Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would be happy to write to the committee about that specific point.

Yes. Thank you, convener. It is good to be back. I was previously a member of the committee and I always enjoyed my time here. I think that Mr Balfour is the only member who is left from when we were both here—it is good to see him again.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the important topic of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I understand that the committee has agreed with the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee that you will lead on part 5, on the measures for homelessness prevention, and on part 6, but only in so far as it relates to fuel poverty. I will therefore focus only on those measures. I will be happy to pick up the remaining provisions with the LGHP Committee.

As I highlight the key measures of parts 5 and 6 of the bill, I am mindful that the committee has heard from witnesses who, although supportive of the measures in principle, have raised some concerns about their practical implementation. They include concerns about what further engagement there will be with stakeholders, particularly as we look towards the timing of implementation and at resourcing. I will take the opportunity to reassure you by addressing those issues.

On the homelessness prevention duties, although Scotland has some of the strongest rights in the world for people who become homeless, the same cannot be said for people who are at risk of homelessness. The measures in the bill aim to put a renewed focus on homelessness prevention so that individuals and families do not have to experience the trauma and disruption to lives that it causes. We want to help to keep people in their homes where that is possible and appropriate, and, in the longer term, to ensure that there is less pressure on housing supply and public resources.

The measures in the bill have been guided by the principles of the prevention review group, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including the prevention commission, which is a group of people who have lived or front-line experience of homelessness. The new ask and act measures for relevant bodies are bold and they reach further than similar duties that have been introduced elsewhere in the UK.

The next stage is to work closely with our stakeholders on the details of how the ask and act measures and the changes to existing homelessness legislation for local authorities will work in practice. We will work collaboratively with stakeholders to develop guidance that builds on existing good practice that is already happening; to identify the training that is required to ensure that our workforce has the necessary skills to make the duties a success; and, crucially, to identify the most appropriate timing for implementation of the changes against the landscape of other challenges in housing and elsewhere.

The principles of shared public responsibility, earlier intervention across systems, and more choice and control over housing options through avoiding crises are also at the forefront of our minds with the measures.

We took an evidence-based approach to deliver our best estimates of the costings and resource implications, which are set out in the financial memorandum. In December 2023, working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we conducted a survey of local authorities on the potential resource implications of any new duties. The approach built on the ask in the jointly-run Scottish Government and COSLA consultation that ran to April 2022. Although the feedback was limited in the amount of detail that was provided, I recognise that investing resources in early intervention can be effective for people who are at risk of homelessness, as it means that they avoid reaching crisis point and entering the homelessness system, which in turn decreases the demand for temporary accommodation and puts less pressure on resources over the longer term.

Stakeholder feedback and analysis and further work to identify the content of secondary legislation, guidance and training that is required to support the duties will also help to inform the detail of what might be required in future budget-setting processes.

In updating the definition of domestic abuse as it applies in housing legislation, we have taken account of the evidence on the need for a gendered approach. The equality impact assessment, which was published on 21 June, demonstrates that approach. We know that men’s and women’s experiences of homelessness are very different, and our focus on domestic abuse is therefore key, as it is one of the main reasons for women making a homelessness application but might not be the main reason for men doing so. I want to reassure you that the statutory guidance that will be developed to accompany the provisions will also take a gendered approach, and we will highlight the importance of applying a gendered lens to services and policies.

On fuel poverty, we are implementing a minor technical change to the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 to deliver a strengthened governance process. Our continuous improvement approach will give officials a more suitable lead-in time for preparing reports; engaging with an extensive range of stakeholders, including our Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel; and undertaking analysis.

The bill is designed to focus our action on supporting the most vulnerable, especially during these challenging times, in order to achieve our shared goal of delivering safe, affordable and quality homes, and the measures will help to deliver on that ambition. I view the measures in the bill as an important next step in delivering on our ambition to end homelessness in Scotland. I and my officials look forward to answering any questions that members might have on those parts of the bill.

Paul McLennan has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following corrections.

At col 7, paragraph 6—

Original text—

One of the key things that I asked for when I came into post, 15 or 16 months ago, was the setting up of a ministerial group on homelessness. Ten ministers are taking part in that, and it has already met four times.

Corrected text—

One of the key things that I asked for when I came into post, 15 or 16 months ago, was the setting up of a ministerial group on homelessness. Nine ministers are taking part in that, and it has already met four times.

At col 8, paragraph 1—

Original text—

We will continue to make sure that opportunities in policy development and budgetary processes are maximised. The group has 10 ministers, including me, and we talk about that specific issue.

Corrected text—

We will continue to make sure that opportunities in policy development and budgetary processes are maximised. The group has nine ministers, including me, and we talk about that specific issue.

At col 13, paragraph 5—

Original text—

I talked earlier about why we have 10 ministers on the ministerial oversight group. In some of the more complex homelessness cases, four or five specialist areas can be involved.

Corrected text—

I talked earlier about why we have nine ministers on the ministerial oversight group. In some of the more complex homelessness cases, four or five specialist areas can be involved.

There were a number of issues. This takes me back to when I was on the committee and we discussed those. It was about trying to bed in what was already in place at that point. That has been the key thing for me during the process and from speaking to the ASSC, the STA and others. Obviously, this is the first point at which we could do that.

I will again bring in Jess Niven, who has been involved in the process, which goes right the way back to 2019.

Covid made an impact in 2019, which continued to 2021, 2022 and 2023. There was a bit of flexibility within the sector, with people coming into and out of it. The issue was highlighted then—and I will bring in Jess Niven to discuss that point. From our interactions with stakeholders, I thought that we needed to act on the issue relatively quickly, hence why we took the opportunity.

Jess Niven has been involved in the process for a lot longer than me, and she was involved in the original discussions.

There will always be an element of interchangeability, with people coming into the sector and people moving out of it. We want to make that process as easy as possible. Stakeholders have told us that we should make it easier. That came from evidence that we received when I was a committee member, but also outwith that. The point was raised by stakeholders such as the STA and the ASSC. Again, that was the main point that was raised through engagement with stakeholders.

There are a number of things to consider. One takes us back to the general principle. Was the scheme to be a national scheme or a local scheme? It was established that it would be best for it to be a local scheme, for a number of reasons. Edinburgh, the Highlands and East Lothian, for instance, are all different areas, and the level of interpretation within local authorities is really important.

There are a wide range of short-term let units. Coming from a local government background, I am aware that there are various licensing schemes, for taxis, alcohol and other things. The idea was to recognise the variances that could exist within the short-term let sector and to allow for local interpretation. There will be variances in what local authorities think and in relation to the local authority’s outlook on certain types of accommodation among short-term lets. The key thing is to be as flexible as possible within that.

We spoke with SOLAR representatives on a regular basis—to people who are themselves engaging with and licensing people. They are engaged not just in short-term lets licensing but in licensing more broadly, too. We have tried to listen to them regarding their approach, and we will continue to listen to them. I know that there are different interpretations of the guidelines and policies; it can come down to individual authorities, as you will see within planning broadly, and in alcohol licensing, for example. It is about recognising that individual local authorities will have their own input and their own outlook, which I think is really important, while understanding the variances in the types of accommodation. It is a matter of being as flexible as possible. However, we want to deliver on the overarching safety aspect behind why the scheme was brought in without having a detrimental effect on tourism, so that people can come to Scotland and have faith that the accommodation that they are staying in is safe and suitable for them.

I do not know if Jess Niven wants to add anything, but the overriding principle is to encourage flexibility.

Conversions have not been picked up as an issue, while new-builds in particular have been. I am happy to pick up that particular point, and we will continue to monitor the on-going feedback. Again, we have not had that fed back from local authorities on a large number of occasions, either—feedback tends to be on the new-builds—but I am happy to pick up on that point.

Yes. That is one of the key issues. It comes back to the point that I made about our meeting SOLAR. I can get anecdotal feedback on what local authorities are saying, but it is really important to hear that directly, and I will continue to meet SOLAR, as my officials will, on that particular point.

I think that you are right. The example of yurts has been given. There could be two different sites for a project that has 30 or 40 yurts, and we might need two groups of 20 yurts in different places. In such cases, there could be slightly different interpretations of how the licence works. We are working with individual local authorities to try to give them that guidance.

I will bring Jess Niven in to go into the detail of the discussions that officials have been having with individual local authorities that have raised the issue, but you are right. There are impacts in relation to the paperwork that is involved—if there is one application for all the yurts, for example. There is also the cost element, because the cost has to be proportionate.

I am not sure that I quite understand your question. I would dispute your interpretation of the provision. My officials and I have gone out of our way to speak to individual groups. As I said, I have met the ASSC on a dozen occasions, although we might not have agreed on everything, and I have also had a number of meetings with the STA, SOLAR and so on, and have listened to their views.

Maybe I am being silly, but I am having difficulty understanding the climate change aspect of what we are looking at. Can you clarify that?

On that point, Mr Briggs, discussions on the scheme have been on-going for a number of months. I pulled together discussions on the feedback that we were getting. We had a meeting with the festival organisers and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe and local authorities, and everybody was quite happy with the outcome of that particular meeting. The City of Edinburgh Council required some clarity and we gave them that clarity. It comes back to what we all know, which is that, every year, prices rocket in Edinburgh because of the festival.

There has been on-going dialogue and debate in Edinburgh about whether the festival is too big for Edinburgh and what the scale of the festival should be. You and I have had that discussion. Should more be done to try to work with other local authorities to take some of the demand that is there? There is a much broader piece of work that Edinburgh needs to do with the festival, the fringe and the Scottish Government to look at how big the festival should be, how far we can spread it and what impact it has.

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but we need a much broader analysis of issues with regard to the festival. Every year, prices go up and there are shortages, but a much broader piece of work needs to be done. Again, I am happy to speak to colleagues in the Government and in local authorities and, indeed, to yourself about that, but as I have said, we need a much broader analysis to give us a much broader perspective on what we need to do. After all, this has been an on-going debate in Edinburgh as well as in other parts of Scotland for a long time now.