Chamber and committees

There is legislation already in place. Yesterday, I acknowledged that children are living in temporary accommodation in conditions that are not suitable. The issue is how we enforce the legislation, and I am happy to engage between this stage and stage 3 with those members who have spoken on the issue to see whether we can work something out.

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

I whole-heartedly reassure Mr Griffin on that point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it on this point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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