Seòmar agus comataidhean

We would have to consider that, if that were to happen. I cannot pre-empt what another committee will say with regard to amendment 230. If that amendment was not agreed to, we would have to consider that point before stage 3.

I appreciate and understand the purpose of the amendments on the timing of commencement of the bill’s provisions. I understand any member’s desire to see progress on the delivery of the new duties and to avoid a loss of momentum. However, those objectives would be better met by supporting Mr Doris’s amendment 230 on commencement.

I hope that Mr Balfour will understand why I oppose amendment 1031, in his name, and amendment 1075, in the name of Mark Griffin. I share Mr Balfour’s desire to see progress, and I am happy to report back to the committee on the homelessness prevention pilots when that information is available. We might be able to pick that up outwith the bill process. Mr Balfour has made a very relevant point. However, my strong preferences is for that not to delay commencement of part 5. Similarly, I do not see any need to delay commencement pending a review of the costs of the ask and act duties. However, I appreciate the relevant points that Mr Griffin and Mr Balfour have made, and I am happy to engage with both of them before stage 3.

Finally, I ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 1076, which would impose a backstop date of 31 December 2028 for commencement of part 5 of the bill. I hope that Mr Griffin will agree that that is not necessary, given the amendment that Mr Doris has lodged, which will fix a backstop date for commencement with reference to royal assent and will therefore avoid any difficulty in timing should royal assent be delayed for any reason. The timing of the interim statement, as set out in amendment 1076, might also create difficulties in relation to the Scottish elections next year.

Yes, of course.

Apologies, convener, but I am not finished yet.

On amendment 1066, the inclusion of strategic health bodies on the list would seem to be the best way to engage primary health services in their role, and doing so would be clarified in the statutory guidance. I know that GP practices are of particular interest, and we have been clear about the role that community link workers could play in the surgeries that they are being deployed to.

We have talked about the homelessness prevention pilots that are coming up, and one of the key things that we will be discussing with those who are successful in that scheme is the role of GPs on that particular point. I am therefore happy to engage with Mr Griffin and Mr Balfour on the issues that they raised, and the pilots will be coming on stream very quickly.

On amendment 1084, we are engaging with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about its potential inclusion at a later date, but again I would ask for time to have those discussions.

On amendment 1085, we propose to add the Scottish ministers to the list of relevant bodies in so far as they have functions in relation to social security, including those functions that are carried out by Social Security Scotland. That is achieved by amendment 1049.

On amendment 1091, which would add the Scottish Prison Service to the list of relevant bodies, the bill already includes the Scottish ministers and functions relating to prisons and young offender institutions, which includes the functions of the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish Prison Service is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers and has no separate legal identity. There has already been consultation and engagement with the Scottish Prison Service on the bill.

I ask members to support my amendment 1049 and not to move amendments 1080, 1065, 1001, 1081, 1021, 1082, 1002, 1066, 1083, 1084, 1085 and 1091, or, if they are moved, I ask members not to support them. I will also take into consideration the offer to meet members further to discuss the points that have been raised.

I will come on to that, but the more general point is that we are not starting afresh. Where there is existing training in place, it is important that we strengthen it. There have already been extensive discussions with the sectors that we are talking about, such as the Scottish Prison Service, local authorities and the national health service.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I urge Ms Gallacher not to press amendment 1011. If it is pressed, I ask members not to support it. That does not mean that I do not support Ms Gallacher’s aims, which are to ensure that people who work on the front line have the skills and knowledge to support individuals who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. Following our recent meeting, I am happy to engage further with Ms Gallacher on this important issue and on the points raised by the amendment and in her intervention.

I am happy to come back on that issue, which I think will form part of the discussions that Mr Halcro Johnston and I will have, in which we can also pick up any other issues that he has raised. Mention has been made of the definitions; we can have further discussions about those.

The point that I made about the amendment’s drafting was that the issue is how difficult it is to define rough sleeping. I have already agreed to engage further with Mr Halcro Johnston on that point, and I am happy to pick up the issue after today’s meeting. There are drafting issues, as we discussed at the meeting that we had, but I am happy to pick those up.

Mr Balfour, you will be aware of the discussions that are being had. At this stage, we think that that aspect should be dealt with in statutory guidance, but we can discuss that. You mentioned discussions in the future; as I have said, I think that this aspect should be addressed in statutory guidance, but I appreciate your point, and I am happy to pick it up in further discussions.

Amendment 1089, in the name of Katy Clark, would require social landlords, as part of their domestic abuse policy, to consider writing off a tenant’s rent arrears in whole or in part, where those rent arrears have arisen due to domestic abuse. The bill already contains provisions in sections 44 and 45 for social landlords to take action to support tenants with rent arrears arising from domestic abuse. Section 44 creates a pre-action requirement for social landlords to take such action as they consider to be reasonable to support the tenant in those circumstances, having regard to their domestic abuse policy.

Section 45 requires social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy that includes a description of the action that must be taken in relation to the needs of a tenant in such circumstances. Scottish ministers can specify additional pre-action requirements via regulations, which would offer the opportunity to consult social landlords on the proposal. We agree that we can go further with this amendment, but there are some drafting issues with it, and I ask the member to work with me on the matter before stage 3.

Amendment 1024, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, would require a court to delay a social landlord’s right to recover possession by one year and landlords and tenants to agree a reasonable payment plan for future and outstanding rents. Existing statutory provisions already require all social landlords and tenants to make all reasonable efforts to agree a payment plan for future and outstanding rents, and social landlords cannot raise eviction proceedings for rent arrears in court unless those existing statutory provisions have been complied with.

Delaying eviction by one year where domestic abuse is a factor in rent arrears would represent a significant interference in landlords’ property rights. The amendment proposes a blanket ban on eviction for one year, but provisions already in the bill will require the court to consider a delay to the enforcement of eviction in every rent arrears case. Where the court decides that a delay to the enforcement of eviction is appropriate, it will have discretion to determine the length of the delay according to the circumstances of the individual case. Amendment 1024 could be seen as a significant interference in the rights of landlords under amendment 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, and it is not clear whether such interference would be proportionate to the aim. I believe that further consultation would be required on that.

I will address that point in a second.

On amendment 1065, I will be happy to ask my officials to engage with community planning partnerships about their future inclusion.

At a previous meeting, we discussed engaging before stage 3, so I am happy to pick up on the point that you have raised, Ms Boyack.

On amendment 1001, I recognise the role that higher and further education bodies may play in supporting their students, but I suggest that more consultation is required with both sectors, as Scottish universities have said. Scottish Government officials are already engaging with officers from Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland, and I ask Mr Simpson to take part in further discussions with the sector before stage 3—as we will be doing—if he can, so that we can potentially work on including the sector at a future date. I am happy to discuss that further with the member.

I acknowledge the issues that Jeremy Balfour and Sarah Boyack have raised. As we all know, this is a complex issue across all areas of Government. I am happy to continue the discussions of those points with Ms Boyack and Mr Balfour.

Amendment 1041 agreed to.

Amendments 1042 and 1043 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 1016 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1017 and 1064 not moved.

Amendment 1044 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1018, 1095 and 1019 not moved.

Amendment 1045 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1079, 1010 and 1020 not moved.