Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have some brief comments on some of Tim Eagle’s amendments. If I have got it right, amendments 4 to 8 would increase the threshold for the transfer test, which I would not support. We have got the balance right in relation to that.

Amendment 166 indicates that Mr Eagle believes that any future changes to the thresholds should be conducted by primary legislation and not regulations, which is mainly unheard of in this type of legislation. I would not be supportive of that whatsoever.

Mr Eagle has a further amendment, which I understand means that we can use secondary legislation to increase but not decrease thresholds. I would not be supportive of the policy intent in Mr Eagle’s amendments, because it is quite counterproductive.

I was sympathetic to Mercedes Villalba’s comments about thresholds not going up the way, but in a later grouping I will be proposing reviews, perhaps every five years, by the Scottish Land Commission to make sure that the thresholds across the board are at the right level. We cannot have an independent, fair, robust and transparent review when we have legislation that means that thresholds can go in only one direction. We must be led by the evidence and the lived experience of how the bill works in practice after it becomes an act. For that reason, I cannot support the policy intent of Mercedes Villalba’s amendment, although I am sympathetic to what she is trying to achieve.

That sounds a little bit like more money is needed. Would the quantum be the same? If there was a three-year budget with indicative figures for each year, would that mean that you could overspend in year 1 and then there would be clawback in year 2 or year 3 so that projects would still land financially?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will start with a general question because the LCM shines a light on the continued use of agency agreements, in this case those for the severe disablement allowance and the industrial injuries disablement benefit. Would it be reasonable to ask, whether the agreement to the bill’s provisions that is being sought in the LCM puts more urgency on plans that the Scottish Government has for developing employment injury assistance or does it change the balance between sticking with agency agreements and rolling out our own devolved benefits—standalone, in our own right? Any information that you can give us about the continued use of agency agreements and how long that is likely to last would be very helpful in giving us a context for what we are looking at this morning.

I am sorry to cut across you, but you are making a passionate argument for more flexibility without saying what that flexibility would look like. Could you give us a clear example of flexibility? It was one of your recommendations.

That sounds a little bit like the much greater flexibility that Glasgow and Edinburgh have at the moment. For example, they can direct the cash from central Government into partnership work with housing associations. Do you want to see more of that?

That is helpful. The Government has previously had multiyear budgets for affordable housing. I know that, in Glasgow, that made a big difference to strategic planning for affordable homes. Your point is very well made.

On overcommitting, I know that slippage is a significant issue in construction generally. What happens if local authorities overcommit and then are able to land all their projects? How will those be funded?

Jeremy Balfour’s question was very interesting and made me think about housing allocation policies more generally. I know many families who are homeless and sofa-surfing because they are in work and want to avoid paying for expensive temporary accommodation, storing furniture and all the rest of it. I also know lots of families whose housing needs are fairly significant but are not substantial enough that they are likely to be allocated a property move any time soon. Are we getting the balance right if we are saying that we will allocate a property, whether that is to someone who is in a permanent tenancy but has a significant housing need or is in temporary accommodation seeking a permanent tenancy, only if we can wholly meet their housing needs, but that we will not move them to more suitable accommodation?

Time and time again, I see families in cramped accommodation who need an extra two bedrooms. We can find them an extra one bedroom and the housing association will say that that does not fully meet their housing needs, yet their housing needs would be dramatically improved if they could be moved to more appropriate accommodation. Housing associations always fall back on allocation policies, and homelessness teams have similar allocation procedures. Is it simply a matter of reviewing that and showing a bit of common sense in allocation policies in order to get churn in the system?

Mr Balfour’s question has triggered a bee in my bonnet and I would like to know whether the same holds true for any of the witnesses today. Would they like to see a review of allocation policies in order to get churn in the housing system, so that we could meet some housing needs, even if we cannot meet not all housing needs? Are there no takers?

I will give an example. A family of five is in a small two-bedroom property and a three-bedroom one comes up, but the housing association says that that will not meet the family’s housing needs and that it might be three years before those can be met. Does no one see that as an issue?

Thanks, Tony.

Thanks for talking me down off my rant. [Laughter.]

If you are sitting comfortably for the next 15 minutes, I will begin. Actually, you will be delighted to hear that it is a brief question, convener.

ALACHO’s submission for today said:

“there is a pressing need to ensure that those impacted by homelessness are safe and properly supported whilst they wait for settled accommodation.”

That seems eminently sensible. None of us has a magic wand to make this better right away and people are enduring while they wait for appropriate accommodation. Would Tony Cain like to say how he thinks that that can happen or share any good practice in what does happen?