Seòmar agus comataidhean

I fully recognise the importance of continuing to improve the energy efficiency of our existing housing stock, including rural properties. Section 6 of the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 already requires the strategy to take account of support for fuel-poor residential buildings, which captures dwellings in rural and island communities. Amendment 1050 would not change that and is not required.

Furthermore, our fuel poverty definition accounts for the additional costs that are associated with living in remote and island communities. The legislation provides for uplifts to be applied to the minimum income standard for households in those areas. We presently support households across the length and breadth of Scotland through the warmer homes Scotland scheme and area-based schemes, which are our long-standing energy efficiency delivery programmes. I am satisfied that our current offer of support to households already broadly covers what is proposed in Ms Hamilton’s amendment 1050. Accordingly, I ask her not to press it. If it is pressed, I ask committee members not to support it. As Ms Hamilton and I have discussed, I am happy to engage with her further in respect of the support that is presently available.

My amendment 1051 clarifies that the proposed changes to the periodic reporting timescale will not apply to the first fuel poverty periodic report, which is due by the end of this financial year. I ask members to support the amendment when the time comes.

Section 42 does not specify “students” but looks at everyone’s needs. I understand the point that Graham Simpson has made, because we have previously discussed how important it is that local housing strategies include the needs of the student sector. As I have said, I am happy to have further engagement with Mr Simpson on that point.

That is something that we would have to discuss. When we met before, we agreed to meet to discuss that further. Without wishing to pre-empt any further discussions that we or you may have, I am happy to pick up on that point and to have further discussions. I am not going to pre-empt things, however, and say that we would support—

I am not. Mr Halcro Johnston will be aware that we raised that point in the discussions that we had. I am just trying to make a point about how hard it is to define rough sleeping. Of course I am not suggesting what Graham Simpson indicated. However, we discussed that with Mr Halcro Johnston, and we agreed to engage further on the points that he raised.

The most important measure was the ending of priority need in 2012, which embedded the principle of universal access to emergency and permanent accommodation for all those who are unintentionally homeless. As a result, Scotland has lower rates of rough sleeping than other parts of the UK.

Of course I am committed to seeing an end to rough sleeping by the end of this decade—and earlier, if possible. The Scottish Government has committed funding to the pilot projects, it has provided £2 million to work with those local authorities that are under the most pressure and it has increased the housing budget.

We speak to local authorities—we spoke to them throughout the bill process, as we moved towards completing the financial memorandum—and we will continue to do so. With regard to the previous discussions that Mr Griffin had, we will continue to engage on that issue. Of course we are committed to ending rough sleeping—as, I imagine, is everybody in the Parliament.

The expert group that advised the Scottish ministers on the content and direction of the homelessness strategy did not want the Scottish Government to take a narrow strategic approach. That is important. The strategy sets out short and long-term solutions to ending all forms of homelessness, not just rough sleeping. The group also set out ways to transform the use of temporary accommodation and, more important, to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place, which is the issue that has brought us to the committee room today.

It was important to reimagine homelessness services and to shift the emphasis in policy and practice from crisis to prevention, which is exactly the point that Mr Halcro Johnston is trying to address. I thank him for highlighting the most acute and extreme form of homelessness, and I am grateful to members for working with me on our homelessness prevention duties. If successful, we will prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place.

I ask Mr Halcro Johnston not to press amendment 1086 or to move amendment 1087, and I ask members not to support those amendments if they are pressed or moved. I look forward to engaging further with Mr Halcro Johnston.

I agree with Jamie Halcro Johnston that rough sleeping is a dangerous and isolating experience. Although it is the least prevalent form of homelessness, it is the most damaging and the most visible. We know that any prolonged period of sleeping rough has an impact on a person’s mental and physical health. The Government is committed to ending all forms of homelessness, including rough sleeping. Our homelessness strategy, “Ending Homelessness Together”, was informed by experts and those with lived experience, including of rough sleeping.

The member has raised a serious matter. No one should have to sleep rough in Scotland. Although I fully understand the sentiment behind Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendment 1086, I cannot support it, but we have offered to meet up again to discuss the issue in further detail.

First, the amendment is unworkable in its current terms and would be almost impossible to comply with, even if the following concerns were addressed. The definition of rough sleeping is very broad, and it would, in effect, place the Scottish ministers under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent anyone from sleeping outside, including those who were not experiencing homelessness but were enjoying outdoor pursuits such as wild camping or sleeping in tents on campsites. That perhaps demonstrates how difficult it is to provide a definition of rough sleeping that is comprehensive enough to capture the true nature of rough sleeping without also capturing other outdoor activities.

The Government has already implemented important policy changes to end rough sleeping. The most important measure—

Moving on to group 8, I acknowledge the vital importance of information sharing and co-operation between different bodies in ensuring that the new duties, in particular the ask and act duty, are successful. I welcome the importance that stakeholders and members of the committee have attached to those issues, and, based on feedback, we have been working to ensure, through amendments in my name, that there is clarity in legislation, which will be supported by guidance that will be developed in partnership with stakeholders and relevant bodies.

Amendments 1041 and 1043, in my name, will strengthen the duty on relevant bodies to co-operate on actions to be taken by them to support a person who is threatened with homelessness. That new duty will also require those bodies to consult other bodies as appropriate.

Amendment 1045, in my name, confers a new power on those bodies to share information in connection with their ask and act duties. I believe that my amendment goes further than the information-sharing powers that Jeremy Balfour has proposed. We do not wish to prevent valuable information from being shared or to make those who are seeking assistance share distressing information on multiple occasions with different services. I also invite members to support amendment 1016, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, as that minor technical change is needed in consequence of amendment 1045.

I believe that amendments 1041, 1043 and 1045, together with Mr Balfour’s amendment 1016, address the issues that stakeholders have raised in relation to the need to strengthen the duty of co-operation and the powers to share information. The bill already requires relevant bodies to take appropriate action in relation to a person who is threatened with homelessness and to make an application to a local authority for accommodation or assistance only if they are unable to remove the threat of homelessness themselves. The Scottish Government amendments seek to ensure that the ask and act duty does not justify a default to a duty to defer to local authority housing departments, but can ensure a cultural shift in how relevant bodies work together to prevent homelessness.

Amendment 1017, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, provides a more limited information-sharing power for relevant bodies.

Amendment 1019, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, seeks to place a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with other bodies that provide support. That duty is set out in very broad terms, which could make it difficult for relevant bodies to comply with. The duty to co-operate in our amendments 1041 and 1043 applies only in relation to relevant bodies. I am happy to continue to engage with Mr Balfour if he still has concerns about that issue.

Amendment 1079, in the name of Sarah Boyack, provides for an information-sharing power to be set out in regulations, whereas amendment 1045 sets out the power in the bill. Amendment 1079 does not go as far on information-sharing as the Scottish Government amendment 1045, which places an information-sharing power in the 1987 act, not in regulations. There are rights in the United Kingdom general data protection regulations for data subjects to object to the processing of their data. Following a recent meeting with Ms Boyack, I would welcome further discussions on the principle of data.

Amendment 1020, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, requires relevant bodies to co-operate with a request for assistance from a local authority. Amendments 1041 and 1043 also require relevant bodies, including local authorities, to co-operate, but that duty begins at an earlier stage.

Accordingly, I ask members to support amendments 1041, 1043 and 1045 in my name and the consequential amendment 1016 in Jeremy Balfour’s name. I urge Mr Balfour and Ms Boyack not to move amendments 1017, 1019, 1079 and 1020. If they are moved, I ask members not to support them.

I move amendment 1041.

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.

I am happy to commit to that.

It goes back to my earlier point: I am happy to consult the body in advance if adding it is going to reduce homelessness. If that is the case, we would consider adding the body to the list, subject to the approval of the Parliament. That will be based on the discussions that we have—on the consultation and on what comes back from the sector.

Moving on to amendment 1021, the Scottish Government is not aware of any consultation being undertaken with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the issue. That is an important step to be taken before consideration is given to adding MSPs to the list. Mr Balfour and I have discussed that previously, and I think that I asked Mr Balfour to look into the issue.

I see that Mr Balfour wishes to intervene.