Seòmar agus comataidhean

Accommodation in and of itself is important, but the right type of accommodation is as important. I lodged amendment 1015 because I want to look at the suitability of accommodation for people with some protected characteristics.

I will use the most extreme example. Somebody might be found a flat in Edinburgh but, if they have a wheelchair and there is no lift to the flat, putting them in it would mean that they would be housebound for the whole period. Yes, they would have suitable accommodation, in that they would have a roof over their head and would be dry and warm, but so much of the rest of their life would be restricted.

I am concerned that, because there is so little accommodation in many parts of our cities and rural areas, people are being placed in accommodation that does not fit their needs, whether they have children, are disabled, are older or have other protected characteristics. We need to ensure that we see a house not just as a place where people can be warm and dry—although, clearly, that is very important—but as a place where someone can function and lead as normal a life as possible, given the restrictions on them. I would be interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.

I support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 1050 and 1060 although, depending on what she has to say about them, I might change my mind. I support Roz McCall’s amendment 1073 and look forward to hearing Maggie Chapman’s remarks on amendments 1070 and 1071.

I move amendment 1015.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the minister and his team of colleagues.

I will go through the amendments in the group. As I said in my earlier intervention, I am sympathetic to what Mr O’Kane is trying to do with amendment 1078. However, one of the issues with it, with those of Mr Griffin, and with a lot of the bill is that there are lots of carrots but not too many sticks. If we were to amend the legislation in this way, we would need to look at how it could be better enforced, because the only way open at the moment is full judicial review of a decision, or the lack of a decision by whoever was making it. I wonder whether amendment 1078 could be looked at again to see whether it might have other consequences, and I would make the same comment about Mark Griffin’s amendment 1053.

As for the rest of Mr Griffin’s amendments, I am sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve, but again I have some concerns, particularly about the lack of clarity in the wording with regard to age and how this would work, particularly for 17 and 18-year-olds. It depends on what the member wants to do, but I might be looking for him to bring the amendments back at stage 3 with slightly different wording. If that does not happen and he moves them today, I and my colleague will abstain, simply because the wording needs to be looked at and tightened up.

For the record, there is some concern at Crisis about the homelessness definition and the Government’s ability to change it through regulations. The Scottish Conservatives will support amendment 1047, because its intention is right, but I would like to have further discussions with the minister.

My intervention is similar to that of my colleague Megan Gallacher. I am not sure that I heard you address the issue. Would the amendments mean that, in practice, for a local authority, we would go down to one list? How would local authorities then work with that list in practice?

Depending on where we go this morning, I am unclear on what that actually means. What does that test mean? How would it be applied? One reason why we do not support the amendment is the lack of information around that. What does that mean for the average housing officer in how they deal with people? For that reason, we will not support amendment 1052.

I am very sympathetic, in some ways, to Mr Stewart’s amendments, which I know he has worked on with Crisis and the Scottish Government. However, I am still concerned about some of the wording in some of them. We still need to work a wee bit harder on getting definitions correct and getting things correct.

On this occasion, we will therefore abstain on all Mr Stewart’s amendments in this particular area, in the hope that, whether they are agreed to or not this morning, a wee bit more work can be done between stages 2 and 3, between all parties and with the third sector, to ensure that we end up with something that is not only good for those who are being threatened with homelessness, but workable for those who have to work with the system. I am not sure that we have quite got that balance right within those amendments.

We asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to give evidence, but it has not submitted evidence to us. Obviously, many people go through local authorities. I put this question to Louise and Kyle, although others can come in. In your experience, are local authorities taking digital first too far in relation to older disabled people or older people in general? A lot of services and information are found through local authorities. Do you have any experiences of digital first there?

Good morning, and thank you for coming along. I was interested to read that 49 per cent of pension-age disability payment applications are made online, compared with 91 per cent of Scottish child payment applications. What is the link between pensioner poverty and the digital by default approach? Is that a fairly large issue in Scotland?

That is helpful. I wonder whether I can dig a wee bit deeper. It was interesting to read that 69 per cent of disabled people aged 60 and over will use the internet, compared to 83 per cent of non-disabled people aged 60 and over. Do you think that older people with disabilities are being left behind more than other older people? How do we address that particular group of individuals?

Jillian, in your report, you say that the most affected people are people in poverty, older people and disabled people. Based on your report and your thinking, are there different things that we need to do for disabled older people compared to older people in general?

I have three things to say. First, disabled people make up 20 per cent of the population in Scotland, which is not an insignificant number, and that number is growing, for various reasons.

Secondly, we need to follow the evidence on poverty, employability, the transition from education and all the other key issues that we talk about in the Parliament. On almost every occasion, disabled people have been left behind or find it hardest to access those services.

Finally, I will quote Murdo Fraser, who asked a previous panel:

“Are you telling me that, as it stands, you do not believe that the Scottish Human Rights Commission properly represents the views of disabled or older people?”—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 27 February 2025; c 7.]

The answer to that was, “We do not think that it does.”

To be honest, if the Scottish Human Rights Commission and other bodies were doing their jobs at the moment, perhaps we would not need a disability commissioner. However, the evidence is that, although those bodies are pursuing other very important issues, they are not dealing with disability issues. I do not foresee there being any change in that regard, which means that the 20 per cent of the population who have diverse needs and face diverse situations simply do not have a voice in the Parliament or the Government.

That does not mean that third sector organisations are not doing their jobs. They are doing their jobs very effectively, but there is no coherent voice of the kind that disabled people strongly feel is needed in Scotland.