|Caroline Jones AC|
|Dawn Bowden AC|
|Huw Irranca-Davies AC|
|John Griffiths AC||Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor|
|Leanne Wood AC|
|Mark Isherwood AC|
|Deb Smith||Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Torfaen|
|Torfaen County Borough Council|
|Dewi Morgan||Cyngor Gwynedd|
|Gaynor Toft||Cyngor Sir Ceredigion|
|Ceredigion County Council|
|Hannah Blythyn AC||Y Dirprwy Weinidog Tai a Llywodraeth Leol|
|Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government|
|Jo-Anne Daniels||Cyfarwyddwr, Cymunedau a Trechu Tlodi, Llywodraeth Cymru|
|Director of Communities and Tackling Poverty, Welsh Government|
|Leighton Evans||Cyngor Sir Gâr|
|Carmarthen County Council|
|Linda Davis||Pennaeth Trechu Tlodi a Chysylltiadau'r Adran Gwaith a Phensiynau, Llywodraeth Cymru|
|Head of Tackling Poverty and Department for Work and Pensions Relations, Welsh Government|
|Lisa Hayward||Cymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru|
|Welsh Local Government Association|
|Paula Livingstone||Cyngor Abertawe|
|Sion Wynne||Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Wrecsam|
|Wrexham County Borough Council|
|Catherine Hunt||Ail Glerc|
|Stephen Davies||Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol|
|Yan Thomas||Dirprwy Glerc|
|1. Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau||1. Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest|
|2. Ymchwiliad i Fudd-daliadau yng Nghymru—Opsiynau i'w Cyflawni'n Well: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 6||2. Inquiry into Benefits in Wales—Options for Better Delivery: Evidence Session 6|
|3. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod ar gyfer Eitemau 4, 8 a 9||3. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting for Items 4, 8 and 9|
|5. Ymchwiliad i Eiddo Gwag: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 1||5. Inquiry into Empty Properties: Evidence Session 1|
|6. Ymchwiliad i Eiddo Gwag: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 2||6. Inquiry into Empty Properties: Evidence Session 2|
|7. Papurau i’w Nodi||7. Papers to Note|
Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.
The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:00.
The meeting began at 09:00.
Then we will move on to item 2, which is our evidence session 6 on our inquiry into benefits in Wales: options for better delivery. I'd very much like to welcome the Minister, Hannah Blythyn, who is the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and also her officials, Jo-Anne Daniels, director of communities and tackling poverty, and Linda Davis, head of tackling poverty and Department for Work and Pensions relations. Thank you very much for coming along to give evidence today. I wonder if I might begin with the first question, which is to ask you, really, Minister, what your overview is in terms of the devolution of benefits to Wales and how Welsh Government thinking has developed, where it is at the moment, and perhaps you could tell us a little bit about the work the Welsh Government has under way on these matters.
Thank you, Chair. Can I also start by thanking the committee for undertaking this work? I think it is an incredibly timely and important piece of work, and we're very much looking forward to the outcome of the committee's work in this inquiry and how it also can shape or feed into the work that the Welsh Government is undertaking at the moment.
Just to set out, really, where we are at this point, as a Government, we are committed to the concept of the social union, the collective responsibilities of redistribution of wealth, whether that be sharing of the fiscal risk and responsibility of the social union as it's constructed to support social security and welfare—. But I'm sure I'm not alone, certainly around this table and across communities, in terms of seeing the impact of the UK Government welfare reform on those who are least able to bear the burden being hit the hardest in terms of how that reform has taken effect and had an impact in the last few years. So, as a Government, we feel that this is a timely point to look at how we can take steps in terms of looking at the devolution of the administration of welfare and how we can perhaps approach this in a much more compassionate, citizen-centred approach.
So, what work is under way at the moment, then, Minister? We know that Welsh Government has commissioned some work on the administration of benefits in Wales and whether there might be devolution. Could you tell us a little bit about that work and what stage it's at?
Sure, absolutely. So, we have, as the First Minister set out in Plenary, commissioned the Wales Centre for Public Policy to undertake piece of work, looking to explore the potential options, potential barriers and the scope for us looking at the devolution of the administration of welfare in Wales. I've met with the Wales Centre for Public Policy. I know that they've also met with the clerk of the committee, and I believe with Leanne Wood, amongst others. They are talking with a range of experts across the field. Also, obviously, we'll be looking to what is happening in Scotland. I think it's a particularly timely opportunity for us to look at that and, actually, to learn from what has—we know there have been some successes in Scotland but also there have been some strains there, so I think it provides a useful opportunity for us to look at and learn from that as well. I don't know whether Jo-Anne wants to come in.
So, the WCPP are undertaking an initial scoping exercise to try to ensure that they can focus on the key questions. So, we hope that that initial scoping phase will be completed in the next few weeks, and then they'll set out the timetable for completing the work over the next few months.
The next few months. Okay. That's very useful, thanks. Minister, I wonder if you could, then, perhaps set out what you see as the potential benefits and opportunities that might arise from the devolution of the administration of benefits in Wales.
As I set out, the devolution of the administration of welfare in Wales would enable us to take a different approach to what we've seen on a UK basis in terms of what I see as one based on the principles of compassion and fairness. That starts from the point of view of when what I prefer to call 'social security' was there to provide that safety net for people and discover that from the point of compassion, not, perhaps, from a point of suspicion of somebody—we've seen the stigma around benefits and welfare—that somebody might be there to, almost a perception of cheating the system, where, actually, it's about having that security safety blanket for people, and actually to enable us to have a system that treats people with the respect and dignity that they deserve and should expect, but also by looking at how we can, perhaps, simplify the system and have more efficient administration.
Okay. In terms of Scotland, which you mentioned, what do you see as the Scottish experience to date? What's your view on how it's gone so far, as it were?
The first thing to say is that I think the committee has managed to get to Scotland before me to meet there, and just to set out that I am due to go during the summer recess to meet with both counterparts and officials within the Welsh Government [correction: Scottish Government] to talk through some of the things that they've been doing and perhaps look to see if they do something slightly differently how we can learn from that. But I know officials have been in ongoing, constant contact with their counterparts in Scotland to see what is happening there. And I'm sure Jo-Anne or Linda will come in in a moment.
I think one of the things we've been looking at is actually—. I think there's emerging evidence that there have been some successes and some strains, particularly looking at actually how they use the flexibilities in the system in terms of Scottish Choices and payment splitting for households when it comes to universal credit, which I believe is in the process of being developed at the moment. Clearly, as I said, there's plenty of opportunity here for us to listen and learn from Scotland, but actually to make sure whatever the route we go down works for Wales and meets those principles and objectives that we want to see in this country. Do you want to talk about your—?
We have very good links with colleagues in Scotland on a range of issues. For example, yesterday, we were hosting the four nations meeting on poverty, which involved Scottish colleagues as well as Northern Ireland and England. So, we have a number of means by which we stay in contact with them and find out about the progress that they're making.
Particular interests that we've discussed with them are around the take-up of the universal credit flexibilities that now operate in Scotland under the heading of Scottish Choices. We've talked to them about the mechanics, the logistics of setting up the social security agency, which they're in the process of doing, and obviously, part of the focus of our discussions as well is around the costs that they're facing, both in terms of administering the system and setting up the agency, but also the potential cost pressures that they're facing within the sort of demand for the benefits that they now have responsibility for. It's fair to say, though, that much of the process of transferring these benefits to Scotland is still in train. I think there are some benefits that Scotland won't be administering until—is it 2024? Something in that order. So, there's a lot that we can learn, but it's clearly still an evolving process in Scotland, and as the Minister has said, different opportunities, different strains on the system are emerging as they go along. So, Scotland's not a finished picture yet that we can evaluate fully, but it's important that we keep that conversation and that learning going.
Thanks for that. Just in terms of the Scottish experience—and as you say, you'll be visiting Scotland before long, Minister—will you be looking at the devolution of benefits themselves? Because we went up there and obviously we heard about the administration of UK benefits, but also the programme of devolving benefits themselves, some of the new benefits and some of the top-up schemes for existing UK benefits. Will you be looking at all of that in the round?
Certainly my approach, when I go and talk with colleagues in Scotland and look at this, I'm coming at this from—we are looking at it from a position of looking at the administration of the devolution of welfare reform, but looking actually at how we can bring in flexibilities within the regulations within the system. There's not been a preferred method or a preferred approach. It's actually, 'What can we learn? What can we do? How can we apply it within—?' We are in a different position from Scotland in terms of the powers we currently have, and whatever the outcome of this—our work, the committee's inquiry, the scoping exercise, and the work we're doing with the Wales Centre for Public Policy—clearly then we're going to have to get to a point where we negotiate over which powers we may need in order to go down the route that we may take a decision to do in the future.
So you're quite open-minded really about the rounded picture, as it were?
I think, like you said, I very much do—and I'm not just saying this—welcome the work of the committee in this area because it clearly is an issue where we know there are challenges for people. We're seeing the impact on people's lives and our communities across the country, and I think there is a responsibility on Government to look at what steps we can take to rectify that.
I was going to ask if you had a preference for either going down the road of the administration of benefits or more like the Scottish model, which is almost like a social security max position. But you've answered that, in a way. I'm guessing that this issue of demand is an issue in terms of following the Scottish approach. The more compassionate you are, the more benefits you hand out to people, the more they demand those benefits, and if there isn't any additional income to cover the costs of that, there's a gap in the budget. So is that your chief concern with going down the Scottish model, or expressing a preference for the Scottish model? Is that your chief concern, or are there other concerns?
Clearly, we've got to be mindful about the fiscal implications of going down this route, but one of the things I'm prepared to say too is that, yes, we've got to be mindful of the economic cost, but obviously there's a social cost as well in terms of what's already happening. But clearly whenever we get to a point in the future when we have the analysis of all that information, and look at what models and what we could do within Wales, we are going to have to take into account costs, because if there's going to be a significant increase in the cost of what we'd have to put in, the resources we have to put in there ourselves, then we're going to have to, you know, there'll be some choices about where that resource would have to come from.
The Wales Governance Centre, though—if you don't mind me moving on to that, Chair—has said that there could well be financial benefits from looking at the Scottish model. What are your views on the Wales Governance Centre's work on the fiscal implications?
I welcome the report. It's a report that's actually come at it with a very different approach to perhaps other accounts we've had previously in terms of evidence. It looks at those financial risks associated with devolving to Wales a similar set of benefits to those that have been devolved to Scotland. It's a useful, helpful contribution in terms of how you look at the impact and how we go further.
I think, obviously, you're familiar with the report, and I don't want to repeat all of that about possible future trends and the potential future benefit recipient groups in Wales. I think, perhaps, as the report says in the conclusion about sensible trepidation, we know that the mechanism for the fiscal framework is very different for us in Wales than it is in Scotland, and the mechanism for managing devolved taxation in the Welsh Government's fiscal framework is different from those in the equivalent framework in Scotland. So the framework also already covers the funding for devolved benefits, and I think any arrangements that we would look at going forward, we would need to actually make sure how that worked for us in Wales. So I think we welcome the report, but actually fully in line with the justifiable trepidation that it says in its conclusions, my concern now perhaps would be, rather anecdotally, that now they've highlighted the potential benefits that we could have in terms of funding, would we then actually get that when we negotiate anything with the UK Government? Would we be in receipt of that?
Can I just return and ask, Minister, about defending the social union? And I'm in agreement with you here, because of the centralised redistributive element of a social union on a larger scale, which in fact most states even with federal systems abide by, by and large—they recognise the benefits that come from that. But could I just ask you to define what you mean by 'a social union'? What do we include in that? Is that the headline issues, such as pensions, significant welfare benefits? I just need to be clear on that, because I'm assuming that, once we're clear on that, everything else is within the Government's scoping of what may be, potentially, now or in the future, devolved.
When we're talking about the social union, we're talking about the glue that binds us together in—
What? Sorry. What specific areas? I get the glue that binds together, but which benefits? What part of social security is it that you want to defend?
I think it's difficult to set out the specifics of that, until we have the full evidence—
Well, I can give you a couple. There's definitely pensions, I would have thought. Which are the hard-line ones that form the social union, because that would help us as a committee to know what is definitely off the table?
I don't think we've looked at it in those terms. It's an interesting perspective on it, but the social union, if you like, is a set of principles by which we share and we pool risk, and we are able to redistribute across the UK according to need. So, in terms of the social union, you could include within that the taxation system, because it is intended to be redistributive, it enables us to pool resources—
So are these things that are, perhaps, funded through national insurance contributions? Because we already have a lot of welfare devolved already. You could argue that Flying Start, health, education are parts of the welfare support system. So I'm trying to get real clarity here. Minister, you talked about administrative devolution, and that seems to be quite a comfortable area, but there may be other areas as well. I'm just trying to get an idea from the social union, what is it that we're saying, for the moment, Welsh Government is saying, 'That's going off piste far too far'?
I don't think we'd want to necessarily pre-empt the work that the Wales Centre for Public Policy are doing, so in a sense, the question of which benefits might fall under the scope of devolution of administration is something that they'll be looking at. But, clearly, there are particular fiscal risks around those benefits that have, if you like, a sort of cyclical or unpredictable demand-led nature. So, unemployment benefit being the classic, where it's very difficult to predict. Many of these benefits—apologies, I'm getting slightly technical. So, most benefits sit within the AME budget—
—rather than the departmental expenditure limit budget. They sit within AME—annually managed expenditure—because they're difficult to predict. There are some that are less difficult to predict. The ones that have been devolved to Scotland, I think they hope that those are ones that are more predictable, less cyclical, but that will be interesting to see if that experience is borne out—
—in Scotland. So, I think there are questions about the social union, but I think there are also questions about the practicality and the risks, and the fiscal risks in particular—
—of which you would potentially seek to devolve.
Now that is much more helpful, I think, to me certainly, than a broad discussion around a social union. To actually know what the Government's thinking is as to why they define some things that are more risky, more subject to cyclical fluctuations, and so on, than others. But you've not actually, in your answer, ruled out beyond that anything at this moment. You're waiting to see what comes forward. So let me just move on to one area.
Some of the evidence that we've seen from other countries—Canada and Switzerland in particular—have suggested that where there is a more federal system, where there is more ambitious devolution, not just administrative, but some of the powers over welfare, it's been something of a laboratory, and a useful laboratory, that can then feed back upwards into the centralised model. We're actually—. In devolving down powers, interesting experiments have happened that the centralised body has then learned from and adopted. Would you accept that, and would you see devolution as the laboratory of experimentation—'This is an opportunity to do this in Wales as well'—Minister?
Clearly, looking at what's happened in other nations, not just in Scotland but across the world, and the relationship between regional and state-level Government and the national-level Government—that's something that we expect will be included in the work of the Wales Centre for Public Policy as well. I think there's international experience and the various different models that we need to get to grips with the detail of, the implications and how that works in practice, especially in terms of how social security is administered. It's something that we will be looking at as part of that, particularly looking at those that take a more compassionate approach in terms of how it's administered and how they assess and treat people as well.
So, would you like to see Wales—depending on what the outcomes of your deliberations are, the committee's report and so on—actually be that—? There's already a lot of welfare that's devolved; we're in a false argument here. But in some of the areas that we're now looking at, new areas, to be innovative above and beyond what other nations have done—. Because one of the worries with this is we're looking at what Scotland's done, we're looking at the powers that Northern Ireland has got, and we're just trying to catch up. Actually, in that compassionate, fair approach to welfare provision, particularly the human interface of it, are you seeking to find new ways of being innovative where the UK, Scotland, Ireland and others could learn from Wales? I'm testing your ambition, if you like, on this.
Clearly, if there are ways we can do things differently—. I've made it clear that we can learn from Scotland, we can learn from other countries but, actually, ultimately it has to be something that works for us in Wales. And if there are things we can tweak, do differently, be more innovative, then absolutely from my perspective, from the Government and from the work we're doing, we're entirely open to that as well.
And I think as you hinted at in some of your questions in terms of where we've already got some responsibilities over what you might call welfare and social security, obviously there's the council tax reduction scheme, which is—you know, that's ours. There's the way in which we administer the discretionary assistance fund. There is a similar scheme in Scotland, administered differently. In England, it's been devolved to local authorities, so it might exist, it might not, depending. So, we have shown in those instances that we can set our own path in terms of how we want to support our citizens.
And I think when we've done that, we've made sure we've done it in a way that is, actually, not just about—. We talk about being compassionate and being citizen centred, but also, actually, to make it much more accessible—. So, if you look at the discretionary assistance fund, it's one central point where people can go to, as opposed to if you're over the border in England—I've heard it for myself in terms of the problems people had of just knowing where to go to access that support. Clearly, there's always more that we can do to raise awareness of what is available out there, but I'd actually like to think that we do it in a way where we're putting the person at the centre of that and thinking about their needs.
Could I just flip this slightly further? Some of the witnesses we've had have suggested that the current benefits system is so damaging now to individuals and communities that it would be actually better to have it devolved than to leave it as it is, and that the risks are higher to individuals—that compassion, that fairness—than not to have it. Now, this really goes to the heart of that social union stuff here, but what's your take on this?
It doesn't surprise me that people have come in and witnesses have suggested that. I'd be surprised if there's anyone that doesn't accept that there are aspects of the current social security system that don't work, that there are problems with. From the perspective of why it was put there in the first place, it isn't doing what it should do to support people when they need that safety net. I think, to be clear, we're not looking at devolution for devolution's sake. This has to be actually something that we know that we can do that can make that difference—
So, when they say the risks are higher in not considering devolving benefits, you disagree.
I think there are risks from both perspectives, and that's why we have to do this in a very pragmatic, sensible way to look at that evidence, to make sure we do something that not just works for Wales, but works for the people in Wales as well.
I also think you have to ask the question about the benefits to whom and the risks to whom. So, while, theoretically, you could deliver a better benefits system, what would be the cost of that, and then the implications for the things that you couldn't do? So, there is always an opportunity cost. So, depending on, as I say, who you're defining as being the beneficiary and where the risks fall, I think you could produce some very different analysis.
Thank you. Although a lot of the evidence we've received and questioned witnesses about has received responses relating to views on current benefits, this is more broadly about whether there should be permanent structural devolution of some or many powers in this area, not just in 2019, but in perpetuity. Governments in Westminster, here and in Edinburgh are coming and going, and policies are changing between and within parties over time. So, what consideration have you given to evidence that the principle of devolution, irrespective of the policies that might emanate from that—now, in 10 years, in 20 years, or whatever—would deliver a better outcome for people in Wales, broadly? And related to that, when we visited Scotland, we heard from witnesses that, initially, they'd gone for the low-hanging fruit and the more complex issues were still to come. And whilst there were those—and you can guess who—who simply supported the principle of having power in Scotland rather than in London, there were others in their social security select committee who raised questions about the degree to which proper cost-benefit or invest-to-save analysis was being done, to identify the best way forward—not having the power, but how the power would be used in the future. I wonder what your views on that might be, were powers to be devolved here.
You raise some of the key arguments and some key points around this. I think, just to reiterate what I've already said at the outset of this, we're not doing it for devolution's sake, it's actually about—. I've highlighted how we've seen the impact of current changes to the UK system and the impact that's had on our most vulnerable. But actually, this is not about a sticking plaster, it's about actually looking at how we can apply those principles in Wales, and actually how we can not just fix what we perceive are the problems in the system now, but actually make them more sustainable for the future. And the principle of that is actually how we can look at something that works around perhaps our—just to put out another idea—how we could perhaps in a system going forward be aligned with a Welsh approach to things. So, it could be the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—how we can actually make sure that anything we do is principle based and works for Wales. So I think it's not just to—. Like you say, we have different Governments across the UK, and they are always going to be subject to flux and change. But I think, just to come back, this is not about that we're going to follow Scotland, or we're going to follow anywhere else, but actually looking and learning, and actually taking a decision that makes sure that anything that we do go forward with actually works for us in Wales, in the long term.
But do you acknowledge that, in the future, potentially, you could have more inclusive, permissive or liberal policies in London, and you could have more restrictive policies in Wales, simply because, at that point in time, different governments had different views in reverse?
—and I think that would be a very good asset for a politician, if you were able to do that. Look, I understand the argument that you're making, but hopefully I'm trying to be clear that, actually, what we're doing is about looking at a sustainable model for Wales. And we've already seen how we do things slightly differently in terms of what we would also call almost like a social wage and social benefits, in terms of in England you pay for prescriptions but here we have free prescriptions. So, we've seen, actually, with devolution, slight changes in terms of how we approach things anyway. So, I think it's not about actually responding to the flux of political change, but actually should we get a system in place that works for us in Wales.
But do you acknowledge that that's a comment on current policies—actual and perceived—between London and Cardiff? We're talking about a permanent structural change and why the principle of that is something we should be pursuing.
As the Minister has said, the task that's been set for us is to look at the feasibility around the devolution of administration. There are many links between the benefits system and other services—so, housing and homelessness, for example. So, there is an interesting question for us, I think, about the extent to which some of these services need to be better integrated across the devolved/non-devolved line, if you like. And so I think, irrespective of politics and policy, that question of how you ensure that services are delivered in a way that best meets the needs of the individual—that question stands. So, we try very hard to work really closely with DWP and with Jobcentre Plus. Obviously, we're responsible for skills provision in Wales—so, making sure that there's that ability to put people on the right training courses et cetera. So, we already do work across the devolved/non-devolved boundary, if you like, but it's a question of can we do that better in other areas.
Thank you, Chair. Sorry I was late, by the way, Chair—apologies for that. I don't think you will have covered this, but you may have. In terms of the work you are doing now, are you looking at one of the areas around the potential for us to devolve assessments, even if we don't devolve all the benefits? Because certainly, the kind of people I see coming through my office and my surgeries—quite often, it's the way that they're treated, the way that the processing is handled, the delays and just the inhumanity of some of the processes that people have to face at the moment. We could do that differently if we were responsible, if not for the benefits themselves, but for how we assess people for their eligibility. That was certainly one of the things that I picked up very positively from Scotland—that their assessment process is very different to the UK assessment process, because they have involved people with their lived experiences in terms of developing a new system of assessment. So, is that something that you could be looking at without necessarily devolving all the benefits, but just looking at whether we could do the assessments and whether we could do that in a much more humane way than is currently being done?
Just on the back of that, I think it would be really useful if we could have as much clarity as possible as to what you mean by 'administration'—
And can I just say on the back of that, Chair, if I may, that the other issue about administration and why that is so important is again—. One of the lessons, I think, we've picked up from Scotland was that the UK Government had given Scotland a chunk of money for the administration without anybody actually knowing how much it was going to cost. And what the Scottish Government were saying was that they have this pot of money and they're now administering social security, but it's costing them far more than they've had from the UK Government and they're having to meet that out of their block grant. Now, we couldn't possibly do that. Scotland fare far better out of the Barnett formula than we do. So, I think all of that is hugely important in terms of what we can practically do, as opposed to what we might like to do.
I think that's a really good point in terms of what we could practically do. And you highlight very well there the potential risks—financial risks—but it's that balance between the financial risk and the cost to people in the community as well, so all of that needs to be taken into consideration. Because we know that, for example, with things like Scottish choices, every time—. You know, people have a right to that, and it's a good thing, but every time, the Scottish Government has to make a payment on top of that for Scottish choices as well. So, I think the risk around the actual—almost like the additional hidden costs of taking on additional responsibilities is something that absolutely needs to be fully considered and taken into account.
In terms of how we could potentially take on assessment, I think there's a plethora of different benefits. I think perhaps we'd need to look at that on a benefit-by-benefit basis and how that could be applied and how that could work. We've already started to see specific cases in terms of Citizens Advice in terms of how they are supporting people in applying for universal credit now. Because I sat in an assessment, an initial—not an assessment, an initial appointment of a potential client in Bargoed and have seen, actually, the different training there and the approach that makes with people as well in terms of actually having a slight flexibility. They're able to support them whether the person comes to them, or they might be able to allow for home visits as well, so actually to break down some of those barriers and have a much more, like you say, humane, sympathetic and understanding approach. What we found in that too is a lot of people have potentially come to the system and started up as volunteers and begun then to support others through that process. So, this certainly will form part of the case, of the work, we're doing in looking at the devolution of administration of aspects of the benefits system and the work that's being done by the WCPP.
Your question about administration and assessment—I think there's a really important link between them. So, to give you one example, if we took on the assessment process for PIP and we took a more sympathetic approach to that assessment, which potentially meant fewer appeals and fewer people turned down, et cetera, that means an additional cost because there'd be a higher level of yeses in Wales than there might be in England. And so who bears the financial burden—excuse me for using that phrase, it's not necessarily a burden, but who bears the financial consequences of that more generous assessment process? So, although that might involve us having control over administration, the link between administration and then the actual costs of the system—it's very difficult to separate them.
Your broader question about what is administration—this is something that we're grappling with. This is something that I think is going to be a key feature of the WCPP report. You're probably very aware that an enormous amount of the way in which the welfare social security system operates is governed by legislation. Secondary legislation and regulations abound in this area. What one person might regard as administration another might regard as a policy choice. So, it's a clear policy choice on the part of DWP that universal credit, for example, should mirror the world of work, hence why it's paid every four weeks [correction: paid monthly], hence why it's paid to the recipient and not elements to the landlord, other than in exceptional circumstances.
So, I think and I suspect that there will be considerable debate and potentially differences of view between ourselves and Westminster about what constitutes administration and what constitutes policy.
So, I don't think at this point we could tell you categorically where one begins and the other ends.
Again, that's really helpful. Very short, sweet question, then: if, following the evidence, you identify those types of areas where it would require regulatory or even primary legislative change in order to deliver real benefits and fair and compassionate delivery of benefits within Wales, will you be seeking those?
I think as and when the evidence emerges from the work we're doing—and that's a conversation we would have to have with our counterparts within—well, my counterpart within—the Westminster UK Government of actually what we could negotiate and what powers we would need to enable us to take the approach we want to take.
Okay, but if the evidence shows that there would be a positive impact of a change in policy that may require regulation or legislation in Wales, it would be perverse for the Welsh Government not to be seeking those changes in negotiation with the UK Government. So, I'm just seeking clarity that, if the evidence shows that there would be a benefit to making some regulatory or legislative changes, Welsh Government would want to seek those changes in negotiation with the UK Government.
Clearly, something like that would be part of the discussion that we would have with the UK Government, and, actually, you know—. If there was going to be— you know, we could see a foreseeable benefit and we'd weighed up the cost versus benefits, the risk, and actually that looked like the best route to go down, then clearly that is a conversation we're going to have, but I would not like to second guess any of that when we haven't actually got to that point yet.
Strictly on this point, you refer to the potential increased cost take-up with a more inclusive application process. That takes me back to my question about cost/benefits, because in Scotland we heard that that should be partially offset by a significant reduction in appeals and appeal processes and tribunals and the personnel and resource tied up in that, but that needs modelling. And, similarly, lived experience—. Dawn referred to lived experience. But it's not only, rightly, working with the recipient during their application process and subsequently, but it's also, in Scotland, designing the system with people with lived experience that has been core to their approach. How important do you consider that to be?
I would say this, wouldn't I? I think, across a range of policy areas, actually, that we strive, as is set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, always to involve and engage with those that are affected directly by the policy. Scotland have done some really interesting things around—apologies if I don't get the name of it right—the poverty commission. Is it the truth commission? I know Swansea has been looking at doing something really similar to that. So, it is that listening and experiencing and stepping in to somebody else's shoes to understand the needs as we design services. I think that runs core through our approach.
If we take some specific examples that are, if you like, more relevant to this area, we're continually making changes to the discretionary assistance fund process and the means by which people apply for that to make sure that we're reflecting the circumstances of the people who are phoning in and needing help—so, making changes to the eligibility process, making changes to the way people can apply using a partner agency to support their application. So, there's just a range of things that, obviously, we continue to look at.
Thanks. We've talked a lot about cost and the potential implications on the Welsh block grant, and Dawn said we couldn't possibly do what they do in Scotland. But I would say it's a question of priorities, and there may be a need to accept that there will be some cost to do this and to do it properly, because the current system—. Say, for example, with homelessness, there is risk by not taking responsibility for benefits that allow people to become homeless. The risk to their lives, for example. We know that people die early when they're homeless. So, when you talk about risk, you've got to think about risk in those terms as well, I would say. Do you think that investing in a Welsh benefits system could prevent more serious problems like homelessness happening? And do you think it's useful to start from the problem? So, look at, say, the question of homelessness: what is it we need, what powers, what benefits do we need to prevent this person becoming homeless? And once you approach it from that perspective you get a different outcome, I think.
Yes, I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head there, that, you know, to start, look at what the issues are, what can we potentially do to solve those issues, or to—you know, what is in our gift, what can we—? What additional powers, what do we need to do to be able to—? It goes back to not asking for these powers for devolution's sake, actually, because we know exactly the work you're doing from this committee into our work with the Wales Centre for Public Policy and looking at what we can learn from other countries is actually—. It's for a purpose—you know, this is what we want to do with it.
But homelessness is increasing massively, isn't it? So, it's a pertinent issue.
Clearly, if we had a welfare benefits policy that was more generous, offered fewer restrictions on the types of housing people could fund, it would increase the ability of welfare benefit to support that. There are clearly things we can look at along those lines. I think you're right to say to start from the problem and look at actually what could we do, what could help that, what could alleviate those pressures as well.
And do you accept that there might be a cost to that, then?
Clearly, we accept there's going to be a cost. But, like I said at the outset too, you said to talk about risk, and I said we've got to talk about the social cost as well and about priorities. So, there is going to have to be a point when we look at priorities, because there will be a decision, if there is a cost—you know, if we are going to go down that route, and we prioritise that, where do we take it from?
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Looking at options for devolution, can I ask what your reaction would be to the suggestion that the Welsh Government should have more powers over the housing element of universal credit to enable them to make decisions about eligible rents and many other areas?
Thanks. It doesn’t come as a surprise that this is one of the areas that other witnesses have raised and suggested as a potential route we could go down. I think, if we were to look at taking on the housing cost element of universal credit, that’s going to mean creating, for want of a better phrase at this point, a Welsh housing benefit, and that would logically require the inclusion of all aspects of housing benefit not included in universal credit. So, all of these things maybe appear simple, but can have broader complexities. But I recognise that perhaps one of the key issues behind the suggestions is the way that local housing allowances impact on the level of benefit that the person can receive as well.
Yes. And looking at—. With regard to having further powers to create new benefits—for example, we look at the Scottish young carer grant or the top-up of reserved benefits—have you looked at these options to tackle the uniqueness in Wales that is not being addressed by the UK Government? This is, of course, without the fiscal risks of the devolution of the entire benefits system.
Basically, at the moment, the Welsh Government doesn't have the powers to top-up reserved benefits. I’ve alluded to, previously, how we, in other ways, support the social wage approach—so, cash-equivalent services that have the effect and can, potentially, leave more money in the pocket of Welsh citizens, whether that be transport, free prescriptions and so on. The potential for a so-called top-up approach of benefits is something that I anticipate is going to be part of, or will be part of, the work that’s being looked at by the Wales Centre for Public Policy.
And what about creating new benefits? For example, I think the Scottish young carer grant is an excellent example, because we had people come to the Senedd last week about the amount of young carers that are actually caring for their parents, and some are as young as seven. So, what do you think about having more of an input into looking at new benefits being created?
As the Minister said, at the moment we don’t have the powers to be able to do that, so it’s not necessarily something that we would have looked at in great detail, as I say, because it’s outside of our competency. My understanding is there have been—. The other thing we have to be mindful of is the interplay between any benefits that we provide and the UK benefits system. And so what I understand can happen—and I believe this was an experience that they’ve encountered in Scotland—is that, in introducing a new benefit that’s unique to Scotland, it’s affected their eligibility for other benefits. So, the overall impact on the individual, financially, may not necessarily be that they're significantly better off. So, we have to be quite careful about the interplay of anything that we do with the UK system, because it would be unfortunate, wouldn’t it, if we tried to make people better off by giving them a certain amount of money, and then their universal credit or another benefit was then simply deducted by the equivalent amount, and so there’s no net gain.
But do you think, because of the uniqueness of Wales, that it makes more sense for benefits, the benefits system, to be devolved to Wales? That's what I'm basically asking. And then having the powers to create new benefits, really, because—.
So, the work we’re doing is looking at the devolution of the administration of welfare to Wales, and, as Jo-Anne said, all these things are within the scope of what we’re going to look at, but making sure that we look at potential unintended consequences—that we may take action here and it has an impact on something that we don’t want it to have. All things have to be considered as part of this work.
So, regarding a benefit claimant then having more choices over their income, many witnesses have cited universal credit as needing to be more flexible to give people these choices—an example is Scottish choices, really. So, have flexibilities in this area been discussed at Welsh Government level?
It would be very useful to know where you've got to with those discussions and whether you think there's a possibility of further development on that front?
So, it's safe to say to committee members that there have been frequent and ongoing conversations and representations of different length and tone with counterparts in the UK Government in terms of introducing alternative payment arrangements, whether that be, actually, how we look at the five-week wait, paying directly to landlords—. There are some flexibilities within that system that we're part of, but that’s at the discretion of the work coach rather than, in Scotland, with Scottish choices, when people have an automatic right to that.
In terms of where we are now, I think with the current Secretary of State—they seem to be much more amenable to this. But one of the things we’ve recently raised is the point that we're at now, when the managed migration has been paused, and that would be an opportune moment to consider any changes or flexibilities to the system. That is something that we are still raising on an ongoing basis and I know that officials are in ongoing contact with officials at UK Government level.
So, we meet with DWP colleagues based here in Wales very frequently, and those meetings have been used to explore what flexibilities could be offered here in Wales. While colleagues are always positive and constructive when they come to those meetings, nevertheless, they are bound by the policy of the UK Government and the fact that much of the administration of universal credit is set out in regulations, and those regulations cover both England and Wales, and it’s not possible, we’re told, for them to operate the system differently in Wales to England without legislative changes, which they are not, at the moment, prepared to consider.
So, as the Minister has said, all the flexibilities that they have in Scotland currently exist within the universal credit system, but the major difference is that, in Scotland, they are there as a choice and they are something that people are entitled to if they wish. In Wales, as in England, those flexibilities are only available if the work coach deems that it is appropriate for the individual to have those flexibilities. And so, while we haven’t seen the data, because there seem to be some challenges with providing data on the take-up of those flexibilities, we believe that the flexibilities are taken up to a much greater extent in Scotland than they are in England and Wales. We have constant difficulties, battles and discussions because we are struggling to get Wales-specific data to know what the level of take-up is for those flexibilities: how many people are asking for them, how many people are granted them et cetera, et cetera. At the moment, it’s a bit of a blank in terms of what DWP are able to tell us.
That's very useful. Huw, this will have to be extremely brief because we've got about three minutes left, I'm afraid.
Really quick: just in case the Secretary of State up in Whitehall is listening, or the head of DWP in Wales, would it be reasonable for any citizen of Wales to ask why we do not have the same flexibilities granted to us as Northern Ireland or Scotland at this moment?
Thank you, Chair. Given that we don't have those flexibilities at the moment, we do have issues still, actually with or without the flexibilities, I think, of the waiting period for coming onto universal credit. I'm just wondering whether you've given any thought to whether the discretionary assistance fund could be utilised for the those claimants that are in that five-week waiting period? This is probably the single biggest issue that we end up having to deal with from constituents when they've made the application—they have this period of time, these weeks without any access to—. So, could we look at doing something with the discretionary assistance fund to help in those circumstances?
Well, I think it's important to make clear that people can already access the discretionary assistance fund in those circumstances. I was at the centre in Wrexham a few months ago listening in on calls to see the nature of the calls and listened to the absolute skill of the people working there in terms of how they deal with these callers very compassionately.
I think we've seen an incredible increase in terms of the budget allocated to the discretionary assistance fund: in 2018-19 it was £8.4 million, but at the end of the year it had reached £10.5 million, and an extra £2 million has been made available. From the conversations I had with those administrating the fund, they would probably put a lot down to that increase in calls to universal credit as well. And I think it's important to say in terms of the discretionary assistance fund and the development of it that we are continually working with them—and that's why there's the capability to listen in on calls as well—to actually how we develop that fund to best support people as we can in Wales as well.
I asked you a question earlier about whether we should devolve assessments and so on, but you'll probably be aware of the work that Oxfam Cymru have been doing with the DWP here and they talk to us about how dealing with DWP staff directly has started to shift some of the cultural change to the way in which they approach the work and which they approach the assessments and so on. What are your views on that as a process, the Oxfam work, and do you see developing that as the potential alternative to the devolution of assessments and various other aspects of administration if we could get that more, kind of, humane approach in terms of DWP staff themselves delivering it?
Definitely. I absolutely welcome the work of Oxfam Cymru with the DWP and to actually have that, kind of, more humane, compassionate approach, which, actually, we should expect. I think it's certainly something that we'd be happy to look at further in what we can do within Wales. And like I said earlier, there is the work that's already been happening in terms of Citizens Advice and the different approach that's come in there in terms of actually how they work with people and are able to go into somebody's home to visit them, rather than expect somebody to come in, where appropriate. So, there are things happening, but, like you said, actually, part of this work will be looking at all the good work that is happening and how we can then better support that to roll out on a larger scale.
And I think that was partly the thing that the Bevan Foundation said to us when they came because the means-tested benefits that are already the responsibility of the Welsh Government—they were saying we needed a much more integrated approach to how we deliver those particular benefits. Would you agree with that assessment? Do you think we, perhaps, need to look at that and see how that can be more effectively delivered before we start thinking about devolving more benefits?
I think we're always going to be open to the work of things like the Bevan Foundation about actually how we can take a more integrated approach where possible. I understand that work is ongoing by the Bevan Foundation and it's certainly something that we'd be happy to look at in terms of actually how that could help us better integrate what we're doing now. So, you know, like I said, with the discretionary assistance fund, again, there's work coming together about how we can develop that further. So, it's not a static process, it's a constantly evolving process to actually make sure whatever we can do or are doing really does meet the needs of the people that obviously deserve—.
Are you involving benefit claimants in those processes? When you're looking at adjusting and amending the way in which we do it, are you actually involving people in those discussions?
I think the question and the challenge that's being posed by the Bevan Foundation is a really important one. So, we've mentioned the DAF. Obviously, we have things like the pupil development grant access fund, and other things—the council tax reduction scheme—and, at the moment, all of these are administered differently, with different eligibility criteria. In many cases, that will be appropriately so, because they serve different purposes, but I think it's a good question to pose as we look at our approach to the social wage, as we look at our approach to how we try to put more money into the pockets of people in Wales—that we ask the question, actually: could we improve the administration? Could we improve the accessibility and the take-up of these? So, we’ll look forward to seeing and talking further with the Bevan Foundation and thinking about what those options might look like.
Dawn, if I could just bring Leanne briefly in with the last question.
All of those means-tested benefits that Dawn just talked about could fall under the umbrella of anti-poverty policies. Do you think an anti-poverty strategy would help you?
The Welsh Government is committed to tackling poverty in all its forms. I think it's actually currently ongoing that my colleague the Minister for Housing and Local Government is leading a review looking at, actually, all the different approaches we take and the levers we use to make sure that they're used to best effect. So, that work is already ongoing within Welsh Government.
Okay. Thank you very much for coming in today to give evidence, Minister, and your officials. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Thank you very much indeed. Diolch yn fawr.
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o'r cyfarfod ar gyfer eitemau 4, 8 a 9 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).
that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the meeting for items 4, 8 and 9 in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Item 3 is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from this meeting for items 4, 8 and 9. Are you content so to do? Thank you very much. We will move into private session.
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 10:01.
The public part of the meeting ended at 10:01.
Ailymgynullodd y pwyllgor yn gyhoeddus am 10:16.
The committee reconvened in public at 10:16.
[Inaudible.] I'm very pleased to welcome Leighton Evans, from Carmarthenshire County Council; Paula Livingstone, from Swansea Council; Sion Wynne, from Wrexham County Borough Council; and, as I said, Gaynor Toft, from Ceredigion County Council. Welcome to you all. Thanks for coming in today. Perhaps I might start, then, with a first quite general question. What are the main reasons, would you say, why properties become and remain empty, and is there a variation generally between rural and urban Wales? Who would like to begin? Gaynor.
Perhaps if I kick off, then. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you for the opportunity to come here today. There are many reasons why properties become empty and remain empty as well. One of the main reasons is that, possibly, the owner has deceased and the property is in probate, and the property will have been passed on to siblings, members of the family, and they are in the process of deciding what to do with it—whether to sell it, whether to rent it out. So, that is quite a common reason. Often, these properties can be in poor condition, and that's one of the reasons why they've fallen empty—because of the prohibitive cost of actually renovating them to make them habitable. It could be, again, for sentimental reasons—that they're a family home and, again, if siblings have inherited it, it's not something that they want to pass on in terms of selling it on or renting it out. Quite often, also, the elderly person who's the owner is in care, so, obviously, for that reason, the property is empty whilst they're in care. It could be that the owner has moved away and has just left it. We've got examples in Ceredigion where somebody might have bought it for use in Aberystwyth as part of the university, they've moved away to work and then just left the property to become empty and not bothered to either rent it out or sell it on. We quite often have properties over commercial premises that are empty, so it could have been that they were previously used for storage or that the access into the flat or flats above the commercial premises is quite difficult, so they're empty for that reason, because it could be that it's shared access between the commercial and up to the residential above. It could be that it's in a low housing need and demand area as well. It's fallen into disrepair and it's in a rural location or even in an urban area, where the attractiveness of the properties isn't as great and, hence, it's much easier just to leave it to fall into disrepair and to be empty.
I think that shows you the breadth of the reasons why properties are empty and, often, because of disrepair or some probate issue, they do remain empty for quite some time.
Yes. Thank you very much for that. Would you accept that, because of those very reasons, there is a disproportionately high level of empty properties within areas that suffer socioeconomic deprivation, more disadvantaged areas? It could be student community areas, it could be upper Valleys areas, it could be remote rural areas, but because of those very factors of land value, et cetera, there are more empty properties. Do we know whether there are more empty properties in areas of disadvantage and deprivation?
We don't have those figures, I don't think, before us to actually confirm that across Wales. Probably, in Swansea, as an example, we've got a mixture, and it would be, yes, in some of the more socially deprived areas that there will be empties, but conversely then, you'd have areas where property values, perhaps, are quite high and then are outside people's reach, so you've got almost the opposite example of that—where the thing has been turned on its head.
Yes. What we could do is map—because we can map where our empty properties are, and we could overlay that mapping with socioeconomic data. So it's very practical to do that. And I think, from a rural perspective, for Ceredigion, as an example, we find there is no pattern as such in terms of our empty properties—they're pretty much scattered across the county. Quite often, in a rural area, it's because of the rurality and the prohibitive cost of renovating a detached, old property, as you do have in rural areas. That's more of the reason, more than the socioeconomic impact of it then, really. It's the affordability and then the value of that property in terms of affordability to both renovate and affordability for people to actually live in it subsequently as well.
If there were a way of doing that, Chair, that you could help us with that on an authority-by-authority basis to see the granularity of that down to the disadvantaged areas, it would be interesting to see whether it is anecdotal and experiential or whether there is something hard behind this idea that more disadvantaged areas tend to have a disproportionately high level of empty properties. So, that would be great if you could do that.
In the Carmarthenshire area, we've actually mapped the empty properties in our county. They seem to be located around the townships of the county and particularly down the Aman/Gwendraeth valleys, which were the old mining valley areas. So, those areas will be lower property value, lower income, and so forth. But, conversely, the Llanelli and Carmarthen town property values, rental values, are significantly different between those two, although we do see a collection of empty properties in both areas.
Okay. Huw, thanks for that. What would you say about the impact of empty properties on communities—the significance of the impact, the scale of the impact, the nature of the impact?
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. The most common issue, really, is the blight on the communities, in terms of a visual blight, the deterioration of a property, whether that's through the garden becoming overgrown and unruly or the property itself just going into a state of disrepair. Unfortunately as well, empty properties do become a magnet for anti-social behaviour, particularly in the more urban areas where they're easily spotted and the footfall going past them is greater, so they're not hidden, if you like. They do have an impact on property prices. If someone owns a house next door to a property that is in a particularly bad state of repair, it is going to have an impact when it comes to renting or selling that house. It does act as a barrier to regeneration if we're looking on a wider scale in terms of investment into the area, be it commercial investment or residential investment. If there are properties in a poor state of repair, it does act as a sort of, 'Is that an area we want to go into?' So, they do also provide opportunities in that respect as well, obviously. The cost of the buildings, as Gaynor alluded to earlier, with the rural properties in particular, if you're dealing with stone properties, larger detached properties, there are greater costs involved in that. So, that has a cost that escalates further down the line, if you like, onto the neighbours who maybe have to maintain the boundaries slightly differently and all that kind of stuff. So, yes, it is a blight issue, it is an impact on the immediate neighbourhood, and also there may be low confidence within the area, as a housing need perspective in maybe the rural areas, where people feel, 'Nothing's happening here; they forget about us.' It's that sort of sense of being ignored, if you like. So, there's often more to it than that, but the perception is that areas are forgotten about, and the empty property is a reflection of that.
I see. Okay. Anything any of you would add to that, or does that encapsulate it, really?
I think so, yes.
Okay. Could I ask, then, given the problems and the impacts, to what extent are local authorities making this a strategic priority, to deal with empty properties? Is there a strategic approach, or is it very reactive in terms of complaints being made and then possible action being taken?
I think most local authorities would aim to have a strategic approach to dealing with empties as part of their overall housing strategy. It can be a difficult situation. Obviously, each local authority will have its local priorities of how the local members will see the issue, depending perhaps on numbers or the profile. It can be that there would be a very vocal complainant who would raise things up the political agenda as well, if they had the ear of a particular—I've seen a smile—local member. I'm sure that you would appreciate how that could be, but I think that most local authorities certainly do try to take a strategic approach.
It is a balance between long-term, strategic type of work and approach as well as dealing with the ad hoc, reactive issues that are maybe more short term or that are quite pertinent at a given point in time—if a property’s been broken into or there’s something like a dangerous structure element to it that needs resolving straight away. But I think the overall approach would be that local authorities would try to look at them strategically as far as their local priorities and their resources allow as well.
On the strategic approach, figures we've been provided from Infobase Cymru for 2017-18 state that the percentage of properties brought back into use in Swansea was 3.8 per cent; in Carmarthenshire, 6.9 per cent; Ceredigion, 1.9 per cent; Wrexham, 5.4 per cent, but Flintshire, 33.3 per cent. Can you explain the dichotomy? Is it because things have been counted differently, or is this good practice that can be looked to?
As an expert panel, we have done a lot of work in looking at the performance indicator that we do have nationally. I think, as with all performance indicators, we do provide guidance in relation to how each local authority should be measuring it then, really. So, we've looked a lot at the PI. I don't know whether, Leighton, you want to bring in how the actual denominator is looked at and then how we measure the numbers and the percentages brought back into use as a result of it. But as an expert panel, what we're trying to do is look at consistency across the local authorities in terms of how each local authority does measure their numbers and their percentages brought back into use.
Before you come in, can I just confirm from that that you're indicating that some local authorities have approached this differently to others previously?
No, I couldn't evidence that, but it's a case of, we do issue guidance in relation to—. And that's part of the local government data unit work, to provide guidance in relation to how local authorities should be looking at the measurement.
Can I just confirm as well—did you quote 2017-18 in those figures?
During that period, there was a wholesale review by the local authorities, directed by the panel, and for 2018-19 the guidance that was issued was beefed up and was confirmed a lot more, not prescriptively, but was tried to be tightened up. So, perhaps in the figures for 2018-19 there might be a slight difference in the differences.
Well, certainly, we've all fed that information back.
Certainly, local authorities are making a massive effort to increase the number of empty properties brought back into use, but I think it’s worth noting the information behind the denominator. The PI is based on a percentage. As Gaynor mentioned there, the denominator figures across Wales vary massively. The higher end of the range, taken from last year, is 3,554 down to 244. There’s a massive disparity there. There are different geographical areas with different populations and different county sizes and we understand that, but by placing the PI as a percentage, we're actually looking at some local authorities that have got a higher number of empty properties in their county returning more properties back into use than those at the top of the league table, so to speak. We're also looking at the overall number of empty properties—the denominator figure. Looking at Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, for example, 50 per cent of that denominator is empty for less than two years. They're not necessarily problematic properties, but they're perceived—'Wow, there are 2,615 empty properties in Carmarthenshire this year.' Fifty-five per cent of those are empty for less than two years, likely in very good condition, in a stagnant property market, possibly, maybe stuck in a probate case. It does paint a bit of a negative picture in terms of what's actually happening.
Conversely to that, there are properties that are taking up the local authority's time significantly that don't exist in the denominator figure, because they are not on the council tax register, because they've been removed from council tax listings based on their condition. We would have files this big from working on them, and when those come back into use, that does not form part of the PI, but we would have a property that might well have been empty for seven months, where we've assisted Mrs Jones to find a builder and give her a little list of works in order to bring that property up to use. We get a tick in the box for that property.
I'm just wondering, pursuant to Mark's question and your answer there, whether or not there is that granularity of data that you can provide to the committee. What do we not have the data on in front of this committee on properties that do not even appear on that? Where would you identify the cut-off point between ones that are real problem ones sometimes and what is a natural flux within it? Is there some way that you already break that down that you could provide for the committee in that depth of information?
Personally from my perspective and my experience through working with empty properties, we tend to find that those properties empty for less than two years tend to be what we call transitional empty properties. So, they're just going through the process of being on the market for sale, with somebody who may well have passed away, going through the probate, the family having to deal with the affairs then putting it on the market—not necessarily a bad property. The PI looks at properties vacant for six months or more. We tend to find that the problematic properties are those that are been empty for over two years.
Yes, but in your answer to Mark earlier, you were suggesting that probably some of the data we have in front of us does not reflect those gaping tooths in streets that have been empty for years and years and off the council tax register. Can we have that data?
[Inaudible.]—there is this dichotomy between the Labour counties [Inaudible.] Are you aware of the different approach?
I supposed resources are one side to things. From what I do know of what's gone on in in the neighbouring authority, there were specific projects going on there around the redevelopment of flat accommodation and stuff like that. So, that might have been a factor. I wouldn't want to go into more depth than that, in case I'm talking on behalf of them, but it's—
There were some significant developments in Flint Heights, for example—a high-rise involving lots of units in one building—
So, it may be that those have contributed towards that overall figure. But, certainly, in terms of, obviously, the work, all the local authorities work closely together in terms of our loans and all those kinds of products. They reflect each other, so what we offer in Wrexham largely reflects what's offered in Flintshire and what's offered in Ceredigion. But then there'll be other local priorities, which will be slightly different as well. A long answer to a short question—there are similarities in what we do, there are differences in what we do, and I'd imagine some local factors contributed towards that.
Sorry, can I just pick up, maybe, on the question or my understanding of the question as well? The denominator that we use and that is reported in the PI is based on the council tax database. We know that you've got colleagues coming in from some of the finance departments later on this morning. Obviously, we're very much reliant upon them for that data, and, for properties that are removed from the council tax register, they may be able to help with some of that angle to that question.
That's very useful, thanks. Could I just ask a further question in terms of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, because we've had a consultation process as a committee in the lead-up to taking evidence today, and several of the responses mentioned the well-being of future generations Act and its significance, really, in terms of taking a long-term view and a preventative view? So, to what extent would you say that local authorities' strategies on empty properties take account of that legislation and its principles?
I think Paula alluded to our local housing strategies, with a mention of empty properties as being priorities within local housing strategies. And it's then that golden thread in relation to how your local housing strategy accounts to your corporate strategy, and so on and so forth.
In terms of empty properties as an agenda, as a strategic priority, obviously, in terms of maintaining sustainable communities, we would say that bringing empties back into use is very much a contributor and a key deliverer as far as the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is concerned. Yes, it is a major contributor, but that's not to say that more couldn't be done. I think we do struggle with competing resources within local authorities. If we have a complaint about somebody living in very poor living conditions above an empty property, or against one that is empty-property related, then as a priority from a service perspective, I would say to my staff to deal with the issue about somebody living within poor housing conditions or dangerous housing conditions as a priority. And unfortunately, that is the conflicting priorities that we do face operationally as local authorities from an operational perspective. And then, obviously, from a strategic perspective, it does depend on the local authority, then, where an empty property sits within the strategic priorities of that local authority against competing resources as regards social care, education, regeneration—that's a key deliverer—but that's where we do sit, realistically.
Okay. Thanks very much for that. Caroline, I think we've probably adequately dealt with the public accountability measure aspect, haven't we? But if you'd like to continue beyond that.
Okay. Thank you. Do all local authorities have an empty property officer? And, if so, what impact does this officer have and what is the remit of that officer?
All authorities won't have a bespoke empty property officer, going by that job title, if you like. They'll have officers who will have as their sole responsibility dealing with the wide breadth of empty property work, whether that's from loan all the way through to enforcement action, or they'll have officers, or maybe a team of officers, who will deal with empty properties as part of their remit. I can only speak from my personal perspective. I deal with a wide range of empty property work, but I also deal with other loan schemes for occupied housing as well, whereas empty properties—. When empty properties come to me, I then rely on the expertise of my colleagues elsewhere in the authority in terms of legislation and stuff like that.
There are other elements to the work and, I have to say, most authorities have that situation where empty property officers—. There are officers who deal with that and have an expertise in that, but they may also have other responsibilities.
So, when you say they have an expertise in that, can you say exactly what their remit is and what their expertise is?
They'll vary. A lot of the empty property officers are trained and qualified as environment health officers and so have a high level of knowledge and expertise in that field. Others, myself included, come from a regeneration background, so we look at it from a slightly different perspective. That's not to say that every officer doing the job around Wales has the same level of knowledge; we rely on a different pool of resources in different ways. But our expertise, I suppose, has developed from experience of dealing with the properties and knowing what kind of schemes do work, what kind of schemes don't work, and how to try and find solutions for the issues.
So, when the officers have done their work, then, to what extent does having specialist legal support and advice delay or prevent enforcement action being taken?
Just to elaborate on the original question, I'm the empty property officer for Carmarthenshire, and it is a very focused role. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated role in Carmarthenshire and we work behind an empty property action plan, which originated from a strategy. We've had a task-and-finish review from community scrutiny. We've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at empty properties in order to progress on that. My role has developed quite significantly over the years, where we are actually providing some detailed advice, guidance and support to owners. We offer and administer financial assistance. We have an enforcement role. So, we enforce anything from housing Act basic or statutory nuisances right the way through to housing Act notices, to empty dwelling management orders. We also assist people with finding building contractors and agents to project manage these larger projects. We have VAT concession letters to save empty property owners' funding because, if a property has been empty for more than two years, they can actually benefit from a 15 per cent tax discount. So, it's not just an enforcement role that we have; it is very much hand-holding and pointing people in the right direction. Empty property work is also—. The responsibility lies across many departments: we've got building control responsibilities, planning, council tax; we've got public health services, housing. And part of my role is to take a co-ordinating role and co-ordinate the activity of the local authority across those departments to ensure that we have a unified approach to these empty properties.
So, sometimes, due to the sensitivity and individuality of each case, would you say that the role is quite bespoke in some ways?
I would say 100 per cent, yes—100 per cent. Going back to your question on the legal side, my experience of legal services, certainly within our county—. Legal services are great, they're very knowledgeable, but they have a breadth of knowledge across the entire council services. When it comes to specific, bespoke legislation in terms of housing or empty properties in general, they will know a little bit; they won't know a massive amount. There's certainly a lack of confidence about making decisions, especially when the local authority have to invest capital funding into projects. And there is certainly a stand-offish approach, where recommendations are made to seek external guidance. A lot of legal services, in my experience, take the advice from us, as empty property officers, because we deal with this legislation on a daily, weekly basis. To have a bespoke legal service, or perhaps a national bespoke legal service, where local authorities can tap into this and get that specialist advice, I think would be something of a benefit.
Yes. Thank you for that. So, how is best practice on empty property currently rolled out across the different authorities?
I think we've got an arrangement, really—as you said, we've got the all-Wales housing expert panel, and then, following out from that, we've got, I think, perhaps three regional empty property working groups, which are looking at actual practical examples and approaches, scenarios, assisting each other in how best practice might be delivered. Then, we also have groups that are looking particularly at renewal and the loans element of how that is also worked in with empties. So, they will all report back into the panel meetings. As a panel, we meet quarterly. There's always an agenda item relating to empties, and so we try to feed that through ourselves. It's been built up over the years, but I think there's quite a good network, certainly in the regional areas, of people being able to contact each other so that, if it was that a local authority did a lot of work, perhaps with enforced sale, developed a protocol or a method of working, that is shared across the local authorities. We've held training sessions amongst ourselves in the past.
So, by the communication channels that you've obviously engaged with other places, would you say, then, that that gives consistency throughout Wales?
It certainly tries to do, I think, yes. As I say, if somebody has been able to progress—. The situation that Leighton has described is very particular to Carmarthen. It's obviously been funded very well. We've had examples that have been shared with colleagues that way, yes.
Leighton gave us the importance of sensitivity in his role, so do you think that there's consistency in that role throughout Wales as well?
I think that varies with each local authority's resources and the ability that they have, the funding that is there in times of austerity—everybody's been pressurised, obviously, with how many resources are there. I think we really do need to stress to you the amount of time that it takes when dealing with some of these properties; it can go on and on and on for years and years. Enforcement is not always the best option at all, and the hand-holding, the trying to coerce, even the identification of who owns the property in the first instance. Sometimes, if they've been empty for an awful long time, they're not registered with the Land Registry, so you're starting from a very difficult situation to begin with.
Just to add on to that, the issues we get with empty properties, the complaints, are reactive in that respect. You'll often try and build a relationship with the owners, as Paula mentioned there, to try and bring them on board. That's the sensitive side of the work. They'll maybe be distrusting of the council and what our agenda is in terms of the wider agenda. They may be embarrassed of the property. There'll be all sorts of factors going on with it, and it's trying to break the issues up. So, okay, our end goal is to bring the empty property back into use—that is without a doubt—but, actually, if the initial complaint is about the state of the garden, if we can get that issue dealt with, in terms of our performance indicators and stuff it's still empty, but actually you've built a bit of a relationship with the owner, you've built a bit of goodwill with the neighbours and then you can build on that. So, it might be five, six years before the property's back in use again. If there's a huge issue going on—it might be that the family own it and one part of the family doesn't agree with the other part of the family what to do with the property—there are all sorts of weird and wonderful factors involved in it. But it is very much a nurturing exercise in that respect.
Okay. Just before we go on, just picking up really on what Leighton said about the possibility of having a national service in terms of legal advice and support, I guess it could be national, it could be regional. What would you say about how it might work in practice? Is there anything you could say to the committee on that?
It is a specialist area at the end of the day. When we've wanted to take enforced sales, for example, because there is limited specialist knowledge on that legislation within our corporate legal services, to have that specialist knowledge of the range of legislation that is within our toolbox, really, at the end of the day, because there are various pieces of legislation that we can use to apply to empty properties, depending on what the issue is. So, to have that even at a regional level, and I think it could work on a national basis as well, to have that specialist solicitor, almost, to draw on would be very beneficial.
Certainly, from the local authority's perspective, to instill confidence, because when local authorities take strong enforcement action it usually is followed up by investment, capital and costs, and sometimes—. I've administered enforcement action, some to about £40,000. That's a massive risk to the local authority and I need to be very sure that the action that I'm taking is appropriate, that it's correct, that it's accurate. A simple thing like a mistyped date on a notice could invalidate that £40,000.
I was just going to ask about resources, because it's all very well having some legal person telling you, 'This is the course of action that you can take on this particular property', but if you haven't got the resources to spend on that or if you can't contact the owner to spend that resource, then the chances of it happening are probably quite slim. So, would you say, in addition to some sort of central legal advice service, that there should be some sort of fund as well that local authorities could apply for, for those perhaps just extreme or expensive cases? What would you say about that?
It is a case of almost underwriting the action of the local authority, because it's almost an invest to save because, yes, you need that outlay of funding to actually bring that property back into use, but when you sell it on, that is recouped.
Yes, or if you're a stock-retaining authority, so that you bring that property into the housing stock of the local authority, as a landlord, then that is the option that you're adding to your housing stock. But for those authorities who aren't landlords, it's a case of whether we can then work with the registered social landlords to actually bring back that property, or if it's a private developer. But you will ultimately see that funding coming back, although it's underwriting the risk, the outlay that's needed to bring that property back into use, and then see it as an investment pool.
Just to extend on that slightly, when Houses into Homes, the loan scheme, came into being, there was discretion placed by Welsh Government that local authorities could, if they needed to, access that pond of funding to undertake works in default, up to a maximum of £25,000, as long as that money was then recycled within a two-year period. That can be quite beneficial to access that funding, but, again, you do need the confidence to be able to say, 'Okay, I am going to be able to recover this money.'
A number of years ago, there were bespoke empty homes officers in a number of local authorities across Wales. Denbighshire won a series of national awards for bringing properties back into use. I met their officer several times and she explained it was an entirely proactive model. Yes, there was the reactive work, but it was detailed, down-at-the-ground-level work to identify the landlords and to intervene with help, support, and far more carrot than stick. And that's how they won those awards. Eventually, I think she was embedded within a housing association, so it was a partnership with the local authority, and I think some local authorities also combined all of that with the rural housing enabler roles. But could we be developing a regional model, whereby partnership between local authorities and the RSLs, with an embedded host and perhaps combining the rural housing enabler model, could help fill some of these gaps?
As a former rural housing enabler, former RSL member of staff, and a former Denbighshire member of staff I can try and answer this one.
I think partnership work is always to be welcomed. I think there's certainly great scope in linking our work more to the works of RSLs. I think, from almost a neutrality point of view, working within a local authority is very useful because you can bring in the RSLs as they are deemed fit. You can bring in the private developers if they're the ones who are most appropriate to do that. You can bring in expertise like the rural housing enablers, where they still operate. You can co-ordinate a lot more. I suppose the nature is, if you're embedded with a particular housing association, it may be that the other housing associations don't see it as much of a priority for them. I think, where you can work in partnership and co-ordinate many stakeholders to have a role in it, it's to be welcomed. In terms of where that leads to more commonality, if you like, across the regions and across the authorities in Wales, it could do, but there will always be local factors that will also dictate a particular direction. It could be that rural empties are a particular issue in an area, compared to maybe student towns, where that's a particular issue. There will always be local factors that drive it. But I think partnership working will always be welcome, grateful, and will always be a good thing to see. We've had good success recently with an RSL and a very problematic empty property in our county borough, but there are other opportunities we could explore, which aren't through lack of resources and lack of opportunity, I suppose.
Just to concur with Sion, really, it's the local authority that has got the back-up of the enforcement tools in terms of the delegated authority to take enforcement action if needed. And we do work with RSLs to bring them in when it's appropriate, but it's within the local authority that you've got the expertise. What we are lacking is the capacity, really, in terms of, you know, with empty property work, if you were to take it to a regional level, yes, it's good for sharing good practice and expertise, but where it actually makes a difference is at an operational, local level. And it's the capacity to do that, that is where you see the variations between local authorities. That's where you're going to see the benefit is by having the foot soldiers, really, in terms of getting the work done, doing the engagement with property owners, if you can find them. It's that constant drip-drip effect in terms of the local tendrils out there in the communities, making that impact. And I think that's where we are struggling to make the real big difference.
Just picking up on both of those points and coming back to your question earlier about the PI, and the differences there and what counts and what doesn't count in the PI, I think, obviously, nationally and quite rightly, there's a focus on long-term problematic empty properties. In local communities, sometimes, the fact that a property is empty is not the issue for the local community; it's the fact that somebody then dumps their rubbish in the garden of that property or, as Sion has mentioned a few times, the garden is overgrown.
So, whilst we all accept that we've still got a housing need and that there is a bigger issue than that, sometimes the lower level work achieves good success with public satisfaction of what they want to see. Now, none of that work—. And that will be perhaps through enforcement of something at a low level. It may well be that we can't find an owner and we take enforcement action to have rubbish removed. We do it, the local authority does it through work in default and we try to recover that money—£150 maybe—but the neighbours are assured that we've taken some notice of them, that we've done something and that the house is secure and that's fine. So, we have got two big differences in the scale of the work that we're involved in as well, and that's done, as I say, at a very local, practical level.
I'm trying to bundle together some of the questions around enforcement powers rather than that softer end there, and to get to the point of whether the powers that you have are satisfactory or whether they could be improved or reviewed. I'm going to bundle some of these together. So, first of all, with the empty dwelling management orders, very few have been used. Does this suggest that they aren't simple to use, aren't easy to use, and that the risks outweigh it? So, should they be scrapped and something new brought along or should we just look at improving what we've got?
We've also heard some—I'll bundle these together and feel free to answer—. We've also had some evidence suggesting that enforced sale is a lot more straightforward than EDMOs or compulsory purchase orders. So what's your view on that?
And then, just finally, the Scottish Government approach on this: several of our responses to the consultation have suggested that the Scottish Government approach is to introduce a compulsory sales order, so that where it's been vacant or derelict for an undue period, it could be sold by public auction to the highest bidder—very simple, lower thresholds. Would this be something that you'd want to see introduced? Sorry, I've bundled them together so that you can range free.
Everyone's looking at me. [Laughter.] We'll start with the empty dwelling management orders then. Yes, it is a very complicated, protracted mechanism for dealing with empty properties. Whilst that is the case, I think there is certainly a place for it not to be scrapped at all. There are better mechanisms out there. We've discussed quite a lot now the proactive work—the hand-holding and so forth—and sometimes that achieves so much more. Eighty per cent of empty properties brought back into Carmarthenshire last year were done through an advisory, guidance, supportive way. Enforcement is responsible for a very small part of that.
I've personally been responsible for and been involved in two empty dwelling management orders—the most recent was last year. We look at empty dwelling management orders as a halfway house between a leasing scheme and a compulsory purchase, almost. It's very risky from the local authority's perspective because the build-up to an interim empty dwelling management order—the interim empty dwelling management order is the first point at which we make an application to the residential property tribunal for permission. All the work that the local authority does up until that point, we can't claim any costs back on it—it's completely at risk.
The local authority undertaking an empty dwelling management order also has to find capital funds in order to improve a property. That capital cost is then at massive risk because the legislation at the moment only allows us to fix that as a local charge and not as a land registry financial charge. So, we work our way around that by actually putting cautions, restrictions, on the land registry, and the restriction is quite simple: it is to prevent somebody from forming a leasehold on the property, but it acts like a trigger to allow other people to know, 'Look, there's something going on here, the local authority has an interest in the property.' Before we even get to the empty dwelling management order, we have to exhaust all other avenues of assistance. We have to hand-hold, we have to offer all the advice, guidance and support that's available to every owner of an empty property, including financial assistance. At that point then, the local authority has to serve an interim management order, for which we have to have permission from the Residential Property Tribunal. The application that I prepared was 481 pages long. The time frame that it took from us to start enforcement action to the property being tenanted was three years—a massive amount of my time went. So, looking on the flip side of that, I think there is a place for them because it does enable local authorities to offer solutions to empty property owners without taking their properties away from them. It does demonstrate the local authority using enforcement action in a positive way and it increases the availability of housing in that area.
Looking at the enforced sale procedure, certainly a lot, lot, lot less work. But, the enforced sale, just to be clear, is an enforcement toolkit that isn't an empty property tool. It is a debt recovery mechanism only. So, the local authority has to have a debt against that property before that can be used. Usually, that may happen if there's a statutory nuisance where a property may well be allowing water to enter an adjoining property. The local authority will take enforcement action, step in, carry out the works and affix a financial charge against the property. A demand will be issued to the owner. Failure to pay that demand and they're in debt to the local authority, and by using the law of property Act we can actually enforce the sale of the property to cover that debt.
What's important to note again is it's very quick in terms of getting to that stage, but you do have still an empty property that needs improvement at the end of the process. So, as local authorities, it is encouraged to look at the longer term solution as well. Yes, we're going to be selling this property at a public auction, it's going to be going for market value rate, and you're hoping that the person who is buying that property has the full intention to improve that property, going in eyes wide open—it's not always the case. But they, again, have the access and availability to all the support, guidance, advice that the local authority has, including financial assistance.
What's encouraged is that we utilise the housing Act notices in tandem with enforced sales, where we put a suspension on a full renovation of the property and a notice asking somebody to renovate the property fully, and that suspension is lifted at the point of change of ownership. Therefore, the local authority assumes some control. When the property is sold, the new owner is purchasing the property fully committing that once they own that property they have 12 months to improve that property.
Looking at the Scottish system, I'm not on board 100 per cent with it. I haven't had much dealings with it at all. From what I understand, the compulsory sale order is very similar to the enforced sale but without having to generate the debt. So, again, similar processes. Having read that, the build-up to a local authority making the decision that that is the appropriate action is very similar to the build-up before a local authority serves an empty dwelling management order. You have to offer all these owners all the advice, guidance and support. All these avenues of assistance have to be exhausted before that can be considered. And again, at the point of sale, you still have an empty property that needs improvement and cannot be lived in immediately. So, that engagement by the local authority is still required at the tail end when there is a new owner and that property still needs that investment.
I wonder whether, Chair, rather than prolong the time now, if as an expert panel you have clear ideas now on how you would like to improve the current system of powers that you have, or whether you'd like powers extended, you could write to us in some detail.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to explore a little bit further with you how you work with owners of empty properties. You've just talked about the top end of that process, once you get into enforcement and so on, but certainly discussions I've had with the local authorities in my area—they say one of the biggest challenges actually is identifying the owners. So, two things really. One is: can you tell me what process you go through in terms of identifying who the owners of empty proprieties are? And then once you do, what is the kind of approach that you take with the owner? Sion, you talked earlier on about some of the softly-softly approaches, dealing with some of the—. But I'd like to get a better picture of how you engage with the owners once you've identified them.
I can start off. In terms of our intelligence gathering, if you like—to make it sound posh—on empty properties, we get it from several strands. Council tax is the most definitive one we can get. It's not the be-all and end-all, but you'll usually get a name of an interested party. Sometimes you'll have a forwarding address as well, and, obviously, we can use that information. We try and make contact with them. So, we've got that. Often, the neighbours will say, 'That's owned by Mrs Jones, and she went to live in so-and-so place.' Local intelligence networks all kick into play. Elected members will often know enough about the back story of the property. So, you'll start to build up a picture. Land Registry will give you some information. Often, though, the Land Registry information will be, 'This is owned by Mr and Mrs Jones of this address'. There won't be a forwarding address unless it was bought as an investment. But you start to weave information together to create a sort of picture of it.
That's on the sort of easy level, if you like. There are properties out there that are owned by companies. I dealt with a property in my area that was owned by an offshore company in the Channel Islands. That was more of a difficult process, and involved external legal advice from the Channel Islands to try and get to the bottom of that mess. There are properties out there that are owned in all sorts of weird, different ways, but we try and weave some sort of story together.
Sometimes you will write to people several times and get no response because, again, as I mentioned earlier, they might be thinking, 'The council's coming in here with a particular agenda, and I don't want to consider whatever that agenda is', so they'll shut the door. Eventually, maybe the property's getting more of an issue—'Right, I'm going to have to speak to the council.' So. you'll start to sort of get them on board slowly. And, like I said before, you try and deal with the softly-softly issues and escalate it slowly with them—so, not at an enforcement level, but say, 'Right, okay, we've dealt with that issue. You've gone to the expense yourself, maybe, to deal with that issue, now what are we going to do next to deal with it?' And it's sort of holding their hand through the whole process.
But, like I say, council tax is the main way, but we'll have lots of other bits that will link up to it. And sometimes, properties are held in a certain way that it's difficult, let's say—where they're unregistered with the Land Registry, you sort of know, anecdotally, who ownes it, but they deny ownership, and that's where it goes into a legal issue then.
I'm just thinking now, I'm aware of properties where I live that are owned by people who live abroad. It sounds pretty difficult to tackle under those circumstances. So, are there any measures that you could think of—any legislation that we could enact—to be able to more swiftly take over those properties where the owner can be proven to be out of the country?
I suppose the issue is that it has to be with the property—. The issue is with the property itself, not necessarily with the ownership of a property. Sometimes—
In that situation, there is legislation in place to deal with that rat infestation. So, you would go into it that way. You try and make contact with the owner. If it was that, and some sort of enforcement action was appropriate through enforced sale or whatever, and the owner wasn't engaging with you, whether they're living in the neighbouring village or they're living in Japan—it's irrelevant in that sense. There's nothing there that says you can't have an empty property—there's no law that says you must not leave your house empty. So, in the absence of that, we try and weave other pieces of legislation retrospectively to suit it, if you like.
Looking at it from the perspective of enforcement in general, there's what we call reasonable enquiry. And a local authority has to go through the exercise of reasonable enquiry prior to undertaking enforcement action. The reasonable enquiry is your evidence to suggest that you have exhausted all avenues to try and identify that owner. And once you've gone through that, you can actually take enforcement action as a local authority in the absence of an owner. But your example there about a rat infestation, or Sion, as he says, about overgrown gardens—the local authority will put resources to tackle those issues, but those issues will not bring that property back into use. And that's the thing; that the activity of the local authority on a daily basis won't get recognised in terms of empty properties to its full extent because the performance indicator only looks at how many have been brought back into use. That property might be in a relatively good condition but empty. Is it a priority for the local authority to focus on that one, or do we look at the next rat infestation that's down the road or the overgrown garden that's in the next village?
I think, coming back to the question on ownership and the first question that you asked about the reasons why properties become vacant, and just thinking of—. We've probably given you an idea of some of the complexities that are involved in trying to identify who. I'm thinking of the examples that Gaynor mentioned of somebody, perhaps, who's in care and may then not have capacity to be able to act themselves, and there may well not be a lasting power of attorney in place. I won't be alone here—and I'm just thinking of a couple of situations at the moment where we've got people in care and we know that we need to do something. We can deal with the rat problems—we can deal with that—but it is then that longer looking ahead, really, in the longer term future of a situation. Swansea had the first EDMO in Wales. It's the only one that we've had. We've looked at them subsequently and then decided that they weren't the right approach for particular properties. The owner of that property is in Hong Kong, we think, but we've never had a response, and that EDMO's been renewed.
We've all spoken here today about empty houses. We've got empty buildings that cause problems as well. We've had ongoing for many years a problem with an empty building in Swansea where we thought there were actually two titles on the same bit of land, where the building was and land completely adjacent to it, but actually, really, for all intents and purposes, it was the same property, the same piece of land, one owner supposedly in Australia, one owner in the Midlands, somebody coming forward, somebody not, trying to find out who was this person in Australia. Like Leighton says, we're trying to do what is considered reasonable, but if you have a lead or if you have a name, I think we do try to be able to follow up on that. And then when they're in Australia and then you find out that the daughter's alive but the mother's disappeared—. And those are real examples. Not every property is like that; sometimes the owner is next door. But they are some of the difficulties that, I think, we're faced with on a very practical basis.
Okay. I'll just bring Huw in very briefly, Dawn. I know time is pressing. Huw.
Really quick. This could probably take a whole other session, but where does the voice of the citizen and communities feature in all of this? We've talked a lot about process, enforcement powers, hand-holding, ways in which we deal with these things, but one of our frustrations, I suspect, as politicians, is that often communities feel absolutely powerless and in the dark—both. What's the best practice in terms of engaging with communities—not just councillors, but communities—on this, including the empty big buildings as well as empty residential properties? Is there any? Do you ever turn your thought to this?
Again, from an operational and a strategic perspective—. From an operational, obviously, we do react when complaints are coming in, be it from members of the public, the community, or from elected members. There is that reaction that we do have to it. The frustration then lies, though, in terms of, yes, we can deal with a problem, as Paula was indicating, but it doesn't address the long-term empty property, and that's where that dialogue with the members of the public and the communities needs to be ongoing. But it is the difficulty in explaining and reasoning why we aren't able to deal with that empty property in a matter of weeks and that it can take years. So, yes, there is an open dialogue with communities that have got problematic empty properties within their area, but it is that understanding in terms of our frustrations as well in terms of the length of time it takes to actually do something about it, but also the resources as well, especially for commercial empty properties, really. What do we have? We do have some regeneration funding, but then it's a case of, if you can't find the owner or the owner is not willing to invest or able to invest any money in bringing that dwelling back into use, we are in a bit of a catch-22, unless there's some funding to underpin that investment then.
Taking on what Gaynor is saying, we've got an example where we've got a local member who is absolutely brilliant within his community and brings forward the concerns to us specifically about four empty properties in the village. These properties are in relatively good condition; they are just empty. On a six-monthly basis, our team have to stop, go and revisit these properties, reassess them, taking time away from caseload to say, 'Sorry, there's no deterioration in these properties; we'll have another look at them in six months' time', and around we go. Sometimes, when resources are tight, that can be quite frustrating when almost the community is dictating where our work is.
It can be a really difficult balancing act of that understanding and appreciation. If you're living next door or down the street, you're seeing it every day, aren't you? It's in your face every day and your appreciation and understanding of the way that that problem affects you is completely different from a local authority's strategic approach to something. The building that we have that I mentioned in Swansea with the dual ownership and somebody in Australia, the local community there actually formed a group of 'the friends of—'—I won't say the name of the building—to try to see if there was something that they could actually do. They didn't have any money. Again, we're coming back to that. They had an interest, they had a desire that the property shouldn't be demolished; it's actually a listed building anyway. They wanted to somehow raise the profile, but, ultimately, they couldn't influence it like that. And with the best will in the world, there'll be elements of the work that we're involved in or of the information that we gather that we can't share with anybody—with members of the public or with communities—because of the personal nature of that information.
Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious that we've got the problem with identifying the owners, but then let's get past that and assume that we've identified them; you engage with the owners then. The biggest issue then is going to be the financial aspect of what is available, potentially. So, what kind of conversations do you have and what sources of finance are available to the owner, to use a local authority? Is it your own finances you're using? Is it Welsh Government money that you're dependent on? What kind of processes are you going on, from the perspective of trying to bring an empty property back into use or back up to standard that makes it acceptable in the community?
Okay. At the point of engagement with an owner, we personally start every engagement informally—hand-holding, advice, guidance and support, financial assistance available through the Houses into Homes scheme, which has been around for many years. That's an interest-free loan, but it also requires a security by placing a charge on the property. Now, giving you an example, I dealt with a property that ended up as an empty dwelling management order where an owner purchased a property at the height of the market to let; the tenants had damaged the property to a point that they couldn't live there anymore; property values had then decreased, therefore putting the landlord in negative equity. Houses into Homes was applied for and refused on the basis that we couldn't secure the financial charge. So, this is where the empty dwelling management order came into play, based on, as I mentioned earlier on, that the local authority can't secure their funding based on an empty dwelling management order other than a local land charge. Carmarthenshire County Council weren't comfortable with that, so we looked at an alternative approach where we actually served improvement notices with the owner's consent. The idea being that the local authority would step in to undertake works in default, therefore securing their money as a priority charge, which jumps ahead of the mortgage. By doing so, we were confident enough to apply for an empty dwelling management order, knowing that our funding is secure. This went through the entire process with the owner's consent. She had no other alternatives available to her. So, the local authority, in that sense, use their own capital funding. The idea being that the empty dwelling management order was available to us for seven years. We've had expert opinion, because we're running in tandem an alternative scheme, which is a leasing scheme through our affordable homes delivery plan—any property that's brought under the council umbrella for more than five years, the local authority can tap into the housing revenue account funding and utilise that money and produce that property as an affordable home. So, we're very fortunate, in that sense, that we were able to initially use the first £25,000 of the cost of works from the Houses into Homes scheme, but that needed repaying in two years, and that's great when you're looking at an enforced sale, because you are going to regenerate that funding through the sale of the property. But in an empty dwelling management order, you are unable to repay that money. So, this is where we've been—
So, there's a whole range of different circumstances, really, isn't there?
A hundred per cent, no. I hasten to add that this is very specific to Carmarthenshire. We're very fortunate in the sense that we've got a lot of resources available towards empty properties, which came on the back of an affordable homes delivery plan where we asked the people of Carmarthenshire, 'How do you want us to increase the number of affordable homes in Carmarthenshire?', and 81 per cent of them came back and said, 'We would like you to sort out the empty properties and turn them into affordable homes.' And this is where we've had that injection of resources into empty homes. We're very fortunate in Carmarthenshire at the moment.
Nationally, we have Houses into Homes, and that is a loan scheme, and then depending on local circumstances and priorities—that determines whether local authorities are offering any other sort of incentives for bringing properties back into use. A few areas offer grants—not many anymore. The other option is works in default, so obviously, then, it's the local authority funding that you do then recoup in time. And then we'll also look at private investment. There's also funding under economic regeneration under the targeted regeneration investment programme—the TRIP funding, isn't it? So, there are funding pots out there, very much more on the loan or private investment, and possibly grants from local authority finance or from some, possibly, economic regeneration, not the homes and places, the—
Vibrant and Viable Places.
The Vibrant and Viable Places, the VVP funding and the TRIP funding—those do offer town-centre loans or grants as well.
Yes. I just wanted to ask you about the challenges that data protection legislation potentially presents you when you're trying to facilitate work with housing associations or the private sector.
I suppose, with data protection, it limits, obviously, what we can tell complainants about the properties, and I would say rightly so, to be honest, in that situation. We can't be giving out details to the public, whoever the public is, well meaning or otherwise, about who the owner of the property is. We're able to access information ourselves and utilise it, and utilise it ourselves within the legislation. If we were looking at working with the housing association or even a private developer on a property, certainly the approach I would take would be, if the owner was willing to engage with us, to get their consent for me to pass the details on, and we'd work on that basis. If they're not in the mood to engage with us, then I would play a co-ordinating role, so any communication that other parties want to make with that party would come through me, and I would take it back the other way as well. So, it can make the process maybe slightly more convoluted, but I think it's right to do that as well.
You do, fairly often, get requests from private developers, be they through freedom of information or just general requests—'Please can you tell me your list of empty properties in Swansea?' It's a very similar thing to people asking for full copies of the public register of licensed houses in multiple occupation and then they mail out to everybody. That's a different situation; that's a public register with that information. When we get enquiries about empty properties per se, there's an exclusion for us to be able to not give that information, and we'll do that regularly, but if there is genuinely perhaps a developer that we've worked with before who might come forward and say, 'Well, look, I've got money, I want to do something, can you give me details of some properties?', we're in a very difficult situation. As Sion said, if an owner is willing to engage, that's great, but if you end up in a back and forth, it's like being back in school: 'Give me your note and I'll pass it on to so and so'—that type of a situation. Again, that takes up an awful lot of time. We're very cautious about the information that we get from council tax and how we use that. Sometimes, there are other financial records that the local authority keeps and we can’t use that in the same way.
Okay. I think we'd better move on, Mark, to council tax premium at this stage. I think we've just got time for that question.
Okay, then. Thank you very much indeed. To what extent have you been able to utilise additional council tax revenue from the ability to charge additional council tax on longer term empty properties—I think the figure in Wales is 12 months; in England, it's 24 months—bearing in mind the concerns or considerations you highlighted earlier and complications regarding, for instance, probate cases or bereavement cases where there may well be a good reason why that property is empty for longer?
I think, obviously, you’ve got a session specifically on council tax, and the council tax premiums, I would imagine, would come up as a question. From the information that we’ve gathered as an expert panel on those authorities that are charging a council tax premium, again, it comes back to the money that’s recouped from that premium. It’s quite early on in the days of that being implemented within local authorities as to the decisions on how that funding is being used. I think there are limited examples of where it comes back, specifically for empty property use, but I think the guidance is more or less indicating that it could be used for housing purposes. So, there’s quite a loose guidance on the wording of that. So, from an empty property perspective and whether we’re seeing any benefit from the premium, I would say that that is limited, really, currently, but, obviously, it’s still quite early days as far as that work and that premium is being gathered within the local authorities.
And it is obviously discretionary, but you’re aware of being sensitive to, for example, cases of bereavement and delayed probate settlement.
Yes, certainly, where there are exemptions in place, the authority is sensitive to those situations.
And it's a case of dialogue with council tax then, really, in terms of the exemptions and the application of it.
Okay, well that's great. Thank you all very much for coming in to give evidence to the committee today. Diolch yn fawr. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Thank you.
Okay. Item 6 then on our agenda today, our second evidence session on our inquiry into empty properties in Wales, taking evidence from local authority revenue officers and the Welsh Local Government Association. I'm very pleased to welcome Lisa Hayward of the WLGA; Dewi Morgan from Gwynedd Council; and Deb Smith from Torfaen County Borough Council. Croeso—welcome to you all. And perhaps I might begin with the first question, then, which is about charging a premium. What factors does a local authority take into consideration when determining whether to charge a council tax premium on empty homes?
Okay. I'll answer generically, and then the local authority reps will answer from their specific environments.
The general picture seems to be whether or not there is an issue with the long-term empty properties in that area, or is there a shortage of reasonably priced accommodation, whether they feel that the additional revenue that, possibly, the premium could generate would be enough to combat the problems. Also, the resources needed to collect the premium—it's not merely a case of levy a premium and it's paid easily. There are a number of increases in inspections needed. The increases in enquiries from the public, particularly those taxpayers who have had the charge levied, because they're not happy with it, especially when they come from a background of having a discount. There's also the loss to consider of potential income to the council tax base, as we've had some examples of dwellings moving over into the non-domestic rating system. Negative publicity. Local decisions as well. We can't ignore that it's an individual local authority matter. And that's where we see quite a difference between areas that have introduced a premium, they tend to be more the rural and coastal areas as opposed to, for example, in the south Wales Valleys.
Diolch yn fawr iawn. Fe gyflwynodd Cyngor Gwynedd y premiwm ar eiddo gwag hirdymor yn Ebrill 2018. Cyn hynny, fe wnaethom ni benderfynu diddymu'r disgownt ar eiddo gwag, yn ôl yn 2009. Ac mi roedd hynny'n ganlyniad i strategaeth dai, ac un o brif nodweddion strategaeth dai Gwynedd ar y pryd oedd lleihau'r niferoedd o eiddo gwag a oedd yn y sir, a dod â'r eiddo gwag yna yn ôl i ddefnydd. Ac felly y teimlad oedd, pan oeddem ni'n diddymu'r disgownt, y buasai cadw'r disgownt wedi bod yn gymhelliant anffodus ac yn gweithio'n erbyn y strategaeth. Felly, pan ddaeth y cyfle i godi'r premiwm—. Un o'r nodweddion sydd gan Wynedd, wrth gwrs, ydy ein bod ni'n edrych ar y peth hefyd yng nghyd-destun y premiwm ar ail gartrefi. Ac, yn digwydd bod yng Ngwynedd, mae gennym ni lawer mwy o ail gartrefi nag sydd gennym ni o eiddo gwag, er mae'r nifer o eiddo gwag sydd gennym ni dros 1,000 hefyd. A'r teimlad oedd, i barhau efo'r agwedd yna o drio dod ag eiddo gwag yn ôl i ddefnydd, y byddai codi'r premiwm ar eiddo gwag hirdymor yr un pryd ag yr oeddem ni'n codi premiwm ar ail gartrefi yn gwneud synnwyr. Oherwydd, y teimlad oedd gennym ni yng Ngwynedd oedd, os oeddech chi'n trin y ddau'n wahanol, yr unig wahaniaeth yn y Ddeddf rhwng eiddo gwag hirdymor ac ail gartref ydy bod un wedi ei ddodrefnu a'r llall ddim—neu wedi ei ddodrefnu'n sylweddol—a'r teimlad oedd gennym ni y buasai hi'n rhy hawdd i newid o un i'r llall—newid tŷ o fod yn eiddo gwag i fod yn ail gartref. Ac felly dyna pam y daethom ni wedyn i'r canlyniad mai'r ffordd ddoethaf oedd, er mwyn sicrhau bod ein strategaeth dai ni yn parhau, a'n bod ni'n trin eiddo gwag hirdymor yn gyson efo'r ail gartrefi, ein bod ni'n codi'r premiwm yr un pryd.
Thank you very much. Gwynedd Council introduced a premium on long-term vacant property in April 2018. Before that, we decided to eradicate the discount on vacant property, back in 2009. And that was as a result of the housing strategy, and one of the main features of the housing strategy in Gwynedd at the time was to aim to decrease the number of vacant properties in the county and bring those properties back into use. And the feeling was, when we got rid of the discount, that keeping it would have been an unfortunate incentive and would counteract the strategy. So, when the opportunity came to levy the premium—. One of the features of Gwynedd is that we also look at it in the context of the premium on second homes. As it happens, in Gwynedd, we have many more second homes than we do vacant properties, although the number of vacant properties we have is over 1,000 too. And the feeling was, to continue with that aspect, or attitude, of bringing vacant properties back into use, levying that premium on long-term vacant property at the same time as we were doing that for second homes would make sense. Because the feeling that we had in Gwynedd was that, if we treated them differently, when the only legislative difference between long-term empty properties and second homes is that one is furnished and one isn't—or is substantially unfurnished—the feeling was that it would be too easy to shift from one to the other—to move a home from being a vacant property into a second home, just by furnishing it. So that's why we came to the conclusion that the wisest course of action, in order to ensure that our housing strategy would be implemented, and that we treated long-term vacant properties consistently with second homes, was to levy the premiums at the same time.
Diolch yn fawr. Did you want to add anything to that, Deb, or are you content with those answers?
Well, for Torfaen, we haven't introduced the premium. When premiums were initially discussed and consultation was out, we made a decision to look at what our empty properties were, and we also made the decision to cancel the 50 per cent discount, because, up until then, we had awarded it. And we thought, 'Well, let's have a look what effect that has.' We did a year of notification to customers, we wrote to all the ones that were empty, advising them it was coming. We also said, 'There may be premiums in future, so you need to consider your position about leaving the property empty.' We gave them leaflets on our housing strategy team, so they could see if they could help them. At the time we had 470 empties and within a year it dropped to 307. Then the following year, it dropped to 259. We then considered whether premiums would be an option for us, but having done some analysis on it, an awful lot of our empties were in what we call the north of our borough, which is a lot harder to let and sell on. So it would only be the south that it would have been any advantage for. When considering what we've got in the south of the borough, most of those empty properties, unfortunately, were problem properties anyway, and we either weren't getting payment on them at the normal rate or they were properties that may have been stuck in probate or have other issues. So, at this moment in time, we have not felt it would benefit us to bring in a premium.
Okay. In terms of that decision by a local authority not to charge a premium, is there anything else that it would be useful for the committee to be aware of in terms of why such a decision might be made, over and above what Deb has just told us in respect of Torfaen?
Yes, I think there's a perception that some local authorities don't consider that they have an empty homes problem. I'll look at empty homes separately to second homes. Some have a more buoyant housing market, so the number of empty properties may stay consistent, but the actual properties contained within it aren't, because they are changing on the housing market. And I think there's been some response back that the jump from a 50 per cent discount to a premium is perhaps too much to take in one step, so some have taken the decision to remove the discount first and then do it on a step-by-step basis.
Okay. Anything anybody would like to add to that? No. That covers it really, does it? Okay.
We received several responses to our committee consultation in the lead-up to this inquiry, calling for a consistent approach to charging those council tax premiums. Do you consider that a national approach requiring local authorities to charge council tax premiums would be more effective, or might that cause some difficulties?
I think we need to recognise that each area is different and then within each local authority boundary there are other areas that have their own different needs and priorities. I think the majority of feedback was they appreciate that the consistency with the national framework would be effective, but you need to retain local discretion. You cannot really consider perhaps an authority in the south Wales Valleys with regard to rural or coastal west Wales. It's extremely different. What is intended then by 'national'? Would it be mandatory for each authority to set the same level of premiums in the same prescribed circumstances or would there be a set level of premiums then with individual discretionary options? So I think the overwhelming feedback is that the discretionary element works as it is at the moment.
Can I just ask? Why do some local authorities give discounts, then? Do they still? What's the reasoning behind giving the discount?
You'll see there's quite a clear map of the areas that still do, and it's predominantly south Wales, south Wales Valleys. So whether it's because there is a more buoyant market and properties change quicker, and it's more on empty homes, not second homes. It would be empty homes in one region, more a second homes issue in another. It's also the impact of whether, if you remove the discount then levy a premium, if you've already got difficulties in council tax collection, are you perhaps creating an unnecessary burden there as well?
But surely a discount is encouraging the home to stay empty, isn't it?
It's a mixed picture. Sometimes a discount is enough to allow someone to get the house ready, especially if they've bought it and it needs some modernising, or to make it fit for how they want to have it ready to move in.
That's a fair enough explanation, but I can't understand a blanket discount, which would incentivise people to keep their properties empty when that's what we want to solve.
Yes, and I think that's why some are making the decision that rather than taking the whole leap to premium, they'll remove the discount first and see how it goes. It's still relatively quite new in terms of introduction, so it's still quite a mixed picture across the country. So I think in time that would move, and more people would move from a discount to a no-discount stage.
I think Mr Morgan largely addressed this in his earlier comments about the consideration Gwynedd gave to having different premiums on second homes and empty homes. More broadly, are there any other risks to consider in this context, not just in Gwynedd, but taking into account the local factors that Ms Haywood, for instance, just referred to?
Dwi'n credu bod—. Y risg mawr efo eiddo gwag ydy ei bod hi'n gyffredinol yn anoddach i gasglu treth cyngor ganddyn nhw oherwydd eu bod nhw'n dueddol o fod—dydyn ni ddim yn gwybod, yn aml, lle mae'r perchnogion. Mae yna bethau y gallwn ni eu gwneud yr un fath â chael charging orders ar yr eiddo. Dydy hynny ddim yn beth hawdd i'w wneud; dydy o ddim yn rhywbeth y mae rhywun yn mynd i mewn iddo fo ar chwarae bach. Felly, mae hwnnw yn risg arwyddocaol, sef ei bod yn anoddach casglu.
Wrth gwrs, fel roeddwn i'n ei ddweud, yng Ngwynedd, mae'r peth yn mynd law yn llaw efo'r ail gartrefi i ni hefyd. Ac wrth edrych ar y darlun llawn, roeddem ni'n teimlo y byddai cyflwyno'r premiwm yn rhywbeth oedd yn fuddiol i'w wneud ar gyfer yr awdurdod wrth gymryd yr ail gartrefi a'r eiddo gwag efo'i gilydd.
I think that—. The big risk with empty properties is that, in general, it's harder to gather the council tax from the owners because, very often, we don't know where those owners reside. There are things that can be done, such as having charging orders on the property. But that's not an easy thing to set up; it isn't something that one would enter into lightly. So, that's a significant risk, that it's harder to gather those taxes.
But as I said, in Gwynedd, it goes hand in hand with the second homes for us as well. And in looking at the bigger picture, we felt that introducing the premium was something that would be beneficial to do for the authority, in taking the second homes and the empty homes into account together.
What consideration do you give to personal circumstances, not so much on the second home, but on the empty home, given the evidence we received earlier regarding, for example, bereaved estates?
Pan oeddem ni'n mynd ati i gyflwyno'r premiwm ar y dechrau, ac yn mynd trwy'r broses o ystyried yr opsiynau a thrwy'r craffu ac yn y blaen, mi oedd hwnnw'n rhywbeth roedd nifer o'n haelodau ni wedi'i godi fel risg. Dwi'n gwybod bod y syniad yma bod lot o'n heiddo gwag ni o dan berchnogaeth pobl o'r tu allan i Wynedd ddim o reidrwydd, ddim yn llwyr, oherwydd mae yna nifer o dai gwag yng Ngwynedd dan berchnogaeth pobl leol, fel rydych chi'n ei ddweud, am fod pobl wedi etifeddu eiddo ar farwolaeth ac eisiau gwneud rhywbeth efo fo. Felly, mi oedd hwnnw'n rhywbeth wnaethom ni roi ystyriaeth iddo fo, ond ar y cyfan mi ddaethom ni i'r casgliad, ar ôl dod â hynny i mewn i ystyriaeth, ei fod o dal yn briodol inni gyflwyno'r premiwm oherwydd bod y strategaeth dai gennym ni.
A'r hyn roeddem ni'n ei bwysleisio hefyd: nid perchnogion yr eiddo sy'n bwysig ond os ydy'r eiddo'n wag neu beidio. Y teimlad oedd gennym ni mai'r prif beth o'n strategaeth dai ni yw ein bod ni eisiau trio rhoi cymaint o'r eiddo gwag yma nôl i ddefnydd â phosib heb ystyried pwy oedd y perchnogion.
When we went about introducing this premium initially, and going through the process of considering the options and through the scrutiny and so forth, that was something that a number of our members did raise as a risk. I know that this idea that a lot of our empty properties are owned by people from outwith Gwynedd isn't necessarily, isn't complete, because many people within Gwynedd own these vacant homes, as you say, because they've inherited property and they want to do something with it. So, that was something that we did consider, but, on the whole, we came to the conclusion, after considering all of those issues, that it was still appropriate for us to introduce the premium because we did have the housing strategy.
And what we wanted to emphasise also was it wasn't the owners of the property that were important, it was whether the property was empty or not. Our feeling was that the main thing from our housing strategy was that we wanted to bring as much of these empty properties into use again as possible without considering who the owners were.
So, is there any local flexibility? Could officers recommend to the executive that some exceptions should be made if they know of a complicated family situation, for example, or probate dispute?
Wel, os oes yna fater efo probat ac yn y blaen, os oes yna eithriad yn barod ar eiddo, chawn ni ddim codi premiwm arno fo. Mae hynny'n rhan o'r ddeddfwriaeth ar hyn o bryd. Felly, er enghraifft, dywedwch fod probat ddim wedi cael ei roi ar dŷ, dydy o ddim yn talu treth cyngor, mae o wedi'i eithrio o dan eithriad dosbarth F. Felly, yn yr amgylchiadau yna fe allwn ni gymryd hynny i ystyriaeth.
Mae gennym ni hefyd y disgresiwn lleol dan adran 13A Deddf Cyllid Llywodraeth Leol 1992, sy'n rhoi hawl inni newid y raddfa dreth ar unrhyw eiddo os ydyn ni'n meddwl bod hynny'n briodol. Ar hyn o bryd, yng Ngwynedd, rydym ni 18 mis i mewn i gyflwyno'r premiwm a dydyn ni ddim wedi cael achos unigol eto lle'r ydym ni wedi rhoi'r disgresiwn yna, ond mae o yn rhywbeth sydd ar gael inni i'w ystyried, achos mae o'n rhywbeth rydym ni'n ei ystyried yn flynyddol, achos rydym ni'n codi premiwm ac mae'n rhywbeth sy'n cael ystyriaeth gan y cyngor llawn bob blwyddyn: ydyn ni'n mynd i gadw'r premiwm am y flwyddyn nesaf neu beidio? Wrth wneud hynny, wrth gwrs, rydym ni'n cymryd i ystyriaeth unrhyw faterion sydd wedi dod i'n sylw ni efallai nad oedd wedi cael sylw yn flaenorol.
Well, if there's an issue with probate and so on, if there is an exception at the moment on a property, we can't levy the premium. That is part of the legislation at present. So, for example, if probate hasn't been given on a home, then it doesn't pay council tax; it has that class F exception. So, under those circumstances we would take that into consideration.
We also have local discretion under section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which gives us the right to vary taxation levels on any property if we think that's appropriate. At the moment, in Gwynedd, we introduced the premium 18 months ago and we haven't had an individual case where we've used that discretion, but it is available to us to consider. It is something that we consider annually, because we levy the premium and that is considered by the full council every year, if we're going to keep the premium for the following year or not. In doing that, we do take into account any issues that have arisen that may not have arisen previously.
Yes, please. I've been told by a constituent that a home that they had, which was a buy-to-let home, they've now put it on the market for sale, it's empty and it's unfurnished, and they've been told by the council that they are to pay council tax on that property. It was rather confusing to hear this. So I just wondered where we stood with this, really: do they pay council tax on it? It's been on the market for two months.
Os ydy o'n eiddo gwag, maen nhw'n cael beth maen nhw'n ei alw yn eithriad dosbarth C, sydd yn parhau mewn grym yng Nghymru, dydy o ddim ar gael yn Lloegr. Ond, yng Nghymru, os ydy eiddo'n wag, am y chwe mis cyntaf mae'r eiddo'n wag mae'n eithriedig rhag talu unrhyw dreth cyngor.
If it's an empty property, they have a class C exemption, which is still in force in Wales, but not in England. In Wales, if a property is vacant, for the first six months it is exempt from paying any council tax.
If we could go on to the issue of collecting the premium, and even though, as you were saying, 18 months' experience now, it's still relatively early days, have you had difficulties, challenges in collecting the premium?
Efo eiddo gwag rydym ni'n derbyn bod yna rai mae'n anodd i gasglu beth bynnag, cyn codi'r premiwm. I ddweud y gwir, y profiad sydd gennym ni yng Ngwynedd ydy nad y premiwm ynddo'i hun sydd wedi achosi y casgliad, ond yr unigolion. Mae rhai wedi bod yn dda am dalu a dyw rhai ddim yn dda am dalu beth bynnag. Felly, dwi'n meddwl bod y rhai oedd yn talu'n flaenorol wedi parhau i wneud hynny, ond y rhai oedd ddim yn talu, mae gennym ni jest 50 y cant yn ychwanegol o bethau sy'n anoddach i'w casglu, ond rydym ni'n bwrw ymlaen ati ac yn ystyried yr opsiynau sydd ar gael i ni wneud hynny.
With the empty properties we accept that there are some properties where it is difficult to collect the tax in any case, before levying the premium. The experience that we have in Gwynedd is that it isn't the premium itself that has caused the difficulty, but specific individuals. Some have been excellent at paying, and some aren't good at paying anyway. So, I think that those who paid previously have continued to do so, but those who weren't paying, then we've just got an additional 50 per cent of things that are more difficult to collect, but we're getting on with it and considering the powers available to us to do that.
I'll come to those powers and the issue of resources and additional costs, and what that entails in a moment. But could I just ask: do you have a feeling of the wider Wales picture?
Yes. Feedback from some authorities who have got the premium says that it hasn't been too bad, and there haven't been any major collection issues, but there have been some other issues with, perhaps, taxpayers taking potential avoidance measures and then applying for the property to be moved into the rating list for business rates by saying it's a holiday let and it's used for business purposes. So, of course, when that happens, then they fall out of the council tax list and into the rating list. So, that's a separate issue that we're currently all dealing with at the moment.
That's interesting. And is that a significant, if small, number of people who are doing that, because I'm interested in your collective knowledge of the mob, where it spreads that 'a way to get round this is—'?
I would say that the evidence is building that it's not in restricted circumstances any more. It does seem to be becoming more widespread, and it's something that we are working with the valuation office and with Welsh Government to try and get to the bottom of.
Can you give us a sense of the difference in money over the course of a year between the council tax and the non-domestic rates, then?
I'll probably ask Deb to give me an exact example.
We actually have a property that's moved from the one list. We haven't got a lot in Torfaen—it's not a holiday place—but we've got one; a lovely property, band G, £2,700 a year council tax. They've moved it over; they get 100 per cent small business rate relief; they pay nothing. What we now do, because we haven't got a lot, we picked it up. So, then we said, 'Well, what are you doing with your commercial waste?', and we levy a charge for their commercial waste, but it's working out about £550 a year.
I wouldn't want to be in a holiday place, because they will be affected.
On this, yes. Some second homeowners are very, very wealthy, some less so. To what extent is the circumstance you're describing genuine, where somebody might actually be letting the property for more than the eligible period during the year for affordability reasons? And to what extent is it trying to bypass the cost?
Again, it's early days, and we haven't done enough analysis across all the authorities that are actually charging the premium. I'm afraid I couldn't answer that accurately at the moment. I could only actually refer to the authorities that have already got that in position.
Dwi'n gweld pobl yn gafael yn eu headsets rŵan—dwi'n mynd i ddechrau siarad. Mae Gwynedd mewn sefyllfa gwbl wahanol yn yr ystyr dwi'n gwybod mai edrych ar eiddo gwag rydym ni'n fan hyn, nid ar ail gartrefi neu'r properties occupied periodically, ond mae'r trosglwyddo o eiddo treth gyngor ddomestig i fod yn eiddo busnes yng Ngwynedd yn sylweddol. Rydym ni'n sôn am dros 1,000 ar hyn o bryd wedi'u trosglwyddo. Rydym ni'n sôn am gannoedd bob blwyddyn yn trosglwyddo drosodd o un i'r llall, felly. A'r hyn maen nhw angen ei wneud ydy sicrhau swyddfa'r brisio bod yr eiddo wedi bod ar gael am 140 diwrnod ac wedi cael ei osod am 70 diwrnod, ac nid yn unig maen nhw yn gallu ei drosglwyddo, maen nhw'n gallu ei ôl-ddyddio fo hefyd—nifer o flynyddoedd, mewn rhai achosion.
Fel roedd Deb a Lisa'n ei ddweud, mae'r rhan fwyaf ohonyn nhw—dwi'n meddwl bod dros 90 y cant, tua 98 y cant yng Ngwynedd—yn cael small business rates relief am bod eu rateable value nhw yn £6,000 neu llai. Maen nhw'n ei gael o'n llwyr gan fod—dwi'n meddwl mwy neu lai bob un ohonyn nhw o dan £12,000, ac felly yn cael hynna yn rhannol, felly. Felly, mae'r golled i'r pwrs cyhoeddus rhwng y casgliad treth—rydym ni'n son am yn y miliynau.
I see people picking up their headsets now—I'm going to begin to speak. Gwynedd is in an entirely different situation in the sense that I know that we're looking at empty properties here, not second properties, but the transfer of domestic council tax properties into business premises in Gwynedd is significant. We're talking over 1,000 at the moment that have transferred. We're talking about hundreds every year. And what they need to do is to assure the valuation office that the property has been available for 140 days and has been let for 70 days, and they can then transfer it, but they can also backdate it—for a number of years, in some cases—as well.
As Deb and Lisa say, the majority of them—I think it's over 90 per cent, about 98 per cent in Gwynedd—have small business rates relief because their rateable value is £6,000 or less. They get it in full because—. I think almost all of them are under £12,000 and so get it in part. So, the loss to the public purse in the tax take is in the millions.
Dewi, you just spoke about the requirements that an owner would have to satisfy in order to move from the one category to the other. So, are you satisfied that, if they provide that evidence as you've described, then it is a genuine case?
Mae gennym ni enghreifftiau yng Ngwynedd rydym ni wedi eu cyflwyno i swyddfa brisio lle rydym ni yn anfodlon bod y dystiolaeth yna. Rydym ni'n gwybod bod y swyddfa brisio eu hunain efo prinder adnoddau i wneud y gwaith. Mae gyda ni bryderon ynglŷn ag ym mhob achos bod yna dystiolaeth yno i'n bodloni ni fel awdurdod lleol ynglŷn a faint o dystiolaeth sydd yna. Mae gennym ni—dwi wedi eu tynnu nhw at dua 10 achos enghreifftol lle rydym ni'n teimlo, rydym ni'n meddwl—rydym ni o'r farn, beth bynnag—na ddylai nhw wedi trosglwyddo, ond maen nhw wedi cael eu trosglwyddo. Mae hyn yn digwydd—mewn unrhyw achos mae disputes yn codi rhyngom ni ac asiantau Llywodraeth eraill, ond y teimlad sydd gyda ni ydy mi fuasai pethau'n gallu bod yn fwy cadarn o ran chwilio am dystiolaeth.
We do have examples in Gwynedd that we have presented to the valuation office where we are not content that the evidence has been given. We know that the office itself has a lack of resources to do this work. We do have concerns with regard to every case that the evidence is there to satisfy us as a local authority as to how much evidence there is for the transfer. We've got some 10 exemplar cases where we are of the opinion that they shouldn't have made the transfer, but they have been transferred. This happens—in any case there are disputes between us and other Government agencies, but the feeling that we would have is that things could be more robust in terms of seeking evidence.
So, what would need to change, then? Is there any way we could exempt these second homes from the discount, for example? Would we need legislation to do that? Is it a ministerial decision? Or is it impossible to do?
Barn Gwynedd ydy—wel, pam bod yr eiddo yma'n cael ei ystyried yn—. Rydym ni'n gwybod bod yna fusnesu go iawn, rydym ni'n gwybod bod yna eiddo go iawn sy'n cael ei adeiladu, yn cael eu creu, ar gyfer gosod fel cartref gwyliau. Rydym ni'n derbyn hynny, ac rydym ni mewn maes a mewn ardal sy'n cael lot o incwm ac yn ddibynnol—mae'r economi'n ddibynnol ar dwristiaeth. Y peth diwethaf rydym ni eisiau ei wneud ydy lladd hwnnw. Ond ar y llaw arall rydym ni'n ymwybodol hefyd bod yna eiddo fan hyn fuasai wedi bod yn gartrefi. Rydym ni'n cymryd y farn os yw eiddo wedi bod yn eiddo domestig yna fe ddylai aros a bod yn destun treth gyngor. Mae'r hawl i'w newid o yn dod o dan Deddf 1992, so mae hwnna'n rhan o primary legislation ar hyn o bryd, i'w newid o. Ond mae pethau fel yr hawl i roi small business rates relief, mae hwnnw yn ddeddfwriaeth hefyd, mewn Gorchymyn. So, mae pob un o'r rhain mewn Gorchmynion neu deddfwriaeth. Mae'n rhywbeth y gallwn ni weithio arno fo.
Gwynedd's opinion is—why is this property considered—. We know that there are genuine businesses, we know that there are genuine properties that are built, created, for holiday lets. We accept that, in an area that draws a great deal of income and has an economy that is reliant on tourism. We don't want to stifle that. But we're also aware that there are properties here that could have been homes. If it has been a domestic property then it should remain so and be subject to council tax. The right to change it comes under the 1992 Act, so that is primary legislation at the moment, to change it. But the right to give small business rates relief, that is also enshrined in legislation, in an Order. So, all of this is in an Order or in legislation. That's something we could work on.
Yes, indeed. People are clearly adjusting to the new rules of the game, but 10 out of 1,000—it's interesting whether you got that 10 out of 1,000 that you were talking about as, in effect, test cases, challenges, or do you think it's significantly more than that in Gwynedd, that there's 100 out of that 1,000 or 500 out of that 1,000 that are not genuine, bona fide new enterprises, new tourism enterprises, but are actually winging it?
Wel, buaswn i'n—
Well, I would—
Are those 10—? Are those 10 the 10 that you've definitely, clearly, said, 'Well, these are the 10 out of those 1,000', or is it a test to see if you can—?
Na, prawf ydy hwn. Mae'r swyddfa brisio wedi gofyn i ni, 'Dewch ag enghreifftiau. Peidiwch â chwyno, dewch ag enghreifftiau i ni.' Ac mae yna 10 enghraifft rydym ni wedi gallu darparu iddyn nhw.
No, it's a test. The valuation office have said, 'Give us examples. Don't just complain, give us examples.' So, these are 10 examples that we've put forward.
Lovely. Okay, I want to move on to the costs that flow from this as well on a Wales-wide perspective, but meanwhile I'll be thinking of setting my home up in a trust and then renting it back to myself as a summer let. [Laughter.] No, I'm not serious—just in case the tax man is listening. [Laughter.]
But could you talk to me about the additional costs, because clearly chasing this down and making sure that it's genuine cases that are instructing and so on—can you talk to me about a Wales-wide perspective of the additional cost of getting these premiums?
Yes, it has been noted. Only one authority who have been charging a premium said it was a small impact, because they were already not allowing the discount anyway, so it wasn't too much of a leap, but a lot of others have responded to say, 'Yes, it's much more of an impact.' You need the resources to do property inspections, to actually track down the right person. The customer inquiries are significant, because again there's a reluctance to pay. One authority has noted that they tried building another element of an appeal process so they can look at specific cases, for example, where listed buildings and planning takes a bit longer, because they don't want to deter the people from actually getting the property back onto the market. But it has been noted that there is a cost. It's not merely a case of you issue the bill and it's paid, there's a lot more involved, unfortunately, and it is a cost that in some authorities may have added to their decision to not go down that route because of already dwindling staff resources.
And there's no way of using the premium in any way as something like cost recovery, is there? Because you can go from nought up to 100 per cent. You couldn't say, within a local authority, would you want Welsh Government Ministers to look at saying, 'Well, if we were to pursue this because of a policy issue on second homes and so on, then we'd like to divert some of the additional premiums spent into the resourcing of this?'
I think that would be a welcome decision to local authorities, because, again, we're not talking about local authority funding this morning, but resources are stretched and reduced, and having the facility available to actually have the capacity then to explore and make sure that you have got all your properties where they should be and you are charging correctly and collecting—. To have the extra resource to allow them to do that, I think might then encourage a few other authorities to make that leap. But, at the moment, it’s a case of you could be creating an additional burden for yourself that you've got no hope of recouping.
For us, as I said, we haven’t got on to the premium yet, because we don’t think it’s appropriate at the moment. But we have fraudulent cases where people are just trying to avoid that extra 100 per cent charge. So, they go from, for example, a class C, it will have a 100 per cent charge, then they’ll contact us and they’ll say, ‘Oh, my son’s moved in—give me a 25 per cent discount.’ So, then you’re only getting 75 per cent. So, then you’ve got the challenge with them, which can end up in tribunal, and it does take a lot of work.
The other issue, with diminishing resources, we’re all going onto more automation, so, we use a system where people can log on, give us information, their accounts will be amended. The more automation that happens, they just log on when the class C empties—‘Oh, Deborah Smith has moved into this property. She’s on her own. She’s claiming the discount.’ Now, short of visiting every one of those properties, you could have an element of fraud. So, even without the premium, it is becoming quite difficult to identify those. So, there is a resource hit.
Is there any point at which—? Sorry, Chair. Is there any point at which we'll be able to bottom out some of the costs in different local authorities and across Wales?
Ourselves at the WLGA, along with the Welsh revenues and benefits managers group, do some benchmarking work, so it's possibly something we could explore over the next few months.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Regarding the impact the premium has had, can you tell me: is the premium raising the expected sort of sums? And what impact has it had in areas where it has been introduced? And has it reduced the number of empty homes?
Overall, yes, it is raising the sum expected, but you have to bear in mind the cost. And, as I said, this has come from a very small number of authorities who’ve actually got the premium in. But there’s a significant cost. When you actually break it down and take account of the properties that have moved into business rates, the actual premium charge then is predominantly being collected, or in the majority it’s being collected.
Has it had the consequence of reducing the number of empty properties? Not significantly so far. As one authority noted, it’s difficult to accurately calculate because of the natural churn in the property market as well, but—. Not the impact we hoped it would have so far.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. And has the impact been noticeably different between rural and urban areas?
We can see the difference where the decision’s been taken to levy the premium and not, and that is quite distinct. As I say, in the south Wales Valleys that decision hasn't really been adopted as yet—it’s more west Wales and coastal areas. So, you’re seeing that difference, because, again, it’s a different type of property market and the whole demographic. And, because of so many authorities not having taken the decision, it’s really too early to say is there a difference in the impact of collecting the premium between rural and urban areas, because they’re not all on a level playing field at the moment.
Jest i ychwanegu at hynny, o ran y costau i ni, mae’n anodd gwahaniaethu achos mae gennym ni rhywbeth fel 5,000 o ail gartrefi ac ychydig dros 1,000 o eiddo gwag. So, o ran y costau, mae’n anodd i ni wahaniaethu rhwng yr ail gartrefi a’r eiddo gwag. Ond efo ni, wrth gwrs, yng Ngwynedd, mae’n ardal wledig iawn. Dwi’n meddwl ein bod ni wedi ffeindio bod yna wahaniaethau. Mae yna gymhlethdodau ychwanegol dwi’n meddwl. Dyw e ddim cweit mor ddu a gwyn yn yr ystyr, yn rhywle fath â Bangor, sy’n ddinas efo prifysgol, mae llai o fyfyrwyr. Ac efallai mai un o’r pethau dŷn ni eisiau ei ystyried bellach ydy bod nifer o’r eiddo sydd gyda ni sydd yn y system wedi cael ei nodi fel eiddo myfyrwyr, o bosibl, efallai yn eiddo gwag erbyn hyn. Felly, byddwn ni’n gwneud darn o waith yn fanna. Felly mae yna lot o bethau y gallwn ni ei wneud, ac mae yna lot o ffactorau i’w cymryd i ystyriaeth hefyd.
Just to add to that, in terms of the cost to us, we have around 5,000 second homes and just over 1,000 empty properties. So, in terms of the cost, it's difficult for us to differentiate between the empty properties and the second homes. But, for us in Gwynedd, it's a rural area. I think we've found that there are additional complexities. It's not quite black and white. With regard to Bangor, as a university town, there are fewer students, and perhaps one of the things we need to consider is that the number of properties that we have in the system that are noted as being student properties—they could now be empty properties. So, we need to do a piece of work on that. So, there are many variables and many factors that we need to consider.
Okay. Diolch. And what is the revenue raised spent on—the revenue raised through the premium spent on? And is any of it allocated specifically for housing needs and so on and so forth?
Two responses that I've got from authorities that have the premium: one is that it's gone into core budgets, and another one has stated that it's being split between affordable housing and community-led projects that are looking into empty properties in the area. So, in that respect, it is going back into generation.
Yng Ngwynedd, dŷn ni wedi penderfynu bod y premiwm yn cael ei ddefnyddio at ein strategaeth tai ni. Beth wnaethom ni yn y flwyddyn gyntaf, wrth gwrs, oedd ei roi o i gyd—. Wnaethom ni ddim ei wario fo yn y flwyddyn gyntaf. Doeddem ni ddim eisiau ei wneud o, achos doeddem ni ddim yn gwybod fel oeddem ni'n sôn am yr eiddo yma'n cael ei drosglwyddo i drethi busnes. Doeddem ni ddim yn gwybod faint o bremiwm buasem ni'n gorfod ad-dalu i bobl. Felly, gwnaethom ni greu cronfa, ac, yn ein strategaeth ariannol ni, dŷn ni wedi dweud bod y premiwm sy'n cael ei gasglu yn cael ei ddefnyddio at ein strategaeth tai ni.
In Gwynedd, we've decided that premiums should be used for our housing strategy. What we did in the first year was we put it all—. We didn't spend it in the first year. We didn't want to do it because we didn't know much about these properties being transferred to business rates. We didn't know how much of the premium we would have to repay. So, we created a fund, and, in our financial strategy, we've said that the premium that's being collected is to be put towards our housing strategy.
We haven't introduced the premium.
No. Have you given any thought to what you'd use it for if you did, or you wouldn't have got to that stage yet?
We haven't actually got to that stage yet, sorry.
Thank you. I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions on legislation and legislative provisions, and Welsh Government guidance relating to council tax premiums—whether they give you the flexibility that you need.
It's mostly positive and the legislation is fit for purpose, and, sometimes, you have to balance out between flexibility for requirements against too much flexibility then making it even more complex. The feedback I've had was they do what they're intended to do. Some local authorities have introduced, perhaps, a little bit of flexible discretionary elements in there—sor example, where a property is taking a considerable amount of time to be brought back into occupation because it's been empty and dilapidated and lots of building work and resources et cetera are needed to do it. But I don't have any evidence that there is actually a flaw in the legislation. It is mostly fit for purpose, but maybe with some tweaks, perhaps.
Dwi'n meddwl yr unig beth buaswn i'n awgrymu, efallai, wrth ddehongli'r ddeddfwriaeth, sef adran 12(a) Deddf 1992, sy'n dweud,
I think the only thing I would say, in interpreting the legislation, namely section 12(a) of the 1992 Act, which states,
'For any financial year, a billing authority in Wales may by determination provide in relation to its area that if on any day a dwelling is a long-term empty dwelling',
yw ydy hynny'n ein caethiwo ni i benderfynu ar ran y sir i gyd ac felly ddim yn rhoi'r hyblygrwydd yna, efallai, y mae rhai ardaloedd o'r sir ei angen. Achos mae'r ddeddfwriaeth, fel dŷn ni'n ei ddehongli fo, yn dweud, 'O fewn ardal yr awdurdod bilio yn gyfan gwbl, dŷch chi'n trin bob man—'. Dydy o ddim yn rhoi'r disgresiwn i chi drin—. Efallai fod yna rai ardaloedd efo mwy o broblemau na'i gilydd. Dwi ddim yn dweud buasem ni fel awdurdod neu unrhyw awdurdod arall yn gwneud defnydd ohono fo, felly, ond buasai'r hyblygrwydd yna efallai'n ddefnyddiol, neu eglurhad, beth bynnag.
is does that restrict us in making a decision on behalf of the whole county and, therefore, doesn't give that flexibility that some parts of the county need. Because the legislation, as we interpret it, says it's, 'Within the billing authority area as a whole, you treat everywhere—'. It doesn't give you the discretion to deal with some areas within that county differently to others. I'm not saying that we or any other authority would make use of it, but that flexibility, perhaps, would be useful, or at least an explanation.
Okay. So, identifying specific issues that you already talked about, like holiday lets and student accommodation. So, just giving you that flexibility to move different policies around the county, basically.
Yes, or to treat different areas of the local authorities differently.
Certainly, for Torfaen, we would have to look at the areas. North of the borough is that much harder to let than south.
So, if it was the south, we may be more prone to say, 'We're going to bring it in', because, those properties, there is a demand.
Yes, okay. And just one further question from me, which is whether we should have a premium higher than 100 per cent. What are your thoughts on that? I know we've had the Government's report on affordable housing supply that's been published now, and that may be one of the things that comes out of that, I don't know, but I'd be interested in your views on that.
Okay. The collective response was it wouldn't present a problem providing it was still up to the discretion of each individual local authority as to how they could charge that, but there is a concern that, if you do take it too high, you run the risk of further escalation tactics on avoiding actually paying. So, whereas 100 per cent has caused an issue, if we made it 150 to 200, well, we'd then just be creating even more avoidance or evasion issues for taxpayers. So, it's a balance.
Yes. The other thing I'd like to mention—. Okay, let's say we're doing a premium or we're taking it above 100 per cent and the person says, 'Well, I'm just not paying'. We've got to enforce sale on that property. It's a very, very long process—
And costly, and fraught with problems, because if you do anything wrong—anything minor—it is fraught with problems. If we were going to go down that route, I personally think it would be good if we could look at, 'Can we simplify for-sale processes where there's council tax involved?'. Now, you go to court for someone for a claim and it's a long process. You go to court for someone for non-payment of council tax and get a liability order, it's very streamlined, because it has to be because of numbers. So, should we be really looking at what is the enforcement on an empty property where they don't pay, where you're just stacking charges.
Is 12 months an appropriate period before a premium can be charged on an empty home?
We think it should actually be determined by each local authority, depending on their various property markets. One currently allows a discretionary period of three years to allow the property back in. The majority are content with 12 months, but, again, we have answers back where 18 months would be ideal, maybe a little bit longer. It kind of depends on the area, the market, what the intention is. So, unfortunately, what was noted was, for long-term empties, 12 months is a reasonable point to consider the position, so it's a chance for probate and all the other issues to actually be sorted. Are there active sale measures taking place, or is it just left? So, 12 months seems to be an ideal start point, really.
Can you give us an idea to what extent the exemptions that are laid out in legislation are appropriate, and should other categories of exemption be added? So, for example, if there were a community-led group bringing empty properties back into use, could they be exempted?
I'll pass to the council tax experts for that one.
Are we on about the exemptions for the empties, for the premiums, as opposed to the greater exemptions? For my part, I haven't really got any experience on the premiums, because we haven't introduced them, so I think it's more for you, Dewi.
Yr unig brofiad dŷn ni wedi ei gael o ran bod yna broblemau efo'r eithriadau sydd yna ar hyn o bryd ydy lle mae eiddo ar werth—'marketed for sale' sydd yn y canllawiau. Mae yna achos wedi bod yng Ngwynedd lle mae rhywun wedi ysgrifennu 'Ar Werth' ar ddarn o bapur ac wedi'i roi yn y ffenest, ac mi aeth i dribiwnlys ac fe wnaeth o ennill y tribiwnlys. Roeddem ni'n dadlau nad yw hwnna'n cael ei farchnata ar werth, ond mi wnaeth y tribiwnlys dderbyn bod darn A4 mewn ffenest yn ddigonol i'w ganiatáu o, ond mater, efallai, rhyngom ni a'r tribiwnlys ydy hynny. Ar y cyfan, dwi'n meddwl bod yr eithriadau wedi gweithio'n iawn. Dwi'n croesawu unrhyw awgrym, er enghraifft grwpiau cymunedol. Mae gennym ni grwpiau cymunedol yn ein hardal ni sydd yn edrych ar wneud y math yma o beth, a buaswn i'n croesawu edrych arno fo, i gydweithio efo grwpiau o'r fath.
The only experience that we've had in terms of problems with the exemptions that currently exist is where a property is for sale—'marketed for sale' is the term used in the guidance. There has been a case in Gwynedd where someone has written 'For Sale' on a piece of paper and put it in the window, and it went to a tribunal and they were successful in the tribunal. I would argue that that wasn't marketed for sale, but the tribunal did accept that a piece of A4 paper was sufficient to allow it to be for sale, but perhaps that's a matter for us and the tribunal. On the whole, I think that the exemptions have worked well. I welcome any suggestion, for example community-led groups. We have community-led groups in our area that are looking at doing that kind of thing, and I would welcome looking at this, to collaborate with such groups.
Okay. Well, diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much for coming in to give evidence to the committee today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Thank you very much.
Okay, then, our next item, item 7, is papers to note, the first of which is a letter from Mark in his capacity as chair of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement. It relates to the benefits inquiry, and the system they have in Scotland, where there is an annual uprating of the fund that applies to help people with those expenses, and there's an invitation to members of the committee to attend the next meeting of the all-party group, where I think, Mark, there will be some further explanation of what's happening in Scotland direct from a relevant person from Scotland.
That's right. We've got somebody coming down from Scotland. We've got the Scottish inspector of funeral directors coming to speak to outline the work she's undertaken in Scotland. One thing we haven't really considered so much, including in our visit to Edinburgh, was that part of the devolution package in Scotland is elements of the social fund, and particularly the bereavement costs. We all know, I think, from our casework, that funeral costs are a significant problem for people when they face tragedy in their lives.
Okay. So, the letter's there for the committee to note in relation to our benefits inquiry, and the invitation is there for the next meeting of Mark's all-party group.
And without wishing to bestow extra working hours on the clerks, it might be helpful, if Members couldn't attend all or part of that meeting, if somebody could take a record of the relevant section of the meeting.
Somebody from the committee—or if not, Mark, perhaps following the meeting, the secretariat could forward something. Okay.
You don't want to work until 8 o'clock at night? Why not? I'm only joking.
The next paper to note then is a letter from the future generations commissioner, Sophie Howe, following the scrutiny session at committee. And that's providing further information in terms of the evidence that she gave and the follow-up questions that we had.
And then, finally, paper 8 is a survey analysis relevant to our evidence taking today. Is committee happy to note those papers?
Okay, that's great. Thank you very much for that. And we will then move into private session for the remaining two items.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 12:10.
The public part of the meeting ended at 12:10.