Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

Amendment 1061 would oblige a relevant body to ask whether a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of abuse, while amendments 1063 and 1064 refer to support services for those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of experiencing abuse. Although I believe that those proposals are already catered for in the bill and in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, I know, having met Katy Clark, that we both want the bill to be as strong as it can be to protect women who have experienced or are experiencing domestic abuse. We can do more in that area. There are some issues with the proposed amendments, though, and I ask the member to work with me before stage 3 on alternative ones.

Amendment 1088, also in the name of Katy Clark, would require Scottish ministers to conduct, within one year of royal assent, a review of emergency temporary housing provided to women fleeing domestic abuse. The amendment reflects a recommendation in the “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” report that the Scottish Government commissioned and whose 27 recommendations the Government accepted in principle.

However, it is important to note that the provision of emergency temporary accommodation, including women’s refuges, is the responsibility of local authorities and their commissioning services. Our overall aim with the duty on social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy is to keep victims of domestic abuse in their own homes and to remove the perpetrator, if that is what the victim wants. The use of emergency temporary accommodation would be a last resort to be used when there are no other housing options available.

The statutory guidance accompanying the duty on social landlords will be crucial in outlining what we expect social landlords’ policies to look like, and the issues that amendment 1088 seeks to address can be addressed in it. The guidance will be developed with the sectors dealing with housing and violence against women and girls, including Scottish Women’s Aid, and I am happy to engage with Katy Clark as the guidance is developed.

Amendment 1022 would amend the definition of “abuse” being added to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 specifically to include controlling, coercive and degrading behaviour, including sexual violence. We believe that the definition in the bill is sufficiently broad to capture all those behaviours. We understand Ms Chapman’s desire to protect those who are experiencing abuse by other family members, and we are sympathetic to her proposal, but our focus in part 5 of the bill is on better supporting tenants who are affected by domestic abuse, in line with the recommendations in “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse”.

Katy Clark’s amendment 1062 is also about ensuring that the definition of “abuse” that relates to her other amendments aligns with what we are already proposing in the bill in relation to the definition of “domestic abuse”. We recognise the need for clarity in the 1987 act, but we have already provided for the definition of “abuse” that is being added to the 1987 act to apply to the whole of part 2 of the act. We have introduced provisions in the bill to update the definition of “domestic abuse” in line with the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, and our current definition of “abuse” is wide enough to capture the behaviours that give rise, or which are likely to give rise, to physical or mental harm, fear, alarm or distress. Again, we are engaging on this with those in the sector, including Scottish Women’s Aid.

Amendment 1023, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is designed to ensure that tenants are directed to legal advice as part of the pre-action requirements for social tenancies for rent arrears that arise from domestic abuse. There are already plans to revise existing statutory guidance for pre-action requirements to reflect the bill’s domestic abuse-related provisions, and we will include the details of organisations that provide legal advice on family law.

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.