon. Members, lies the problem with these particular amendments. A tenant freely chooses to enter into a commercial arrangement with their landlord. That is the principle: a choice-based decision, wrapped around existing landlord and tenant legislation for housing of their choice. 3190 Mrs Barber’s amendments seek to remove four clauses, each of which I will talk about individually. So 8(1)(a), which provides a person is not a relevant landlord in respect of a rented dwelling, and therefore does not need to be registered, if the rented dwelling is, or forms part of, residential accommodation provided by an employer for an employee and where the accommodation is necessary for the proper performance of the employee’s duties or for the 3195 better performance of the duties of the employment. An example might be living quarters for hotel staff or accommodation for seasonal workers. Hon. Members, Mr Speaker, when the employee enters into employment and their employer provides free or subsidised accommodation, it is part of the terms of their employment, not a stand-alone residential agreement. The rent, if indeed it applies, is generally part of the wider 3200 financial package which forms the contract of employment and likewise the agreement and terms of residency. It is the employer, not the landlord, who provides permissions, maintains the condition of their property for their employee in a safe condition under health and safety at work legislation. Likewise, when a contract of employment is terminated, for whatever reason, then the terms for vacating the property are to be found within the conditions of employment, not landlord 3205 and tenant law. Imagine, if you will, a scenario whereby an employee leaves employment but then remains in residence in the tied accommodation. Imagine the potential for discontent and for disruption to business continuity if, say, a sacked employee were to remain in accommodation above the shop, so to speak, which should be being made ready for an incoming member of staff. 3210 That is not to state, Hon. Members, that I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Douglas East’s desire to improve the standard of some tied accommodation, because actually I do agree with that desire. However, there are other means of achieving that aim, not least the Housing Act itself, which impacts upon any property, regardless of tenure, specifically with provisions for dealing with houses in disrepair and those considered unfit for human habitation. 3215 Whilst the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts amended the definition of sanitary defect, ensuring that specific defects to a house, such as structural stability, inadequate lighting, heating and ventilation are considered and also ensuring that conditions prejudicial to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants do not exist. Mrs Barber further seeks to remove clause 8(1)(b), which provides an exemption where the 3220 tenancy is in respect of an agricultural holding. An agricultural holding for these purposes is land of at least an acre. The Agricultural Holding Act is concerned principally with the renting of the land used for the purposes of an agriculture-related trade or business and the protections afforded to both the landlord and the tenant in respect of the use of that land. Whether there is included within the rented land a building that is or could be used as a dwelling is secondary to 3225 the renting of the land for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, a person entering into a tenancy of agricultural land is doing so for the principal purpose of working the land, not to take up residence. The number of such tenancies will be small, as agricultural tenancies – or farm tenancies, as they
______Hansard Extract Page 25 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
are now more commonly referred to – are now subject to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 2008. Regrettably, I cannot support this amendment. 3230 In terms of Mrs Barber’s seeking to omit clause 8(1)(c), which provides that a person is not a relevant landlord where the rented dwelling is or forms part of premises under a tenancy to which the Tenancy of Business Premises Act 1971 applies. I also cannot support that. This is a similar situation in many respects to a person renting agricultural land. The principal purpose of the tenancy is for business purposes. Any part of the premises that could be used as residential 3235 accommodation is incidental to the main purpose. A person entering into a business tenancy is under completely different legislation and contractual obligations as set out in the 1971 Act. I am averse to interfere in those business tenancies by requiring the residential parts to be subject to landlord registration. I cannot support an amendment which would have at this time unknown, but potentially far-reaching and undesirable, consequences. 3240 Finally, in terms of clause 8(1)(d), where Mrs Barber seeks to omit the requirement that a person is not a relevant landlord in respect of a rented dwelling that forms part of land under a farm business tenancy within the meaning of section of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 2008. This Act applies in respect of farm tenancies save for certain exceptions where the Act permits a tenancy to continue under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1969. The Act is focused on farm business 3245 tenancies so that one of the main requirements is that the land is farmed for the purposes of a trade or business and having regard to certain criteria set out in the Act, the character of the tenancy is primarily or wholly agricultural. Any part of the land that is or could be used as a dwelling is incidental and again, I view it as not appropriate for this Bill to be interfering with what are essentially business tenancies and so will not be supporting that amendment. 3250 But in summing up, Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, I note Mrs Barber’s concerns and I would fully agree with her sentiment, which I believe is entirely well intentioned. However, I believe that there may well be problems in respect of these four areas which require resolution and that this Bill and its provisions cannot and should not be used as a resolution which can be more effectively addressed under extant legislation. 3255 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas.
3260 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend Mrs Barber for having brought forward her amendments, which I will support, because primarily they are the right thing to do and also they are in line with established Tynwald policy. Recommendation 4 of the Bill Committee Report was the Bill, when it came back for landlords and tenants:
… should apply to all tenancies, including … agricultural tenancies, thereby creating a basic guarantee of standards that all tenants have a right to expect.
3265 Inadvertently, the Minister in his response has basically laid down some issues for the next five or 10 years, or however long it takes us to make the proper changes and the more complete treatment, because basically he has described lots of tenants that will not have the basic protections to which they are entitled, firstly, and secondly, he has essentially created an ambiguity through this legislation about who is responsible for this issue. 3270 So I close with a simple question, which is when, and by whom, was the decision taken to focus on this particular type of landlord, contrary to Tynwald policy; and also, who in the future is now responsible for tidying up all this legislation from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s to do with different types of tenancies, where we do have the same challenges that we have in this sector, probably even to a greater extent in some cases?
______Hansard Extract Page 26 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
3275 So with that, Mr Speaker, I hope as many Members as possible will support Mrs Barber’s well- intentioned and correct amendments.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Robertshaw. 3280 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Turning to Mrs Barber’s amendments first of all, like the Minister, I fully support the intent and principle behind what she says, but very concerned indeed about the quite potentially complex implications that would come out of that, and I would genuinely ask Hon. Members not to vote 3285 for Mrs Barber’s amendments from 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(d) – very troublesome. I am very pleased to support Mr Callister’s amendment with regard to the adjustment for tourist premise accommodation up to six months. Just one point of clarity. It is one six-month stay? You cannot identify that as accumulative stays over one year accumulating to six months, because if it were the latter, that would cause significant complications. 3290 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, Mrs Barber, would you like to speak to Mr Callister and Mr Hooper’s amendments?
3295 Mrs Barber: Yes, speak to Mr Callister’s amendments, please.
The Speaker: Carry on.
Mrs Barber: I just wanted to thank Mr Callister and the Department for their resolution to this 3300 issue and to echo some of the points I suppose Mr Robertshaw has just ably set out there is around the cumulative effect of this amendment. I think what is important is that we get to a position where those people working within the accommodation sector are able to work in that short-term market over the summer season, the tourist season, but have that option and I think six months provides them with a good position to be able to take a longer-term winter let. 3305 So I just want the confidence around what Mr Robertshaw has already raised, which is that point about the cumulative nature of that amendment. Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you. 3310 Now, I think I have covered everybody who had indicated a desire to speak, so we will go back up the chain of people who have moved amendments, starting with the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 3315 I did not hear any comments about the amendments I am moving, so I will leave it at that. Thank you very much.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Callister. 3320 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I personally am very much in favour of this amendment from four weeks to six months for tourism accommodation. I have heard the comments from Mrs Barber and from Mr Robertshaw. I will let the Minister explain the bit about the actual continuous period over … is it a one-off 3325 period or a collective period over six months. As far as I understand, this does actually fulfil a gap that is potentially there for people coming to our Island. They sometimes stay in this type of
______Hansard Extract Page 27 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
accommodation before they move on to either rented accommodation or they buy their first home on the Island. So there is a real desperate need to have this in the legislation in order to cover that particular area. I will allow the Minister to cover any other options as well. 3330 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Barber, to reply to your amendments.
3335 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank everyone for their comments on the amendments, and I think what I would highlight is what I wanted to use this for was the opportunity to have a more thorough debate on exactly why we are choosing to exclude certain elements from this Bill at this time. I think there has been a wider conversation about public sector housing, but this is for those specific 3340 pieces outlined in this clause. So from my position, I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment to look at these clauses in more detail in terms of the bigger framework of housing reform and legislation that is needed. I do accept the position around a nervousness in terms of unintended consequences, but I think it is absolutely right that as a collective group in the House of Keys, we remain committed that 3345 agricultural holdings and business contracts that include a residential accommodation absolutely should be held to the same standards that we would expect for any other residential tenancy. I hope that absolutely is the aspiration for this Hon. House as we look to putting other Bills together in terms of supporting occupiers and tenants of our Island. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3350 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Baker to reply.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3355 I would like to thank Mrs Barber in particular for bringing forward those amendments – albeit that, as is clear, I am not supporting them –because I think it has been a valuable addition to the debate around this topic. What it illustrates for me very clearly is that this is a wide-ranging matter around housing policy generally, and this Landlord Registration Bill is a fundamental foundation stone of improving standards across the Island as we go forward. It is about ensuring that people 3360 have decent homes to live in, whatever the tenure of their property is. For too long, Mr Speaker, we have tolerated standards which quite frankly are not acceptable, and any Hon. Member who read the submission from the Voices in Participation group of care leavers to the Tynwald Committee which myself, Mr Callister and Mrs Sharpe sat on quite frankly needs no more convincing of that. Albeit that that is far from the whole picture of the rented sector and we have 3365 some very good landlords on this Island. But we are here to improve standards for the people of the Isle of Man. This is a key foundation stone, but it does leave some of the areas around the periphery, as Mrs Barber has just said, needing further attention as we go forward. There is no pretence here that this particular Bill on its own is sufficient. It is a necessary step but it is not a sufficient step. It is very important and we 3370 must put it in place, but we need to not lose sight of these other areas that Mrs Barber’s amendment has very helpfully brought to the fore. It is the same principle with the tourism accommodation, which Mr Callister has brought forward the amendment with the support of the Department, which is also supported by the Department for Enterprise, to extend the discretion to six months for tourist properties. Now, it 3375 was originally four weeks; six months is quite a major step forward in that. It reflects listening to the feedback from the self-catering sector. Mr Callister has played a key part in that in his join role across both the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Enterprise with his responsibilities in the visitor sector.
______Hansard Extract Page 28 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
We quite clearly heard the issues that Mr Robertshaw and Mrs Barber have touched upon in 3380 terms of the impact on people providing tourist accommodation and some of the circumstances which cause people to stay in that accommodation. It was clear that we needed to go much more than have a four-week limit to that, so we have gone to six months. The intention is to make it long enough to cope with the genuine situations which do arise but not so long that it becomes a backdoor way for somebody to avoid the provisions of the Landlord Registration Act. That is 3385 important because whilst the Tourism Act prescribes the conditions of the property, it does not prescribe the personal standards of the landlord, which this Bill does do, and it is really important it does do it when it is somebody’s permanent home. So in short, in responding to Mr Robertshaw and Mrs Barber, we believe that six months is an appropriate balance between those conflicting interests. It is designed to avoid artificial 3390 manipulation by perhaps pausing a residence for a day and then resetting the clock, so it does need to be cumulative for certain residence, but it is intended to allow the legitimate business of the self-catering providers to be undertaken. I notice Mr Robertshaw has asked would I give way. I am happy, Mr Speaker, to do that, if that is your will. 3395 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Robertshaw.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister, very much. 3400 Just still not quite clear. So my understanding of it, the six months, it was a single six-month period. Can I just get absolute clarity here that, for example, if you had something like a regular visit from a consultant who was doing significant amounts of work on the Island for whatever reason over a year, if that person came backwards and forwards, he or she would not find themselves, or the owner of that particular tourist accommodation, running into some form of 3405 tenancy arrangement because over the year that person had accumulated six months? The latter, would not apply, would it? That is my question. Thank you.
The Speaker: Mr Baker. 3410 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For Mr Robertshaw: the clarification is that it is about, is this effectively a disguised permanent residence for the person or is it genuinely visitor accommodation effectively? The key test will be is there a reasonable break between bookings? Now, I appreciate that that is more of a 3415 judgemental concept rather than a hard-and-fast rule, but we will certainly be working very closely with our colleagues in the Department for Enterprise to ensure that this works effectively. We are alive to the issue and there is absolutely no desire to get in the way of legitimate use of the properties in the sort of way that Mr Robertshaw mentions. We have obviously got quite a bit of work to do between now and this Bill coming into effect 3420 and the registration becoming mandatory, but we will work, through the Department, with the representatives of the self-catering sector to make sure that that is covered off. So I hope that that deals with Mr Robertshaw’s concerns. Very happy to talk further with him in due course. Finally, just commenting on Mr Thomas’s submission, I am delighted to hear that he is supportive of this framework that we are putting in place. He seems to have gone on a bit of a 3425 Damascene conversion, because he has gone from criticising the whole concept of this to now saying it does not go far enough, Mr Speaker, and he is concerned about the bits that we are not dealing with. So I thank him for his support, and with that I beg to move.
3430 The Speaker: Thank you.
______Hansard Extract Page 29 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Hon. Members, what I plan to do is start with the areas where there appears to be agreement, and when we get to Mrs Barber’s amendments 18 to 21, no one has seemed to imply that they need separating, so I will again deal with them as a single block. But obviously I will deal with amendment 24 separately, which deals with great grandparents and great grandchildren, because 3435 that did seem to get support. So putting to you first amendments 25 and 26 in the name of Mr Hooper. I will presume that those are agreed unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now, please. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. Amendments 22 and 23 in the name of Mr Callister. Again, I presume that those are agreed, 3440 unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated that then carries. Putting to you next amendment 24 in the name of Mrs Barber, regarding great grandparents and great grandchildren. I will presume that that motion carries unless any Member indicates dissent which they should do now, please. Thank you, that carries. 3445 Putting to you finally amendments 18 to 21, removing subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d). I notice that … Ah, now, this might solve the problem. Mrs Barber.
Mrs Barber: Yes. Given the commitments of the Minister, Mr Speaker, I am content to 3450 withdraw those amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21.
The Speaker: Now, the Member having indicated she wishes to withdraw her amendments, that requires the leave of the House, but I will presume that the House will give Mrs Barber leave to withdraw her amendments unless anyone indicates dissent. In which case, Mrs Barber’s 3455 amendments are withdrawn. I put to you clause 8, Hon. Members, as amended by amendments 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. I will presume that that carries, unless anyone indicates dissent. No one having indicated dissent, clause 8, as amended, stands part of the Bill. Clause 9, Mr Baker. 3460 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 9 provides the permitted timeframes for making an application for registration. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 9 stands part of the Bill.
3465 The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. 3470 Amendments 27 and 28, Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. These are straightforward amendments to the clause, again dealing with the separation of relevant landlords away from landlords’ representatives. So again, just making clear to which of 3475 those two groups the clause is referring. Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments 27 and 28.
Amendments to clause 9 27. Page 25, line 13, after ‘registration’ insert «: relevant landlords». 28. Page 25, line 33, after ‘registration’ insert «of relevant landlord».
The Speaker: Thank you.
______Hansard Extract Page 30 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Callister.
3480 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. I give anybody who wishes to speak the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, I will put first amendments 27 and 28 in the name of Mr Hooper, and I will presume that those are carried unless 3485 anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now, please. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. Clause 9, as amended. I put the question that that be approved and will assume that that carries unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, clause 9, as amended, therefore stands part of the Bill. 3490 Clause 10, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 10 enables landlords who are already registered under the existing voluntary registration scheme to transition to the statutory register, provided that it is within six months of 3495 the requirement for a relevant landlord to be registered coming into effect. Clause 10 also defines the voluntary scheme, provides for the expiry of registrations continued under this clause and reapplication, and revokes the voluntary scheme on the coming into operation of the requirement to be registered. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 10 stands part of the Bill. 3500 The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 3505 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, does anyone wish to speak? Otherwise, I will put the question that clause 10 stand part of the Bill and I will presume that that motion is carried, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, clause 10 stands part of the Bill. 3510 Clause 11, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 11 specifies the registration requirements for both the relevant landlord and a rented dwelling. 3515 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 11 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
3520 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Callister.
3525 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your permission, we will not be moving amendment 31 this afternoon.
The Speaker: Okay. Thank you very much. Amendment 31 not being moved; amendments 29, 30 and 32, Mr Hooper.
______Hansard Extract Page 31 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
3530 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The amendments again are in connection with the changes in respect of a landlord’s representative. Amendment number 29 alters the conditionality around that how an individual is to satisfy themselves that a landlord’s representative meets the minimum standards. In the Bill as originally 3535 drafted, the landlord themselves must nominate a landlord who the Department is satisfied meets the requirements. The amendment simply states that if the Department has already registered the landlord’s representative, then clearly they meet the Department’s requirements, and so registration is the new test, as opposed to having to have an indeterminate test as originally drafted. So that is amendment number 29. 3540 Amendment number 30 introduces requirements for the registration of a landlord’s representative. These are that a person, to be a landlord’s representative, must be resident on the Isle of Man, they must comply with the minimum standards, the Department must be satisfied that the person meets the personal conduct requirements and the application requirements that will be set out in new clause 2 must be satisfied. 3545 Amendment number 32 is just to ensure, for clarity’s sake, that the requirements that are set out in this clause not only apply at the point of registration but also apply throughout the duration of a landlord’s representative, a landlord’s or a dwelling’s registration. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to move those three amendments:
Amendments to clause 11 29. Page 27, lines 23 to 28, for subsection (1)(e), substitute — «(e) with respect to the nomination of a landlord’s representative by a relevant landlord, if the Department is not satisfied that the person nominated is registered as required under section [NC1] (requirement for a relevant landlord’s representative to be registered), the landlord must nominate a different landlord’s representative who the Department is satisfied is so registered.». 30. Page 27, line 28, after subsection (1) insert — «(2) The following are requirements for registration of a landlord’s representative — (a) the person must be a resident; (b) the person must comply with the minimum standards; (c) the Department must be satisfied that the person meets the personal conduct requirements; (d) the application requirements in section [NC2] must be satisfied.». Renumber subsequent subsection and alter cross references throughout. 32. Page 27, line 36, after subsection (2) insert — «(3) The requirements — (a) described in subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) apply throughout the duration of the registration of a relevant landlord; (b) described in subsection [(2)(a), (b) and (c)] apply throughout the duration of the registration of a landlord’s representative; and (c) described in subsection (3)(a) applies throughout the duration of the registration of a rented dwelling. (5) Section 38(2) applies where any information supplied to the Department under this section becomes inaccurate.».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 3550 Dr Allinson.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second those amendments and reserve my remarks.
3555 The Speaker: Thank you.
______Hansard Extract Page 32 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The floor is open for anyone who wishes to speak on clause 11 or amendments 29, 30 and 32. However, seeing none, I will put the question that amendments 29, 30 and 32 in the name of Mr Hooper be approve. No dissent having been indicated, I will presume that to be carried. Clause 11, as amended. I presume that that motion be carried, unless anyone indicates dissent. 3560 No dissent indicated, clause 11, as amended, carries. Turning now to new clause 2, amendment number 33, and I call on Mr Hooper to move.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity there, you said amendment 33, not 23? 3565 The Speaker: I did say 33 – well, at least I think I did.
Mr Hooper: That is fine. I am sure I heard 33 as well. Amendment number 33 is the insertion of new clause 2, which I just referenced in respect of 3570 the previous amendment. New clause 2 inserts the application requirements for a landlord’s representative into the Bill. This is obviously a requirement if we are going to have to landlords’ representatives be registered, then the requirements to satisfy an application in respect of that need to be set out in the Bill. That is the principle of the clause, Mr Speaker, and I beg to move amendment number 33, new 3575 clause 2:
Insertion of new clause NC2 33. Page 28, line 27, after clause 12 insert — « NC2 Application requirements: landlord’s representatives (1) This section applies to an application for the registration of a person as a landlord’s representative. (2) An application must — (a) include the information; and (b) be accompanied by any documents and fee, specified in regulations made by the Department under section 21 (registration regulations). (3) An application must be accompanied by a declaration by the person that — (a) the person meets the personal conduct requirements; (b) the person complies with the minimum standards for a landlord’s representative; and (c) the information provided in and with the application is true and accurate to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief.». Renumber subsequent sections and cross references throughout.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 3580 The Speaker: I put the question that new clause 2 be agreed in principle, and I will presume that that motion is carried, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. I call on Mr Hooper to move new clause 2 in detail. 3585 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said, this clause sets out the application requirement for a landlord’s representative. It applies solely to an application for the registration of a person as a landlord’s representative. It sets out that an application must include the information and any documents and fee that are 3590 specified in regulations by the Department under section 21. An application must also be
______Hansard Extract Page 33 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
accompanied by a declaration by the individual that the person meets the personal conduct requirements, the person complies with the minimum standards for a landlord’s representative and the information provided in and with the application is true and accurate to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief. 3595 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move the clause in detail.
The Speaker: Thank you. Dr Allinson.
3600 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. If no one wishes to speak, I will put the question that new clause 2 be agreed in detail and stand part of the Bill, and I will presume that is carried, unless anyone indicates dissent, which 3605 they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. Clause 12, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 12 sets out the application requirements for registration of a relevant landlord. 3610 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 12 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
3615 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. I put the question that clause 12 stand part of the Bill and presume it will be agreed unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, clause 12 3620 stands part of the Bill. Clause 13, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 13 sets out the application requirements for the relevant landlords’ rented dwellings. A 3625 rented dwelling registered under this section forms part of the registration of a relevant landlord and a rented dwelling cannot be registered if the landlord is not also registered. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 13 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mrs Christian. 3630 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mr Callister to move amendment 38, please. 3635 Mr Callister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move an amendment to clause 13, the purpose of which is to adjust the period of time for response that it is consistent within the Bill. I beg to move, Mr Speaker:
Amendment to clause 38 38. Page 29, line 12, for ‘42 days’ substitute «30 days».
______Hansard Extract Page 34 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
3640 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
3645 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Amendments 34 to 37, Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment 34 simply states that a rented dwelling may not be registered unless, as well as 3650 the landlord being registered under the Bill as drafted, also includes that if there is a landlord’s representative undertaking property management on behalf of the property that that landlord’s representative must also be registered. Amendment number 35 clarifies that an application for registration in respect of a rented dwelling may be made by the landlord’s representative on behalf of the landlord as well as by the 3655 landlord directly. Amendment number 36 is the same – also allows for a landlord’s representative to act on behalf of the landlord as well as the landlord themselves – and the same as amendment number 37. That simply includes landlords’ representatives with the landlords in the clause. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think that is all the amendments I am moving on that 3660 clause.
Amendments to clause 13 34. Page 28, lines 31 to 33, for subsection (2) substitute — «(2) A rented dwelling may not be registered unless — (a) the relevant landlord is registered under section 14 (determination of application: relevant landlords); and (b) in the case where any aspect of the landlord’s property management activities with regard to the dwelling are to be undertaken by a landlord’s representative, the landlord’s representative is registered under section [NC3].». 35. Page 28, line 33, after subsection (2), insert — «(3) An application for registration in respect of a rented dwelling may be made by the landlord’s representative on behalf of the relevant landlord.». Renumber subsequent subsections and cross references throughout. 36. Page 28, line 34, for ‘must, at the same time as making’ substitute «, or the landlord’s representative, must at the same time as the relevant landlord makes». 37. Page 29, line 7, after ‘landlord’ insert «or the landlord’s representative, as the case may be,».
The Speaker: That is right. Dr Allinson.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3665 I beg to second the amendments from Mr Hooper and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. Clause 13 and the amendments 34 to 38 having been moved and seconded, if nobody wishes to speak – Mr Robertshaw, please. 3670 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Throughout the Bill, there will be various occasions where the amount of time given for various actions is increased to 30 days, which I absolutely support. I understand, therefore, the reasoning
______Hansard Extract Page 35 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
to move the period down, in this particular instance, from 42 to 30 days. But there must have 3675 been a good reason in the first instance why 42 days was classed as the right level in this particular instance, and it might well be that it should be retained at 42 days, if there was good reason behind it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that one. Thank you.
3680 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Robertshaw. No other Member having indicated to speak, I will offer an opportunity to Mr Hooper, should you wish to speak.
Mr Hooper: No, thank you, Mr Speaker. 3685 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Callister.
Mr Callister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. 3690 Just to answer the question from Mr Robertshaw, this is just about consistency to make it very simple, very easy for someone to follow. Anybody who is engaged in this piece of legislation, they know that they have 30 days to respond to something and on the reverse of that the Government has, and the Department has, 30 days to respond. It is purely from a consistency point of view. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3695 The Speaker: Mr Baker, to respond to the clause.
Mr Baker: No, thank you. I thank Mr Callister for clarifying that. I think I would add to that, for the Hon. Member for Douglas East, this is effectively a package 3700 deal just to try and tidy everything up, and standardise and simplify it. I accept that this particular timescale was shortened, but I would encourage Hon. Members to see this in the round as part of a package of measures. I think the 30 days is appropriate and, as Mr Callister says, it does cut both ways, so to speak. So I understand our feedback from the consultation and the engagement that we did indicated 3705 that consistency was seen as a positive thing. So with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
The Speaker: Thank you. Putting to Hon. Members first the amendment number 38 in the name of Mr Callister. I 3710 presume that that will be carried unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now, please. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. Putting to you amendments 34, 35, 36 and 37 in the name of Mr Hooper, and I presume that those will be carried, unless anyone indicates otherwise. No dissent being indicated, those amendments carry. 3715 Putting to you clause 13, as amended by amendments 34 to 38. I presume that that is carried unless anyone indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, clause 13, as amended, stands part of the Bill. We turn to clause 14. I call on Mr Baker to move.
3720 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 14 provides for the determination by the Department of an application for registration of a relevant landlord. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 14 stands part of the Bill.
3725 The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
______Hansard Extract Page 36 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you. We turn to Mr Callister to move amendments 39 and 41, please. 3730 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your leave, I will move both 39 and 41 together. I beg to move these amendments to clause 14, and whilst it is the fact that Government must in any case make its decision on a reasonable basis, placing the requirement centrally within the Bill removes any doubt. To be clear, 3735 within the context of this Bill that means it is the actions which are rational, or appropriate, or appropriate in the circumstances. I beg to move the amendments standing in my name, Mr Speaker:
Amendments to clause 14 39. Page 29, line 32, before ‘it is not satisfied’, insert «on reasonable grounds». 41. Page 30, line 8, after ‘other’ insert «reasonable».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Boot. 3740 Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 40, 42 and 45 – and 44. 3745 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was just giving you a moment there to catch up with yourself. (The Speaker: Thank you.) Just for clarity, I have got another amendment on the page in front of me. I have got amendments 39, 41 and 43 that Mr Callister was moving. (The Speaker: That’s right.) I just want 3750 to confirm they were all moved by Mr Callister.
The Speaker: Yes. In my understanding, amendments 39, 41 and 43. Is that correct, Mr Callister?
3755 Mr Callister: Yes, would you like me to move amendment 43 now, Mr Speaker?
The Speaker: Yes, please. Sorry, I thought you had. My apologies.
Mr Callister: No, you asked me for 39 and 41, Mr Speaker. (The Speaker: Sorry.) But it is fine. 3760 Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg a further amendment to clause 14, which sets the tone for a number of amendments that I am moving today. The Department has recognised the time for response and has acted. Firstly, regularisation of time in order to avoid unnecessary confusion, but also to extend that time substantially, so that if there is a written request for information, it is required that there is 3765 sufficient time for the landlord or the landlord’s representative, as the case might be, to consider and prepare their submission. The extended period of time also provides the likelihood of an appropriate remedy action having been taken, therefore negating the need for further or formal action to be taken. And so, as to avoid any confusion, the Government now has the equal and extended period to consider 3770 and prepare its response to validate any remedial action that may be taken. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
______Hansard Extract Page 37 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Amendment to clause 14 43 Page 30, lines 26 to 38, for subsection (7)(a), (b) and (c) substitute — «(a) give notice to the relevant landlord, and to the person the relevant landlord intends to be the landlord’s representative (if any), of its intention to refuse registration and the reasons for the intended refusal; (b) consider any representations made by the relevant landlord and, if applicable, the landlord’s representative received by the Department before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the landlord and the landlord’s representative (if any) were notified under this subsection; and (c) consider any such representations received in accordance with paragraph (b) within the period of 30 days from receipt of the representations.».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Boot, for the purpose of regularity, will you just confirm you are content also to second amendment number 43. 3775 Mr Boot: Yes, Mr Speaker. I am content to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. Now, we will turn to Mr Hooper, amendments 40, 42, 44 and 45. 3780 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment number 40 simply omits two lines from the bottom of page 29. It omit the lines:
(b) the Department is satisfied that the landlord’s representative meets the personal conduct requirements
It does this on the basis that that line is no longer needed, as the Department will already have registered the landlord’s representative in their own right, so there is no extra requirement for 3785 the Department to be extra satisfied on top of that. Amendment number 42 simply inserts ‘and landlords’ representatives’ into line 14 on page 30, just to ensure that the landlords’ representatives are also included in the clause. Amendment number 44 again makes reference to a particular clause in respect of relevant landlords, just for clarity, to make sure the clause that is being cross-referenced is clear that it only 3790 relates to relevant landlords are not their representatives as well. Amendment number 45 is slightly more substantial. It is not directly connected to the separate registration of relevant landlords’ representatives. Under the Bill as originally drafted, failure to provide a copy of a notice to an occupier or to a landlord’s representative did not automatically invalidate the sending of that notice. From my perspective, I think the Department will always act 3795 professionally, would always do its best to ensure that copies of notices are sent to people where they are managing property, but it felt to me somewhat inappropriate to be saying if the Department had not, for whatever reason, sent the notice to the representative who is managing the property, then they should still be able to take further action off the back of that. I am quite reassured by other pieces of legislation, in terms of the Interpretation Act, for 3800 example, that defines what is meant by when a document is sent or served. So I am relatively confident that actually this will not impact on the actual operational elements from the Department’s perspective, but it does seem appropriate that if the Department, for whatever reason, fails to provide a notice to a landlord’s representative, then the notice itself should not be treated as valid. 3805 With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments number 40, 42, 44 and 45.
Amendments to clause 14 40. Page 29, lines 38 and 39, omit paragraph (b).
______Hansard Extract Page 38 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Renumber subsequent paragraphs. 42. Page 30, line 14, after ‘relevant landlords’, insert «and landlords’ representatives». 44. Page 31, line 7, for ‘Commissioners’ substitute «Commissioners: relevant landlords». 45. Page 31, lines 16 and 17, for ‘but failure to provide a copy of a notice under this subsection’ substitute «and failure to provide a copy of the notice under this subsection to the landlord’s representative invalidates the notice but failure to provide such a copy to an occupier».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 3810 The Speaker: Thank you very much. The floor is open if anyone wishes to speak to clause 14 or any of the amendments. Seeing none, I put first amendments number 39, 41 and 43 in the name of Mr Callister, and I presume that those will be carried, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No 3815 dissent having been indicated, those carry. Amendments 40, 42, 44 and 45 in the name of Mr Hooper. I presume those are carried unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, those also carry. Putting to you clause 14, as amended. I will presume that that motion is carried, unless there 3820 is any dissent indicated. Seeing none, that motion therefore carries. We turn now to new clause 3, amendment number 46, and I call on Mr Hooper to move.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. New clause 3 – following on from new clause 2, which set out the application requirements for 3825 a landlord’s representative – sets out how the Department must consider and determine these applications. It is largely a mirror of the other determination clauses already in the Bill. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move the clause in principle:
Insertion of new clause NC3 46. Page 31, line 17, after clause 14 insert — «NC3 Determination of application: landlords’ representatives (1) The Department must consider each application for registration properly made under section [NC2] (application requirements: landlord’s representatives) and determine whether to grant the registration in accordance with this section. (2) The Department may refuse to register a person as a landlord’s representative if, on reasonable grounds, it is not satisfied that the person meets the personal conduct requirements. (3) The Department may grant registration as a landlord’s representative to a person subject to such reasonable conditions as it considers appropriate. (4) If it grants registration to a person under subsection (3) the Department must — (a) allocate to the person a unique registration number; (b) enter on the register the information required (as applicable) under the section 6(2) (register of relevant landlords and landlords’ representatives); and (c) give notice to the landlord’s representative of — (i) the registration; (ii) the registration number; (iii) the conditions attaching to the registration (if any); and (iv) if the registration has been granted subject to conditions under subsection (3), of the person’s right to appeal under Part 5 against the decision to grant registration on those terms. (5) Before refusing an application for registration, the Department must —
______Hansard Extract Page 39 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
(a) give notice to the person of its intention to refuse registration and the reasons for the intended refusal; (b) consider any representations made by the person and received by the Department before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the person was notified under this subsection; and (c) consider any representations received in accordance with paragraph (b) within the period of 30 days from receipt of the representations. (6) If the Department refuses an application for registration, it must give notice to the person — (a) that the application has been refused and the reasons for the refusal; and (b) of the person’s right to appeal against the decision under Part 5. Renumber subsequent sections and cross references throughout.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson. 3830 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. Seeing no one wishes to speak, I put the question that new clause 3 be approved in principle, 3835 and I will presume that that motion is carried, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, the motion carries. I call on Mr Hooper to move the clause in detail.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 3840 The clause requires that the Department must consider each application for registration that has been properly made under the relevant application requirements clause and determine whether or not to grant said registration. The Department may refuse to register a person as a landlord’s representative if on reasonable grounds they are not satisfied the person meets the personal conduct requirements. They may also grant registration to the representative subject to 3845 such reasonable conditions as are considered appropriate. On registration, the Department must allocate a unique registration number, enter the relevant information on the register and give notice to the landlord’s representative of the same, along with any conditions attaching to their registration. If the Department is minded to refuse an application for registration they must first give notice to the applicant of their intention to refuse 3850 and the reasons for that, consider any representations made by the person and received by the Department within a 30-day timeframe, and also consider any representations received in accordance with that sub-paragraph within a period of 30 days from receipt of those representations. If the Department then goes on to refuse to grant an application for registration, it must then give formal notice that the application has been refused, along with the reasons for 3855 that refusal and give notice of the person’s right to appeal against the decision under Part 5. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
The Speaker: Thank you. Dr Allinson. 3860 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. No Member having indicated a desire to speak, I put the question that new clause 3 be 3865 approved in detail and stand part of the Bill, and presume that that motion will carry, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, new clause 3 stands part of the Bill.
______Hansard Extract Page 40 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
We turn then to clause 15, and I call on Mr Baker to move.
3870 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 15 deals with a determination by the Department of an application for registration of a rented dwelling. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 15 stands part of the Bill.
3875 The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 3880 I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 47, 49 and 50, please.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 47 and 50 are simply to include landlords’ representatives in the clause and also ensure there is a clear reference back to the correct subsection in respect of amendment 3885 number 50. Amendment number 49 is exactly the same as a previous amendment that I have moved in relation to failure to provide a notice and that failure to provide a notice to a landlord’s representative should invalidate said notice, but failure to provide it to an occupier should not. Exactly the same amendments as have been previously approved. 3890 Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments number 47, 49 and 50:
Amendments to clause 15 47. Page 31, line 34, after ‘landlords’ insert « and landlords’ representatives». 49. Page 32, line 21, for ‘but failure to provide a copy of a notice under this subsection’ substitute «and failure to provide a copy of the notice under this subsection to the landlord’s representative invalidates the notice but failure to provide such a copy to any occupier». 50. Page 32, line 24, for ‘Commissioners’ substitute «Commissioners: relevant landlords».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second the amendments. 3895 The Speaker: Thank you very much. We turn to Mr Callister and amendment number 48, please
Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3900 I beg to move an amendment to clause 15, which has been introduced for reasons already described in clause 14, amendment number 43. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:
Amendment to clause 15 48. Page 32, lines 7 to 11, for subsection (5)(a) and (b) substitute — «(a) give notice to the relevant landlord and to the person the relevant landlord intends to be the landlord’s representative (if any) of its intention to refuse registration and the reasons for the intended refusal; (b) consider any representations made by the relevant landlord or landlord’s representative (if any) received by the Department before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the person was notified under this subsection; and
______Hansard Extract Page 41 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
(c) consider any such representations received in accordance with paragraph (b) within the period of 30 days from receipt of the representations.».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Boot. 3905 Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. Now, not seeing any Member wishing to speak, I will put the question that amendment 48 in 3910 the name of Mr Callister be approved, and I will presume that that motion is carried unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. Putting to you amendments 47, 49 and 50 in the name of Mr Hooper. I presume that motion will carry, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now, please. No dissent having 3915 been indicated, that motion carries. Putting to you clause 15, as amended, that it stand part of the Bill. I presume that that motion will carry, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. The motion carries. Clause 16, Mr Baker.
3920 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 16 sets out the matters to which the Department must have regard when deciding whether a person meets or no longer meets the personal conduct requirements. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 16 stands part of the Bill.
3925 The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
3930 The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mr Callister to move amendments 51 and 52.
Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move these amendments to clause 16, which are being proposed in order to avoid 3935 confusion with regard to the nature of any previous and applicable misdemeanours. To be clear, whilst this amendment is appropriate for the majority of cases, under clause 16(1) the Department can still have regard to any evidence that it has considered relevant and so in particular in circumstances it may still look at other evidence pointing towards criminal activity. Therefore it is felt that this amendment is a proportional response. 3940 Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendments standing in my name:
Amendments to clause 16 51. Page 32, line 32, for ‘committed any’, substitute «been convicted of an». 52. Page 33, line 2, for ‘committed’, substitute «been convicted of».
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 3945 The Speaker: Thank you very much.
______Hansard Extract Page 42 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3950 Can the Department, perhaps the drafter as well, just comment on the use of ‘must’ in this clause and later on in the Bill? I am just vaguely remembering that the Interpretation Act section 37 encourages the use of ‘shall’ in modern legislation, and I think this is supposed to be modern legislation – I might have misremembered.
3955 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Thomas. Mr Callister, if you wish to reply on the amendment.
Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will let the Minister describe the word ‘must’ or ‘may’, etc. 3960 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Baker to reply.
3965 Mr Baker: Yes, thank you very much. I would comment very clearly that everybody knows what the meaning of ‘must’ is. Drafting styles may differ, but ‘must’ is very clear, very precise and I do not think there is much need to be drawn into a debate around semantics. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 16. 3970 The Speaker: Thank you very much. I put to you first, Hon. Members, amendments 51 and 52 in the name of Mr Callister, and I will presume that those are approved unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. 3975 Clause 16, as amended. I presume that that will carry, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, clause 16, as amended, stands part of the Bill. Clause 17, Mr Baker.
3980 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 17 provides that the Department may require the provision of a criminal record certificate if the Department has reasonable grounds to suspect that any information provided in relation to their registration is or has become inaccurate. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 17 stands part of the Bill. 3985 The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second. 3990 The Speaker: Thank you very much. I put to Hon. Members the question that clause 17 stand part of the Bill, and I presume that motion is carried, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. 3995 Clause 18, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 18 deals with the period of registration and reapplications for registration.
______Hansard Extract Page 43 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 18 stands part of the Bill. 4000 The Speaker: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
4005 The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 53 to 56, please.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 simply include landlords’ representatives in the section in 4010 respect of registration periods’ expiry and reapplication. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendment 53, 54, 55 and 56:
Amendments to clause 18 53. Page 33, line 37, after ‘landlord’ insert «or of a landlord’s representative». 54. Page 34, line 12, after ‘landlord’ insert «or a landlord’s representative» 55. Page 34, line 16, after ‘application)’ insert «in the case of a relevant landlord and a rented dwelling, and in accordance with section [NC2]. (application requirements: landlord’s representatives) in the case of a landlord’s representative». 56. Page 34, line 29, after ‘registration’ insert «of relevant landlord».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson.
4015 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second amendments 53 to 56. Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, no Member having indicated a wish to speak on those, I put the question that 4020 amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 be approved, and I will presume that that is approved, unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, those amendments therefore carry. Putting to you clause 18, as amended. I presume that that motion will carry unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now, please. No dissent having been indicated, clause 18, 4025 as amended, stands part of the Bill. Clause 19, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Mr Speaker, clause 19 requires notification to the Department by the relevant landlord or their representative, as applicable, of any changes relating to the registration as set 4030 out in this clause during the registration period. Provision is made that the Department may by order amend these notice requirements, subject to the approval of Tynwald. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 19 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you. 4035 Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 4040 I call Mr Hooper to move amendments 57 and 58, please.
______Hansard Extract Page 44 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment number 57 amends 19(1)(b). Originally as drafted that subsection required the landlord to notify the Department of any changes in any of the registered details of the landlord’s 4045 representative. The amendment simply changes the onus away from the landlord onto the representative themselves to ensure that the representative is the one that is required to update the Department if there are any changes in any particulars, and the landlord is simply required to instruct the Department if there has been a change in their representative. Following on from that, amendment number 58 amends the clause further down to ensure 4050 that the representative themselves is responsible for notifying the Department of any changes in their own registered details. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments 57 and 58.
Amendments to clause 19 57. Page 35, lines 1 to 3, for subsection (1)(b) substitute — «(b) a change of the landlord’s representative (if any);». 58. Page 35, line 22, for subsection (2)(a) substitute — «(a) a change to any of the registered details of the landlord’s representative specified in paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the Schedule; or».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson. 4055 Dr Allinson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to second those amendments.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Amendment 59, Mr Callister. 4060 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move an amendment to clause 19, such that clause 19(3) is amended to require a landlord or a landlord’s representative to give notice to the Department of any change in registration information within a month of the change, rather than a month from the date that 4065 the person knew of the change. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to remove the opportunity for misunderstanding arising. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment to clause 19 59. Page 35, on lines 25 and 26, for ‘the day on which the person knew of the change’, substitute «the date the change occurred».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Boot. 4070 Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, no Member having indicated a desire to speak on clause 19 or any of those amendments, 4075 I put to you first amendments 57 and 58 in the name of Mr Hooper, and I presume that those will carry unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. Amendment 59 in the name of Mr Callister. I presume that that motion will be carried unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, that 4080 motion carries.
______Hansard Extract Page 45 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Putting to you clause 19, as amended, and I presume that that motion will carry unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, clause 19, as amended, stands part of the Bill. Clause 20, Mr Baker. 4085 Mr Baker: Mr Speaker, clause 20 requires that a registered landlord must in all notices, advertisements or other relevant documents state the fact that they are registered, their designated registration number and, where applicable, that the rented dwelling is registered as part of the landlord registration. Non-compliance with these provisions is an offence. 4090 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 20 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
4095 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, we turn to Mr Hooper to move amendments 60 and 61, please.
4100 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment number 60 simply includes a requirement that the landlord’s representative must, whenever they issue a notice or an advertisement, anything on behalf of the relevant landlord, state that the representative is in fact registered and they must state their registration number. 4105 Amendment number 61 simply adds a reference to this new subsection into the clause. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments 60 and 61:
Amendments to clause 20 60. Page 36, line 9, after subsection (1) insert — «(2) A landlord’s representative must, in all notices, advertisements or other documents issued by or on behalf of a relevant landlord state — (a) the fact that the landlord’s representative is registered; and (b) the landlord’s representative’s registration number.» Renumber subsequent subsection. 61. Page 36, line 11, after ‘subsection (1)’ insert «or (2)».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson.
4110 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second amendments 60 and 61.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. I call on Mrs Barber to move amendment number 62.
4115 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendment 62 to clause 20 to adjust the maximum level of fine from level 4 to level 3 on the standard scale. An omission of this nature seems to me to be comparable to the omission of the relevant imprint by a candidate for election, and I believe should be treated on a similar level. New landlords may make an error such as this that is purely an oversight and 4120 established landlords, if doing so deliberately and persistently, could still be appropriately enforced. For the maximum fine it would appear to be more suitable to be level 3 on the standard scale.
______Hansard Extract Page 46 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Speaker, I beg to move:
Amendment to clause 20 62. Page 36, line 12, for ‘level 4’ substitute «level 3».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 4125 Mrs Corlett.
Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second amendment number 62 in the name of Mrs Barber and reserve my remarks. Thank you. 4130 The Speaker: Thank you. Now, does any Member wish to speak to any of those amendments? If not, I will put first amendments number 60 and 61 in the name of Mr Hooper and presume that those are carried, unless anyone indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, that carries. 4135 Putting amendment 62, in the name of Mrs Barber. I presume that carries, unless anyone indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, that motion carries. Putting to you clause 20, as amended, that it stand part of the Bill. I presume that that motion will carry, unless anyone indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. 4140 Clause 21, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 21 provides that the Department must make regulations to specify the information required from a relevant landlord and their representative, if any, on registration and any 4145 documents that must accompany a registration application. The Department may make regulations regarding any other matters the Department considers necessary for the effective functioning of the register and registration requirements. Prior approval of Tynwald is required for regulations made under this clause and any fees payable under the regulations must be published. 4150 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 21 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
4155 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Hooper to move amendments number 63 and 64, please.
4160 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment number 63 simply allows the Department to make regulations in respect of the determination of applications around landlord representatives, as well as the landlords themselves. Amendment number 64 also includes that the Department may of course prescribe a fee and 4165 require that a fee is paid along with any of these applications. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendments 63 and 64:
Amendments to clause 21 63. Page 36, line 28, after ‘landlords)’ insert «, [NC3] (determination of application: landlords’ representatives)».
______Hansard Extract Page 47 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
64. Page 36, line 37, after subsection (2)(e) insert — «(f) any fee that is payable with respect to each application by a person to be registered as a landlord’s representative — (i) on the making of an application for registration; or (ii) on an amendment of an entry on the register;». Renumber subsequent paragraph.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. I call on Mr Callister to move amendment number 65.
4170 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move an amendment to clause 21, the purpose of which is the same as at clause 6, amendment 1, thereby supporting the philosophy of ‘digital by default’. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:
Amendment to clause 21 65. Page 37, line 5, for ‘on its website or in any other manner’ substitute «in any manner, including electronic form, where practicable,».
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 4175 Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: I beg to second. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 4180 No Member –
Dr Allinson: Mr Speaker?
The Speaker: Dr Allinson. 4185 Dr Allinson: Sorry to interrupt, Mr Speaker. I beg to second Mr Hooper’s two amendments to clause 21. Thank you.
4190 The Speaker: My apologies if I missed you. Thank you very much. In which case, I put the question, Hon. Members, firstly that amendments 63 and 64 in the name of Mr Hooper be agreed. Unless I see any indications of dissent, I presume that carries. So that therefore carries. Amendment 65 in the name of Mr Callister. I presume that will carry, unless any Member 4195 indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. Putting to you clause 21, as amended by amendments 63, 64 and 65. I presume that that motion will be carried, unless anyone indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, that motion therefore carries. We turn to clause 22, and I call on Mr Baker to move. 4200 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 22 provides for access to information on the register. A landlord may be given access to all information on the register that concerns his or her entry and a landlord’s representative may be given their own personal information as well as information concerning a landlord’s rented 4205 dwellings for which they act on behalf of the landlord. The Department may make regulations subject to Tynwald approval to provide for terms of access for any other persons.
______Hansard Extract Page 48 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 22 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you. 4210 Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. 4215 I call on Mr Hooper to move amendments 66 and 67, please.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. These two amendments are relatively straightforward, I think. The first amendment, number 66, changes the emphasis ever so slightly in this clause. So the clause at present simply 4220 states that a relevant landlord may be given access to information that concerns their own entry and the representative may be given access to information about the representative themselves or about the dwelling or landlord that they act on behalf of. Anything further must therefore be specified in regulations. What I found quite unusual about the wording of this clause is that it does not specify on the 4225 face of the Bill that the register itself must be accessible to tenants or potential tenants. All of that will come in regulations. Now, given that the main purpose of this Bill is tenant protection, it seems a little bit incongruous that we are not stating on the face of the Bill that tenants and potential tenants should be able to access specified information about the property that they are looking to rent or the property that they are renting, the landlord they are looking to rent from, or, indeed, 4230 the representative they are looking to engage with. It seems a bit unusual, for me, to be saying to the individuals that we are making this Bill on behalf of that actually, ‘Your rights in terms of access to this register and this information isn’t really going to be stated on the face of the Bill. It is not going to be quite as important as the landlords’ access themselves.’ If you look at similar legislation across in Scotland, for example, where they have had a 4235 landlords register for some time, the register is searchable by a certain number of limited criteria. So you can go on the website yourself. If you know the address of the property you are searching for, you could enter that; if you know the landlord’s registration number, you can enter that. You cannot trawl the register by name, you cannot trawl the register for information. You need to know what it is you are looking for. But on application, you can be given this information relatively 4240 straightforward, it is all online. That is the nature of the amendment that I am proposing. The wording of this amendment is lifted almost exactly from the Scottish legislation and would simply provide that on application of any person in relation to a particular rented dwelling, the search applicant will be given confirmation of whether or not the dwelling is registered or is about to be registered; the name 4245 and registration number of the landlord of that particular dwelling; the name and registration number of any representative acting on behalf of that dwelling; and then the correspondence details which have been included on the register. Also, in terms of searching for a particular individual, if the search applicant knows the name of the individual, or more specifically the registration number, which is how I would envisage it 4250 working, they would be able to provide it with information as to whether or not that individual is indeed registered and whether or not there are any notes on the system, on the register, about refusal to register or removal of that individual’s registration, as well as, again, correspondence details. The biggest issue, of course, in respect of tenants, being, ‘Is my landlord registered; is he fit and proper?’, and in some cases even, ‘Who are they and can I contact them if needs be?’ 4255 There is also a section in the amendment that specifies very clearly that the Department may withhold information on one of these searches if they consider that providing the information would be likely to jeopardise the safety or welfare of any person, or the security of any premises.
______Hansard Extract Page 49 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
So there is some flexibility there in respect of protecting perhaps vulnerable individuals or vulnerable landlords, vulnerable tenants, from a potentially malicious use of the search functions. 4260 As I said, this legislation and this wording is in place in Scotland and has been for quite some time. It seems to work relatively well, as far as I can make out, especially the online register itself. I have spent quite some time messing with it to see if I can access by entering spurious information and it seems that you cannot. So unless you really know what you are looking for, the register is of little use to you, but if you do know what you are looking for, because you are a tenant or a 4265 prospective tenant, if you have all the relevant information, I can imagine that that register, that search ability and that information being very easily and readily accessible to you would be of great benefit. In connection with amendment number 67, this is … Apologies, I have lost my place. Amendment number 67 changes the information that may be provided to a landlord’s 4270 representative on request. So it would allow the information to be provided in respect of their own entry on the register, as well as the landlord’s information, or the dwelling that they act on behalf of. So amendment 67 is very much in connection with the separation of the landlord and the landlord’s representative. It is not really connected in any way to amendment number 66. 4275 Amendment 66 is much more fundamental, I think, and speaks to a desire on my part to make sure that the register is public as far as possible, or at least is publicly available to tenants, potential tenants, and perhaps any other enforcement bodies who may or may not just use the register for their purposes. I think the Bill currently leaves all of that up in the air and entirely in the hands of the Department, which personally I do not feel is the appropriate level for that level of information 4280 and detail. So with that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendments number 66 and 67:
Amendments to clause 22 66. Page 37, line 8, before subsection (1) insert — «(1) The Department must, on the application of any person (“the search applicant”), in relation to— (a) a particular rented dwelling, provide the search applicant with— (i) confirmation of whether any application relating to the rented dwelling has been made in accordance with section 13 but has not yet been determined; (ii) the name and registration number (if any) of the relevant landlord that has been registered in respect of the rented dwelling under section 7; (iii) the name and registration number of the landlord’s representative (if any) that has been registered in respect of the rented dwelling under section [NC1]; and (iv) the address and other correspondence details that are included in the register (if any) for enabling contact to be made with the relevant landlord or the landlord’s representative; (b) a particular person, confirm to the search applicant — (i) whether that other person is registered under section 7 as a relevant landlord or under section [NC1] as a landlord’s representative; (ii) whether the register includes a record of a decision to refuse that other person's registration or to remove that other person from, the register; and (iii) the address and other correspondence details that are included in the register (if any) for enabling contact to be made with the relevant landlord or landlord’s representative. (2) Despite subsection (1), the Department may withhold information where it considers that providing the information would be likely to jeopardise— (a) the safety or welfare of any person; or (b) the security of any premises.». Renumber subsequent subsections. 67. Page 37, lines 13 to 15, for subsections (2)(a) and (b) substitute — «(a) the landlord’s representative’s entry on the register;
______Hansard Extract Page 50 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
(b) information concerning a rented dwelling for which the landlord’s representative acts as such; and (c) information concerning the registration of the landlord for whom the landlord’s representative undertakes property management activities.».
The Speaker: Thank you. Hon. Member, Mr Perkins.
4285 Mr Perkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second amendment 66.
The Speaker: I need a seconder for amendment 67 then.
Mr Perkins: I will also to do amendment 67 as well, Mr Speaker. 4290 The Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr Perkins. I call on Mr Baker to speak to the amendment.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4295 Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, for the first time today, I rise to oppose an amendment being put forward by the Hon. Member for Ramsey. That is amendment number 66, and for clarity, I have no concerns with amendment 67. Clause 22 of the Bill makes it clear that there is to be a register and that relevant landlords and landlords’ representatives are able to access all the information held on the register that relates 4300 to them. They have a right to know what information is held that relates to them and their business with each other. The intention is for the Department to make regulations to set out what information on the register is to be available to other persons. There are two principal advantages for this approach of making regulations in respect of additional information to be disclosed. Firstly, the Department will wish to consult on the 4305 proposed regulations and in particular will wish to ensure that the Information Commissioner has the opportunity to express his views on whether he has any concerns in relation to the proposals. Secondly, the Department will wish to consult with DEFA with a view to ensuring that there are adequate and lawful gateways for the sharing of information with them and consult with the public and with relevant landlords and landlords’ representatives as to their views on the 4310 information that should or should not be available to the general public. My hon. friend Mr Hooper has identified that tenants should be given access to certain information and I fully agree with him. But Mr Hooper has also quite rightly identified there will be circumstances when the Department may need to withhold information. He has identified that this could be for safety or welfare of any person issues, or the security of premises. But I think 4315 there are other considerations the Department will need to have. There need to be checks and balances so there is a degree of control over who searches and the information that is given, just as there are checks and balances when searching the land registry, and where a person is refused access, there needs to be a right of appeal against the decision. The intention is for the regulations to be made only after approval of Tynwald, and so the 4320 passing of this Bill is clearly not the end of the matter. I am very clear that tenants will need to be able to find out whether the property that they are renting or intend to rent is managed by a person who is registered. Another clear advantage of bringing forward regulation is that while still subject entirely to the approval of Tynwald, regulations are flexible, meaning that there is an opportunity for proper 4325 consultation and consideration of the requirements of the Bill as finally enacted. Having this time to think before the appointed day order means that more appropriate processes can be developed and tailored according to need. It is also possible, of course, to amend the regulations as the need arises, rather than needing to revisit primary legislation with all that that entails.
______Hansard Extract Page 51 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
It is not to say that Mr Hooper’s amendment will not work or will not be technically correct, or 4330 even cannot be shoehorned into the legislation now. Of course it can. But perhaps a better alternative, Hon. Members, is not to decide prematurely, to reflect and to keep this clause as drafted with its intention of being an enabling provision. That is not to say it will be secretive, hidden from view, inaccessible. That is not the intent at all. I can assure Hon. Members there will be public facing, digitally led and accessible data where 4335 it is felt appropriate, after Tynwald has had the time to properly consider matters. Doing so will allow for proper consideration of what is actually required and when, so that the right data is made available on the right terms to the right applicant for the right purpose. Therefore, Hon. Members, whilst applauding the Hon. Member’s intention in bringing forward this amendment, I will not be supporting it. 4340 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4345 Of course the Minister is right that we need proper attention to make sure that data protection is handled properly according to law and according to consent. Does the Minister agree with me that at the moment, though, given that the property that is rented out is actually heavily regulated, does he not agree with me that at the moment you can walk into Douglas Borough Council as a prospective tenant and ask Douglas Borough Council whether or not the flat, the HMO 4350 and so on, is actually already registered and they will tell you straight there and then? So surely he will agree with me that we do not want to make things worse than they currently are for tenants in coming months and years?
The Speaker: Thank you. 4355 I call on Mr Hooper to reply to the debate on his amendments.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is an interesting position the Minister has taken here because the amendment that I have proposed actually does not affect the Department’s regulation-making powers at all. The 4360 amendment I have proposed actually does not impact at all on the Department’s ability to specify which other information on the register may be accessed and by which persons, in terms of information gateways. It does not touch on that at all. So that is a bit of a red herring. The amendment does not change that at all. It also does not alter the Department’s ability to specify the terms on which information may 4365 be provided, the form in which requests for access to information may be made or the means by which the register may be searched. The amendment does not touch on any of those things the Minister said are so important, and which I agree with him are important. So the amendment itself is not really what the Minister was talking about there. In fact, I cannot tell you what the Minister was talking about, because all the issues that he raised are not being changed in my amendment. 4370 The amendment simply is putting on the face of the Bill an additional category of information. The Bill on the face of it, at the moment, has two categories of information and two categories of people who are statutorily able to search it without being subject to the Department’s regulation-making guidance. That it is the landlord themselves and the landlord’s representative. The Department obviously feels that these two classes of individual need to be specified on the 4375 face of the Bill because they are very important. But the Department also obviously feels that tenants are not important enough to have their rights stated on the face of the Bill. The Minister seems to be saying that if you state the tenant’s right of access on the face of the Bill that causes complications further down the line. The same statement must equally be true of stating the landlord’s access rights and the landlord’s representative’s access rights on the face of 4380 the Bill. Yet that has posed no issues for the Minister and his team.
______Hansard Extract Page 52 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
I did check with the Information Commissioner after tabling this amendment, after these queries were raised by the Department. The Information Commissioner did respond very helpfully and a response which I have shared with the Department, which I will read out for the Hon. House now. The Information Commissioner’s response was: ‘I have read your proposed amendment. If 4385 access to the register is provided for in legislation as proposed in your amendment, I do not see any GDPR compliance issue.’ So the view of the Information Commissioner therefore is this does not create a GDPR compliance issue in terms of data protection. The amendment as tabled touches not at all on any of the Department’s rights and abilities to make further regulations specifying any of the things that the Minister is concerned about. 4390 So really, I cannot see any logical reason for the Minister to oppose or for the Government to oppose this amendment, which like I say is word for word almost what they have in Scotland and what they have had in Scotland now for nearly 15 years. It seems to be working rather well for them. So again, this does seem to be a situation of the Department perhaps being fearful of data protection law, instead of leaning into a successfully operating system, adopting it and Manxifying 4395 it for our particular circumstance. With that, Mr Speaker, I do commend both of these amendments to the Hon. House and would very much welcome support from Hon. Members on these amendments. Thank you very much.
4400 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Baker, to reply to the debate on the clause.
Mr Baker: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Dealing with Mr Thomas’s comments, I am delighted to be able to agree with him on a 4405 statement that he has made today: that we do not want to make things worse for tenants. I think that is absolutely something that we all agree on, Mr Speaker. So with that, that probably concludes my comments on Mr Thomas’s remarks. In terms of Mr Hooper, I have no issue at all, whatsoever, with the intention of what he is trying to do here. I think he is approaching the issue, and clearly there is a model in Scotland which does 4410 work. What I would point out to Hon. Members is the Scottish system is actually very mature, as he himself touched on. It has been in place for 15 years or so. Clearly that gives us some really good insight and some guidance that we can draw on. However, I think, for me, to immediately replicate something from a jurisdiction that is far more mature in this particular aspect than ourselves is quite a big leap. It is not necessarily the wrong one, but I think it is quite a big stretch. 4415 That system in Scotland has adapted over time. My view on these things is that it takes adaptation both ways to make new things work and it is about adapting your processes, but also people adapting to arrangements as well. The principal reason, whilst there is a GDPR aspect clearly to this, from the Department’s stance is around future flexibility and to enable more consultation to take place to fine tune what 4420 is potentially implemented in due course. The whole point with this Bill is that the regulations are key to it. We have already touched on it, I am sure will touch on it again before we conclude the debate on the clauses stage, but secondary regulations are absolutely sensible for situations which will change over time and I think that this potentially would change over time. So it is more about the future flexibility and it is about the balance. Mr Hooper, quite rightly, is 4425 looking at this from tenants’ eyes. From my point of view, we need to look at it from a whole 360 degrees, and I am content with what the Department has come up with. Equally, as I said in my remarks, if it is the will of this House that Mr Hooper’s amendment prevails, then we will of course make it work. With that, I beg to move. 4430 The Speaker: Thank you very much.
______Hansard Extract Page 53 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Putting to you first amendment number 67, which did not seem to attract any negative comment. So amendment number 67 in the name of Mr Hooper. I put that question and presume that that motion will carry, unless any Member indicates dissent. None having been indicated, 4435 amendment 67 carries. Putting to you then amendment number 66 in the name of Mr Hooper, and I presume that that will carry – Dr Allinson has indicated dissent, so if we just wait, we will organise a vote.
Voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mrs Barber Dr Allinson Mrs Caine Mr Ashford Mrs Corlett Mr Baker Ms Edge Mr Boot Mr Hooper Mr Callister Mr Moorhouse Mr Cannan Mr Peake Mrs Christian Mr Quine Mr Cregeen Mr Shimmins Mr Harmer Mr Thomas Mr Quayle Mr Speaker Mr Robertshaw Mr Perkins Mr Skelly
The Speaker: Hon. Members, 12 votes for, 12 against. Amendment 66 fails to carry. I put to you clause 22, as amended by amendment 67 only, and I presume that that motion will 4440 carry, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, clause 22, as amended by amendment 67, stands part of the Bill. We turn to clause 23, and I call on Mr Baker to move.
Mr Baker: Mr Speaker, clause 23 provides that the Department must make regulations subject 4445 to Tynwald approval to set out the minimum standards required of a relevant landlord in relation to the management and operational matters involved in being a relevant landlord and minimum standards with respect to the condition and safety of the landlord’s rented dwellings. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 23 stands part of the Bill.
4450 The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
4455 The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mr Hooper to move amendment 68.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment … Sorry, my machine is beeping at me. Amendment number 68 substitutes the existing (1)(a) in the Bill with a new (1)(a) simply to include in there a landlord’s representative as 4460 well as the landlord themselves. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Amendment to clause 23: 68. Page 38, lines 1 and 2, for subsection (1)(a) substitute — «(a) a relevant landlord with respect to the management and operational matters involved in being a relevant landlord; (b) a landlord’s representative; and». Renumber subsequent paragraph.
______Hansard Extract Page 54 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson.
4465 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mr Callister to move amendment number 69, please.
4470 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move an amendment to clause 23, for the same reasons I have recently described in clause 21, amendment 65. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:
Amendment to clause 23 69. Page 38, lines 32 to 34, for subsection (6) substitute — «(6) The Department must publish any regulations made under subsection (1) in electronic form, where practicable, and in such other manner that it considers necessary to bring them to the attention of those likely to be affected by them.».
The Speaker: Thank you. 4475 Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 4480 Looking down the list, I do not see anyone wishing to speak to clause 23 or the amendments, so – Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just wanted clarification about the provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 that might 4485 apply to a relevant landlord, despite this new Bill changing the law in respect of this ancient legal framework, especially in the light of what appears later in clause 62 in respect of the landlord and tenant laws, and other laws, not being affected ‘Unless otherwise expressly provided …’ It might be quite helpful for future people and for people in the future of the legal system to know what was on the mind of the Minister and the Department in terms of any provision in the Landlord 4490 and Tenant Act 1954 if they are ever called to construe the legislation, given that this is I think the only reference, or the only one I noticed, that specifically says that this law might be in contradiction to the existing landlord and tenant framework. There are more comments to make about minimum standards, but I think we might be going into a Committee of the Whole House at some point, so I will make those in the Committee of the 4495 Whole House framework when we look at minimum standards later on. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Okay. I give the first opportunity to respond to Mr Callister.
4500 Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nothing further to add from me. Thank you.
The Speaker: Mr Hooper. 4505 Mr Hooper: No, thank you, Mr Speaker.
______Hansard Extract Page 55 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The Speaker: Thank you. And, Mr Baker.
4510 Mr Baker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, clearly, as the Hon. Member for Douglas East has already outlined, this clause effectively makes clear that any provision that may provide within this Bill for it to be of minimum standard that a lease granted by the landlord must be in writing. It is effectively making it clear that that takes precedence over any prior provision under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. 4515 So I think it is very clear what the intention: that if the minimum standards are that the lease has to be in writing then that is the case, despite what it might say in an Act that predates it by some 67 years. But as the Hon. Member does clarify, further on in the Bill in clause 62, there is a clear statement that the Landlord and Tenant Act is not affected unless it is expressly stated that it is. 4520 So I think that that clears up that point, and with that, I beg to move. Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Baker. Putting to Hon. Members first amendment number 68 in the name of Mr Hooper. I presume that that motion will carry, unless any Member indicates dissent. No dissent having been 4525 indicated, amendment 68 carries. Putting to you amendment 69 in the name of Mr Callister, and I presume that that will carry unless any Member indicates dissent. That motion carries. Putting to you clause 23, as amended, and I presume that that will carry unless anyone indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, clause 23, as amended, stands part of the Bill. 4530 Clause 24, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 24 provides that a relevant landlord complies with the minimum standards only if they and the landlord’s rented dwellings comply with all the requirements of the minimum standards 4535 which apply to the landlord and to the landlord’s rented dwellings. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 24 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mrs Christian. 4540 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you. I call on Mr Hooper to move amendment number 70. 4545 Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amendment number 70 simply includes mirroring the landlords provision in this minimum standards compliance clause, includes the mirror provision for landlords’ representatives as well, stating that a landlord’s representative complies with minimum standards only if they comply with 4550 all of the requirements of the minimum standards which are applicable to them. Mr Speaker, I beg to move amendment number 70:
Amendment to clause 24 70. Page 38, lines 38, after subsection (1) insert — «(2) A landlord’s representative complies with the minimum standards only if the landlord‘s representative complies with all the requirements of the minimum standards applicable to the landlord’s representative.». Renumber subsequent subsection.
______Hansard Extract Page 56 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Dr Allinson.
4555 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Mrs Barber.
4560 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House in order to take evidence from Mr Alan Burrows and Mr Charles Garside of the Manx Landlords Association, with Ms Teresa Graves, drafter, and a DoI officer, as necessary. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4565 The Speaker: Mrs Corlett.
Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second Mrs Barber’s proposal to resolve the House into a Committee of the Whole 4570 House. Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you. Now, no Member wishes to speak. I will put the question that the House resolve itself into a 4575 Committee of the Whole House in order to take evidence from the Manx Landlords Association, the drafter and any DoI officer required. I presume that that motion will carry unless anyone indicates dissent, which they should do now, please. Sorry, Mr Baker, do you wish to speak to the motion or do you wish to register dissent?
4580 Mr Baker: No, I do not wish to register dissent, Mr Speaker. I just merely wish to clarify that as policy matters are a matter for me as the Minister, whilst there will be the drafter from the Attorney General’s Chambers, there will not be a DoI officer present for this Committee of the Whole House. Thank you. 4585 The Speaker: Understood. Thank you very much, Mr Baker. Okay. Well, the motion stands that we resolve ourselves to a Committee of the Whole, and having seen no dissent, the motion therefore carries.
In Committee of the Whole House
The Speaker: We therefore find ourselves in a Committee of the Whole House, and it gives me 4590 the opportunity to welcome on your behalf our representatives from the Manx Landlords Association. If I could ask Members, if they would like to ask questions of any of the witnesses, to please indicate their wish to speak in the usual manner in the chat box. Firstly, could I just do an admin check to make sure that we have our guests with us, please? I ask for the assistance of the Deputy Secretary in doing that, please. 4595 The Deputy Secretary: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Burrows, we saw you earlier, but we have not heard from you yet. Would you like to open your microphone and just say hello so that we can hear whether we can hear you all right?
______Hansard Extract Page 57 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
4600 Mr Burrows: Good afternoon. Yes, I am here, thank you very much. Sorry, I had microphone problems earlier.
The Speaker: Thank you.
4605 The Deputy Secretary: That is okay. Welcome aboard. The other –
The Speaker: Ms Graves.
The Deputy Secretary: Ms Graves, are you here and able to speak to us? 4610 Ms Graves: Yes, I am here.
The Speaker: Thank you very much.
4615 The Deputy Secretary: Also, Mr Charles Garside.
Mr Garside: Good afternoon. Yes, I am still here. Thank you very much.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 4620 Mrs Barber, you wish to ask the first question.
Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the witnesses for their forbearance, because it has been a long afternoon. I wonder if I could start by asking Mr Garside and Mr Burrows if they could outline their 4625 concerns specifically around the detail and the structure of clause 24 as currently drafted.
The Speaker: If I call first on Mr Garside.
Mr Garside: With regard to clause 24, the landlord only complies with the minimum standards 4630 if they comply with all requirements of the minimum standards. Not all properties are suitable for these minimum standards. It is understood, at the point of registration, conditions may be attached. However, with regard to these clauses here, it states that the standards only comply if all requirements of the minimum standards, to the extent that they apply to the dwelling, apply. I understand all minimum standards do apply, and it is a little bit chicken and egg with regard to 4635 a relevant landlord, who must comply with all the minimum standards on there: if they are falling short, how can they actually apply for registration? Al, can you add some more, please?
Mr Burrows: Yes, certainly. Alan Burrows, and thank you for taking evidence from us today. 4640 I think first of all I would like to say that there is severe concern amongst the landlord population on the Island and it primarily revolves around these minimum standards. It has been felt for some time that there ought to be a facility whereby the property can meet some of the minimum standards, but not all. I think we all are aware that some of the older properties in town quite honestly would find it difficult to meet these minimum standards. As such, we would 4645 welcome a slight change to the wording and the ability to maybe meet some of them or at least have a timescale that would allow us to meet some of them. But to simply say that a property must meet all the minimum standards I think is a little bit too wide-ranging and a bit too much of a sweeping statement that a considerable number of properties just quite simply will not meet at this time. 4650 The Speaker: Thank you.
______Hansard Extract Page 58 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mrs Barber.
Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to Mr Garside and Mr Burrows for that 4655 starter. I think listening to what they are saying, it is clear that there is a piece around the initial suggested minimum standards that were proposed and the detail that is encaptured within that. So with that in mind, I wonder if I could perhaps ask – the Minister might be the most appropriate place – whether he would be able to publish, first of all, a table that gives the detail around the 4660 minimum standards that are already in existence and already required of landlords, and where those are found within legislation at present; and also the enforcement powers and penalties that coincide with those; and then whether he might consider initially, with the introduction of the Landlord Registration Bill, a reduced list that is required for the registration of landlords that will allow landlords to progress and improve their properties in a process that is not felt to be a short 4665 bang, I suppose – which I think this feels like that; that there is going to be a time that this comes in and suddenly a Bill that has been passed is being attributed to standards that as yet are unknown. Thank you.
4670 The Speaker: Thank you. Minister, do you have an answer to that question?
Mr Baker: Yes, I am happy to answer that from a policy perspective, Mr Speaker. I understand the concerns from both the landlords and from Mrs Barber. What I would say is 4675 these are minimum standards, and as a society we need to be raising standards of the accommodation that people live in. We all know, at the bottom end of the market, there are some conditions that people are living in that are not satisfactory, and you have to set the bar and then you have to raise it. Now, the fact that some properties will have greater challenges than others means that we 4680 need to nuance that in terms of the way that the regulations around this are drafted and brought in. We have already said and that there is a consultation process to go through, there is an engagement process, and it is clear that the document that I circulated to Hon. Members earlier, prepared by the drafter and my officers, makes it clear it is to the extent that they apply to the properties. So clearly the minimum standard for one type of property may differ from a property 4685 that is fundamentally different in age or nature, for example. That is around the detail, as we move forward, once we have got this Bill in and draft the minimum standards. I think the Hon. Member’s point about trying to clarify things and make them as clear as possible is well made, and that is what we are going to be looking to do. But it would have been premature to have gone too far down the road of these minimum standards without even any 4690 guarantee that the Bill was going to receive approval. What I would also say is we are on a journey here. The Bill will not be brought fully into force immediately, and there will be time for the landlords and their representatives to adjust and amend how they currently operate and maintain their properties or treat their tenants. We must not lose sight of the fact these minimum standards are of both the property and of the landlords 4695 and the landlord’s representative. We need to make sure that standards as a whole are appropriate across the whole market. It may well be that landlords come forward with properties that are not immediately in the right condition and are at the right standard, and it will be possible for the Department to potentially grant registration subject to conditions to improve over a period of time. We are very 4700 much looking to drive the standards up over time, and we hope that landlords are going to engage. But if they do not, there is a clear and fair step process of enforcement, which has to be there, because if you do not have any enforcement and there are no penalties then there is going to be a lack of compliance. We know that.
______Hansard Extract Page 59 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
But I must stress that the Department do not want landlords to fail, and it will assist, but it will 4705 be prepared to take enforcement action if it needs to. But that is not going to be its preferred mode of operation. So I think that that clarifies the position. I hope it does for Mrs Barber’s benefit, but that is the position. Thank you. 4710 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 4715 It is a question for the Minister really off the back of the evidence we have just heard. I think it is a valid point: different properties will necessitate perhaps different handling sometimes. The Minister has just said there will be some way of taking account of differences, so for example, older properties or properties that are perhaps unique in their construction, in terms of how the minimum standards may or may not apply to them. 4720 So building on what the Minister has said, the question really is just if he can confirm for the avoidance of doubt that minimum standards will be essentially able to be tailored to properties or categories of properties or classes of properties, or what have you, to take into account some of these inherent variations without compromising the need for minimum standards, for obvious reasons. But also, if he could then maybe expand a little bit on how that might be effected, 4725 whether it will be through the regulations themselves or will the properties be subject to some sort of assessment with conditions attached to the registration; just a bit more meat on the bones really as to how those kinds of variations will be taken into account in the minimum property standards.
4730 The Speaker: Thank you. Minister to reply.
Mr Baker: Yes, thank you and thanks to the Hon. Member for Ramsey for his question. I think he is searching for a precise answer. I am not really today in a position to give him that 4735 precision because we have got a journey to go on from here on in. But in principle terms, there has to be a recognition in the process that some properties differ in their nature for others. There needs to be a baseline of minimum standards, as indeed there are already out in certain aspects of the property market in terms of the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2017, which are already in place. 4740 So we need to build on this, we need to make sure that any bespoking of standards is sensitive, is appropriate and is not effectively a loophole to allow the maintenance of poor standards just because a landlord does not want to actually invest in their property or modify it to make it acceptable for the tenant. But equally, we need to recognise that we have a wide range of properties on this Island and that a one-size-fits-all approach needs to be appropriately tailored. I 4745 would expect that to be a key part of the consultation process as we go through. But clearly there are some baseline principles that cannot be violated. So, for example, safety standards have to be there, they are non-negotiable, and the use of conditions on property registration is likely to be a key part of the solution for the way that we deal with this challenge going forward. 4750 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Thomas.
______Hansard Extract Page 60 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
4755 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the witnesses for attending the Keys today and making themselves available to answer questions. The witnesses might remember, as I do, the long process between 2013 and now, probably, to introduce higher standards for flats and houses of multiple occupation, which involved stakeholder meetings, regulations from the Fire Service, regulations from the Department of 4760 Environment, Food and Agriculture; gradual stepping up of the requirements, flexibility, recognition of grandfathering rights to deal with differences in property and the fact that renovation was not happening immediately. Would the witnesses think that that might be a sort of timescale and an approach that might be appropriate for the Minister to have in mind as he considers the market, if he is not interested in disrupting the private-rented sector? 4765 The second question is again to the witnesses. Do the witnesses feel as if they are clear about whether the existing safety standards are not complied with, and why it is the Minister would feel that the safety standards would need to be increased? I would have thought there is no landlord that is going to be in breach of fire regulations, electrical safety standards and gas standards at the moment, with the existing regulations as they are, because I thought the enforcement of those 4770 was pretty tight already. So they are two questions to start with for the witnesses, please. Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you. I call first on Mr Burrows. 4775 Mr Burrows: Yes, thank you. Those were very good points. I think some of the points that the Minister made as well, possibly … I totally applaud his idea of having minimum standards and certainly safety standards. However, I think one of the major concerns is that right now there is uncertainty out there and it 4780 is already affecting the market. I am sure Mr Garside can probably testify to that, because he is involved in this market. But we say there are minimum standards in place already regarding safety and Mr Thomas has quite rightly alluded to those. But our concern, as an Association, is that owners of older properties cannot at this moment in time make decisions in terms of either re- letting properties, buying new properties, because they have absolutely no idea what the 4785 standards are likely to be. And as … sorry, not wishing to repeat myself, but that causes huge uncertainty in the market. We are seeing landlords actively leaving the sector because they are frightened of what these standards will be. We are also, within this Bill, setting penalties, but are setting penalties not knowing what the crime is! We do not know what these standards are likely to be. Another point I would make, 4790 which I think is quite a valid one, is that the Minister alluded to the fact that he wants to raise the bar over time. So if a landlord today, let’s say we knew these standards today, and let’s say a landlord invests in a property today, as the bar rises, does that mean that his investment today will no longer be acceptable? Does it mean that there has to be a constant renovation programme? Because the bar is going to be raised – he has already said that – and I think that is 4795 going to cause huge disruption within the market as a whole. Please, Members, be aware that the private rental market is a very important sector within the economy, and all this is doing at this time, bringing this Bill forward, without it being a clear, concise Bill, laying down the standards, all it is doing is frightening people away. The last point I would make is that if you buy a new house today, then it has to apply modern 4800 building standards and it has to conform to building regulation standards. If those standards change over time, that does not mean to say I have to modernise my house again, because it complied at the time I bought it. But the inference here is that as the bar is raised, using the Minister’s own words, then my rental property has to continually evolve. That is not an attractive investment for a landlord. 4805 Thank you.
______Hansard Extract Page 61 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The Speaker: Thank you. I bring in Mr Garside at this point.
4810 Mr Garside: Yes, just compounding and going back to the clause in itself, clause 24, the issue is, as you were saying, yes, the bar will be raised, but the clause refers to a specific, minimum standard without flexibility. That minimum standard: at what point does it occur and at what date does it occur and how will it progress? There is a lack of certainty there and it states in the clause that all ‘requirements of the minimum standards’ … It has not at any historical point given any 4815 flexibility and that feeds in, which Mr Burrows, our chairman, is saying, with lack of certainty and the fragility of the market.
The Speaker: Thank you. Next question is in the hands of Mr Robertshaw. 4820 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Listening with great interest to the exchanges we have got here, the Minister’s drive is quite rightly the correct one, in the sense that he wants to aspire to higher standards. But I think that the landlords are indicating they fear the black and white nature of this particular clause. I just 4825 wonder, bearing in mind the huge challenges that lie down the road in terms of thermal values in properties, climate change issues, and all the concerns that come out of that, is the Minister mindful to consider some sort of graduation? The first one that comes to mind, in terms of registration, is the concept of a provisional registration. So you are a bit like a driver: you have to learn to become a good driver and then you 4830 are granted that full licence. In this case, it seems to me that the concept of being registered or not is too blunt. There is a process to go through; and that would he please consider the idea of some form of provisionality linked to certain timescales? I think it warrants consideration. Thanks, Mr Speaker.
4835 The Speaker: I think that question was aimed at you, Mr Baker, if you care to respond.
Mr Baker: Yes, of course I will respond to the Hon. Member for Douglas East. I think he has picked up on and uses the phrase ‘graduation’, and I think that describes what we talked about in the paper that I circulated around the fact that we will be raising the bar over 4840 time and that we will of course be introducing the voluntary framework to start with. Then we will be working with landlords to bring their properties up to standard. I did talk about the concept of properties being registered with conditions, which sounds quite similar to Mr Robertshaw’s concept of effectively a learner driver who has got some restrictions on their ability to drive the car to its maximum extent. 4845 I think the reality here is we have to raise the standards. We will be looking to bring the minimum standards out for consultation as quickly as we sensibly can, to have that engagement and to bring some more certainty to the industry. But it is interesting hearing the witnesses speak because they are talking about landlords quitting the market and selling up. Well, in other conversations, we are hearing about concerns over people being unable to buy properties on the 4850 Island and being priced out of first-time buyers’ houses, for example, and hard-working Manx families not being able to get a foot on the ladder. Now, it may be that individual landlords are choosing to sell, but that does not make that property disappear. They sell it, for every seller there is of course a buyer and that buyer may be another landlord who wishes to treat it as a rental market property, or indeed wishes to put it 4855 onto the freehold private residential market. So the house does not disappear; people live in it. If the market was collapsing, as the representatives of the MLA talk about, then I would be expecting prices on this Island to be falling, whereas certainly the evidence in recent months has been very much of the property market becoming inflated.
______Hansard Extract Page 62 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
So with that, Mr Speaker, I think I will draw my remarks to a close on this particular aspect of 4860 it.
The Speaker: Thank you. The next question is in the hands of Ms Edge.
4865 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too thank the witnesses that have come forward today to speak, to air the concerns of the Landlords Association. I have questions for them, but I also have a question for the Minister as well. So the first one is for the Minister, with regard to the big concern here that none of the current landlords know 4870 when these standards will come into force. It is quite clear that there are some standards already in place, as described previously, for electrical safety, gas safety, but this expectation that the standards are going to become enforceable, with fines, is certainly the area of concern. I do not necessarily agree with Members that say it is going to be an approach. The Minister says we need minimum standards. We also know that some of the properties currently, the majority of 4875 landlords are very good landlords, but we also know there are properties currently that probably will not meet those minimum standards. I am sure the people that are before us today would not be in that bracket. So the question for the Minister is the date for standards is key to give people security as to when they can expect this. Is it a year down the line? Is it … ? Just a good idea for them. 4880 Also, with regard to a provisional scheme, as described by Hon. Member for Douglas East, you are talking about a voluntary scheme to start with for people to register. Obviously at that point in time you will be aware of the people that have done it voluntarily, but I think it is timescales that is causing the concern. Also, there are a large number of properties currently up for sale because of the nervousness 4885 of not knowing. I know the Minister has described that people are struggling for properties on the Island, but who is going to buy a property not knowing what is coming down the line at you with regard to standards? So the standards are key to this. Mr Speaker, does the Minister wish to reply and then I will ask the question to the landlords or do you wish for me to do it together? 4890 The Speaker: I think it would be wise, Ms Edge, if I ask you to put all your questions on the table, then I will bring the Minister in and then I will bring in the MLA representatives after that to answer those elements.
4895 Ms Edge: Okay, thank you, Mr Speaker. So my question for the Manx Landlords Association: currently there is an inspection regime from the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture. How do you currently find that process from an inspection point of view? Does it happen? How often does it happen? I am not clear as to who is going to be doing the inspections on the standards and what qualifications they 4900 have. Obviously, as a landlords’ association, I am sure you will have had discussions around this, but perhaps the Minister can advise who will actually be doing the property standards inspections and what qualifications would be expected there? Thank you, Mr Speaker.
4905 The Speaker: Thank you, Ms Edge. I intend to invite the Minister to respond, then I will invite Mr Burrows to respond, then I will invite Mr Garside to respond, by which time it will be 5.30 p.m. and I draw Hon. Members’ attention to Standing Orders. I know that there will be a motion at that point; but I just wanted to lay out how I see this panning out. 4910 So, firstly, Minister to respond to Ms Edge’s questions.
______Hansard Extract Page 63 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Baker: Yes, thank you. The point Ms Edge makes is about the visibility of the minimum standards. We will get those out in circulation as quickly as we possibly can to get visibility and build that engagement with the industry. But I would reiterate there are minimum standards in place at the moment and people 4915 need to be compliant with them, with what is currently in place. In terms of bringing this Bill to effect, we have got to get the standards, the regulations and the guidance developed. You mentioned a period of 12 months or so, and I think that is an entirely reasonable timeframe to be thinking about, but if the industry wants it in quicker to give certainty then clearly, we will be happy to push on as quickly as we can. 4920 Thank you.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Baker. I call on Mr Burrows.
4925 Mr Burrows: Yes, thank you very much. I would very much like to respond to some of the comments that the Minister made there with regard to first-time buyer properties and the response to my comment about landlords that are currently leaving the market. There is evidence to prove that landlords are leaving the market, and I am sure the response from the Minister was probably drafted by the Department. But for 4930 me it was quite a concerning response because he alluded to the fact that as landlords possibly are leaving the market, then there is a problem with first-time buyers at the moment being able to find suitably priced accommodation. That concerns me because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the market. Firstly, I would respond by saying that landlords cannot buy first-time buyer properties. I would 4935 also respond by saying that the type of property that a first-time buyer would be looking at, potentially a new build, will almost certainly meet minimum standards and as such, will not be on the market. Our concern is the older properties that are in Douglas, Ramsey, around the Island: those are already starting to be left unoccupied. Those are the properties that are going to come on the market, because that is where the uncertainty lies. So I am afraid the argument about first- 4940 time buyers just does not stack up at all, I am afraid.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Burrows. Would you care to also address the questions as put by Ms Edge as well, please?
4945 Mr Burrows: I can, but I think that Mr Garside will address those better because, as I say, he is actively involved in the market from a rental and management perspective, so I think he can give a fuller answer on those.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 4950 Mr Garside.
Mr Garside: Yes, the first question – please correct me – was in regard to current enforcement, which I presume relates to the 2013, 2017 Housing and Flats Regulations Acts and the environmental officers who I have always said all the way along the line are very engaging and 4955 very progressive because those minimum standards are already in force, which I believe has already got a £20,000 fine. One comment, and it is again going back to this clause I will make, we are talking about minimum standards. I am sure the environmental officers would agree, minimum standards are not just for the landlord. Minimum standards apply to the tenant as well with regard to the upkeep 4960 and condition of the property. A large proportion of call-outs for environmental officers is due to the tenant’s style of occupation. From the landlord’s point of view, you must always take into account, when looking at minimum standards, the tenant’s obligations, not just the landlord’s.
______Hansard Extract Page 64 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Now, Hon. Members, as I indicated earlier, we have reached the allotted hour as under 4965 Standing Order 1.2(2) of 5.30 p.m.
Extension of sitting to complete clause 24 – Motion carried
The Speaker: Mr Baker, I believe you wish to move a procedural motion at this point.
Mr Baker: Yes please, Mr Speaker. I would like to move the motion that this House continues to sit until we complete the clauses 4970 stage of this Bill this evening.
The Speaker: Can I have a seconder for that? Mr Cregeen. I would just caution that we are about 40% of the way through the Bill, and so I would, Minister would add the rider that maybe we could review progress in two hours’ time if needed? 4975 Mr Baker: I would be happy to do that. I was hoping, perhaps naively, that we might speed up, Mr Speaker, as we move through this.
The Speaker: Well, I am only human, Mr Baker. 4980 Mrs Barber wishes to speak to the suspension of Standing Orders motion. That is not a problem. Mrs Barber.
Mrs Barber: I actually had the leftover of a previous comment, so that is half and half! (The Speaker: I understand.) I do not know if you want to go to Mr Shimmins first, because he was 4985 before me. I just wanted to speak.
The Speaker: That is fine. I put the point that this is not actually a suspension of Standing Orders; it is a simple majority required in order to achieve this motion. Mr Shimmins and then Mrs Barber. 4990 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just conscious feels that the Companies (Amendment) Bill, which has been through this Hon. House and has also been to the Legislative Council and is now waiting. It has been waiting for some time, so relatively short, I believe, uncontroversial piece, and I wonder if, perhaps, we 4995 could find a way to take that Bill ahead of going through all the clauses of this Bill, which I think will take us more time this evening.
The Speaker: Well, Mr Shimmins, I suppose we could consider that at 7.30 p.m. if we have not already disposed of it. I leave that in the hands of Members. 5000 Mrs Barber.
Mrs Barber: I think Mr Hooper also wanted to speak before me. (Interjection) I am happy to talk. I was going to suggest that we simply finish the Committee of the Whole House process and 5005 then suspend for the evening. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Well, that is noted.
______Hansard Extract Page 65 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
Mr Hooper. 5010 Mr Hooper: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was going to suggest the same thing as Mrs Barber actually: finish this clause, it will be the end of Part 3 of the Bill, which seems a natural stopping point. We have done 70 amendments out of 147. That means there are 77 amendments left to do, 5015 which seems like a lot to try and get through tonight. I for one am not have not minded to spend the rest of my evening trying to rush through a Bill of such importance. I would much rather us take the necessary time over this Bill to get it right, even if that means coming back or for an additional sitting or sittings. I think it is worth getting it right, rather than trying to squeeze everything into this evening. 5020 So I do very much support Mrs Barber’s position. Let’s finish the evidence-taking so the witnesses can be released after providing us with all the evidence that they have available, and then we suspend at the end of this particular clause, which is the end of Part 3 of the Bill.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Hooper. 5025 For the benefit of those who wish to chip in to this debate, what I would then plan to do is firstly put the motion of Mr Baker, that we sit till 7.30 p.m. or the completion of this, whichever be the sooner. If that fails, then I would put that we sit to the end of the clause. Obviously, these can all be in response to Mr Shimmins’ point, that these can be reviewed at that point. It does not mean an automatic suspension of business for the day. 5030 Mr Robertshaw next.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you. Very quickly, just to say that I think Mrs Barber’s position and the commentary following that by Mr Hooper is absolutely spot on. I am not inclined to want to rush this or speed it up 5035 unreasonably. I think we take this steadily and if we have to come back to complete it at another sitting, so be it.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins, I am conscious that you have spoken to this motion already once, but I will give you the opportunity if you are very brief. 5040 Mr Shimmins: That is fine. I was just going to suggest that perhaps if we agree to go through this clause, perhaps we could just take the Companies (Amendment) Bill at the end of that clause –
5045 The Speaker: As I indicated, Mr Shimmins, you are at liberty at that point to move a point of order and to try your hand at that point. Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 5050 The points have been made very eloquently by Mr Robertshaw, Mrs Barber and Mr Hooper. Basically, we can all learn from Mr Perkins’ grace and erudition in initially having wanted to take the Competition Bill very quickly, but then got a much better Bill as a result of having taken the clauses stage over six weeks and we have ended up with a good Competition Bill going out of the process. I think it certainly makes sense to consider the remaining clauses, after the benefit of all 5055 of the wisdom we have got this afternoon, next week. The second point I want to make, and this goes back to a promise I made to one female Member and one male Member of the House of Keys back in 2014: not only would we have to be respectful to the parliamentary process in all of this, we have also to be respectful to the personal circumstances of a great number of people. There is 5.30 p.m. there in the Standing Orders for a 5060 reason, to do with all sorts of personal reasons, medical, social and many other ones. So I do hope
______Hansard Extract Page 66 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
that Hon. Members will take that into account as they, I hope, vote for Mrs Barber’s motion, rather than Mr Baker’s motion, in terms of extending business today.
The Speaker: Thank you. 5065 There are two motions then on the table. I put first the motion in the name of Mr Baker that we sit until the completion of clauses or 7.30 p.m., whichever is the sooner, and review the position at that point. I know that that is going to cause a division, so I will ask the Clerk to run the vote, so please wait. Vote now on Mr Baker’s proposal that we sit until 7.30 p.m. or the completion of clauses, 5070 whichever is the sooner. As I indicated earlier, 13 votes are required. It is a simple majority under Standing Order 1.2(2), rather than the Tynwald Standing Order that we are more used to.
Voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mrs Barber Mr Ashford Mrs Caine Mr Baker Mrs Corlett Mr Boot Ms Edge Mr Callister Mr Hooper Mr Cannan Mr Moorhouse Mrs Christian Mr Peake Mr Cregeen Mr Perkins Mr Harmer Mr Quine Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw Mr Skelly Mr Shimmins The Speaker Mr Thomas
The Speaker: With 12 votes for, 12 against, the majority has not been achieved, so Mr Baker’s motion therefore fails. I put to the House the motion in the name of Mrs Barber that we sit till the end of clause 24, 5075 and I will presume that that motion is carried unless any Member indicates dissent. So you need to indicate now if you are not content with that. Hon. Members, I think, no dissent having been indicated on that motion, that it carries.
Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill 2020 – Consideration of clauses continued
The Speaker: Now as it stands, I have eight further contributions and questions at this stage. Next is Mrs Barber. 5080 Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the debate has made clear that the current standards required, owing to their disparate nature and positioning through a raft of primary and secondary legislation, is far from ideal and the importance of having information to find in one place is clear. But I also believe that this Bill 5085 should not be used as the primary vehicle for this purpose as they are two unique interlinked topics, and so I would very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment that this will happen now for the minimum requirements that are already in place and not just be a piece of work that is happening in his Department as we progress into the field of registration for landlords. I wonder whether the Minister might also consider a process similar to that outlined within 5090 clauses 31 to 34 for established rental properties, for those properties that are new to the market, allowing landlords and potential landlords to agree a framework for repairs within an acceptable
______Hansard Extract Page 67 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
timeframe, while still being able to seek registration and pursue that under the Scheme, so they would have a clear notice that tells them the timeframes within which that is expected. So there is a mutual understanding between the Department and the landlord. 5095 I also wonder whether the Minister could just comment on the level of technical advice that might be available to landlords and potential landlords in the run-up to implementation of this Bill once those minimum standards, as they will be, are published. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
5100 The Speaker: Thank you. I am going to invite the Minister to reply, but I am going to ask Members to indicate if they have any questions for our witnesses or the drafter, so that I can perhaps prioritise those ahead of further questions to the Minister. Minister to reply to Mrs Barber’s question. 5105 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would point out that the minimum standards are predominantly a matter that sits within the purview of DEFA, rather than my own Department, in terms of enforcing them. Clearly, there is a lack of knowledge around the private rented sector about the standards that the properties are 5110 intended to operate, and the more transparent and clear we can make that as part of this process, the better. I just want to really restate here: the purpose of this Bill is a Landlord Registration Bill and it is about minimum standards, primarily for landlords and for the properties that they own and manage. This is not a panacea for the whole of the housing market of the Isle of Man. That is a 5115 completely different workstream, albeit there are clear linkages between two. We are not going to try and use this Bill as some kind of Christmas tree to hang everything upon. This is a Landlord Registration Bill and we need to remain focused on that, but clearly there is some education around this, which the Department will play a part in it. I would postulate that actually, that might be a really valuable role for the Manx Landlords 5120 Association, given that they have a significant number of fee-paying members, that they can help their members adapt to the future environment for private landlords on the Isle of Man.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Baker. Now, Mrs Barber, you have indicated you have a question for the drafter. I give anyone else 5125 the opportunity to indicate similarly, because I would probably plan to discharge the drafter if there are no further questions for her at that point. Mrs Barber.
Mrs Barber: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 5130 I wonder if the drafter can simply confirm that the legislation as currently drafted would allow for registration to occur for a new landlord who is seeking to comply with the minimum standards or they would, in fact, have to have everything already in place prior to their ability to register or commence the registration process. Thank you. 5135 The Speaker: Ms Graves.
Ms Graves: Thank you, Mrs Barber. The answer to that is yes. In relation to any landlord wishing to apply for registration, when 5140 the application is determined, under clause 15(3):
The Department may grant registration […] subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate to ensure that registration requirements […] are satisfied.
______Hansard Extract Page 68 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
That does not mean to say that every single minimum requirement needs to be in place at that point. In practical terms, it means that the landlord and the Department would work together to agree the terms upon which the registration will be given, and if that requires a certain amount of work to be done to bring the property up to those standards, then the provision, clause 15(3) 5145 is sufficiently widely drafted to allow the Department to come up with a timescale. So it may be that it could take a year for a property to come up to the right standard, or it could just be two months, or it could be that there is something about the property that it is fundamentally dangerous and wrong, and therefore clause 15(3) could not be used for that purpose. 5150 But in principle, in answer to your question, yes, clause 15(3) can be used in order to allow new landlords to come in and have time to bring their property up to the right standard.
The Speaker: Thank you. A question from Ms Edge. 5155 Ms Edge: Thank you. I just wonder if the drafter could explain, because in order to be able to register, you have to declare that you meet the standards. So I just wonder if she could explain that a bit more, please?
5160 Ms Graves: In relation to that, the application process is such that the landlord may well say, ‘No, I believe I meet standards’, or alternatively, ‘I do not at the moment, but I will be able to meet the standards by doing xyz’. Alternatively, the landlord might think that they do reach the standard at the moment and the Department say, ‘Oh, no, you don’t’. So it is flexible and I do not see that the wording prevents a landlord from making the declaration saying that they genuinely do 5165 believe that they meet the standards, and then the Department and the landlord can then work together to decide whether or not that is the case.
The Speaker: Thank you, Ms Graves. Now, unless anyone has any objections, I might be wishing to discharge Ms Graves at this point 5170 from the service of the House, if you are content with that, unless anyone has any objection? I see no objection so Ms Graves, can I thank you very much for attending this afternoon and providing your evidence. I have Mr Hooper, Mr Thomas and Mr Callister who have indicated that they would like to ask questions of the other witnesses. 5175 Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. For the MLA, my query is: we have heard quite a bit that the feeling I am getting from the evidence you are giving, and please correct me if I am wrong here, is that there is no opposition 5180 on your part to the imposition of minimum standards. Minimum standards themselves are absolutely fine; no problem with minimum standards, as long as they can be applied flexibly to various properties, which it seems that we are being told that that is the case. Also we have been told that currently there are already minimum standards in place across the piece, in terms of property standards at the very least. 5185 Would it be fair to say, then, that the issue that you have is not with the concept of minimum standards per se, but more to do with the level at which those standards may be set? So if the Department was proposing to set the minimum standards for properties under this legislation at the level they currently are, that should not prove to be an issue because all those properties out there should already be complying with the existing standards. 5190 So just so I have a better handle on this really, the issue that you really have is not with the cause itself that we are discussing, which says that there must be minimum standards and you must comply with them, subject to the conditions attached to your registration. The issue is at
______Hansard Extract Page 69 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
what level those standards will be set, which really is a question for the secondary legislation that will follow. 5195 The Speaker: Now, Mr Burrows, you wish to take that one?
Mr Burrows: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I will happily take that one. Before I answer that question, I would just like to state that the MLA are not against legislation. 5200 We have a feeling that there seems to be this image that the MLA are totally opposed to the legislation. That is not the case, and at no stage have we ever said that. What we have said is that we would like to engage and develop fit and proper legislation that is workable. So I would just like to get that point in, because we do not feel that this, in its present form, is workable because there is no taking into consideration the practicalities of the industry. 5205 But to move onto Mr Hooper’s question there, it is the uncertainty. Right now, you are debating the clauses stage of this Bill, but we come back to the fundamental problem that there is huge uncertainty in the market and it is frightening people out of the market. It is also preventing property development and we can see this all over the Island. We have examples of this, of properties that are just not selling because of this uncertainty. 5210 What any business needs is certainty. So our main concern is that we are almost putting the cart before the horse here. We are very keen to push this thing forward and move on and pedal as fast as we can to get it passed, but we are setting things like penalties and we still do not know the offence. We do not know what we need to do to invest in properties. New landlords would not buy older properties right now and again, I am sure Mr Garside can attest to that, because he 5215 is in that business. But certainly the feedback I am getting as chairman is, ‘We do not want to be in this market. How can we reinvest in this in this market until we know the standards we have to adhere to?’ So, hopefully that answers your question.
5220 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Hooper, do you want to chip in with a quick supplementary before I bring in Mr Garside?
Mr Hooper: Yes, thanks. It does not really answer the question, because the question that I am asking is: if the 5225 Department were just to say, ‘Actually, the minimum standards themselves will be the current standards of property.’ So they are not proposing an increase, if they said, ‘Actually to start with, we will just set the bar at where we are at today in terms of property standards’ – which I do not think I am hearing that is not going to be the case – that generally would be okay for the industry, because that would provide some certainty. 5230 So what I am trying to get to, really, is the clause itself is not the issue. The issue is what will these proposed standards look like? That is the fundamental issue or question here. It is not that the wording in the clause itself is a problem, but it is more that we do not know what those standards will look like, and if we did know what the standards would look like, that would move us a great deal further forwards on this. 5235 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Burrows.
Mr Burrows: I apologise if I did not make myself clear. 5240 I totally agree that we do not know what these standards are and we do need to know what the standards are. We also need to know that these standards are not going to change for any considerable period of time, because again, it will bring uncertainty into the market.
______Hansard Extract Page 70 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
There is no point in saying that minimum standards are the standards of today, not knowing that next year they are going to be ramped up again or the bar is going to be raised again, as the 5245 Minister likes to phrase it. We need certainty and I think that is the issue.
The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Garside, do you wish to come in at this point?
5250 Mr Garside: Yes. With regard to Mr Hooper’s question there, with regard to ‘Are we looking at the clause specifically?’, a more holistic view and a lot of the Manx Landlords Association’s issue has been, and I am slightly repeating myself here, with regard to the minimum standards and looking at the landlord and tenant relationship in its own holistic entirety, because at the moment it looks through a prism of what the landlord’s minimum standards are, and when you do not have 5255 minimum standards for the tenants, of which they do have responsibilities, it does look pre-judged against the landlords. It is just looked down that narrow angle. Also, with regard to Mr Hooper’s question and – Alan passed it over to me there – with regard to properties. Now, the properties we are referring to, which would probably struggle most to meet whatever level of standards we are talking about, would be converted flats. They are not 5260 always appropriate for first-time buyers because of mortgageability, maintenance, etc. and with some lending institutions you require a lower loan to value and also Victorian terrace properties which, when they apply for finance on it, it requires you have retentions and other items on there. So that is where Alan is coming from with regard to … Yes, the market has improved, but people are going to take up those properties if they become vacant. 5265 The Speaker: Thank you very much. The next question is in the hands of Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. 5270 This is a question for Mr Burrows. I will just remind Members, I will just declare the interest – I am a landlord myself, which is on the Members’ Register. I would just like to ask Mr Burrows, he mentioned earlier about timescales, and I have political responsibility with Social Security and, as you know, Social Security is probably the biggest purchaser of property for tenants. I am just very keen obviously to see standards raised, so we 5275 actually do get good value for money for the taxpayers’ investment in the weekly and monthly payments. You mentioned earlier about timescales. In 2014, Mr Robertshaw tried to bring through the Tenants and Landlords Bill, so that was seven years ago. So this has really been in the thoughts of landlords for about seven years really. I would just be interested to hear from you what you think would be a fair timescale to bring in some minimum standards. 5280 The Speaker: Mr Burrows.
Mr Burrows: Mr Peake, thank you for that question. That is a very good question. I do not think it is about timescales, with respect; I think it is about certainty. If there were 5285 minimum standards today and they were published alongside this Bill, then we would all know what standards we were working to, or working towards. If there was an upgrade in standards planned in a year, two or three years’ time, whatever, and we knew what it was, again we can plan for that. So I keep coming back to this element of certainty. Any business needs certainty to be able to 5290 plan. I hope that answers your question, because I am trying not to be drawn on a specific timescale. Seven years is too long. I would accept that, but I do not think that has anything to do with landlords. I think it is probably more of a legislative process. I do not know, but it is about the certainty. We are bringing forward part of the Bill, and we are creating a huge uncertainty here,
______Hansard Extract Page 71 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
5295 which is going to disrupt the market and in your own area of social housing, I think you are going to start to see some ramifications of this because these are the types of landlords that are going to start exiting the market, and I think that is going to put huge extra pressure on your particular area of responsibility, sir.
5300 The Speaker: Next questioner for the witnesses is Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Back in August, the DEFA Minister reported that officers did not take enforcement action really in respect of the minimum standards. Treasury presumably would not be providing money 5305 through Social Security to any properties that did meet minimum standards. Do the MLA witnesses have any evidence of much action being taken as enforcement, given the current minimum standards that are in place? Is that really the problem that we think is being suggested that there is, unless the minimum standards are raised? The second question I have for the witnesses is obviously for flats and HMOs and more general 5310 environmental health questions. The landlords have a lot of experience of dealing with the Fire Service and DEFA. The question is: have they got very much experience of dealing with the DOI Housing Division and, if so, what has their experience been of dealing with the DOI Housing Division? Are we in a good place to transfer responsibility from DEFA and so on, through to the DOI? 5315 So, for instance, a voluntary scheme was launched back in 2014 by the DOI Housing Division for voluntary registration. Members paid a token fee to join into that Scheme. What happened next in respect of that voluntary scheme and what has been the feeling of landlords regarding it? Is there any sort of healing that needs to be done? And, finally, given that, I think, Mr Garside’s or the Minister’s assertion about the type of 5320 properties that might become vacant – he mentioned converted flats, Victorian properties, terraces and other Victorian properties – does the landlord body have any estimate of the amount of money that we are talking about? Is it tens of thousands, is a million, is it tens of millions that we are talking about? The Minister has asserted that the price of converted flats and Victorian terraces has been rising. Has that been the experience of the witnesses? Do they want to tell us 5325 another story about the actual price for 10 years or so of flats? My understanding from looking at the data is that in real terms the price of flats has been declining for all flats, never mind converted flats. I also have some questions for the Minister –
5330 The Speaker: Well, we will come back –
Mr Thomas: Do you want me to leave those?
The Speaker: Yes, we will come back to your questions to the Minister. 5335 I would just like to say that the witnesses may not have answers to all the questions posed by Mr Thomas and that is perfectly reasonable. It goes somewhat beyond the scope of clause 24, some of the questions that were asked, but if the witnesses do wish to address those … However, before you do, Mr Baker you wish to interject?
5340 Mr Baker: Yes, I just wish to interject, Mr Speaker, to clarify Mr Thomas’s assertion that I was commenting about the price of flats in Victorian houses on the Isle of Man. I absolutely was not, and he knows that. I was commenting generally about the property market. So, if Mr Thomas would like to be more careful about some of the assertions that he makes. Thank you. 5345
______Hansard Extract Page 72 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
The Speaker: I ask which one of the witnesses would care to tackle that series of questions first? Mr Garside.
5350 Mr Garside: Charles Garside speaking, quite happy to. I have a note of them here. One of Mr Thomas’s first questions was with regard to, and please correct me, engagement with the current environmental health officers. Yes, from time to time, without speaking about specific cases, they have engaged with regard to issues and, yes, no complaints, etc. – very positive and very progressive, as I said before. 5355 With regards to other departments, you used the example of the Fire Service. The original Act that came in 1996 was revised in 2016. On that, again, they are used to residential flats, very engaging. Also with regard to general landlords and tenants, it sits with the OFT. So from day to day you could say residential, OFT, Fire Service, environmental health officers – so to answer the question, really not much engagement at all ever with the Department of Infrastructure regarding 5360 housing per se on that. I never had interaction with them in that respect. I was aware, they were doing something in 2018 and e-mailed them, which was instructed on behalf of the OFT because they gave me a heads-up on that, but nothing came of it. With regard to values on properties, well, it depends where you take your start date from on that with regard to values over the last 10 years and then taking account of occupations. It has 5365 been relatively – if you take a 2008 high, things have not gone up that much, but if you take a more short-term timescale, things will go more. I hope that clarifies and that answers the questions as best I can.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 5370 A further question for the witnesses from Mr Quine.
Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly welcome the opportunity to see some of these issues addressed and the suggestions from the MLA. I would like to put a question to the Manx Landlords Association’s representatives 5375 with reference to some recent correspondence, which I and no doubt other Hon. Members received from Mr Burrows. In this correspondence, Mr Burrows openly admits that they are neither opposed to registration or legislation, and that is something which I welcome. Mr Burrows echoed such in his previous answer and indeed, I think it was something that I have also heard first-hand from other 5380 MLA members who I have spoken to recently. My question revolves around what Mr Burrows said in his previous answer to the question from Ms Edge, when he rightly made reference to minimum standards with regard to tenants, something which is rightly a significant concern to many landlords. I am sure the gentlemen will emphasise with a constituent of mine who rented the property in good grace, only for that 5385 property to be used for serious criminal activity. The tenants then absconded, leaving the property in an appalling state of repair, with my constituent significantly out of pocket. He has subsequently sold the property and exited the market – a fear which the MLA continues to highlight. So going forward and given the MLA’s desire to engage, further to what Mr Garside referred to in his answer to Mr Hooper’s question, how would the MLA like to see minimum standards with 5390 regard to tenants addressed? Do they think that can be addressed in the current Bill? Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Quine. In terms of minimum standards for tenants, that is outside the scope of the Bill; but I will call 5395 Mr Burrows as he was first mentioned, and then Mr Garside to respond to your question.
Mr Burrows: Thank you.
______Hansard Extract Page 73 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
As you say, that is outside the scope of the Bill at the moment, but it is certainly something that has been raised on a regular occasion with me by our members. Our members rightly feel 5400 aggrieved that this Bill is very one-sided and it seems to protect tenants, giving no protection whatsoever to landlords. I will, if I may, bring a very short story to you about a very similar situation to the one that was just highlighted there. A local landlord recently sold their property and gave the tenant six months’ notice that they wanted to repossess the property. The tenant accepted that. It was at the end of 5405 the lease, so they gave the tenant a further six months to find alternative accommodation. They sold the property on the strength of that. They signed the contract to complete the sale, and the day before the sale was due to complete, the tenant promptly announced that they were not moving out. Consequently, the owner of the property was then in a position where they had contractually agreed to sell a property and could not complete on that, and they are now stuck 5410 with a tenant that they cannot get rid of without going through due process. This is just another example of landlords being at a distinct disadvantage because the whole stack of cards is stacked in favour of the tenant; and there are countless stories like that. So again, our members are constantly saying this is very one-sided, this is not a fair Bill, and there is no consideration being given to the problems of landlords. 5415 I hope that answers your question, sir.
The Speaker: Mr Garside, do you wish to add something?
Mr Garside: Just really adding to that – please correct me, the question was with regard to 5420 how it could be incorporated. Whilst we are not drafters in that way, I would go back to the Programme for Government, where the original evolution of the Bill was to ‘develop a rent deposit protection mechanism and associated tenancy arbitration process, together with other necessary landlord and tenancy arrangements’. So to jump from that to just a Landlords Bill, a lot of the members have found, well, it is being pushed against them, and they want to have a fair and 5425 balanced view of it and it has not come over as that.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Turning back to questions for the Minister, Dr Allinson, do you wish to come in?
5430 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Mrs Barber for taking this into Committee of the Whole House in the first part; and also thank the staff in Tynwald who have managed to run this virtually, which we have never done before. I would like to thank the members of the MLA and the drafters for giving their evidence. 5435 We have, I think, gone into quite a bit of detail on clause 24, which was the whole aspect of going into Committee of the House. So, Mr Speaker, I move that the business the House is now resumed. Thank you.
5440 The Speaker: Thank you. I just point out that should this motion be carried, there is still the opportunity under the regular business rules of the House for each Member to speak once to the motion, just for information. However, the motion has been put forward. Dr Allinson has put that motion. 5445 Mr Harmer, it looks like, seconding that motion. If no one wishes to speak to –
Mr Harmer: Yes, Mr Speaker, I would like to second.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Harmer.
______Hansard Extract Page 74 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
5450 Does any Member wish to speak to that motion before I put the question? In which case, I put the question that business now be resumed and I will presume that that motion is carried unless any Member indicates dissent. No dissent having been indicated, I declare that motion carried.
The House moved out of Committee and business was resumed.
The Speaker: I will carry on with my usual speaking list, but before I do that, I would just like 5455 to thank those witnesses for their attendance and their evidence today and echo the comments made by Dr Allinson about the forbearance of our Clerks through some of the technical challenges that we face through virtual sittings. Now, I am going to return to my list of people who had questions already, but I will add to that. But there is of course an opportunity to only speak once at this stage. 5460 Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: I am not sure I have got anybody to ask a question to. I was happy that we have come out and back into the regular business. My purpose was actually originally to second Dr Allinson’s motion to come out of the Committee of the Whole House. 5465 The Speaker: Right, okay. Thank you. Next on my list, Ms Edge.
Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 5470 My questions were for the Minister, because he continually says about landlords not being compliant. Does he know the percentage of landlords that are not compliant with the current standards? The other question was with regard to the inspections, but I think that has been cleared up; that it will be DEFA continuing to carry out the inspections, it will not be his Department. So it will 5475 be like the regulator that will be doing the inspections, rather than his own Department.
The Speaker: Yes. The Minister of course will have an opportunity to answer those questions at the end of the debate. Mr Hooper, you are also on my list. 5480 Mr Hooper: No, (The Speaker: Okay.) I have no further questions and nothing else on this clause. I think it has been explored in quite a bit of detail. The one thing I think that just needs confirming from the Minister, to put it beyond question really, is that this idea of registration not being a black-and-white issue and the conditionality that 5485 can be attached to registrations to enable landlords appropriate time to bring their properties up to scratch. We heard it from the drafter. I just want to get it confirmed, really, for the avoidance of doubt. Belt and braces, and all that.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. 5490 Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can Mr Speaker promise that his question, as the Minister, to ask himself a question will make it to his next edition of Tynwald Balls? Perhaps with a note that it was late in the evening. 5495 Three questions for the Minister. The first one to do with minimum standards. Can the Minister advise whether it will be the DoI Housing Division, or whether it will be DEFA or whether it will be local authorities who have been sovereign in this area in law previously, to a large extent? Will it be the Department for Enterprise, who have responsibility for tourism, or DEFA with their
______Hansard Extract Page 75 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
agricultural hat on who will lead on the development of the new higher minimum standards that 5500 are expected, which I imagine are going to be applied across the piece, given what has been said earlier today? So can the Minister provide some reassurance that those who have been doing it for decades, particularly at DEFA, and have had a good experience of handling the process for raising the standards for flats and HMOs, will actually be leading on this? The second question is building on the one that Mr Callister asked, which is can the Minister 5505 advise what will happen if conditions are agreed with landlords whereby work needs to be done in respect of the tenant’s rights during the period of raising the standards to the minimum standards, because at least some of the higher minimum standards that the DoI used to claim it wanted to introduce would involve quite profound work to converted flats and to Victorian properties. It would seem to me unhealthy and unsafe for tenants to be living in those properties 5510 while that work was ongoing. Then, finally, I just wanted to compliment Mr Garside for knowing the Programme for Government action point more clearly than the Minister seems to know, because that is the Programme for Government action point that was agreed to unanimously by Tynwald, having been brought forward by Government, exactly as Mr Garside read it out. It was to do with landlord 5515 rights, it was to do with tenant rights, it was to do with deposit protection. It was to do with all of those other things that Mr Garside read out in terms of the action point. So can the Minister just conclude this clause, and his contribution to this clause, with advising exactly when it was and who it was who changed Government policy and Tynwald policy to focus this Bill entirely on registering landlords, no longer even, it seems, on increasing minimum 5520 standards and certainly not addressing some of the very important tenants’ issues that Tynwald policy was agreed back in 2014 needed addressing. If he cannot do that, can he answer my other unanswered question from earlier today, which is which part of Government is responsible for reviewing the landlord and tenant legislative regime? Everybody seems to be dancing around, trying to put it off to somebody else, because 5525 that is the difficult job. Setting up a landlord register is very easy. It does not mean anything, it does not bring about any change. But what really matters is looking back at the landlord and tenant legislation. What really matters is doing something about the quality of the properties, which costs money, and this Bill does not address it. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and Hon. Members. 5530 The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Harmer, you had indicated a wish to speak as well.
Mr Harmer: Yes, thank you. Hopefully, Mr Speaker, you can hear me okay. (The Speaker: Yes.) 5535 Excellent. Yes, I just wanted to address some of the issues that have been raised. Really, again, it is just to focus this on clause 24. I am just concerned, with the previous speaker, about widening the debate about minimum standards, which is what this clause is about. It was very interesting to hear the MLA talk about the fact that they did not actually have a problem with minimum 5540 standards, but it was a bit of a chicken and egg: you have to first have the Bill, so that you can then do the regulations to enforce those, or to bring about those minimum standards, which we all agree is a deep concern for those right at the bottom of the housing market that are suffering now, and that has been alluded to, and how that work needs to be done. But in any industry or any issue, when things improve, naturally standards will have to improve. So I struggled a little bit 5545 with the fact that things must stay the same forever. Perhaps that is really the problem all the way along: that people want to have things as they are forever. The last speaker was perhaps a bit disingenuous. The Landlord Registration Bill has always been, right the way through, in the Programme for Government, and in particular actions that required it to be in place, such as the rent deposit scheme, were always dependent on there being 5550 a Landlord Registration Bill.
______Hansard Extract Page 76 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
So again, we are moving back into Second Reading and policy, and hopefully the Minister will agree with me that, actually, this has always been a key part of this administration, this Tynwald and this House’s objective to move forward. So with that –
5555 The Speaker: Mr Harmer?
Mr Harmer: – I just wanted to pass comment. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
5560 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Harmer –
Mr Harmer: I am finished now. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: Oh, okay. I take it then you are not willing to take the interjection. 5565 Mr Harmer: No, I had actually finished. I had not got the screen …
The Speaker: Thank you. In which case then, I call on Mr Hooper to reply to the discussion around his amendment, such 5570 that there has been.
Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In all of that I am not sure there was any reference actually to landlords’ representatives, so I do not think there is anything for me to respond to. 5575 Thank you for the opportunity.
The Speaker: Okay. Mr Baker to sum up on the clause.
5580 Mr Baker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Obviously a lot of ground covered pertinent to much wider than clause 24 in that Committee of the Whole House. As a reminder, clause 24 was about compliance with minimum standards, and it is very clear that the minimum standards will be set down in regulations, that we will be doing a consultation, there is widespread engagement required, and that is what will happen. 5585 There is a clear desire from the Manx Landlords Association to want certainty. I am very happy to press on, as fast as we possibly can, to give them the certainty that they want. However, I would make it absolutely clear that there are minimum standards in place now that are not being complied with consistently by the whole of the market. Irrespective of where the minimum standards go in future, and whether we raise the bar slowly or quickly, non-compliance with 5590 minimum standards now is going to be non-compliance with future minimum standards. This is not about giving certainty to businesses, as the representatives of the Manx Landlords Association talked about. This is providing decent homes for hard-working Manx families who in many cases are living in substandard accommodation. This is not just about people making money; this is about lives. We all know the quality of people’s accommodation is fundamental to their life 5595 chances, to their interaction with the education system, the job market, the criminal justice system, with issues of substance abuse and mental health. If you are not living in a decent home, then you are going to struggle, Mr Speaker, and this Bill is all about starting to address this issue for the benefit of the people of the Isle of Man. I make no apology for saying that, because simply looking back to where we have been and justifying where we are as okay is not okay. We have to 5600 have to push on with this. It is a key part of the Programme for Government. Mr Thomas will recall fully that the Programme for Government was a flexible document. It was not set in stone. It had evolved. There
______Hansard Extract Page 77 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
are many elements of the Programme for Government which have come and gone during this period and to try and say, well, this is not legitimate because it was not in the 2016 version in the 5605 precise form it is now is not relevant. The wider framework around housing is very important, as we recognise, and this Landlord Registration Bill is a fundamental part of it. But as I have said on a number of occasions today, this is not the whole story and there is much to be done, whether it is to be done by my Department, whether it is to be done by colleagues from DEFA in terms of the inspection of housing, which will 5610 continue. The Departments will continue to work together with both formal and informal enforcement processes to help landlords to get where they need to be, whether it is with Cabinet Office as part of a wider housing policy. At the end of the day, it is one public service serving the people of the Isle of Man, and that is the whole community of the Isle of Man, not just particular subsections of this Bill. 5615 This is the Landlord Registration Bill. It does what it says on the tin. It is not intended to be all things to all people in this housing market. It is intended to be the start of a journey and one that I believe we need to get on with and get everything in place. So with that –
5620 The Speaker: Mr Baker?
Mr Baker: – Mr Speaker, I would encourage all Hon. Members to support clause 24 and with that, I beg to move.
5625 The Speaker: Mr Baker, Ms Edge did indicate a couple of minutes ago that she would like to interject. Would you be willing to take that interjection?
Mr Baker: Yes, I will.
5630 The Speaker: Ms Edge.
Ms Edge: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. Whilst you gave a very thorough response to various questions there, you did not give a response to the percentage that currently are not compliant and who would be carrying out the … 5635 I know you have said that it will be cross-Government on inspections, I am not so concerned about that, but you have not said the percentage of landlords’ properties that currently are not compliant?
Mr Baker: No, thank you, Ms Edge, for highlighting that, and there is a very good reason why I 5640 was not able to respond to that, which fundamentally underscores why this Bill is important: we just do not know. There is not the visibility around the private-rented sector. That is, as well as raising standards, one of the big deliverables from introducing this Bill: to provide that visibility. The nearest we have got is Mr Thomas quoting the housing standards survey, which is a survey, a sample, which he has extrapolated in some of his comments earlier. 5645 So this Bill brings visibility by registering the landlords. We will have a much clearer sense of what is a very important section of the accommodation provision for the people of the Isle of Man. Without that visibility, we cannot address the issues, and that is why I was not able to answer Ms Edge’s question. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move. 5650 The Speaker: Thank you. I have in the time that you have been giving that summing up, we had two more requests for an interjection, one from Mr Thomas and another one from Ms Edge. Would you be willing to take one either or both of those?
______Hansard Extract Page 78 www.tynwald.org.im/business HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2021
5655 Mr Baker: No. It think it is time to just vote on this, Mr Speaker, please.
The Speaker: Okay. In which case, Hon. Members, I put to you first amendment number 70 in the name of Mr Hooper, and I presume that that motion will be carried, unless any Member indicates dissent, 5660 which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, the amendment in the name of Mr Hooper carries. Putting to you clause 24, as amended. I presume that motion will be carried, unless any Member indicates dissent, which they should do now. No dissent having been indicated, clause 24 carries.
______Hansard Extract Page 79 www.tynwald.org.im/business