Homelessness etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Bill. Members should have in front of them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the groupings of amendments. As is now usual, I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division following the debate on the first group of amendments. Thereafter, I will allow one minute for the first division after debates on subsequent groups. All other divisions will last 30 seconds.
Section 1—Amendment of section 25 of the 1987 Act
Group 1 is on criteria for priority need. Amendment 7 stands in a group on its own.
The purpose of amendment 7 is to broaden the definition of a young person and to replace the upper age limit of 20 with 24. Almost 40 per cent of homelessness applications come from people aged between 16 and 24, despite that age group making up less than 15 per cent of the adult population of Scotland. Those people are much more likely to become homeless than people in other age groups are.
Under-25s are already treated differently by the law, as demonstrated by the single-room rent, which limits the amount of housing benefit that is payable. Mainstream benefits such as income support also discriminate against under-25s. That group is therefore more vulnerable to financial hardship.
Many young people aged between 21 and 24 continue to be very vulnerable, and amendment 7 proposes that care leavers or those who are vulnerable for the reasons covered by the bill should be regarded as being in priority need. That should not be restricted to young people aged between 18 and 20.
I move amendment 7.
I am pleased to see that Linda Fabiani is here today to move the amendment—a similar amendment was not moved during stage 2.
In taking forward the homelessness task force's recommendations on groups of people considered to be vulnerable and in moving from the code of guidance to proposed legislation, we needed to examine closely the appropriate legal definitions. Inevitably, some flexibility is lost in doing that—that is part of the difference between legislation and guidance.
We identified 20 as the appropriate upper age for young people to ensure consistency with the Homeless Persons (Priority Need) (Scotland) Order 1997, which covered young people who were formerly looked after by local authorities. The primary purpose behind the way in which the bill was drafted was to consolidate that order into primary legislation. Increasing the age limit for such formerly looked-after young people and extending it to other potentially vulnerable young people up to the age of 24 would move us well beyond the task force's recommendation.
We also want to keep the bill in line with the Executive's commitment that the first phase of the expansion of priority need should be cost-neutral to local authorities. As far as possible, the bill should not to be associated with the development of new policies with a much broader application. We need to ensure that the expansion of priority need is manageable. We must ensure that we consult fully on any move only after we have considered all the implications and costs as well as which other categories of people might be affected.
That is not to say that I do not understand the concern to include other potentially vulnerable young people. We all want to see assistance targeted on those who need it most. I emphasise that, within the framework of the bill, local authorities can continue to find someone vulnerable under the provision on "other special reason". The code of guidance will be updated during the course of this year and, as part of that process, I am sure that further consideration will be given to what the provision on "other special reason" might cover.
I urge members to resist amendment 7. Agreeing to the amendment would undermine the commitment that was given throughout the development of the bill that the first-phase expansion of priority need should be cost-neutral. Amendment 7 would add an uncosted burden on local authorities and would pre-empt proper consultation on which categories of people might be considered in the context of the next phase of expansion.
I remind members that the Scottish Council for Single Homeless estimates that 42 per cent of rough sleepers initiative clients are under 25. Young people are much less likely to be in paid work and their wages are lower, so they are very much disadvantaged within a housing system that is dominated by home ownership. Within the under-25 age group, problems can potentially arise when there is disruption to education, training and employment. There is also the potential for damage to health due to varying social factors. Such problems can create serious long-term exclusion with a lifetime of costs for both the individual and society.
I am not convinced that a code of guidance would take care of the matter. We should show a real commitment to our young people by ensuring that those who are in what is obviously a vulnerable age group receive the protection of the law. That protection should be enshrined in the legislation. I press amendment 7.
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 19, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Section 2—Abolition of priority need test
Amendment 8 is grouped with amendment 9.
Amendment 8 seeks to ensure that progress in abolishing the priority need test does not move at the speed of the slowest local authority or that it is not held up entirely by the most recalcitrant local authority. I am worried that the date for the abolition of the priority need test might end up depending on the local authority that is making the least progress towards that goal.
Although I understand that it would be unfair to place a legal obligation on a local authority that it cannot fulfil, it would be equally unreasonable for one local authority to stand in the way of the abolition of the priority need test. The minister must be in control of the process, as amendment 8 would allow. The amendment would also allow protection to be extended to those who are in need as quickly as possible, where possible.
I will not speak to amendment 9 because I suspect that my colleague, Kenny Gibson, is well able to do that for himself.
I move amendment 8.
The Scottish National Party welcomes the eventual removal of the priority need test. The reason behind amendment 9 is that pursuing the measures to remove the priority need test might have unforeseen consequences for the available supply of social housing.
There are widespread concerns about the adequate supply of affordable social rented housing of good quality. The minister will recall the concerns raised by the Finance Committee and the Social Justice Committee. There are also worries about the possible impact on non-homeless households who are on waiting lists and might find it more difficult to access social rented housing if there is a significant increase in the number of homeless households eligible for housing but no corresponding increase in availability.
Without such an increase, local authorities might of necessity place homeless households into areas of low-demand housing. Any statement on progress towards abolishing the priority need test should reasonably be expected to provide estimates of additional housing requirements generated as a result of changes to priority need.
Unfortunately, there is no clear commitment in the bill to monitor the impact of the changes to priority need that will be introduced by section 1, or proposals for future changes made possible by section 2(1). Amendment 9 seeks to secure that commitment, by seeking to ensure that the Scottish ministers' statement on the abolition of the priority need test, as set out in section 3, assesses the impact of changes to priority need on housing availability, the number of homes required and the type of housing used to accommodate homeless people.
Projections in my local authority have given rise to concerns over the impact of the bill on mainstream housing applicants. I would appreciate an assurance from the minister that the assessments of housing need and supply will provide the fundamental basis for removing the priority need test. I would also appreciate a further assurance that an adequate supply of affordable housing will be of paramount consideration in avoiding any disadvantage to mainstream applicants.
It is probably not appropriate to agree to amendments 8 and 9 today, although I have some sympathy with where they are coming from.
The issues raised in amendment 9 are dealt with under section 3(5), which requires the Scottish ministers to have regard to the
"local housing strategies prepared by local authorities".
That appears to be the broader context.
The bill amends a lot of other bills. We must remember that we passed the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which set out a broader housing framework. We must also remember that, in dealing with homelessness, we have to balance the urgent requirements of people who have become homeless—many of whom are ordinary people who have fallen on hard times—with the need to reinforce communities and not add to the fracturing problems that come about through unsuitable allocations. That seems to be what lies behind amendments 8 and 9 and behind Tom McCabe's contribution.
The bill's framework provides for that balance, which must be dealt with through the guidance that the Scottish ministers will have power to put in place under the bill. Rather than dot every i and cross every t in the bill, that is a far better way to proceed.
I should like to make a brief point about something that Linda Fabiani said. I think that she used the word "recalcitrant" to describe the work of local authorities. If we go into this process, I would be concerned if we were to work on the assumption that we must beat a stick over the backs of local authorities. The process will work if it is done in partnership. If local authorities have problems, we must listen seriously to what they tell us. We must listen equally seriously to those who may have problems getting support from local authorities.
Recalcitrance implies reluctance, and the use of such a term is inappropriate to describe the delivery of such an important local service. That service will work only if there is a genuine partnership with and commitment to local authorities; it will not work in the hostile environment suggested by a word such as "recalcitrant".
I agree with Johann Lamont's comments. It must be emphasised in the way in which we look at the bill and its subsequent implementation that, clearly, we can achieve, in practical terms, what we set out to do only with the co-operation of local government. Local government is central to that partnership, and we must emphasise its importance.
On amendment 8, we have always been clear that the phasing out of priority need should not proceed on an authority-by-authority basis. That does not mean that we move at the slowest pace; we must be ready to address any issues and problems that hold up the process and which are identified through local authorities' homelessness and housing strategies.
As members know, we are also taking powers under the bill to suspend local connection. If we were to phase out priority need in one area but not another, normal application trends could be distorted. Someone might well decide that permanent accommodation in one authority is preferable to temporary accommodation in a neighbouring authority. Therefore, an imbalance would be created in the system.
If we were to take the power proposed in amendment 8, we would send the wrong signal and an inconsistent message to authorities about how we intend to proceed. Priority need will be phased out over the next decade. That will be a challenge for all authorities; it is not a race to see who can get there first. We want all authorities to deal properly and consistently with the issues that we must tackle, in a way that can be achieved through partnership. We must plan a sensible, achievable and realistic process that will benefit all homeless people.
Amendment 9, in the name of Kenny Gibson, is unnecessary and undesirable. It is unnecessary—as I think Robert Brown pointed out—because the bill already requires that the statement on the abolition of the priority need test must set out measures that have been taken, are under way or are planned for the future. If that has been done, local authorities can carry out their homelessness duties without having to distinguish between priority and non-priority households.
I reassure Tom McCabe that the bill requires ministers to consult on and to make a statement about abolition of priority need. That statement must have regard to homelessness strategies and local housing strategies. I assure the member that those strategies will be balanced and that account will be kept of them.
In the past we have made it clear that in solving one problem—homelessness—we do not intend to cause a new set of difficulties. Of course the needs of mainstream applicants are important. However, we must stop thinking of homeless people as an entirely separate category of people. The circumstances of mainstream applicants and homeless people may be different, but they often require the same housing or accommodation support.
Homelessness strategies will provide local assessments of need, whereas housing strategies will identify how those needs will be met by accommodation provision, taking full account of the needs of all those who are seeking housing. Amendment 9 tries to ensure that assessments of the impact of the wider availability of social housing are made before priority need is abolished. It is an integral part of the process to strike a balance between those two issues. However, that needs to be done at a local level, through the homelessness and housing strategies.
I have said before that we will work in an open and transparent way, making clear the basis for change and ensuring that stakeholders are fully involved in the process. The homelessness monitoring group, local authorities and other registered social landlords will continue to have a role. However, assessments should not be written into legislation in a rigid way that causes local authorities unnecessary work and does not reflect the fact that our intention is to initiate a process that will take place over an extended period.
Like everyone else in the chamber, I wish that all housing providers and all public service providers were wonderful, but we live in the real world, and they are not, have not been and are unlikely to become perfect. However, that is not always because of circumstances that are within the providers' control; it can be caused by events outwith their control. During the stage 1 debate and again today, Tom McCabe talked about the need to balance the need for and supply of housing. A lack of that balance could force a local authority into recalcitrance.
The Executive should push to ensure that all local authorities become progressive on such matters, because it should be the Government's instinct to drive the agenda forward. Amendment 8 would help to achieve that. The homelessness task force suggested that the mechanism for managing the expansion of priority need at a pace that matches improvements in the supply and quality of housing should be made more explicit. That would help with achievement of the objective. I press amendment 8.
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 23, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
Section 3—Statement on abolition of priority need test
Amendment 9 moved—[Mr Kenneth Gibson].
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 32, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 disagreed to.
After section 3
Group 3 is on the assessment of need for housing or other support services. Amendment 5 is grouped with amendments 11, 13 and 14.
Amendment 5 would introduce a requirement for local authorities to consider a household's support needs as well as its accommodation needs when undertaking a homelessness assessment.
The experience of many local authorities is that tenancies break down quickly if support is not in place. If that happens, it wastes local authority time and resources and damages a homeless person's future prospects.
Support can be a key feature in sustaining a tenancy. My amendment 5 would better identify those who need help. Local authorities are best placed to identify problems because of their role in securing accommodation. I suspect that the minister will say that housing officials are not best placed to offer support. I am not suggesting that they should: their duty would be to secure such support, not to provide it.
If the minister is unwilling to accept the reasoning behind my amendment 5, the very least that she could do would be to promise to try to give an undertaking to review the process at an early stage. That would ensure that the same applicants are not coming round and round again, with monotonous regularity, like suitcases on a carousel.
I move amendment 5.
From the point of view of many members of the Social Justice Committee, support needs are central to the effectiveness of the bill. All of us, in common with housing professionals, have experience of the revolving-door syndrome. People are housed, experience problems of one sort or another, and, as Lyndsay McIntosh rightly said, are unable to sustain their tenancy and lose it or get put out. They then come back into the system as intentionally homeless, with all the problems that that definition causes, and go back round the system, or they disappear into the woodwork to appear again at a later stage.
It is vital to the achievement of the Executive's objectives in abolishing priority need that support needs are dealt with properly and that support is put in place. The Social Justice Committee accepted that it is not possible to put a price on the bill or to know what support or mechanism is required until we have seen the homelessness and local housing strategies and know in detail where we stand on local requirements and about the facilities that are in place at the moment. Nevertheless, it does not follow from that that we cannot deal with support needs to a degree.
Amendments 11, 13 and 14 involve a mechanism that uses the trigger of a person's becoming homeless to identify not only the person's homelessness status, which local authorities have to do anyway, but whether the person requires additional support if they are to sustain a tenancy.
My suggestion involves a legislative route that links into the statement that ministers propose to make in 2005, as set out in section 3. I readily accept that what I suggest can be done in many other ways, in particular by administrative fiat. If I am to be satisfied on the matter, I want to hear quite a strong statement from the minister on what ministers intend to do about support as we move towards 2005.
Will ministers take on board the importance of the trigger point that the homelessness assessment provides? Will they look towards putting in place the resources that local authorities will need? Are they prepared to work in partnership with local authorities and, if necessary, to crack the whip at local authorities that are not moving forward as they should?
The matter is one of partnership, which must be matched right across the board for the objective, which is central to the success of the bill, to be achieved. If it is not dealt with satisfactorily, we will have problems. On that basis, I ask the minister to give careful consideration to support needs and how provision fits into the later stages of the procedure.
The SNP supports Lyndsay McIntosh's amendment 5, as we did a similar amendment at stage 2. We also support Robert Brown's amendments 11 and 13, which are similar. We oppose amendment 14, which in our view would delay the implementation of inquiries into intentionality until a progress and intent statement has been prepared. Our view is that there can be no justification for waiting for such a statement before rights are given to those most in need.
I make it absolutely clear at the outset that the Executive fully accepts that the provision of support plays an extremely significant part in preventing and resolving homelessness. We take on board the points that have been made in the debate so far.
I certainly understand the motives of members who want effective support services to be established. I listened to Lyndsay McIntosh's comments this afternoon, and know that Robert Brown has mentioned the revolving-door syndrome often. Of course, we must take action to address that issue. As a result, I think that I am able to give the required reassurances about ministerial determination to resolve the problems that we face.
However, there are some problems with this group of amendments. Amendment 5 would require the local authority to assess the support that is required to enable a priority need unintentionally homeless applicant to sustain the permanent accommodation that the authority is obliged to provide and then make reasonable efforts to provide that support.
Amendments 11, 13 and 14 take a different approach and require the local authority to assess the need for housing support services for all households that are either assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness. Although the applicant must be notified of the outcomes of the assessment, the amendments do not go so far as to impose a duty to meet the identified needs.
Concern was expressed at earlier stages of the bill's passage and by the committee about the resource implications of the proposals. We have given assurances that resources are in place to ensure the delivery of the bill's provisions on the expansion of priority need. However, the amendments would mean that local authorities would be faced with a further, uncosted duty that was not recommended in the homelessness task force report and which has not been consulted on.
As I said at the beginning, I have no doubt about the importance of support.
On the minister's assurance that resources are in place, will she also assure us that there will be full consultation with housing providers to ensure that they are satisfied that there are adequate resources to provide this much-needed support?
Yes. All our comments this afternoon will make it clear that we will not rush into the bill's implementation. It serves no one's interests to implement amendments and not have in place the provision and resources for local authorities and local communities. We will engage in full consultation. Indeed, I can assure the member that we will consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and all key stakeholder interests to ensure that the provision is in place.
Everyone who is involved in the debate recognises the importance of support. However, I do not think that the best way of delivering it is by imposing a blanket legislative duty that covers all homeless applicants. After all, we have recognised the importance of support through the homelessness strategies, which already require councils to consider carefully the support needs of homeless people.
In what I hope is a direct response to Robert Brown, we are determined to ensure that resources are in place and that we have strategies and services that meet the various complex needs, although I might not use the phrase "crack the whip" in relation to local authorities.
I am sure that the minister is aware that many homeless people do not require any support at all; they simply need decent houses to live in. However, many people who find themselves homeless have support needs that go beyond housing. How will the minister work with local authorities to ensure that the support offered to vulnerable people and families is not all driven through their housing needs and by a housing approach when, in fact, a much broader approach that includes education and social work is required?
One of the successes of the homelessness task force and, indeed, of all the housing legislation that the Parliament has passed so far and which, I hope, we will pass this afternoon is the recognition that the problem of homelessness is not addressed simply through the provision of housing, important though that is.
Johann Lamont is right to flag up the importance of housing supply, and the fact that other services play a significant role in tackling the causes of homelessness and sustaining some of the solutions that we have put in place. Our work with local authorities has been constructive in that respect. For example, social work in Glasgow has made its contribution and Greater Glasgow NHS Board has played a significant part. Such an approach has demonstrated the step change that there has been in delivering a solution to the profound problems of homelessness in Scotland. Johann Lamont is right to pay tribute to local authorities, and we want to work with them within such a culture. We do not want to underestimate the challenges that authorities face in providing such support; nonetheless, we are committed to resolving homelessness in Scotland and will be robust in our discussions to ensure that we deliver on that basis.
The two points at which the issue will become prominent are when the Executive makes its statement on the abolition of priority need and the interim objectives and when it considers revising homelessness guidance. Will the minister assure me that support will be prominent in those aspects?
I am happy to give the assurance that support will be prominent, although other issues might also arise. On behalf of the Scottish Executive, I give the assurance that whoever is minister at the time will be required to ensure that support exists. We genuinely understand that support is part of the answer. We will not get what we want if we do not understand that.
The way that things are moving will help us in that because, through transitional housing benefit, there has been and continues to be a significant increase in the support services provided to address the needs of homeless people. Now is an opportune time for us to discuss such issues.
In Glasgow alone, we are aware that service provision has increased by some £10 million through transitional housing benefit. That will increase again by an equivalent amount when the projects identified through the pipeline process are taken into account.
Although we are not yet in a position to assess the extent of provision throughout Scotland, local authorities are already increasing existing services and making them available to those people in greatest need through the supporting people initiatives. Through that kind of investment infrastructure, we can make progress.
I am sorry that we cannot accept the amendments, but we do so for the proper reasons—we do not think that the amendments take us forward in answering the questions. However, we understand the motives, and we believe that what we propose answers those motives, if not perhaps the direct legislative point that has been put today.
The point that Johann Lamont made was important. It is not a question of housing alone; it is a question of many other disciplines. The minister mentioned the health boards, and their involvement is important. In relation to drug problems, the homeless addiction team is also important.
I say to Robert Brown and to others who might support amendment 5 that if we broaden the approach too far at this stage, we will lose much of the current impetus. It is important that we stay focused. Amendment 5 would make the approach far too broad. We need to get the groups working together effectively. Only in that way will we solve what we know to be a complex problem, which is not about housing alone.
I have heard everything that has been said. I say to Johann Lamont that it was not my intention that support would only ever come through local authority housing departments. There is a crucial role for health and education. It was never my intention to sideline the amendment down one track.
Homelessness is one of the most extreme forms of social exclusion and it can be difficult for some people to maintain a tenancy. The minister's figures show that, between 1 January and 30 September 2002, 2,030 households applied more than once for help from their local authority, and 189 of them applied for help more than three times. It is well recognised that the problem is not only about securing accommodation; the current homelessness legislation does not provide for assistance and support to maintain that accommodation. The minister mentioned that there would be a cost implication, but the short-term cost implication would have long-term benefits. For that reason, I press amendment 5.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 33, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section 4—Inquiries as to intentional homelessness
Group 4 concerns guidance on inquiries as to priority need. Amendment 10 is grouped with amendment 12.
Proposed changes to intentionality aim to enable local authorities to provide support to households that are deemed to require it. That we welcome. However, consistency and fairness are important. There is no guidance on how local authorities are expected to exercise discretion. Guidance would allow consistency, yet would also allow for local circumstances to influence local policy and would ensure that indirect discrimination is avoided.
Guidance could cover when it is appropriate to investigate intentionality; the need for a council to have a written and published policy on applying section 4(1)(b); the requirement to maintain a record of how the section has been used to assist in policy reviews; and an equality-checking procedure. Section 4(1)(b) gives local authorities discretion in deciding whether to implement the test of intentionality for a household presenting as homeless.
Together, amendments 10 and 12 would give the Scottish ministers clear powers to issue guidance on how local authorities should use their discretion in deciding whether to apply the intentionality test, and would make it clear that local authorities must take cognisance of the guidance when using their discretion.
I move amendment 10.
With all due respect, we regard this amendment as totally unnecessary. The Scottish ministers already have powers under section 37 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to issue guidance to which local authorities must have regard. The forthcoming code of guidance update is the process through which we will take the matter forward. I ask members to resist amendments 10 and 12, which do nothing more than insert into section 28 of the 1987 act a power that already exists in section 37 of that act.
Despite the minister's response, we take the view that, while what amendments 10 and 12 propose is technically feasible, existing provisions do not provide the clear and specific guidance that we believe is required if consistency is to be achieved across Scotland. Therefore, we would still like the amendments to be made, and I shall press both of them.
The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10 disagreed to.
Amendment 11 not moved.
Amendment 12 moved—[Mr Kenneth Gibson.]
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 31, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Amendments 13 and 14 not moved.
Section 6A
Amendment 1 is grouped with amendment 2.
Amendments 1 and 2 form the Executive's response to amendment 32, which was lodged by Robert Brown at stage 2 and which the committee accepted. Robert Brown argued that a person who is housed by the national asylum support service is not in a position to choose the area in which they live. Therefore, they should not be considered to have established a local connection with that area.
The real issue that underlies the matter is a cross-border issue and the bill cannot provide a solution whereby an English council determines a local connection differently from a Scottish authority. However, I understand that, on Friday, the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of two families dispersed to Glasgow by NASS that residence in Glasgow was not the applicants' choice and did not establish a local connection in Glasgow. The court ruled that the families were entitled to apply for accommodation in a London authority area.
Members know that the local connection will be suspended in due course. I hope that that will remove the problem altogether in Scotland for the period of that suspension. For that reason, there was a question about whether the amendment that was agreed to was wholly necessary
We accept that the committee wished to highlight what it thought was a particular injustice. Executive amendment 2 leaves the policy intention in place, but alters the wording
"accommodation provided by the National Asylum Support Service,"
which has no legal basis, to refer instead to the legislative power under which such accommodation is offered.
Amendment 1 removes the reference to seeking employment, which was also introduced at stage 2 through Robert Brown's amendment. No compelling argument was made then for its inclusion in primary legislation. Subsequently, we found that subordinate powers exist through which the current list of factors resulting in a residence being considered to be not of the applicant's choice can be added to. If there is a real case for adding further categories, it should be argued in the context of a review of the existing provisions. If necessary, such a review would sensibly take place when we consider the operation of the proposals to suspend local connection altogether.
I move amendment 1.
My colleague Kenny Gibson and I were pleased to support Robert Brown's amendment 32 at stage 2. I am a bit concerned about amendment 1, which removes the reference to employment, as we have a big enough unemployment problem without militating against people's ability to find work easily by moving.
On amendment 2, all of us must face up to responsibilities in helping people from other areas of the world who flee to our country or are sent to our country from down south. I am glad that the Executive is taking the issue on board and that, at stage 2, it said that it would consider the matter and suggest an appropriate form of words—the Executive is to commended for and congratulated on that. I hope that the work that people in Scotland are trying to do on asylum and immigration issues will spread and be listened to by the minister's colleagues at the Home Office.
I thank the minister for his response. As he rightly said, the refugee issue ought to be a small issue, taking into account the number of people who are affected, and there are cross-border implications that we cannot deal with. Nevertheless, a useful signal will be sent about the approach that we take to such matters and our inclusive attitude towards asylum seekers and refugees.
There may or may not be an issue relating to employment. I accept that the matter can be dealt with in other ways. With the assistance of the homelessness organisations, I was unable to come up with particular cases that are causing concern, so I am prepared to leave the matter for the moment.
An element of frustration underlies the refugee issue. I have no particular difficulty with the fact that the issue of refugees who come to this country is reserved to Westminster, but a number of us are beginning to feel that the social consequences—how people relate to local communities, the housing issues with which we are dealing here and so on—would be more satisfactorily dealt with within the context of the Scottish Parliament's rights.
The arguments have been spelled out. The Executive has responded to the substantive issue that Robert Brown raised and has tried to put it in the appropriate legislative context. Robert Brown has recognised that what his amendment at stage 2 intended to achieve in respect of employment concerns cannot be substantiated and that the matter can be dealt with through other powers. I encourage members to support amendments 1 and 2.
The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 71, Against 22, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
After section 6A
Amendment 15 is grouped with amendment 17.
Amendment 15 would ensure that there is a clear right of appeal against a decision made in a homelessness assessment. The current legal argument is that it is possible to ask for a review of the duty owed, but that that is not enshrined in legislation. The question has to be asked: how many people who present as homeless will be au fait with the finer points of the legal argument? If the right to an appeal were enshrined in law, there would be no legal argument to prevent the appeal from proceeding and sufficient advice would be available to applicants from sources such as citizens advice bureaux.
Amendment 17 would allow the right to take the appeal to the sheriff court. That is in line with the European convention on human rights principle that there must be the right to a fair and independent hearing. The case in England of Adan v Newham London Borough Council resulted in a ruling that not to have recourse to a court was a breach of article 6 of the ECHR. We must be sure that we do all within our power to protect and enhance human rights in Scotland of Scots and people who live here. The amendment would help to do that.
I move amendment 15.
I advise the chamber that amendment 17 follows a discussion that we had during the debate on the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, when I put forward a similar proposal. The background is that there is the power to go to the Court of Session for judicial review of some decisions, but not to go to the sheriff court. What we did in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001—after considerable discussion in the committee and with the then ministers—was to insert the more administrative right of review contained in section 4 of that act.
Although in principle I am sympathetic to amendment 17, it would be wrong, having legislated a year ago, to provide a new procedure, before the measure has had the chance to come into effect and before we have had time to see whether it works. We must find out what level of interest there is in the current process, and try to move it on a degree. I think that we might have to return to the matter, but I do not think that this is the right time to do so.
Amendment 15 seeks to clarify the extent of the right to request a review of a homelessness decision. The legislative right to request a review was included in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 through changes introduced by the 2001 act.
New section 35A of the 1987 act provides, among other things, that an applicant may request a review of
"any decision as to what duty (if any) is owed to the applicant under section 31 or 32".
The wording is deliberately wide enough to catch all the considerations relating to section 28 of the 1987 act. If someone were found not to be homeless, the local authority would decide that it owed no duty under sections 31 or 32 of the 1987 act and the applicant could request a review. If the applicant were considered neither to be in priority need nor intentionally homeless, the decision would affect the duty owed under sections 31 or 32 and would equally be caught by the right to a review.
In that context, amendment 15 is unnecessary, but I undertake to ensure that the updated code of guidance sets out clearly that the original homelessness decisions under section 28 of the 1987 act are caught by the right-to-review procedures. I hope that that helps Linda Fabiani.
On amendment 17, as Robert Brown said, the right of appeal to the sheriff court was discussed during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. When a similar amendment was lodged at stage 2, Linda Fabiani indicated that it was based on concerns arising from a judgment in the English case of Adan v Newham London Borough Council. The judgment in that case raised concerns that an internal review of a homelessness decision might be incompatible with article 6.1 of the ECHR, but it might be helpful to members if I update them on the latest legal position.
A later House of Lords decision in the case of Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council departed considerably from the Adan decision. The facts in the two cases were almost identical: both involved an internal review of a homelessness decision under the equivalent English housing legislation. The Begum case clearly established that the requirements of article 6 of the ECHR can be satisfied by an internal review, where the subject matter of a decision involves the application of judgment and discretion rather than primarily a question of fact. A decision on homelessness clearly involves an exercise of administrative discretion notwithstanding that it also involves a preliminary finding of fact. On that basis, an appeal to the county court on a point of law was deemed sufficient to satisfy ECHR requirements and no appeal to determine fact and law was necessary. In Scotland, there is no equivalent statutory appeal for homelessness decisions, although it was accepted that a statutory appeal on a point of law to the county court is equivalent to a judicial review, which is the equivalent remedy in Scotland for homelessness cases.
In the light of the decisions in the Begum case and in earlier case law, amendment 17 is unnecessary to satisfy ECHR requirements and should be rejected on that basis alone.
Legal questions aside, I remain firmly of the view that adding a right of appeal to the sheriff court would tack on to the existing review procedures a further procedural layer that would only build costs and delays into the system. The review process must be fair and transparent, but it also needs to be prompt. As Robert Brown said, the new procedure has been in force for less than 12 months and we have no reports or feedback to suggest that it is causing difficulties. If further guidance is needed on any part of the procedure, including building in an independent element of review, we will provide it. In the meantime, and in the light of my reassurance on the ECHR position, I ask Linda Fabiani not to press amendment 17.
I thank the minister for his reassurances in relation to amendment 15, which I accept—I intend to withdraw the amendment.
On amendment 17, the case that the minister mentioned—whatever its name was—obviously came after the one that I mentioned. In the light of the minister's comments, which were extremely interesting, and his assurances about judicial review, I will not move amendment 17.
Amendment 15, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 7—Power to modify section 33 of the 1987 Act
Group 7 is on parliamentary procedure relating to orders to modify section 33 of the 1987 act. Amendment 3 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 3 is a technical amendment and will provide a choice of parliamentary procedure—either negative or affirmative—when an order is made that affects the application of the local connection provisions in the 1987 act. The amendment reflects the flexible way in which the provisions may be applied, depending on circumstances. In some cases, the exercise of the power will have an important and significant effect, for instance when local connection is suspended in relation to every authority or specific individual authorities for a significant period. However, on other occasions, the effect will be temporary and localised. For example, it might be considered appropriate for the exercise of local connection to be suspended in relation to one local authority for a limited period of six months. Amendment 3 will ensure that full parliamentary scrutiny will be given when required, but not when it is unnecessary.
I move amendment 3.
We have concerns about amendment 3. In our view, if amendment 3 is agreed to, ministers will have the right to impose secondary legislation in an important area of public policy rather than having it approved by Parliament. In the stage 2 debate, Des McNulty made the point that the Subordinate Legislation Committee had recommended an affirmative statutory instrument rather than a negative one. Mr McNulty said:
"The Subordinate Legislation Committee's recommendations at stage 1 form the basis for the provisions of amendment 17. That committee expressed concerns that the appropriate subordinate power should be used."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 15 January 2003; c 3357.]
Amendment 17 was the amendment that brought in the use of the statutory instrument. It was an Executive amendment following the recommendations of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Having used the committee recommendation as a bolster to get that amendment agreed to at stage 2, the Executive now wants to run counter to the arguments of the committee in forcing through this amendment. I therefore ask all colleagues to oppose it.
I hear what Kenny Gibson has said and I am aware of the discussions that took place at stage 2. I assure the Parliament that the affirmative procedure will be used for the major issues. The negative procedure is for only the very technical issues. We have been advised carefully that that is the appropriate procedure in this context. We must have some degree of common sense in applying the power. It would not be appropriate for minor, technical issues to undergo major consideration. I guarantee to the Parliament that all major changes will be made through the affirmative procedure.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West)(LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 67, Against 25, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Section 8—Suitability of accommodation for homeless persons
Amendment 6 is grouped with amendment 16.
Amendments 6 and 16 remove the original amendment that was lodged by Jackie Baillie at stage 2 and replace it with an extension to the duty that a local authority has to applicants in the period prior to its discharging its ultimate duty to provide final accommodation. I am well aware of Jackie Baillie's commitment in this area, especially to homeless families. Although I appreciate her concern and agree with her that local authorities should not use bed-and-breakfast accommodation regularly to accommodate homeless families, I suggest that there can be circumstances in which such accommodation is appropriate for homeless families. It should, therefore, be possible for local authorities to use that type of accommodation.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 already ensures that any such accommodation must be reasonable for the applicant to occupy and that local authorities must have regard to the best interests of the children in securing that accommodation. The power that amendment 6 creates is capable of preventing the inappropriate use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children, but it allows exceptions when the use of such accommodation may be in the best interests of the family.
In addition, amendment 6 gives ministers the power to describe accommodation that cannot be used as interim accommodation. It is a very wide power, which enables any such description to be subject to "conditions or exceptions". That means that the power could be exercised in such a way as to describe the relevant accommodation; to describe the conditions in which the use of such accommodation is not appropriate; and to state exceptions to the general position.
It should be noted that the power would be capable both of preventing the inappropriate use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children and of making exceptions when bed-and-breakfast accommodation might be in the best interests of a family, but the power would not be restricted to that. The power could be used to disbar the use of any form of accommodation for any household type or in any circumstances and to state exemptions to that.
I believe that everyone in the chamber would agree that, wherever possible, bed-and-breakfast accommodation should not be used for families. However, I know from constituency experience that the use of such accommodation is sometimes the right solution, especially when families have school and family ties in communities and it is preferable that they remain within such communities. On that basis, I ask members to support amendments 6 and 16.
I move amendment 6.
The SNP opposes amendments 6 and 16. As Jackie Baillie said eloquently at stage 2, there is an acute need to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families. The homelessness task force recommended that it be ended. Indeed, I was pleased to move Jackie Baillie's amendment at a Social Justice Committee meeting at which the amendment was agreed to.
One would sympathise with the case that Karen Whitefield put if regulations arising from the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 setting out minimum rights for hostel dwellers and people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had been published. However, after almost two years, those regulations have not been published. As the bill stands, the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families will end, except in an emergency. Of course, figures for the use of such accommodation under the coalition are at an all-time high.
Bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people is, of course, not like the accommodation in grannie's Heilan hame. Local authorities might try their best, but families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation often have no facilities for washing and drying clothes and the establishments might be damp, in poor repair, inadequately furnished and lacking basic cleanliness. Privacy and play opportunities are lacking because of overcrowded living space, and cooking and toilet facilities might have to be shared with strangers, some of whom might have alcohol, drug or psychiatric problems. Violence and theft can occasionally be associated with that situation, which can create feelings of fear and insecurity in families.
In the 21st century, the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families should be consigned to the history books. An announcement has been made in England of the United Kingdom Government's intention to abolish such use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, except in emergency circumstances. Consultation on the abolition has begun. If the bill that we are debating is to be the most progressive legislation in Europe for homeless people—as it is touted as being—we must oppose amendments 6 and 16.
I support amendment 6. As the member who introduced the amendment at stage 2 to which Kenny Gibson referred, I believe that the Social Justice Committee was clear about the need to prohibit the inappropriate use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families. We know the detrimental effect that such accommodation has on children. Whole families often share a room and there is a lack of privacy. Support mechanisms tend to break down and families can be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for several months. It is not necessary to rehearse all the reasons why bed-and-breakfast accommodation is detrimental for families, because we know the potential impact of such accommodation.
I do not hesitate to support amendment 6, which reflects discussions in England on the issue, but I will make several points. First, I ask that the regulations that the Executive will introduce have the effect that amendment 6 intends, which is that the principle to end the post-assessment use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families remains intact. I would be grateful if the minister would confirm that that will be the case. I think that amendment 6 accepts that principle, but it also allows for flexibility that could take account not just of local circumstances such as rurality but of the particular individual circumstances of a homeless family. That is a sensible approach, particularly when it is reinforced by the other part of the amendment, which will allow for regulations to be produced that will specify accommodation that is suitable, unsuitable or of an insufficient standard.
I also ask the Executive to clarify when it intends to introduce the regulations. Delays should be avoided, where possible, so that we can move swiftly to a position where housing children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is the exception rather than the norm.
I was part of the group of members who voted with Kenny Gibson to support Jackie Baillie's amendment at stage 2. I was moved and impressed by the comments that were made then, which were particularly appropriate as it was around Christmas time, which is when people think about families who are in poor circumstances.
Karen Whitefield's argument about bed-and-breakfast accommodation being a last resort is important. We cannot allow families to continue to be corralled into one room with little privacy and little opportunity to do the normal things that we might all take for granted. We support the amendment, provided that bed-and-breakfast accommodation is used only as a last resort.
When this matter was dealt with at stage 2, I felt that our outlawing of the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families represented a major step forward in relation to homelessness and I cannot see why the position should change now.
Will the minister make a commitment that the regulations that are likely to be passed today will amount to the outlawing of the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families and that the regulations will come into play within weeks and will not be delayed?
Given that the Minister for Social Justice came to the committee and admitted that the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has not been falling and that it was a lack of resources that prevented the ending of a situation in which families had to live in such inappropriate circumstances, I cannot see why we cannot pass legislation today that states that no more families will be made to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation except in dire and unavoidable emergencies. The situation is simple and we must commit the necessary resources.
I urge members to vote against the changes to what was agreed at stage 2 and force the Executive to commit the resources to end this abomination.
I have spoken to some housing officials in rural areas who regarded the amendment that was passed at stage 2 as extremely urban focused.
There is an issue to do with the quality of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We know that far too many people in some of our cities have awful experiences of being placed in entirely inappropriate circumstances, but I have also been told of families, particularly in rural areas, choosing to stay in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the village or area in which they live rather than having to go elsewhere. I would imagine that the appropriate test would relate to what is best for individual families rather than to a prescription that comes out of a particular experience in urban areas. Nobody in the chamber wants to corral anybody into inappropriate bed-and-breakfast accommodation and I do not know any housing official who wants to do so either.
There is an underlying assumption that there are people who work in housing in our local authorities who do not share our concern for the needs of families and what will happen to young people at school and in the rest of their lives. We need to support legislation that allows flexibility and puts faith in local authorities to act in the best interests of the vulnerable families whom they are dealing with. There is no monopoly of concern on this matter. We have to have rigorous regulations that allow people to work to the best standards.
The way in which Linda Fabiani, in particular, has attempted to characterise this debate is unhelpful. The existence of the bill alone speaks volumes about our commitment to supporting vulnerable families.
My direct knowledge of councils' work in relation to homeless people is somewhat rusty as I have been away from local government for almost seven years. However, when I first became a councillor, I encountered a steady stream of homeless presentations to the local authority from Troon, which was the town that I represented. Unfortunately, the policies of Kyle and Carrick District Council meant that there was no suitable accommodation whatever for homeless families in Troon.
Over time, I was involved—indeed, in some respects, I was instrumental—in securing funding for a homeless hostel to provide temporary accommodation and in cutting housing stock from mainstream provision to provide temporary accommodation for people undergoing assessment and for those in the period between their acceptance as homeless and the allocation of a house. Throughout that time, however, there were always people who wanted to be housed in Troon and did not want to be shipped to Ayr, where there was a better standard of bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
The local authority engaged in work with local providers to try to bring property up to the necessary standards and to provide management rules that would provide decent accommodation for those who chose to stay in the area in which they had lived, where they expected to be housed, where their doctors and support systems were and where their kids went to school.
My local authority was keen to eliminate the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and moved very fast towards that. I agree that, for families with children in particular, such accommodation is not appropriate and is certainly far from ideal. That we should do everything that we can to eliminate its use is appropriate. However, what does a local authority do that does not have access to accommodation in every area in which it would wish to have it and finds itself facing not dire emergencies, but sudden surges in demand when it has more presentations that empty units to allocate temporarily? The sensible way is to proceed gradually—but clear in our objective of abolishing the use of bed-and-breakfast establishments for temporary accommodation—and to provide minimum standards for such facilities as must be used. Amendment 6 meets those objectives and brings us towards a humane way of dealing with what is undoubtedly a scourge on our society.
I am not sure how I will follow Murray Tosh's speech on amendment 6, because I was going to say the same. I will make the core commitment, which is central and unifies the Parliament. We want to eliminate the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. However, we want to leave ourselves some flexibility at the margins where it might be in the best interests of a family to use bed-and-breakfast accommodation for a short period of time. That would happen within the framework of the principle that bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not in the best interests of families.
We have been trying to find better, more extensive, different forms of temporary accommodation for all homeless people. The amount of investment that has gone into that is substantial. Murray Tosh is right that the route forward is a strategic approach that gets the provision in place and pushes local authorities as quickly as possible towards the fullest possible range of provision to meet current need.
We made clear in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 our intention that local authorities should have regard to children's best interests when considering solutions to homelessness and the bill reiterates that. We are also updating the code of guidance on homelessness during the course of the year to reflect those concerns. However, we need to ensure that what is in legislation is deliverable and takes account of the need to respond flexibly to the full range of circumstances that might arise. I reiterate that we want all homeless people to be housed properly and we recognise the devastating effects that homelessness can have on children, particularly if there is an inadequate response, as there used to be.
We need an approach that allows some flexibility and that ensures that local authorities and other providers take account of the need for change, are fully signed up to it and are able to deliver what is best for homeless families and children. That is crucial. Amendment 6 offers us a sensible way forward. It offers us a flexible power that can be used to define as unsuitable not only bed-and-breakfast accommodation but other types of accommodation as necessary. It also allows exceptions to be defined, as well as the circumstances in which those exceptions should apply. It allows proper consultation to be undertaken to ensure that everything that is enshrined in legislation is effective and deliverable. I assure members that consultation will take place. I say to Linda Fabiani that it is not realistic to expect full implementation within weeks of everything that we want to do or can do, but we will proceed as early as possible with consultation on the matter and try to put the arrangements in place.
The point that Karen Whitefield made about standards is crucial. Kenny Gibson mentioned the unacceptable standards of the past, when people were put in entirely unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The proposals in amendment 6 give us the capacity to deal with that situation and ensure that that does not happen.
What we have arrived at is a flexible structure framed in the principle of attempting to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation while recognising that we always need to offer what is best within that framework for families, and particularly for families with children.
We have had a good debate and I urge members to support amendment 6. If I thought for one minute that the amendment would create a situation that would force families into bed and breakfasts of the type that Kenny Gibson described, I would not be supporting it. However, amendment 6 addresses any such problems, because it will ensure standards in bed and breakfasts.
The amendment will also address the concerns of constituents who came to see me recently. Their home had been affected by a fire and they needed temporary accommodation. The local authority wanted to move the family to temporary accommodation in a nearby town. The family did not want to go there, however. They wanted to stay in the village where they had grown up, where the children went to school and where they had jobs. It was right that they were allowed to stay there. It is right that local authorities should have the flexibility to respond to the needs of families such as that one.
If we do not agree to amendment 6, we will be giving local authorities no flexibility and we will most certainly not be putting the interests of families and children first.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 76, Against 25, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Karen Whitefield].
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Grn)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 77, Against 25, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Section 9—Persons at risk of domestic abuse
Group 9 is on persons at risk of domestic abuse. Amendment 4 is in a group on its own.
At stage 2, the Executive accepted in principle Linda Fabiani's helpful amendment 22—I hope that Linda does not die of shock at that—and gave a commitment that we would return to the matter. As was explained at stage 2, Linda Fabiani's amendment had correctly identified another reference to "violence" in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, which we wished to update in order to refer to "abuse". However, Linda Fabiani's stage 2 amendment added "abuse" to the term "violence" rather than replacing it, I think unintentionally. It is unnecessary to have references to both, as violence and threatening conduct fall under the definition of abuse contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We have therefore reflected that in amendment 4.
I move amendment 4.
I thank the minister for that.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
After section 9
Amendment 17 moved—[Linda Fabiani].
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Presiding Officer, my understanding is that Ms Fabiani said during the debate that she would not move amendment 17.
My colleague Lyndsay McIntosh is absolutely right. I said earlier that I did not intend to move amendment 17 and I did not intend to move it. I am terribly sorry for the confusion.
Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.