Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Before I pick up on his points, I thank Mr Simpson, the convener and the many others who have passed on kind words. I apologise for the Thursday that I did not attend the committee meeting. It is great to be back here, so thank you very much.

I am aware that this is an area of interest for Mr Simpson. I joined him at a meeting of the cross-party group on housing last year, which we both found very helpful, when we heard from representatives of Edinburgh Student Housing Co-operative on the housing experiences of students.

Addressing housing insecurity and homelessness for students requires universities, local authorities, housing providers and the Government to take a more joined-up approach to provision for students. I am also aware that there is a lack of robust data on student housing needs.

I do not support amendments 1003 to 1005, but I recognise the work that Mr Simpson has carried out with the cross-party group. I would like to engage with him further between stages 2 and 3 to get his views on how local housing strategy guidance could be strengthened. He is aware of the purpose-built student accommodation review that is being undertaken, in which many of the issues that he raised have been discussed.

Section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 obliges a local authority to conduct an assessment of the provision of housing and related services in the area following a requirement made by the Scottish ministers. The assessment must include any matter that is specified in the requirement by the Scottish ministers. It is therefore already open for the Scottish ministers to require a local authority to assess the provision of student housing in its area as part of a local housing strategy assessment. The point that Mr Simpson makes is that the position in that regard is very mixed at the moment, and the issue becomes very relevant in university cities such as Edinburgh.

The expert group that advised us on the new prevention measures recommended that, as part of their local housing strategies, local authorities should carry out an assessment of the needs of people in the area for housing support to retain their accommodation. We have therefore made provision in section 42 of the bill to require local authorities to make an assessment of individual housing support needs and services across all groups, including students, when developing their local housing strategies.

As I said, Mr Simpson will be aware of the review of the purpose-built student accommodation sector, which is looking at demand and data collection. In recent discussions, we agreed to discuss the matter further. I believe that it would be easier to deal with that according to the prevailing circumstances in a particular local authority area—the circumstances in Edinburgh might be different from those in Glasgow or Dundee, for example—rather than making it a requirement for all local authorities in every assessment. Using that approach, a local authority’s housing assessment could be directed to cover student housing only in areas where it is most needed.

I ask Mr Simpson not to press amendment 1003 or to move amendments 1004 and 1005. If he does, I ask members not to support them. I look forward to engaging with him on the important point that he has raised about student accommodation.

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.

I am happy to write to you to try to provide more clarity on that. As I said, there is complexity in that the buildings are all slightly different. We all want the remediation to be concluded, progressed and moved on as soon as possible. I am happy for Alan Johnston to drop you a note on the specific points that he mentioned in his contribution.

I have regular meetings with colleagues on the various states of programmes in the pilot and on any other issues that come up. I will bring in Alan Johnston on the point about day-to-day work.

When the new UK Government came in, one of the key things for me was to ensure that there was a four-Government response, which is really important. Initially, we had a discussion with the UK Government minister to say that we needed to work together more closely. We also had a meeting before the Grenfell inquiry report came out. In addition, I think that an intergovernmental meeting is coming up.

The issue of cladding, and Grenfell in particular, is being discussed at ministerial level. We have all given our reassurance that those discussions will continue, which has been welcomed. Officials are working very closely on the approach.

It has all been very constructive. We can write to the committee when the contract is agreed.