Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I said, the review group has been discussing the implementation of the review, and not the bill, in its own particular regard.

I will continue. I mentioned the amendments on terms and conditions. Complaint procedures are also provided—

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 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.

Katy Clark will recall the discussion that we have had on the matter. I indicated at that stage that we are satisfied in that respect, but I am happy to discuss the matter further, and we are looking at a broader range of amendments as part of that. I believe that the provisions are strong enough, but I think that there is room for further discussion and I am happy to meet the member to discuss it as we go forward.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1025, 1027 and 1029 would replicate the measures in the bill that require all social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy for landlords in protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies, but they go further in also seeking to require private landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. We cannot simply replicate the provisions for social landlords and apply them to private landlords, due to the vastly different regulatory frameworks. There would be limited benefit to tenants in the private rented sector due to the substantial number of landlords with only one or two properties and the difficulties that would be created for compliance and enforcement.

A much more effective approach would be to produce guidance for private landlords on how to support their tenants who experience domestic abuse. That guidance can also cover all the different types of tenancies that exist in the private rented sector, taking account of the different circumstances of each tenancy. I believe that engagement with the Scottish Association of Landlords is the best way of achieving the aim of those amendments.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1026, 1028 and 1030 would replicate the pre-action requirements for social tenancies where domestic abuse is a factor in rent arrears for protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies. The amendments would be difficult to implement, as there would be no restriction on applying for or obtaining an eviction where those requirements had not been complied with. In addition, there are existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to provide pre-action protocols on assured tenancies and private residential tenancies via subordinate legislation. There would be many challenges in extending those two sets of provisions to the private rented sector, particularly around the number of private landlords compared with the number of social landlords.

An equally effective and more practical alternative for the private rented sector would be to develop guidance for PRS landlords on how to support their tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse. I am happy to commit to doing that alongside renewing our commitment to the more strategic consideration of domestic abuse issues in the PRS, which was previously agreed in response to the recommendations in the “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” report. We will also seek to strengthen the PRS pre-action protocols for rent arrears regulations in relation to domestic abuse following the passage of the bill.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1007 seeks to amend section 32(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to include the needs of those who experience domestic abuse as one of the examples of the standards and outcomes that may be set out in the Scottish social housing charter. There is a drafting issue with the amendment, as the context requires the focus to be on what action is required in relation to the needs that are referred to. I would welcome the chance to work with Ms Gallacher on a stage 3 amendment that addresses that issue.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1006, which is an alternative amendment to section 32 of the 2010 act, would require the Scottish social housing charter to include provisions relating to the needs of tenants whom the social landlord has a reason to believe are affected by domestic abuse. A mandatory or standard outcome that must form part of the social housing charter would go against the principle of the 2010 act that the charter must be consulted on, and I urge Ms Gallacher not to move amendment 1006, as it is important that we enable a meaningful consultation on the draft charter.

Amendment 1068, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would oblige Scottish ministers to review the operation of the domestic abuse provisions in the bill within two years of royal assent and to produce a report. That obligation would apply, regardless of whether or when provisions were commenced, which might make compliance difficult to achieve. We already report annually to Parliament on the progress on the ending homelessness together action plan, and that will include progress on provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Accordingly, I ask Ms Hamilton not to move amendment 1068, as it is not necessary.

Amendment 1069, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would oblige the Scottish ministers

“to prepare and publish a timetable for”

implementing the December 2020

“report on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse.”

That must be done within one year of royal assent and must be repeated annually until the report has been fully implemented. It is worth highlighting that we are already implementing some of the recommendations from the report via the provisions set out in the bill, most significantly the duty on social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. In addition, we also report on the work as part of the Scottish Government’s annual report on progress towards ending homelessness. Given that we already report on that annually, I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendment 1069.

I urge Katy Clark, Maggie Chapman, Jeremy Balfour, Meghan Gallacher and Rachael Hamilton not to press or move their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I urge members of the committee not to support any of them, for the reasons that I have given.

Katy Clark will recall the discussion that we have had on the matter. I indicated at that stage that we are satisfied in that respect, but I am happy to discuss the matter further, and we are looking at a broader range of amendments as part of that. I believe that the provisions are strong enough, but I think that there is room for further discussion and I am happy to meet the member to discuss it as we go forward.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1025, 1027 and 1029 would replicate the measures in the bill that require all social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy for landlords in protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies, but they go further in also seeking to require private landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. We cannot simply replicate the provisions for social landlords and apply them to private landlords, due to the vastly different regulatory frameworks. There would be limited benefit to tenants in the private rented sector due to the substantial number of landlords with only one or two properties and the difficulties that would be created for compliance and enforcement.

A much more effective approach would be to produce guidance for private landlords on how to support their tenants who experience domestic abuse. That guidance can also cover all the different types of tenancies that exist in the private rented sector, taking account of the different circumstances of each tenancy. I believe that engagement with the Scottish Association of Landlords is the best way of achieving the aim of those amendments.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1026, 1028 and 1030 would replicate the pre-action requirements for social tenancies where domestic abuse is a factor in rent arrears for protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies. The amendments would be difficult to implement, as there would be no restriction on applying for or obtaining an eviction where those requirements had not been complied with. In addition, there are existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to provide pre-action protocols on assured tenancies and private residential tenancies via subordinate legislation. There would be many challenges in extending those two sets of provisions to the private rented sector, particularly around the number of private landlords compared with the number of social landlords.

An equally effective and more practical alternative for the private rented sector would be to develop guidance for PRS landlords on how to support their tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse. I am happy to commit to doing that alongside renewing our commitment to the more strategic consideration of domestic abuse issues in the PRS, which was previously agreed in response to the recommendations in the “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” report. We will also seek to strengthen the PRS pre-action protocols for rent arrears regulations in relation to domestic abuse following the passage of the bill.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1007 seeks to amend section 32(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to include the needs of those who experience domestic abuse as one of the examples of the standards and outcomes that may be set out in the Scottish social housing charter. There is a drafting issue with the amendment, as the context requires the focus to be on what action is required in relation to the needs that are referred to. I would welcome the chance to work with Ms Gallacher on a stage 3 amendment that addresses that issue.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1006, which is an alternative amendment to section 32 of the 2010 act, would require the Scottish social housing charter to include provisions relating to the needs of tenants whom the social landlord has a reason to believe are affected by domestic abuse. A mandatory or standard outcome that must form part of the social housing charter would go against the principle of the 2010 act that the charter must be consulted on, and I urge Ms Gallacher not to move amendment 1006, as it is important that we enable a meaningful consultation on the draft charter.

Amendment 1068, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would oblige Scottish ministers to review the operation of the domestic abuse provisions in the bill within two years of royal assent and to produce a report. That obligation would apply regardless of whether or when provisions were commenced, which might make compliance difficult to achieve. We already report annually to Parliament on the progress on the ending homelessness together action plan, and that will include progress on provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Accordingly, I ask Ms Hamilton not to move amendment 1068, as it is not necessary.

Amendment 1069, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would oblige the Scottish ministers

“to prepare and publish a timetable for”

implementing the December 2020

“report on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse.”

That must be done within one year of royal assent and must be repeated annually until the report has been fully implemented. It is worth highlighting that we are already implementing some of the recommendations from the report via the provisions set out in the bill, most significantly the duty on social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. In addition, we also report on the work as part of the Scottish Government’s annual report on progress towards ending homelessness. Given that we already report on that annually, I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendment 1069.

I urge Katy Clark, Maggie Chapman, Jeremy Balfour, Meghan Gallacher and Rachael Hamilton not to press or move their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I urge members of the committee not to support any of them, for the reasons that I have given.

Yes, of course. Nobody wants to see anybody sleeping rough in any part of Scotland. I will come on to the other actions that we have taken to that end. We want to eradicate rough sleeping, as does everyone here.

I want to emphasise a number of points. We have supported and encouraged local authorities to develop housing first programmes, which are essential. That intervention is aimed at people who are homeless and have complex needs, such as those with a history of rough sleeping. Housing first is backed by a wealth of international evidence and is a proven answer to resolving long-term homelessness and rough sleeping. The Scottish Government publishes regular monitoring reports that show the impact that housing first programmes are having.

Members will be pleased to hear that 27 of the 32 local authorities have housing first programmes and that more than 2,000 housing first tenancies have started. The tenancy sustainment rate is a remarkable 85 per cent. In my discussions with Mr Halcro Johnston, the point was made that those tenancies tend to involve people who have complex support issues. Importantly, we have also invested £4 million in homelessness prevention pilots in 2025-26 to test out how the ask and act duty will work and to scale up the good homelessness prevention practice that is taking place around Scotland.

I cannot support amendment 1087, which is contingent on amendment 1086, as it would impose a duty to report on how the Scottish ministers plan to meet the duty that amendment 1086 sets out.

The Scottish Government already has an action plan to end all forms of homelessness, not just rough sleeping, and it reports annually to the Parliament on the progress, including on ending rough sleeping, that it is making.

No. That is what I meant, and I am happy to chat with the member again on that particular point.

Let me make it clear that the Scottish Government is willing to consider adding any appropriate body to the list of relevant bodies where there is evidence that that will help to achieve the objective of preventing homelessness. Not all bodies in Scotland will have that role. When a body’s role is identified, it should be included only following discussions with that body.

The amendments in this group seek to add a range of bodies to the relevant bodies in section 43 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Adding a body means that it will be subject to the duties of relevant bodies under new sections 36A to 36D to be inserted into the 1987 act by section 41 of the bill.

Section 41(8) already confers a power on the Scottish ministers to add bodies to the list of regulations. A body could be added only with the Parliament’s approval, and the body would need to be consulted in advance. As Mr Simpson has pointed out, the bodies that are currently listed were previously consulted.

On amendments 1080, 1082, 1002 and 1083 to 1085, members may wish to note that the current list of relevant bodies was based on prevention review group recommendations and on consultation with people with lived experience. Before seeking to impose duties on a body, I would wish to consult the body in advance, to establish that doing so would help to prevent homelessness or would minimise or reduce the threat of homelessness. If it would, I would be happy to consider adding the body to the list, subject to the approval of Parliament.

We are committed to working with relevant bodies to ensure that they receive training in relation to homelessness prevention that is fit for purpose. That will be informed by the findings of the prevention pilots and the work to develop regulations. I believe that it is for the bodies themselves to identify the most appropriate training, rather than for us to set out inflexible rules in primary legislation.

Amendment 1011 would also place an obligation on the Scottish ministers to make regulations, but as those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, at the discretion of the Parliament, they would not be within the Scottish ministers’ control.

The Scottish Government has had extensive discussions with stakeholders about commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions. Based on those discussions, we will support amendment 230, in the name of Bob Doris, which is to be considered by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. That amendment will ensure that, if any provision in part 5 of the bill is not in force after three years of royal assent, the provision will come into force at that point. That gives comfort to our partners that implementation will not lose momentum, while allowing us the time and flexibility to consult further on regulations and guidance and to ensure that all bodies are prepared for implementation.

Meghan Gallacher talked about Mr Stewart’s amendment 1012, which calls for a review regarding implementation of the ask and act duties within six months of royal assent. That requirement will not be necessary if Bob Doris’s amendment, which would impose a three-year backstop in relation to commencing part 5, is agreed to. Timescales involved in the report would be difficult to comply with, given the impending Scottish elections.

I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendments 1067 and 1074. I am as keen as she is to understand the impact of the new homelessness prevention duties. The Scottish Government is committed to evaluating the key aspects of the bill, so there is no need for a statutory duty to enable the Scottish Government to review the operation of the ask and act duties or of part 5 as a whole. In addition, the powers in the amendments to amend any part of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 following a review are too broad and would create uncertainty for local authorities and other relevant bodies. However, I am happy to engage with Ms Chapman on the points that she raised regarding her amendments.