Seòmar agus comataidhean

The amendments in this group seek to make it clear that the interests of children must be taken into account when local authorities exercise functions in relation to the provision of social housing, and when relevant bodies exercise functions in relation to

“people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness”.

Although I agree with the purpose behind the amendments, I cannot support them as they would not add to existing statutory duties that have been imposed on the bodies in question. I will go into detail on that a little later.

Statistics highlight both the need and the potential for homelessness prevention duties to mitigate the risk of homelessness for children and young people. Ahead of stage 2, I have held many meetings, some of them as recently as last night. However, I have not had a chance to engage with Mr O’Kane or Mr Griffin on that particular point, to find out more about their amendments.

In my role, I do not engage directly with children, but I have engaged with organisations that work with and advocate for children and young people. Earlier this month, I was at the launch of Shelter Scotland’s new report. Yesterday, as Mr Griffin mentioned, members held a debate on children’s experiences of temporary accommodation; the report reveals the impact of long periods in such accommodation, and it gave me particular insight into those experiences and the importance of children having settled homes.

I cannot support amendment 1078, in the name of Paul O’Kane. The provision of social housing is a function of local authorities and housing associations, and it is for each local authority to set out its strategies, priorities and plans for the delivery of housing in its area. There is no statutory duty on local authorities or registered social landlords to provide more housing. The Scottish Government’s role is to support local social landlords in providing affordable accommodation in accordance with set standards and to ensure that landlords’ performance is monitored through the Scottish Housing Regulator. Other tools include the strategic housing investment plan—or SHIP—which was mentioned earlier, and the local housing strategy. I would be happy to engage further with Mr O’Kane between stages 2 and 3, and I extend that offer to him.

I agree with Mark Griffin that every child deserves a safe and warm place to call home—that is a fundamental human right—but I cannot support amendments 1053 to 1056 and 1059 and the other amendments in Mr Griffin’s name. However, that is only because the substance of his amendments is already provided for in statute. I offer to meet Mr Griffin to discuss the issue further, including how we might enforce those aspects.

I think that I agreed with Mr Griffin on the principle of where he was going with the amendments. However, when it comes to enforcement, statutory provision is already in place. Nevertheless, I am happy to engage with Mr Griffin and also Ms Duncan-Glancy between stages 2 and 3 to see what we can do on that particular point.

I will come on to that in the next part of my speech.

I come back to my point about reasonable preference. There are broader discussions on-going at the moment. Part of the reason to have a discussion with you and Ms Duncan-Glancy is to ensure that there is compatibility with what we are doing with the Promise legislation. We tried to speak to you before today’s evidence session, but I am happy to discuss the issue further. I include the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise, Ms Don-Innes, in that regard, to ensure that anything that we introduce is compatible with what she is doing on the issue.

I will bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy and then come to you, if that is okay.

I am happy to meet both members on that point.

I whole-heartedly reassure Mr Griffin on that point.

The existing definitions allow local authorities to take a person-centred approach to assessments. The intention behind the power to modify them is not to change that approach; it is to provide clarity on certain circumstances in which people might not currently be considered to be homeless or to be threatened with homelessness.

The existing homelessness legislation is broad enough to allow a flexible and person-centred approach to defining whether someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness, but we have listened to stakeholders who are concerned that there are scenarios in which people who require support might slip through the net. Including specific definitions of circumstances in regulations, as proposed by the Scottish Government, will better ensure that nobody is prevented from getting the support that they need, while keeping both definitions together in section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

I ask Alexander Stewart not to move amendment 1013, which would remove some of the changes made by the bill to section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to provide a broader definition of “abuse”. Amendment 1013 would retain some of the existing definition in section 24 of the 1987 act, despite a new, broader definition of “abuse” being provided in section 43(5) of the bill. Amendment 1013 would therefore create confusion as to which meaning of “abuse” applied for the purposes of the 1987 act.

I ask members to support my amendment 1047, and I ask Alexander Stewart not to press amendment 1008 or to move amendments 1009 and 1013. If he does so, I ask members not to support them. I have been engaging with Alexander Stewart on the matter, and I am happy to continue to do so.

In response to Mr Balfour’s point, I make the point that the key thing is flexibility. I cannot speak for future Governments, but we extensively consulted Crisis on the matter. The approach of using regulations will give us more flexibility to deal with issues that come up. That is one of the key reasons why we want to be able to make changes through regulations.

We are still in consultation with local authorities at the moment. I know from my own local government experience that local authorities assess that in different ways. Again, we will discuss the point with COSLA, but different local authorities look at intentionality in different ways.

As I have said, we think that the statutes are in place in that respect. Having seen the Shelter Scotland report on temporary accommodation, we need to ensure that the duties are enforced. I am happy to come back to the committee on that point and to engage with members on it before stage 3.