Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Official Report 624KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Property Factors (Code of Conduct) (Scotland)Order 2021 [Draft]

Under agenda item 2, the committee will take evidence on a draft order. I welcome Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, and his Scottish Government officials. They are Mandy Callaghan, who is head of the private housing services unit, and Stephen Leetion, who is a senior policy officer in property factoring.

The instrument is laid under affirmative procedure, which means Parliament must approve it before the provision can come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider the motion to approve the instrument. I remind everyone that the Scottish Government officials can speak under this item but not in the debate that follows.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you very much, convener, and—[Inaudible.]—but we will do the best that we can.

Thank you for the opportunity to join the committee today as part of your consideration of the draft order to bring into force a revised code of conduct for property factors, which was provided for under the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011.

The code is one of three key elements in the property factor regulatory regime, alongside the register and the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. It plays the important role of setting minimum standards of practice for registered property factors and providing protections for home owners who use their services.

I am grateful to those home owners, property factors and other stakeholders who have taken the time to respond to consultations and who have engaged positively with my officials to provide their views on the changes that we propose to make to the code. The process has been iterative, and we have been able to adjust proposals in order to make them more workable. Those revisions bring the code up to date and strengthen it in four key areas,

First, the changes help home owners to understand what to expect and whether the property factor has met its obligations. That includes clarification on the various situations of where, when and how home owners should expect to be provided with a copy of the written statement of services and other documentation.

Secondly, they highlight that home owners have a choice in who they appoint and that they can change factor. That is done by requiring a property factor to provide clear information to home owners on how they can end their factoring arrangement and the arrangements that it will make to co-operate with another property factor for smooth transition.

Thirdly, the revisions will improve transparency—for example, by taking a broader approach to the requirement to declare financial interests and requiring the issue of an annual insurance statement.

Finally, they will improve consistency in how the code is applied—for example, by including standards of practice and a glossary of terms.

Property factors have generally received the code positively and see the potential for reducing the number of complaints that they receive. Implementation provides an opportunity for property factors to review their current processes, procedures and documents, which will drive improvement. The order that the committee is considering proposes that the revised code comes into force on 16 August 2021. We have engaged with property factors on the timing. Although businesses are understandably busy, that is sufficient time to allow them to assess and implement the changes.

I encourage homeowners to be proactive in maintaining the common parts of their property. Where they choose to engage a property factor, it is important that they know what they should reasonably expect and how to hold their factor to account.

Thank you, minister. I would be grateful if members who have a question would type R in the chat box.

Has analysis has been done of the failures of the code—with regard to homeowners’ feeling that they are not getting a proper service—which it is hoped that these changes will address? The big issues in my mailbag are common repairs, which the minister has mentioned already, and how cladding problems are remedied. Will these changes help homeowners to get the action that they need on those issues?

I hope that the changes will make things much easier for homeowners. As a Parliament, we still have work to do with regard to communal repairs, and I am grateful to the cross-party working group on tenement maintenance. Work is also going on with the Law Commission on how we move forward. All of that should make the process much more transparent.

Members will be aware of high-profile cases, which have been mentioned in Parliament, of property factors that have failed in their duties. Again, these changes would make the code more helpful to residents in holding their factors to account. Beyond that, as the Government, we will continue to look at what more is required, if that in itself is not enough. Rather than going into individual cases, I will say that Police Scotland is involved in work to deal with factors that are not dealing with this as they should. As the committee is aware, we have removed factors from the register recently.

Minister, I welcome the process, because, as you indicated, it will tighten up the process and support homeowners. It is robust enough to remove some of the anomalies that we seem to have had in the past, to ensure that factors fulfil their obligations and that they support and assist tenants in that process. If some factors are not up to standard, that will be highlighted in the process. My concern is whether the timescales are appropriate. You mentioned 16 August. Given the pandemic and everything that we are having to deal with, do you have any indication that that is a suitable timescale for completing everything?

I think that 16 August is a suitable timescale, but, as always, we will monitor matters as we progress. Many of these changes should be simple to implement, to provide that greater degree of transparency for residents. None of what is proposed is overly onerous, but it provides a better service for residents and lays out the roles and responsibilities of all parties.

We now have 390 registered property factors and I expect all of them to comply with the changes by 16 August.

We do not have a history of using property factors in Edinburgh. The City of Edinburgh Council used statutory notices, and we know the problems that arose from that. Will the changes encourage property owners in Edinburgh to employ factors? The issues that Sarah Boyack raised are similar to issues in my constituency.

I hope that more folk will be encouraged to use property factors. A cross-party group has been looking at communal repairs and other matters and has said that we must improve the system. We will look at all of that.

Folk must be willing to sign up to property factors, but must also trust the factors they sign up to. They must know what factoring means and what services will be provided. The revisions to the code help to spell out what the expectation should be, which will be helpful in encouraging folk to decide whether it would be right for them to have a factor dealing with their building.

Gordon MacDonald and others should tell anyone who is not covered to look at the services that the code will provide and to consider whether signing up to a factor would be beneficial. I hope that we can do more to improve issues such as communal repairs.

I will avoid Mr MacDonald’s reference to what happened in Edinburgh. If we start on that, we might be here all day.

I would prefer not to be. We will move on.

I was the minister responsible for bringing in the code and this is a sensible set of changes. My concern is that most issues in my constituency came about when people did not want a property factor but bought a house and found out that they were subject to a factor. Does the code address that, or is it addressed elsewhere?

That is not addressed by the code. However, the code makes it far easier to change factors. Mr Brown may have experienced the sort of issues that I have: folk were happy to have a factor but might not want the one that had been imposed by the developer. The code makes changing property factor far easier and more transparent. That is important.

I have had instances in my constituency of folk not getting the level of service that they expected and having difficulty getting information so that they could change to a factor that they believed would provide better service. That should now all be ironed out so that people can make those choices. That is important.

I realise that some folk out there do not want property factors, but this is the right way to go in order to deal with some of the difficulties that many of us have faced in our constituencies in relation to communal repairs. Even if we forget the code and other aspects, I hope that we will do much better at resolving difficulties that have been around for some time.

Item 3 is formal consideration of motion S5M-23919, which we have just taken evidence on.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the Property Factors (Code of Conduct) (Scotland) Order 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Kevin Stewart]

Motion agreed to.

The committee will report on the instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me to approve a draft report for publication. I thank the minister and his officials for taking part.

I suspend the meeting briefly for a changeover of witnesses.

09:16 Meeting suspended.  

09:18 On resuming—  

---

Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) (Modification and Revocation) (Coronavirus) Order 2021 (SSI 2021/10)

Under agenda item 4, the committee will take evidence from the minister on the order. Andy Wightman has lodged a motion to annul this negative instrument, which will be considered under item 5. Item 4 provides an opportunity to take evidence from the minister and his officials before the formal debate.

I welcome back Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning. With him from the Scottish Government’s homelessness and housing-related social security unit are Marion Gibbs, team leader, and Myra Quinn, policy officer.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to outline the work that led to the laying of the order. It is clear from the First Minister’s daily updates that the Covid-19 pandemic is far from over. A variant strain of the virus has recently moved quickly through Scotland and caused a sharp rise in cases, which has considerably increased the threat to public health.

Lockdowns in response to the pandemic have had a significant impact on the availability of temporary and settled accommodation. Restrictions on local authorities and registered social landlords have resulted in a slower turnover of void properties and fewer allocations, which are not back to normal levels.

With that in mind, I agreed to further extend the temporary coronavirus exemptions in the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014. Members will see from the letter of 22 January from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the committee that the decision was reached with the full support of local authorities, which have worked tirelessly since last March to keep people safe and supported and to provide them with somewhere warm to live in this public health crisis.

Since the 2014 order was extended to all homeless households in May, we have worked in partnership with local authorities. Their intelligence, alongside data that has been collated by the Scottish Housing Regulator, has shown that although voids are now being turned over and allocations to homeless households are being prioritised, the impact of the additional pressures on the system continues to be felt. The result is that some councils would not have been in a position to cease using emergency provision in hotels and bed and breakfasts by January. That includes councils that did not use bed and breakfasts before the pandemic.

The decision to extend the exceptions until 30 June 2021 was made to take account of the enormous impact that we all face and of the impact that the on-going pandemic is having on the housing system and on councils. The extension will keep people safe from the pandemic and keep people off the streets, so that we know where they are. It will allow wider support to be provided, which includes setting up pathways to settled accommodation.

I make it absolutely clear that I am committed to reducing the number of people who stay in all forms of temporary accommodation, which we are doing through rapid rehousing and through improving housing quality. That is why I extended the order’s scope in May 2020 and created legislation to respond to the pandemic. I made it clear that, when it was possible, we would not just return to our previous homelessness system.

Guidance on the order was published on 31 January 2021 to help local authorities to set parameters and ensure that the correct structure to aid recovery is in place. Local authorities will build on their rapid rehousing transition plans and exit strategies, which are part of the framework to deliver homelessness services and ensure that no homeless group is disadvantaged as a result.

I hope that the committee will recognise the efforts that are being made and will, accordingly, not vote to annul the instrument.

We know that COSLA backs the extension, but what about front-line organisations that work with homeless people? Do they say that people are happy to remain in temporary accommodation? Do people feel safe or are they concerned about their accommodation? What do organisations say about what is needed to support people at this time?

As the committee is well aware, I have regular meetings with front-line organisations, because I want to know exactly what is going on out there. I met a number of those organisations last week to discuss all the issues that they are dealing with at the moment.

I will give you an example from Glasgow—[Inaudible.]—the front line and the voices of those folks with lived experience who are dealing with all of this. Examples were given to me of folk in Glasgow being moved on from hotels and bed and breakfasts to mainstream housing when everything was not in place in that mainstream housing. Folk were telling the people on the front line that they would rather have stayed in the bed and breakfasts and hotels until every aspect was sorted.

We must also understand that, for many of the most vulnerable folk, support is being provided in hotels by various agencies, and that support will not necessarily be available in mainstream housing. Although we are allocating some properties with that support under the housing first approach, we are not getting as much of that through as I would like.

In all of this, we have to listen to the folk on the front line and the folk with lived experience about what is going on for them. When folk say to me that a hotel might have been better for them than mainstream accommodation that was not quite ready for them, I have to listen to that.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests about my former employment with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

Minister, I found it useful to see the Scottish Government’s feedback on the issue and the reasons why you want the committee to support the order. I also found the submission from the local authorities very useful, and I want to ask a couple of questions about that.

More homeless households are being given lets—the number has gone up from 308 to 960. There has also been an increase in homeless households being given temporary accommodation—that number went up to 3,195 over the six-month period of the survey analysis. However, the analysis says that there are now more than 14,000 households in temporary accommodation in Scotland. Do we have a breakdown of that by local authority? There has been quite a significant increase in the past few months. Do we have any analysis of the capacity of properties, given that it looks as if there is a gap, with 14,000 households needing permanent accommodation? That appears to be a massive issue to be addressed.

My second question is about the prevention of homelessness. I have constituents who are homeless and others who are worried about becoming homeless because they are living in inappropriate private rented accommodation. What work is being done to help local authorities and homelessness charities to support people to get the right kind of housing and prevent them from becoming homeless? We know that, once someone is homeless, it impacts on their health and resilience. I cannot imagine what it is like during a pandemic.

Finally, Shelter has given us a useful briefing in which it asks for the Government to set up a national temporary accommodation task force. We have received useful information from local authorities, but it would be good to hear how that would tie together with the third sector organisations that are supporting our vulnerable constituents.

09:30  

There were a huge number of questions there, but I would expect nothing less from Ms Boyack. I will bring in Marion Gibbs to describe some of the detail of what we are doing.

During the pandemic, there has been a rise in the number of households that have required temporary accommodation. The number is beginning to drop again, but we need to keep a close eye on that. Sarah Boyack asked whether we are gathering data from individual local authorities, and the answer is yes. We get a weekly report on what is going on out there. I have to be honest and say that, at points, some local authorities have not managed to report because they have been dealing with cases. However, members can be assured that I look carefully at that. Marion Gibbs might want to say more about it.

Sarah Boyack is right to point out that prevention is immensely important. The work of folk on the front line and the actions of housing hubs are so important in getting this right for people. At various points during the pandemic, there has been much better multi-agency working than we have had before in order to get things right for people and protect them.

We recognise that, as we come out of the pandemic, local authorities will need to adapt. They must be given time to adapt, and we have provided resource to help with that. We have put in an additional £5 million for rapid rehousing transition plans, recognising that things have changed and that some of the things that local authorities are doing will need to be refined in order to get it right for people. A combination of things will be required: we will need to continue to look at the data to ensure that the numbers are going down, to provide local authorities with a resource to enable them to move to rapid rehousing transition, and to monitor all of that as we go along.

We are talking about the unsuitable accommodation order, but I have been keeping a close eye on the failure-to-accommodate numbers, which are just as important, if not more so. Members will remember that the numbers in Glasgow were high prior to the pandemic—I was in constant communication with Glasgow City Council about that. However, due to the flexibilities to enable us to get it right for people, in the most recent statistics that I saw, Glasgow City Council had accommodated everyone. There was no failure to accommodate at all, which is immense. I send plaudits to the folk in Glasgow for achieving that, because it is a big shift from where they were previously.

If you do not mind, convener, I will bring in Marion Gibbs on the data collection aspects and anything else that she wants to add.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Our data collection is comprehensive. I am sure that Sarah Boyack has seen the publications, but we can extract and cross-reference data so, if there are any particular areas that she wants to examine, she can get in contact with us through the minister at any time and we will get some information to her.

I back up what the minister said about the increase in temporary accommodation. It is interesting that applications did not increase during the early part of the pandemic, but a lot of people required to be provided with temporary accommodation because no alternative was available to them. For example, they might have stayed with family or friends, but they could not do that because of the way that lockdown happened. That is why we had a natural increase in temporary accommodation during that time, which does not correlate with the number of applications coming in. That is an important thing to consider in relation to people being helped.

On the point about failure to accommodate, Glasgow City Council was the main local authority that was unable to or did not provide temporary accommodation, but it has made a huge jump. From October, it has had no failures to provide temporary accommodation, which is really important.

With regard to information on the ground, our five housing options hubs throughout Scotland, of which all local authorities are members, had different frequencies of meeting before the pandemic. Because of the pandemic, we suggested that they meet more frequently, and they all took that up, so they are meeting fortnightly. That is an immense source for us to get information out to all local authorities very quickly, and for local authorities to tell us what is happening in their patches. Some local authorities have been doing innovative things such as working with universities to get temporary accommodation in order to cope with the increase. That is really important, as is having different models.

An important thing to remember about the housing options hubs is that they are all about sharing experiences and learning from one other. They mean that we have a really good network of people in local authorities, who were all struggling with the main challenges that were coming to them and were having to cope in a completely different landscape. They have been able to share their experiences, learn from one other and respond innovatively at that point, which is really good.

The minister mentioned the rapid rehousing transition plans. Local authorities tell us that, if they had not had the transition plans, which were put to us in December 2018 and therefore had a full year of implementation, they would not be where they are now in relation to recovery. The figures for people in temporary accommodation might look high, but it is not because local authorities are not meeting their duties; the figures show the opposite of that. Local authorities are meeting their duties and ensuring that people are supported, safe and secure during this period.

I think that I have covered most of the points.

I think that you have. Minister, do you want to come back in?

I think that we have covered almost all the bases. If we missed anything, we are happy to come back to the committee on it.

Sarah, are you happy with that?

Yes. I also asked about the proposed national temporary accommodation task force, but I will come back to that later if the minister has not said anything about it.

Good morning, minister. It has been eight or nine months since the original order came into force in May 2020, and we are being invited to extend that again today. Will the minister explain succinctly why homeless households should pay the price for the failure to end the use of unsuitable temporary accommodation?

I remind the committee that we brought in the change, early, in May; we were not going to do that until the tail end of this parliamentary session. However, as is right, I wanted to make sure that, as we moved out of the pandemic, that new structure would become the norm, and that is extremely important. When we laid all that in May, I hoped then that—[Inaudible.]—would not have been necessary, because I hoped, as others did, that we would be over the worst of the pandemic period by this time. However, that is not the case, and we have to react to what is going on out there. Practical challenges have arisen in all areas as a result of Covid-19, and that decision to extend the legislation is a direct and continuing response to those challenges.

The Government’s priority and the priority of folks in local authorities and on the front line is to ensure that people are safe, and to respond as best we can to the various health, social and economic harms that arise. That is why, throughout all this, I have spoken continuously to people on the front line and been involved in the housing options hubs meetings to hear at first hand what folk are saying and what is possible and what is not. We are not out of the woods yet, so we should still allow that flexibility.

I reiterate the point that I made to the convener earlier: we might shift folk on, but that might not be right for them at that particular moment in time, because not everything is necessarily in place. I have to take cognisance of what folks are saying and what those on the front line are saying. That is why I am asking for the extension, which is backed by local authorities and folk on the front line. The committee must understand that there are still major pressures on people, which have been caused by the pandemic period; our first priority is to keep them as safe as possible.

I challenge the notion that the people on the front line to whom you have spoken regard that as being of some utility. Shelter Scotland has told us that the services that it provides are getting feedback about

“cases of individuals being stuck in this temporary accommodation for significant lengths of time”

and suffering “Brutal”, “Horrendous” and “Soul-destroying” experiences. Have you heard that in your discussions with people on the front line?

My officials talk to Shelter Scotland all the time. We have asked for examples of all such issues because I would follow them up. However, I do not have any examples from Shelter. What I have heard from my discussions with folks on the front line are experiences of what is happening out there. I am more than happy to look at what Shelter Scotland is seeing, and to follow up and investigate any issue that comes to its attention, as I would do for anyone else. Give us examples of where it is not going right, and we will investigate and try to resolve problems. I cannot, however, resolve problems if I do not know what the difficulty is.

Finally, I have a quick question about the rights of families and pregnant women to suitable temporary accommodation. Are they being fully met?

I expect local authorities to ensure that pregnant women and families with children are suitably accommodated. That is essential. From what I am seeing, we are doing well on that front. I will bring in Marion Gibbs in case she has any recent data that I have not seen, but my expectation is that pregnant women and families with children should be in mainstream temporary accommodation.

The unsuitable accommodation order still applies to pregnant women and families with children. We still have the normal rule that has been in place since 2014—when the time was changed from 14 days to seven days—so if a local authority has a household with children or pregnant women in unsuitable accommodation for more than seven days, it will be in breach of the order. We know that local authorities try hard to move people on from unsuitable accommodation as quickly as possible. It could be that, during an emergency or an out-of-hours situation, a bed and breakfast might be the only solution that a local authority can use, but it would then seek to move those people out as quickly as possible. Edinburgh was having the biggest struggle with that, and we know that it has definitely moved people out of unsuitable temporary accommodation as quickly as possible in order to minimise breaches.

09:45  

We now consider motion S5M-23878, in the name of Andy Wightman, which asks the committee to recommend that the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) (Modification and Revocation) (Coronavirus) Order 2021 be annulled.

Andy Wightman will speak to and move the motion, and there will be an opportunity for members to contribute to the debate.

There have been two extensions to the temporary exemption from the order—first until 30 September 2020 and then until 31 January 2021. The instrument would extend exemption further, until 30 June 2021.

There has been enough time to put arrangements in place to ensure that use of unsuitable temporary accommodation is no longer a lawful response to homelessness during the pandemic. The minister said that some homeless people prefer to stay in B and Bs or hotels because mainstream housing is not ready. That is no reason to deny them the legal right not to be housed in unsuitable temporary accommodation, neither is it a reason for homeless people to pay the price for the Government’s failure to ensure that homeless people have a legal right to suitable temporary accommodation.

On 23 September 2020, the minister told the committee that he had asked local authorities and registered social landlords to ensure that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of housing allocations would be made to homeless people. According to the most recent statistics from the Scottish Housing Regulator, an average of only 39 per cent of allocations have been made to homeless households.

The promise that was made in May 2020 should be honoured, and there should be a pledge that the unsuitable accommodation order will be fully enforced by the end of this parliamentary session at the latest.

I move,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) (Modification and Revocation) (Coronavirus) Order 2021 (SSI 2021/10) be annulled.

I agree with Andy Wightman’s comments. People are going through horrendous experiences. We are in a difficult position, but I cannot support Andy’s proposal, although that does not mean that I do not agree with what he said.

The problem comes from lack of suitable housing and from vulnerability that has been exacerbated by the pandemic. We must keep up the pressure. We should support local authorities and the third sector organisations that work with homeless people so that those people get not only accommodation but wraparound support. That support would be essential at any time, never mind during a pandemic.

I highlight that prevention of homelessness must be given priority. More people are becoming homeless. We know that there is support for renters at the moment, but people are building up debt week by week, which will have an impact. People have lost their income and will not be able to afford rent in the social or private rented sectors. That must be addressed. Women have experienced domestic violence, which has increased during the pandemic. We face a growing number of challenges and do not have enough housing to go round.

A report from local authorities mentions specific issues that I would like the minister to comment on. They are trying to prioritise repairs to void properties and are working to reuse homes that are already empty. The City of Edinburgh Council has tried to turn short-term lets into long-term tenancies, thereby turning properties into homes.

The issue is that, if there are 14,000 households in temporary accommodation, we are rationing the housing that is available. I could name constituents who are living in inappropriately small privately rented accommodation. A family of four living in a one-bedroom home is now more vulnerable than ever.

We must support people who are currently homeless and we must work now to prevent homelessness. The next few months will be challenging because of the economic and social pressures that people are under.

Fundamentally, we need to find a way to ramp up addition of new housing to the stock, so that we take pressure off people who are homeless and who are not getting the accommodation that they need. I hope that the minister will address those key issues in his comments.

I do not agree with Andy Wightman’s position. He does not seem to accept that local authorities have responsibilities in relation to how they manage their particular circumstances or that they have views on the order—or that there are people at the centre of this who are on the receiving end of temporary accommodation solutions and who also have views. I do not agree with the proposal to annul the order.

As has been said by the previous two speakers, the supply of good-quality social housing is at the root of the issue. For decades, councils have been obliged to sell off their social housing, and additional housing was not built to replace it. The Scottish Government has done a great deal to massively expand social and other housing, although it can do that only within its available resources.

Also at the root of the matter is the fact that the use of resources on temporary accommodation is uneconomic. I realise that that use of resources in that way is essential—there is no other way to deal with the problem. However, I would rather see the money that is spent on the exorbitant costs of temporary accommodation being put towards a further major house-building programme. The solution is to get the right supply of housing. The Government is doing a great deal in that respect; it is also trying to cope with the pandemic, as are councils and providers.

I support the order and oppose the motion to annul.

I agree with a great deal of what has been said by Ms Boyack and Mr Brown. Without doubt, as Ms Boyack said, vulnerability has been exacerbated by Covid. We all have a duty to ensure that we do our level best for folk. We have managed to do a great deal during the pandemic in partnership with local authorities and third sector organisations.

We have managed to get folk off the streets. The rough sleeping rate is very low in Scotland—as of last week, there are two cases in Glasgow—and third sector organisations are doing their best to get people into accommodation. There is a huge difference between the situation now and the situation before the pandemic. In order to keep people in accommodation, we have to listen to them and meet their needs, which might not be met in mainstream accommodation. It is my duty and the duty of us all to listen to people on the front line about what is required.

Mr Brown talked about the Government’s delivery of affordable homes since we came to power in 2007. Mr Brown played his part in ensuring that there were more affordable and social homes in Scotland, and this Government will continue to see housing as a priority. However, we have just lost £218 million in housing consequentials from the United Kingdom Government and there has been a 66.5 per cent cut in financial transactions. Those unhelpful decisions will have a major impact on our delivery of affordable homes. I hope that everyone on the committee supports the Government’s aim to get the UK Government to reverse those decisions.

Ms Boyack pointed out a number of problems that have been exacerbated during the pandemic, including domestic violence. We have a duty to ensure that we do our best for people who are fleeing such circumstances, and the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill, which has now been introduced, should be helpful in that regard.

As has been mentioned, it is also important to consider the stock and not just deal with things in the same old ways. The Cyrenians, Crisis and Streetwork are running a pilot in the PRS in Edinburgh to utilise good private rented stock, some of which has been empty, to get folk into suitable homes. I am more than happy to consider any suggestions that are made in that regard and to move forward accordingly.

Many other things have happened during the pandemic, and I pay tribute to those on the front line. We have seen a prisoner release programme, which—I will be honest—caused me some worry in relation to how it might pan out. The front-line workers in councils and third sector organisations managed to cope and deal with the situation and ensured that folks were accommodated appropriately. As I mentioned, we have also seen greater cohesion, with agencies working together to do what is right for people. For me, the most important thing is that folk have actually been listening to the people who are most vulnerable and have been doing the right things to move people on when it was right to do so.

Sarah Boyack and Keith Brown mentioned support for renters. At the moment, we have a package of measures in place to support renters. However, we all know that there will be strains on folk as we move forward. That is why the furlough scheme has to continue and why the UK Government should not cut universal credit, which it looks likely to do.

Beyond that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be thinking more about what needs to be done for renters across these islands. This Parliament does not control housing benefit or the benefits system. We need to find a way to prevent future crises. The UK Government must stop cutting our affordable housing money through its budget, it must not cut universal credit and it must not get rid of the furlough scheme. Across these islands, we need to take cognisance of the real difficulties in which folk find themselves and find a solution for those who have had difficult times during the pandemic.

I ask the committee to vote against Andy Wightman’s motion, because annulling the order would be extremely damaging for some of our most vulnerable people at this time.

I invite Andy Wightman to respond to the debate.

Time is pressing, so I will be brief. I accept that local authorities have their view and that the minister has his view. Whether homeless people should have the right not to be housed in unsuitable temporary accommodation is not a question of the views of local government, central Government or front-line organisations; it is a matter of what the law should say. Homeless people should have the right not to be housed in unsuitable temporary accommodation. I moved the motion to annul the order in order to secure that legal right, and I will press my motion.

10:00  

The question is, that motion S5M-23878, in the name of Andy Wightman, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

I can see that we are not agreed, so there will be a division. We will vote by roll call. I will call committee members’ names alphabetically. Please indicate your vote when I call your name.

For

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Motion disagreed to.

The committee has agreed not to recommend to Parliament that the instrument be annulled, and has made no recommendation to Parliament in respect of the instrument. The committee will report on the instrument in due course, and I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve a draft of the report for publication.

I thank the minister and his official for taking part in the meeting. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow a changeover of witnesses.

10:02 Meeting suspended.  

10:07 On resuming—