Seòmar agus comataidhean

I briefly discussed that with Mr Stewart and said that I was happy to continue to engage with him on that point.

Amendment 1090, in the name of Mark Griffin, proposes to create a duty on the Scottish ministers to set out a statement of principles that would apply to the ask and act duties. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, but there are very clear principles in the bill in relation to homelessness prevention. First, relevant bodies must take appropriate action to remove and minimise the threat of homelessness, and, secondly, that action must be taken when a body is informed or has reason to believe that a person might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. That makes it clear that the prevention of homelessness is everybody’s business and that those who are threatened with homelessness should get help earlier.

I am concerned that amendment 1090 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers that they cannot guarantee compliance with. Regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure are not within the gift of the Scottish ministers—they are at the discretion of the Parliament. I note that some of the principles that are listed in the amendment paraphrase duties that are already placed on relevant bodies, such as those that state that relevant bodies must work together. A statement of principles could be set out in guidance under proposed new section 36D of the 1987 act, and guiding principles are clearly more suited to guidance than subordinate legislation.

I ask members to support my amendments 1036, 1040, 1042 and 1044, and I urge Mr Griffin not to press amendment 1057 or to move his other amendments in the group, and Ms Chapman, Mr Balfour and Mr Stewart not to move their amendments. If those amendments are moved, I ask members not to support them.

I begin my remarks by making it clear that the Scottish Government has listened to stakeholders and members of the committee at stage 1 on the need to bring more clarity to the operation of the new duties and, in particular, the ask and act duty.

We have heard calls for more detail to be included in regulations and about the importance of guidance, and we will work closely with stakeholders and members of the committee to ensure that the content of both is fit for purpose.

I recognise why there is concern that, if prevention interventions are not successful, a person should be considered homeless and action should be taken. Amendment 1057 looks to amend section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 act so that, where steps that have been taken under proposed new subsection 2ZA to secure continuing or alternative accommodation do not provide the individual with accommodation after a prescribed period, the individual is automatically classed as homeless. A fixed timescale would have to be set by Scottish ministers via regulations, after which point every individual who is threatened with homelessness would be automatically classed as homeless.

However, that is already provided for in current legislation. There is no need for further application to be made if an individual becomes homeless having previously been threatened with homelessness. There is no way to provide one set period of time after which every individual who is threatened with homelessness should be treated as homeless; each case turns on its individual circumstances. However, I am happy to engage further with Mr Griffin if he continues to have concerns on that issue.

Local authorities need to act to ensure that accommodation remains available as part of their duty to prevent homelessness; if circumstances change in that regard, a homelessness assessment should be made. There is no need for an individual who is threatened with homelessness and has applied for homelessness assistance to make a further application for homelessness assistance once they become homeless.

Amendment 1036, in my name, is a minor technical change to proposed new section 32(2C) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, to clarify the duties of a legal authority under section 32.

Amendments 1092 and 1093 seek to ensure that a person who is threatened with homelessness is informed about the advice and assistance to be provided under section 32 of the 1987 act. I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s intention behind the amendments, but they are unnecessary because, under proposed new section 32(2C) of the 1987 act, which the bill will insert, Scottish ministers will have the power to prescribe the types of advice and assistance that must be provided by the local authority and, under section 37 of the 1987 act, they have the power to produce guidance for local authorities. The new powers that my amendments 1042 and 1044 will confer may be used to require local authorities and other relevant bodies to take additional action in relation to those matters. Amendments 1092 and 1093 would create a confusing regulatory landscape alongside those powers, so I urge Ms Chapman not to move those amendments.

We have heard from stakeholders of their concerns that the right to review decisions by local authorities in relation to a person who is threatened with homelessness is not clear enough and needs to be extended to cover the new ask and act duties. We have taken action through amendment 1040 to clarify and extend that important right. We will work with the relevant bodies, through the provision of guidance, to ensure that the right to review works as intended.

More broadly, we have listened to stakeholders such as Crisis and have considered the recommendations of the committee’s stage 1 report that ask us to provide more detail in legislation about the operation of the ask and act duty.

Amendment 1094, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to expand the right to review, which I have addressed through my amendment 1040. Amendment 1094 would duplicate what amendment 1040 does, so I ask Ms Chapman not to move it.

My amendments 1042 and 1044 will confer regulation-making powers to specify additional action to be taken by relevant bodies in relation to any person who is threatened with homelessness, including any action to be taken in relation to the assessment process and the provision of information. That will be an important and flexible way to achieve the level of detail that we have been asked to provide, through regulations that are developed in consultation with stakeholders.

Therefore, amendment 1095, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is not necessary. My amendments 1042 and 1044 will create a power for ministers to specify additional action that relevant bodies may take. That power is clarified in amendment 1044. All the issues that amendment 1095 attempts to address can be addressed by the powers that will be created by amendments 1042 and 1044.

Amendment 1018, in the name of Mr Balfour, seeks to do something similar to my amendments 1042 and 1044 but creates the risk of narrowing the duties that a relevant body must fulfil. The regulation-making power to be created by my amendments will enable Scottish ministers to specify additional action that a relevant body must take, over and above their general duty to take such action as they consider to be appropriate. Amendment 1018 also refers to a potential appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, but no such appeal rights exist at present. The right to review is considered sufficient in that regard, and I add that the right to review was a key issue for Crisis during our engagement on potential amendments.

Amendment 1010, in the name of Mr Stewart, seeks to create a right to review the actions of every relevant body under the ask and act duties. My amendment 1040 simply seeks to extend an existing right to review the decisions of a local authority. Mr Stewart’s amendment would require new review processes to be created by the relevant bodies, which would require further consultation with them. Were such a right to be considered necessary, the power to prescribe additional actions that a relevant body must take would enable that to be introduced via regulations.

I just have another point to make, and then I will take the intervention. Amendment 1071, in the name of Ms Chapman, creates a number of data protection challenges. Under UK data protection law, personal data should be collected for a specific purpose and the data that is collected should be the minimum necessary to achieve that purpose. There is no stated purpose for the collection of that data, and there is no function for which public bodies are to use the data. European convention on human rights article 8 considerations would also require the intrusion into the private lives of individuals to be proportionate.

I am therefore not satisfied that amendment 1071 is necessary, and I am concerned that it might give rise to a number of legal risks.

It is the code of practice, but it is also more than that. On amendment 1070, there is the possibility of challenges on the grounds of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and article 14 of the ECHR. Again, I am happy to discuss that point with Ms Chapman. I am also happy to discuss it with Alexander Stewart, because the updated guidance is an important part of the matter; it does not take a piecemeal approach, which we want to avoid.

I come back to the amendment that Ms Chapman mentioned. Amendment 1073, in the name of Ms McCall, would add care-experienced people to the reasonable preference categories for social housing allocations. Care leavers already have reasonable preference if they are homeless or threatened with homelessness and have unmet housing needs.

The Scottish Government’s practice guide on social housing allocations sets out that landlords will want to consider awarding priority to looked-after children. I consider that the guidance is the best way for those issues to be addressed, but I am happy to work with Roz McCall and Pam Duncan-Glancy on the issue of care leavers before stage 3, so that we can make any suggested improvements to the guidance. Obviously, they will have the ability to push the issue at stage 3 if they want to do so, but I am happy to offer that discussion.

The Scottish Government is committed to keeping the Promise to care-experienced young people. We recognise that care leavers encounter challenges with their housing situations, and we will work with our partners, including local authorities, on the best approach to reduce those challenges.

The duty of a local authority is to provide accommodation and there is also an existing housing support duty for those who are assessed as homeless or who are threatened with homelessness. New duties give the opportunity to ensure that we get the right support to people more quickly. However, I recognise Mr Griffin’s point about wraparound care, and I am happy to discuss that point with him.

As I touched on, section 41(4) of the bill amends section 32 of the 1987 act. We can discuss the detail of that. We briefly spoke yesterday and said that we would meet to discuss the issue further. We have offered to meet you and Roz McCall to discuss the principle of whether it is best to do that through legislation or through guidance.

As I said, work is already under way in that regard between the Scottish Government, the Promise Scotland and partners. I want to make sure that the amendments that have been lodged are compatible with the discussions that are going on, hence, Ms Don-Innes and I would probably be able to meet Roz McCall and Pam Duncan-Glancy to discuss that in a more strategic manner. I am happy to take that forward. The offer is there to meet before we get to stage 3. Members will obviously be entitled at that stage to press their amendments, but I am asking them not to press at this stage and to take part in discussions with me and Ms Don-Innes on the points that have been raised.

The Scottish Government is committed to keeping the Promise to care-experienced young people. We recognise the current housing challenges that care leavers encounter, and we will work with our partners, including local authorities, on the best way to reduce those challenges.

That includes plans to refresh guidance for local authorities and corporate parents on supporting young people who are leaving care, to improve the information and financial support that is available and to continue engagement with the Department for Work and Pensions on how young people who are leaving care access its services in Scotland.

Accordingly, I urge members not to press or move any amendments in the group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I ask members of the committee not to support them.

On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s question, under section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, local authorities are required to

“safeguard and promote the welfare of children ... in need ... by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the children’s needs.”

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was incorporated into Scots law in December 2024. Under section 6 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, public authorities, including local authorities, have a duty to respect the requirements of the convention. That means that they must consider the best interests of children in all decisions that affect them, and ensure that children’s views are heard and taken into account.

I come back to the point that Mr Doris made about the overall strategy. I do not believe that amendments at this stage are the best way to progress. It is about strengthening guidance and I will talk more later about what the approach would be.

What Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments cover is already catered for in the bill, with the power of Scottish ministers to prescribe the types of advice and assistance that must be provided to those who are threatened with homelessness.

Roz McCall made similar points about care leavers. Following the publication of the Care Inspectorate’s thematic review and analysis of our consultation on the current and potential package of support for younger people who are leaving care, work is under way across the Scottish Government and with our partners. We must consult those who are directly impacted to ensure that a response to the changes that have been called for enables young people to access the support that they need to thrive in young adulthood.

In relation to Mr Griffin’s amendment 1072, I recognise that housing first is a valuable policy intervention for those with more complex needs, but it is not defined in legislation.

Is it on this point?