Official Report 738KB pdf
The second item on our agenda is day 7 of our consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and her officials.
Members who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my or the clerk’s attention. Voting will be done by a show of hands, and it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded their names.
After section 51
Amendment 445, in my name, is grouped with amendments 554, 447 and 562. I will speak to and move amendment 445, as well as speaking to the other amendments in the group.
Amendment 445 is on co-housing guidance. As well as making homes more accessible to more people, we are committed—through national planning framework 4—to creating space for placemaking. Co-housing is a housing and placemaking model that is well suited to supporting us in that endeavour. It offers communities and local authorities the opportunity to come together, not only to meet housing needs but to provide a neighbourly place where people can engage with and support one another and create a space that meets everyone’s requirements.
That approach to housing, which is mainstreamed in local housing provision in Denmark, is gathering interest in Scotland. Amendment 445 and its consequential amendment 447 seek to support that enthusiasm and positive potential by creating a basis from which co-housing can be scaled up.
Co-housing has a lot to offer. For example, it has been shown to prevent social isolation and the poor health outcomes that go with it. If we can nurture and grow that model, we can move to a happier, healthier society in which people’s housing needs are met, people have a real stake in the places they live in and neighbourhoods become vibrant, all of which can reduce the strain on public services.
When we have spoken about co-housing, the Minister for Housing has been enthusiastic about the possibilities that the model offers. There was Scottish Government-led work on co-housing in previous parliamentary sessions but, unfortunately, it was not prioritised. My amendment, which is backed by Cohousing Scotland, aims to ensure that that work is taken forward. It would require ministers to consult on and produce guidance for co-housing, which would allow the sector to grow.
I am keen to hear what assurances the cabinet secretary can provide to ensure that stakeholders will be supported by the Government to do the work that is necessary to develop a Scottish co-housing model, so that a co-housing sector can emerge in Scotland in the next few years.
Amendment 554 and its consequential amendment 562 would create a housing co-operative advisory function. Along with the financial barriers of land and buildings transaction tax and the additional dwelling supplement, which I spoke about at a previous stage 2 meeting, another barrier that housing co-operatives in Scotland face is a lack of access to official advice. I have been working on that with the Edinburgh Student Housing Co-Operative, which supports students to access affordable, quality accommodation in a location that has become unaffordable for many. When it has sought support on tax and governance issues, it has been passed around various public bodies and organisations without getting the answers that it needs in order to thrive.
What I propose in amendment 554 and its consequential amendment 562 is the establishment of an advisory function within an existing housing or land-related body. That function would be staffed by one or two full-time individuals and would support existing co-ops with tax and governance issues, as well as helping those who want to set up a housing co-op.
Co-operatives should be a flourishing housing model in Scotland. They bring a wide range of benefits and, where they serve communities of the elderly, they can help councils to save money on social care, while those that provide student accommodation can ensure that people from all economic backgrounds can access higher education in places where accommodation is difficult to find and often unaffordable. Making it easier for such co-ops to be established and to function will help to reduce the financial burden on Government budgets.
During our pre-stage 2 discussions, it was good to hear from the cabinet secretary about her involvement with and appreciation of the co-operative movement. I therefore know that she is sympathetic to the aims of my amendment, which is why I am keen to hear what assurances she can give that the Government will provide more support to housing co-ops before I decide whether to press amendment 445 and to move my other amendments in the group.
I move amendment 445.
Good morning again, convener. Amendments 445 and 447 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on co-housing within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. The Scottish ministers would require to define co-housing via regulations and to consult on the preparation of the guidance.
There is no need for a statutory obligation to publish guidance to be put on the Scottish ministers. They could publish guidance on the issue without having a statutory duty to do so, and I commit to doing so. I therefore ask the convener not to press amendment 445 and to work with me with a view to producing Scottish Government guidance on co-housing.
Amendments 554 and 562 would give the Scottish ministers the power to designate a public body to carry out a range of functions that would support those who want to progress a co-operative housing approach. Housing co-operatives are already a valued part of the social housing sector in Scotland, alongside other community-based social landlords and local authority landlords.
Although I understand the desire to support the development of the housing co-operative model as part of the creation of a diverse housing sector in Scotland, I have concerns about the way in which the amendments are set out. It would not be appropriate to oblige a public body to provide financial, tax or litigation advice, and a housing co-operative that acted on the advice of the designated body could seek redress against that body if the advice caused the co-operative to suffer a loss.
In addition, acting as a guarantor against demutualisation could open up the designating body to significant financial and legal risks. It is not clear how the designated body could—or, indeed, whether it should be able to—prevent demutualisation if the co-operative members vote for it.
On promoting co-operative housing, the co-operative model itself, along with—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Certainly.
If amendment 554 is not appropriate because it would designate a public body to give tax and governance advice, what could we do to support housing co-operatives?
I recognise your point that certain co-operatives struggle to receive advice or support, whether from public agencies or elsewhere. There is a discussion to be had, of the kind that I have had with you and, indeed, with Paul Sweeney, about the importance of housing co-operatives and the need to encourage them.
I would therefore be more than happy to discuss what else could be done to ensure that we not only protect, support and encourage existing housing co-operatives, but encourage further development of the housing co-operative model. However, I am afraid that I will still ask members not to vote for the amendments in this group.
On the Scottish co-housing model, I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has committed to producing guidance for co-housing in Scotland. Something that has come through clearly from talking to stakeholders is their desire to be facilitated in that process. Rather than the Government leading on the process and going away and doing it, it should be co-designed collaboratively so that Cohousing Scotland members and other stakeholders are very much involved.
On amendment 554, which is about designating an advisory body for co-operatives, it has been interesting to hear the cabinet secretary’s concerns about obliging public bodies to give such advice. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s offer to have a discussion about what we can do to support the housing co-operative movement in Scotland and look forward to taking up that opportunity as soon as possible.
Amendment 445, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 477 not moved.
Amendment 515 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 515 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 515 disagreed to.
Amendments 490 and 516 not moved.
Amendment 550 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 550 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 550 disagreed to.
Amendment 552 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 552 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 552 disagreed to.
09:15Amendments 553, 554, 271, 272, 470 to 473, 551, 474, 475, 548 and 549 not moved.
Amendment 226 moved—[Alexander Stewart].
The question is, that amendment 226 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 226 agreed to.
Amendment 256 not moved.
Section 52—Regulations
Amendment 555 not moved.
Amendment 441 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 441 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 441 disagreed to.
Amendments 393 and 394 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendments 75, 185, 426, 76, 195, 556, 446, 557, 558, 23, 517, 518 and 478 not moved.
Amendment 277 moved—[Mark Griffin].
The question is, that amendment 277 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 277 agreed to.
Amendments 447, 479, 562, 561, 559 and 560 not moved.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 53, 54 and 55 agreed to.
Before schedule
Amendment 199 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 199 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 199 disagreed to.
Amendment 200 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 200 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 200 disagreed to.
Schedule
Amendment 395 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendment 563 not moved.
Amendments 396 to 401 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendment 266 not moved.
Amendment 402 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].
The question is, that amendment 402 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendments 402 agreed to.
Amendments 410, 77, 227, 228 and 267 not moved.
Amendments 403 and 404 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendments 564, 50 and 78 to 80 not moved.
Amendment 405 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendment 406 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].
The question is, that amendment 406 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 406 agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Section 56—Commencement
Amendments 196 to 198 not moved.
09:30
The next group is on homelessness prevention: commencement. Amendment 230, in the name of Bob Doris, is the only amendment in the group. I believe that Emma Roddick is going to speak to and move the amendment.
Yes—thank you, convener.
Bob Doris has been encouraged by the strength of support from stakeholders and members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for the homelessness preventions in part 5 of the bill, which will significantly improve our ability to prevent people from reaching that point in a housing crisis. I recognise that Bob Doris’s work and the work of that committee so far have already had a hugely positive impact on the bill and those it seeks to help. The timing of the introduction of new prevention measures is important, especially when homelessness services are stretched. The Christie report challenged us more than a decade ago to shift towards prevention and longer-term outcomes. However, unless we get better at preventing households from becoming homeless, it will be challenging to resolve the current housing emergency.
Amendment 230, on the commencement of part 5 of the bill, is informed by discussions with experts in the homelessness sector, particularly Crisis. Officers at Crisis have shared their recognition that duty bearers need adequate time to prepare for the new legislation, but they wish to ensure that implementation remains a priority for the Government. Amendment 230 recognises both those points and provides a three-year backstop for the commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions in part 5. The amendment would ensure that, if any of those provisions has not been commenced within three years, it will come into force. The inclusion of that backstop will help to reassure stakeholders that steps will be taken to implement the provisions within that period, allowing us to build on the good will from stakeholders in moving to more proactive homelessness prevention.
Amendment 230 allows time to work closely with stakeholders, including named relevant bodies, to ensure that any new regulations on the operation of ask and act—regulations that are supported by members of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee—are fit for purpose. It also provides scope to work with stakeholders on the guidance required and to identify training needs.
I know that effective prevention work is already happening. That includes the homelessness prevention pilot, which is supported by Scottish Government funding and which I understand will begin very shortly. It will help us to understand how ask and act will work in practice.
There is cross-party consensus that making homelessness prevention everybody’s business is the right thing to do, and we do not want to lose that positive momentum.
I therefore move amendment 230, in the name of Bob Doris, and urge members to support it.
I highlight the concerns that were raised in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on amendment 230. We were considering Bob Doris’s amendment as part of a series of other amendments lodged by other colleagues on that committee, and we had to wait for the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee before we were able to hear the debate surrounding it.
I fully support the amendment, but I have to question the process, given that it was not considered as part of the homelessness prevention work that was undertaken by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. That is more of a reflective comment than anything else, but I am glad that we are here now and are able to discuss it—although it has been a very long time coming, and the direction that the Parliament has taken has not been good for stakeholders’ morale, as they have had to wait for so long before we have been able to discuss the amendment today.
I support amendment 230 in the name of Bob Doris. It provides a three-year backstop for the commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions in part 5 of the bill. The amendment allows us to maintain progress towards those important new duties while allowing time to develop the appropriate regulations, guidance and training, in partnership with stakeholders and people with lived experience, so as to support successful implementation. Crucially, the amendment also allows us to implement the learning from the Scottish Government’s homelessness prevention pilots, as welcomed by Crisis, Homeless Network Scotland and other stakeholders. Our £4 million investment in the pilots will demonstrate how the bill’s new ask and act duties will work in reality.
I have been clear that we do not need to wait for the new duties to be formally commenced before we have improved co-operation and earlier intervention to prevent homelessness, but I am happy to support amendment 230.
I call Emma Roddick to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 230.
I think that I have covered everything that we needed to say, so I am happy simply to press the amendment.
Amendment 230 agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I thank members, the cabinet secretary and her officials.
09:35 Meeting suspended.