Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to Katy Clark for raising the issues that her amendments deal with. There are opportunities for us to make much clearer what is and is not covered in the bill, as well as what should and should not be covered.

Scottish Women’s Aid has drawn attention to the importance of widening the definition of domestic violence in the bill, and amendment 1022, which I have worked on with that organisation, seeks to expand the definition to cover coercive control and other aspects of violence. It would ensure that we recognise that domestic violence can cover a very broad range of actions and that abusers can be anyone in the household, not just a partner or ex-partner. For example, young trans people are at a disproportionately high risk of homelessness and can be at risk from controlling or coercive family members, not necessarily a partner. We also know that people might be at risk of homelessness because of honour-based violence, which, again, does not have to be perpetrated by someone’s partner or ex-partner.

Neither of those specific examples, or other examples of abuse and violence that are perpetrated by someone who is not a partner or ex-partner, would be covered under the bill’s current definition, but they would be covered if my amendment 1022 were to be agreed to. The wider the definition, the more we can identify domestic abuse and other forms of violence in our homelessness systems, and the better we can help victims and survivors.

I urge committee members to recognise that violence happens in a range of ways and is perpetrated by a range of people. People can be at risk of violence not only from their partner but from a parent or a child, too. The bill does not currently cover those examples, and I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 1022.

On amendment 1069, on which I have also worked with Scottish Women’s Aid, the working group report that it refers to made a wide range of recommendations, which were accepted by the Scottish Government. I am pleased to see some of them in the bill introduced by my Green colleague Patrick Harvie, and in Scottish Government amendments and those from other colleagues, too.

However, the report was very wide ranging, with some 27 recommendations, and we still have a way to go to ensure that all of them are implemented. For instance, there is more work to be done on housing first strategies for victims and survivors; more on ensuring that homelessness policies are designed and implemented with a gendered lens; and more on improving how homelessness that is due to domestic abuse appears in statistics.

I therefore recommend inserting a simple monitoring process into the bill, whereby we check annually on progress on those recommendations—as has been agreed by the Scottish Government but which is not implemented anywhere in the bill as it currently stands.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Like Mark Griffin, I support all the amendments in this group. I have worked with Crisis on my amendments to improve the bill’s homelessness prevention provisions. Amendment 1092 and the consequential amendment 1093 would create a requirement for the local authority to provide an applicant with information on the advice and assistance that it is providing to assist them and on the outcome that is being sought. That is so that the applicant and anyone who is supporting them know what should be done. That is absolutely central to ensuring that the process is person centred and to ensuring transparency.

It has been clear from both the stage 1 evidence gathering and the general working of the system that applicants are not always aware of what actions are being taken or that they think that things are happening when they are not. Amendment 1092 would create an explicit duty to ensure that applicants are aware of what is going on.

The Scottish Government’s own homelessness prevention review group was clear that it envisaged a transparent, person-centred process, with the applicant’s voice at the heart of discussions around support. My amendments 1092 and 1093, along with other amendments in the group in the name of other MSPs, would move us towards that. I note that the Welsh Government is moving towards a similar system.

Amendment 1094 seeks to ensure that there will be a right to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the assistance that is provided to someone who is threatened with homelessness and, specifically, whether it has fulfilled the intention of removing or minimising the threat of homelessness. Crisis believes that the existing statutory right to review must be expanded to address the support that people are offered to prevent their homelessness. An expanded right to review is an essential accountability tool for individuals who are at risk of homelessness. As well as being supported by Crisis, the proposal in amendment 1094 closely mirrors recommendations from the homelessness prevention review group.

Amendment 1095 seeks to provide for further definition of what relevant bodies are required to do in order to ensure that all relevant bodies and local authorities are subject to duties of equal legal strength in addressing the threat of homelessness. It seeks to ensure that act duties do not simply result in referrals to the local authority or to some other body. A duty to act cannot simply become a duty to refer. Such definition may include what the specified actions are and how they assess responsibilities. Regulations should specify actions for each relevant body. Those details, which have not yet been developed, could be tested through piloting and consultation with relevant bodies before being set out in regulations. There have been on-going discussions with stakeholders about what such pilots could look like and what they could achieve.

Amendment 1095 also seeks to create a means for relevant bodies to be held individually accountable, subject to the act duties in proposed new section 36C of the 1987 act, when they do not fulfil their duties or there is a dispute over the facts or decisions made.

I note again that all the amendments that I have spoken about have been worked up in consultation with Crisis, which has been a close partner of the Scottish Government in tackling homelessness and has exceptional knowledge of the extent to which our homelessness system is working. I acknowledge the minister’s comments about the fact that some of the powers in question already exist, but given that Crisis has been trying to get more clarity and more definition, it is important for us to have such conversations and to at least consider how we can improve the assessments and reviews that are covered in section 41, because we know that not everything is working as it should.

It is a good question. The data that has been captured does not give that breakdown. There is anecdotal information from the support organisations that work with some of the 700 cases about what they look like, but they are not systematically—

Yes.

On your points about amendments 1014 and 1070, you suggest that we need guidance rather than legislation to ensure that specific groups can get the support, housing and provisions that they need. Given that we know that particular groups have been so poorly served by our homelessness prevention and housing services to date, what confidence can the minister give me and Alexander Stewart that guidance will be enough? What kind of guidance are you talking about, minister? Is it just the code of practice, or is it more than that?

I will be very brief, convener.

I am really grateful for the comments that have been made. I hear what the minister has said about amendment 1052 not being enough, and I think that Kevin Stewart’s amendments, which alter the rest of the bill, are really important, but I am going to press my amendment, because I think that we should repeal section 26 of the 1987 act.

I understand the general principle of mainstreaming, but it is clear from the work of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee that mainstreaming is failing particular groups, such as Gypsy Travellers and LGBTQIA+ people, which is why we need targeted strategies that address concerns that would otherwise not get picked up. As I said, some people do not present to statutory or support services because of transphobia, homophobia and other concerns.

I am grateful to colleagues for covering all the issues in this group. It is clear that our housing system and homelessness prevention work must be sensitive to people’s particular situations and needs. We have not always been very good at recognising at-risk groups and factoring their specific risks and needs into our thinking or policies. That is the reason behind my amendments in this group, one of which is along similar lines to Alexander Stewart’s amendment on Gypsy Traveller communities, which I hope members will support.

I turn to amendment 1070, in my name. According to Stonewall, almost one in five LGBTQI+ people have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. That figure rises for more marginalised LGBTQI+ people. For example, for disabled LGBTQI+ people, it is 28 per cent, for trans people, it is 25 per cent, and for LGBTQI+ people with lower incomes, it is below 25 per cent. Crisis highlights that 77 per cent of young LGBTQI+ people gave

“family rejection, abuse or being asked to leave home”

as a cause of their homelessness.

Those figures are bad enough, but they do not show the full picture. The Albert Kennedy Trust’s research highlights that the number of LGBTQI+ homeless young people is likely to be an underrepresentation. Only a third of such young people seek support from their local authorities. Only 45 per cent seek support from community organisations when they are homeless. Many choose instead to seek support from friends or to take other steps that do not involve formally engaging with services. Because we do not properly collect data on the various categories of people in our homelessness system, we still do not know the true scale of the problem. That is the subject of my amendment 1071.

LGBTQI+ people face many of the same barriers to housing as other vulnerable and marginalised groups, yet some challenges, such as homophobic and transphobic families asking their family members to leave, are unique to them. That is why we need a statutory homelessness strategy for that group and community, and I hope that committee members will support the amendment. I have worked with the Equality Network on the amendment and on related amendments, and I would like to record my thanks to the network for its efforts in getting us to this point.

Specifically on amendment 1071, the data that we have from LGBT+ organisations make clear that LGBTQI+ people are much more likely to be made homeless, to struggle to stay in housing and to have difficulty finding a new home. However, as I said, we do not know the true extent of the problem because we do not properly collect disaggregated data in the homelessness system. If we do not have that data, we are fighting homelessness with one arm tied behind our back.

I know that members round the table will be familiar with the call for more and better data, both from their work on this committee and from other committee and parliamentary work. I hope, therefore, that the committee will support this modest but practical measure so that we can ensure that all LGBTQI+ people can find a place that they can call home.

I begin by thanking the committee and the legislation team for their work in getting us to this point today. I am also grateful to the minister for the discussions that we have had on some of these issues, although I am sure that there will be more discussions to come.

Amendment 1052 addresses a long-standing injustice in our homelessness system—that is, the assessment of people as intentionally homeless. Although some actions might seem intentional, they often stem from trauma, violence and disadvantage, and, looked at from that point of view, they are absolutely not about choosing to become homeless. Rather, such actions could be taken to escape abuse, to get away from dangerous or compromising situations or to keep people safe.

Crisis Skylight in the Lothians has not worked with anyone assessed as intentionally homeless who has not had underlying support needs. Too many homelessness support services use up resources challenging intentionality decisions, when their time and expertise could be better spent ensuring that the people in question have a warm, safe home.

Crisis, with whom I have worked on amendment 1052, has also made it clear that the intentionality test cannot be reformed to make it fairer. Instead, it must be abolished and replaced with a much tighter concept of deliberate manipulation of the homelessness system.

If that is not persuasive enough, let us think about what such an approach would look like in our national health service. If someone turned up to a hospital with an injury, our NHS would not provide lesser or no treatment, because the person had deliberately injured themselves. We would treat their injury, and we would treat them with compassion and dignity. That is how our health service works, and it is how our homelessness services should work, too.

We have been moving in that direction for a long time. We have already removed the requirement for local authorities to assess intentionality, as a result of which we are now, at the last count in 2023-24, down to about 700 intentional decisions a year.

Let us finish the job and abolish this cruel assessment, not just tweak around its edges. Let us have a homelessness system that responds first with compassion and support, not judgment.

I move amendment 1052.

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate on the group. I am grateful to Kevin Stewart for talking about the expert homelessness and rough sleeping action group, because that has set in motion a range of activities that have changed the system for the better for so many people, which is really positive.

Jeremy Balfour asked what deliberate manipulation of the homelessness system means. I ask him to read subsections (2), (3) and (4) of amendment 1052, because they clearly outline that ministers will develop that meaning.

In response to the minister’s point about consultation with COSLA, I do not think that it is beyond the wit of ministers to consult while they are developing regulations—we expect that anyway. Requiring that to be in the bill might say something about intention. There is something quite important here. In his remarks, the minister said that he wanted to make things as straightforward as possible for people. Abolishing section 26 of the 1987 act makes that straightforward. It removes intentionality completely. There is no dubiety, there are no question marks and no caveats for housing officers to have to deal with.