Seòmar agus comataidhean

I whole-heartedly reassure Mr Griffin on that point.

The existing definitions allow local authorities to take a person-centred approach to assessments. The intention behind the power to modify them is not to change that approach; it is to provide clarity on certain circumstances in which people might not currently be considered to be homeless or to be threatened with homelessness.

The existing homelessness legislation is broad enough to allow a flexible and person-centred approach to defining whether someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness, but we have listened to stakeholders who are concerned that there are scenarios in which people who require support might slip through the net. Including specific definitions of circumstances in regulations, as proposed by the Scottish Government, will better ensure that nobody is prevented from getting the support that they need, while keeping both definitions together in section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

I ask Alexander Stewart not to move amendment 1013, which would remove some of the changes made by the bill to section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to provide a broader definition of “abuse”. Amendment 1013 would retain some of the existing definition in section 24 of the 1987 act, despite a new, broader definition of “abuse” being provided in section 43(5) of the bill. Amendment 1013 would therefore create confusion as to which meaning of “abuse” applied for the purposes of the 1987 act.

I ask members to support my amendment 1047, and I ask Alexander Stewart not to press amendment 1008 or to move amendments 1009 and 1013. If he does so, I ask members not to support them. I have been engaging with Alexander Stewart on the matter, and I am happy to continue to do so.

In response to Mr Balfour’s point, I make the point that the key thing is flexibility. I cannot speak for future Governments, but we extensively consulted Crisis on the matter. The approach of using regulations will give us more flexibility to deal with issues that come up. That is one of the key reasons why we want to be able to make changes through regulations.

We are still in consultation with local authorities at the moment. I know from my own local government experience that local authorities assess that in different ways. Again, we will discuss the point with COSLA, but different local authorities look at intentionality in different ways.

As I have said, we think that the statutes are in place in that respect. Having seen the Shelter Scotland report on temporary accommodation, we need to ensure that the duties are enforced. I am happy to come back to the committee on that point and to engage with members on it before stage 3.

There is legislation already in place. Yesterday, I acknowledged that children are living in temporary accommodation in conditions that are not suitable. The issue is how we enforce the legislation, and I am happy to engage between this stage and stage 3 with those members who have spoken on the issue to see whether we can work something out.

I recognise why a number of the amendments in the group reference specific groups that are at risk of homelessness, but I do not believe that the bill is the best place to achieve what members want to achieve. The bill is about establishing new homelessness prevention duties in legislation. The homelessness system in Scotland is based, first and foremost, on whether somebody is homeless or threatened with homelessness, not on their circumstances. In other words, someone does not have to be in a priority category to get an offer of settled housing. Our legislation, which is the envy of the world, also recognises the need to address the specific needs of particular groups in regulations and guidance.

I turn to the amendments. Mr Balfour’s amendment 1015 is unnecessary because the public sector equality duty already achieves that aim, and Mr Griffin’s amendment 1015A, in so far as it refers to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, is unnecessary for the same reason. In relation to the requirement to consider the needs of those who are relocated for employment and those in need of additional adaptations, such matters can be addressed in guidance under section 37 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

We have worked constructively with MSPs. If I thought that there were gaps in the legislation and that the amendments would further the rights of children, I would whole-heartedly support them, but I do not believe that they are necessary. For those reasons, I urge Paul O’Kane and Mark Griffin not to press or move their amendments, and if they do, I ask members not to support them. However, I am willing to engage with Mr Griffin and others on the particular points that have been raised.

Convener, I am happy to—

If you will let me make some progress, I will bring you in after that.

We should make it as straightforward as possible for people to get the help that they need when they are at risk of losing their home. Scotland is known around the world for its progressive housing and homelessness legislation. Our groundbreaking homelessness prevention legislation will strengthen rights further. We do not want people to face barriers to getting the support that they need to prevent their homelessness.

There is a strong case for reforming the intentionality test. As Kevin Stewart said, the Government supported a recommendation in 2018 from HARSAG that the Scottish Government should

“Revise legislative arrangements”,

including on intentionality,

“that can result in difficulties with people being able to access their rights”.

As a result, the Scottish Government formally consulted stakeholders and, in 2019, introduced discretion for local authorities in assessing homelessness applications for intentionality. Our statistics show that few people are found to be intentionally homeless and the figures have remained fairly static—between 1 and 2 per cent—since we made changes to legislation.

In the longer term, our aim is to replace the test for intentionality with a new test that focuses on deliberate manipulation of the system. However, although I support the principle behind Maggie Chapman’s amendment 1052, I cannot support the amendment. I will come on to that in a bit more detail later. The meaning of “deliberate manipulation” is not provided in amendment 1052. That would be left entirely to regulations. However, in subsection (2) of the proposed new section that the amendment would insert, local authorities are authorised to assess whether someone is deliberately manipulating the system. It is not clear what the local authority can do with that assessment without regulations on the meaning of “deliberate manipulation” being in place.

The test for intentionality should not be removed entirely without proper consultation with local authorities. That is even more important at a time when councils are responding to the housing emergency. An informal survey of a small number of councils showed that they had grave concerns about removing the test for intentionality entirely. They were, however, more relaxed about removing the test for intentionality when someone is threatened with homelessness.

I support amendment 1032, in the name of Kevin Stewart, which would remove the test for intentionality only when someone is threatened with homelessness. I also support amendments 1033 to 1035, 1037 to 1039, 1046 and 1048, lodged by Kevin Stewart, which would remove references to intentionality from the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in relation to persons who are threatened with homelessness. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 1052 does not do that for persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, as the removal of section 26 is not sufficient to achieve it.

Amendment 1052 is not the right approach at stage 2 when we have had only minimal stakeholder input. However, we support the wider principle and are committed to removing intentionality in the longer term in line with the recommendations from HARSAG.