Chamber and committees

I acknowledge the issues that Jeremy Balfour and Sarah Boyack have raised. As we all know, this is a complex issue across all areas of Government. I am happy to continue the discussions of those points with Ms Boyack and Mr Balfour.

Amendment 1041 agreed to.

Amendments 1042 and 1043 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 1016 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1017 and 1064 not moved.

Amendment 1044 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1018, 1095 and 1019 not moved.

Amendment 1045 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1079, 1010 and 1020 not moved.

Katy Clark will recall the discussion that we have had on the matter. I indicated at that stage that we are satisfied in that respect, but I am happy to discuss the matter further, and we are looking at a broader range of amendments as part of that. I believe that the provisions are strong enough, but I think that there is room for further discussion and I am happy to meet the member to discuss it as we go forward.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1025, 1027 and 1029 would replicate the measures in the bill that require all social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy for landlords in protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies, but they go further in also seeking to require private landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. We cannot simply replicate the provisions for social landlords and apply them to private landlords, due to the vastly different regulatory frameworks. There would be limited benefit to tenants in the private rented sector due to the substantial number of landlords with only one or two properties and the difficulties that would be created for compliance and enforcement.

A much more effective approach would be to produce guidance for private landlords on how to support their tenants who experience domestic abuse. That guidance can also cover all the different types of tenancies that exist in the private rented sector, taking account of the different circumstances of each tenancy. I believe that engagement with the Scottish Association of Landlords is the best way of achieving the aim of those amendments.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1026, 1028 and 1030 would replicate the pre-action requirements for social tenancies where domestic abuse is a factor in rent arrears for protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies. The amendments would be difficult to implement, as there would be no restriction on applying for or obtaining an eviction where those requirements had not been complied with. In addition, there are existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to provide pre-action protocols on assured tenancies and private residential tenancies via subordinate legislation. There would be many challenges in extending those two sets of provisions to the private rented sector, particularly around the number of private landlords compared with the number of social landlords.

An equally effective and more practical alternative for the private rented sector would be to develop guidance for PRS landlords on how to support their tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse. I am happy to commit to doing that alongside renewing our commitment to the more strategic consideration of domestic abuse issues in the PRS, which was previously agreed in response to the recommendations in the “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” report. We will also seek to strengthen the PRS pre-action protocols for rent arrears regulations in relation to domestic abuse following the passage of the bill.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1007 seeks to amend section 32(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to include the needs of those who experience domestic abuse as one of the examples of the standards and outcomes that may be set out in the Scottish social housing charter. There is a drafting issue with the amendment, as the context requires the focus to be on what action is required in relation to the needs that are referred to. I would welcome the chance to work with Ms Gallacher on a stage 3 amendment that addresses that issue.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1006, which is an alternative amendment to section 32 of the 2010 act, would require the Scottish social housing charter to include provisions relating to the needs of tenants whom the social landlord has a reason to believe are affected by domestic abuse. A mandatory or standard outcome that must form part of the social housing charter would go against the principle of the 2010 act that the charter must be consulted on, and I urge Ms Gallacher not to move amendment 1006, as it is important that we enable a meaningful consultation on the draft charter.

Amendment 1068, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would oblige Scottish ministers to review the operation of the domestic abuse provisions in the bill within two years of royal assent and to produce a report. That obligation would apply, regardless of whether or when provisions were commenced, which might make compliance difficult to achieve. We already report annually to Parliament on the progress on the ending homelessness together action plan, and that will include progress on provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Accordingly, I ask Ms Hamilton not to move amendment 1068, as it is not necessary.

Amendment 1069, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would oblige the Scottish ministers

“to prepare and publish a timetable for”

implementing the December 2020

“report on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse.”

That must be done within one year of royal assent and must be repeated annually until the report has been fully implemented. It is worth highlighting that we are already implementing some of the recommendations from the report via the provisions set out in the bill, most significantly the duty on social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. In addition, we also report on the work as part of the Scottish Government’s annual report on progress towards ending homelessness. Given that we already report on that annually, I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendment 1069.

I urge Katy Clark, Maggie Chapman, Jeremy Balfour, Meghan Gallacher and Rachael Hamilton not to press or move their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I urge members of the committee not to support any of them, for the reasons that I have given.

Katy Clark will recall the discussion that we have had on the matter. I indicated at that stage that we are satisfied in that respect, but I am happy to discuss the matter further, and we are looking at a broader range of amendments as part of that. I believe that the provisions are strong enough, but I think that there is room for further discussion and I am happy to meet the member to discuss it as we go forward.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1025, 1027 and 1029 would replicate the measures in the bill that require all social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy for landlords in protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies, but they go further in also seeking to require private landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. We cannot simply replicate the provisions for social landlords and apply them to private landlords, due to the vastly different regulatory frameworks. There would be limited benefit to tenants in the private rented sector due to the substantial number of landlords with only one or two properties and the difficulties that would be created for compliance and enforcement.

A much more effective approach would be to produce guidance for private landlords on how to support their tenants who experience domestic abuse. That guidance can also cover all the different types of tenancies that exist in the private rented sector, taking account of the different circumstances of each tenancy. I believe that engagement with the Scottish Association of Landlords is the best way of achieving the aim of those amendments.

Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 1026, 1028 and 1030 would replicate the pre-action requirements for social tenancies where domestic abuse is a factor in rent arrears for protected tenancies, statutory tenancies, assured tenancies and private residential tenancies. The amendments would be difficult to implement, as there would be no restriction on applying for or obtaining an eviction where those requirements had not been complied with. In addition, there are existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to provide pre-action protocols on assured tenancies and private residential tenancies via subordinate legislation. There would be many challenges in extending those two sets of provisions to the private rented sector, particularly around the number of private landlords compared with the number of social landlords.

An equally effective and more practical alternative for the private rented sector would be to develop guidance for PRS landlords on how to support their tenants who are experiencing domestic abuse. I am happy to commit to doing that alongside renewing our commitment to the more strategic consideration of domestic abuse issues in the PRS, which was previously agreed in response to the recommendations in the “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” report. We will also seek to strengthen the PRS pre-action protocols for rent arrears regulations in relation to domestic abuse following the passage of the bill.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1007 seeks to amend section 32(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to include the needs of those who experience domestic abuse as one of the examples of the standards and outcomes that may be set out in the Scottish social housing charter. There is a drafting issue with the amendment, as the context requires the focus to be on what action is required in relation to the needs that are referred to. I would welcome the chance to work with Ms Gallacher on a stage 3 amendment that addresses that issue.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 1006, which is an alternative amendment to section 32 of the 2010 act, would require the Scottish social housing charter to include provisions relating to the needs of tenants whom the social landlord has a reason to believe are affected by domestic abuse. A mandatory or standard outcome that must form part of the social housing charter would go against the principle of the 2010 act that the charter must be consulted on, and I urge Ms Gallacher not to move amendment 1006, as it is important that we enable a meaningful consultation on the draft charter.

Amendment 1068, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would oblige Scottish ministers to review the operation of the domestic abuse provisions in the bill within two years of royal assent and to produce a report. That obligation would apply regardless of whether or when provisions were commenced, which might make compliance difficult to achieve. We already report annually to Parliament on the progress on the ending homelessness together action plan, and that will include progress on provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Accordingly, I ask Ms Hamilton not to move amendment 1068, as it is not necessary.

Amendment 1069, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would oblige the Scottish ministers

“to prepare and publish a timetable for”

implementing the December 2020

“report on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse.”

That must be done within one year of royal assent and must be repeated annually until the report has been fully implemented. It is worth highlighting that we are already implementing some of the recommendations from the report via the provisions set out in the bill, most significantly the duty on social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy. In addition, we also report on the work as part of the Scottish Government’s annual report on progress towards ending homelessness. Given that we already report on that annually, I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendment 1069.

I urge Katy Clark, Maggie Chapman, Jeremy Balfour, Meghan Gallacher and Rachael Hamilton not to press or move their amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I urge members of the committee not to support any of them, for the reasons that I have given.

Yes, of course. Nobody wants to see anybody sleeping rough in any part of Scotland. I will come on to the other actions that we have taken to that end. We want to eradicate rough sleeping, as does everyone here.

I want to emphasise a number of points. We have supported and encouraged local authorities to develop housing first programmes, which are essential. That intervention is aimed at people who are homeless and have complex needs, such as those with a history of rough sleeping. Housing first is backed by a wealth of international evidence and is a proven answer to resolving long-term homelessness and rough sleeping. The Scottish Government publishes regular monitoring reports that show the impact that housing first programmes are having.

Members will be pleased to hear that 27 of the 32 local authorities have housing first programmes and that more than 2,000 housing first tenancies have started. The tenancy sustainment rate is a remarkable 85 per cent. In my discussions with Mr Halcro Johnston, the point was made that those tenancies tend to involve people who have complex support issues. Importantly, we have also invested £4 million in homelessness prevention pilots in 2025-26 to test out how the ask and act duty will work and to scale up the good homelessness prevention practice that is taking place around Scotland.

I cannot support amendment 1087, which is contingent on amendment 1086, as it would impose a duty to report on how the Scottish ministers plan to meet the duty that amendment 1086 sets out.

The Scottish Government already has an action plan to end all forms of homelessness, not just rough sleeping, and it reports annually to the Parliament on the progress, including on ending rough sleeping, that it is making.

No. That is what I meant, and I am happy to chat with the member again on that particular point.

Let me make it clear that the Scottish Government is willing to consider adding any appropriate body to the list of relevant bodies where there is evidence that that will help to achieve the objective of preventing homelessness. Not all bodies in Scotland will have that role. When a body’s role is identified, it should be included only following discussions with that body.

The amendments in this group seek to add a range of bodies to the relevant bodies in section 43 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Adding a body means that it will be subject to the duties of relevant bodies under new sections 36A to 36D to be inserted into the 1987 act by section 41 of the bill.

Section 41(8) already confers a power on the Scottish ministers to add bodies to the list of regulations. A body could be added only with the Parliament’s approval, and the body would need to be consulted in advance. As Mr Simpson has pointed out, the bodies that are currently listed were previously consulted.

On amendments 1080, 1082, 1002 and 1083 to 1085, members may wish to note that the current list of relevant bodies was based on prevention review group recommendations and on consultation with people with lived experience. Before seeking to impose duties on a body, I would wish to consult the body in advance, to establish that doing so would help to prevent homelessness or would minimise or reduce the threat of homelessness. If it would, I would be happy to consider adding the body to the list, subject to the approval of Parliament.

We are committed to working with relevant bodies to ensure that they receive training in relation to homelessness prevention that is fit for purpose. That will be informed by the findings of the prevention pilots and the work to develop regulations. I believe that it is for the bodies themselves to identify the most appropriate training, rather than for us to set out inflexible rules in primary legislation.

Amendment 1011 would also place an obligation on the Scottish ministers to make regulations, but as those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, at the discretion of the Parliament, they would not be within the Scottish ministers’ control.

The Scottish Government has had extensive discussions with stakeholders about commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions. Based on those discussions, we will support amendment 230, in the name of Bob Doris, which is to be considered by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. That amendment will ensure that, if any provision in part 5 of the bill is not in force after three years of royal assent, the provision will come into force at that point. That gives comfort to our partners that implementation will not lose momentum, while allowing us the time and flexibility to consult further on regulations and guidance and to ensure that all bodies are prepared for implementation.

Meghan Gallacher talked about Mr Stewart’s amendment 1012, which calls for a review regarding implementation of the ask and act duties within six months of royal assent. That requirement will not be necessary if Bob Doris’s amendment, which would impose a three-year backstop in relation to commencing part 5, is agreed to. Timescales involved in the report would be difficult to comply with, given the impending Scottish elections.

I ask Ms Chapman not to move amendments 1067 and 1074. I am as keen as she is to understand the impact of the new homelessness prevention duties. The Scottish Government is committed to evaluating the key aspects of the bill, so there is no need for a statutory duty to enable the Scottish Government to review the operation of the ask and act duties or of part 5 as a whole. In addition, the powers in the amendments to amend any part of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 following a review are too broad and would create uncertainty for local authorities and other relevant bodies. However, I am happy to engage with Ms Chapman on the points that she raised regarding her amendments.

Before I pick up on his points, I thank Mr Simpson, the convener and the many others who have passed on kind words. I apologise for the Thursday that I did not attend the committee meeting. It is great to be back here, so thank you very much.

I am aware that this is an area of interest for Mr Simpson. I joined him at a meeting of the cross-party group on housing last year, which we both found very helpful, when we heard from representatives of Edinburgh Student Housing Co-operative on the housing experiences of students.

Addressing housing insecurity and homelessness for students requires universities, local authorities, housing providers and the Government to take a more joined-up approach to provision for students. I am also aware that there is a lack of robust data on student housing needs.

I do not support amendments 1003 to 1005, but I recognise the work that Mr Simpson has carried out with the cross-party group. I would like to engage with him further between stages 2 and 3 to get his views on how local housing strategy guidance could be strengthened. He is aware of the purpose-built student accommodation review that is being undertaken, in which many of the issues that he raised have been discussed.

Section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 obliges a local authority to conduct an assessment of the provision of housing and related services in the area following a requirement made by the Scottish ministers. The assessment must include any matter that is specified in the requirement by the Scottish ministers. It is therefore already open for the Scottish ministers to require a local authority to assess the provision of student housing in its area as part of a local housing strategy assessment. The point that Mr Simpson makes is that the position in that regard is very mixed at the moment, and the issue becomes very relevant in university cities such as Edinburgh.

The expert group that advised us on the new prevention measures recommended that, as part of their local housing strategies, local authorities should carry out an assessment of the needs of people in the area for housing support to retain their accommodation. We have therefore made provision in section 42 of the bill to require local authorities to make an assessment of individual housing support needs and services across all groups, including students, when developing their local housing strategies.

As I said, Mr Simpson will be aware of the review of the purpose-built student accommodation sector, which is looking at demand and data collection. In recent discussions, we agreed to discuss the matter further. I believe that it would be easier to deal with that according to the prevailing circumstances in a particular local authority area—the circumstances in Edinburgh might be different from those in Glasgow or Dundee, for example—rather than making it a requirement for all local authorities in every assessment. Using that approach, a local authority’s housing assessment could be directed to cover student housing only in areas where it is most needed.

I ask Mr Simpson not to press amendment 1003 or to move amendments 1004 and 1005. If he does, I ask members not to support them. I look forward to engaging with him on the important point that he has raised about student accommodation.

Amendment 1061 would oblige a relevant body to ask whether a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of abuse, while amendments 1063 and 1064 refer to support services for those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of experiencing abuse. Although I believe that those proposals are already catered for in the bill and in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, I know, having met Katy Clark, that we both want the bill to be as strong as it can be to protect women who have experienced or are experiencing domestic abuse. We can do more in that area. There are some issues with the proposed amendments, though, and I ask the member to work with me before stage 3 on alternative ones.

Amendment 1088, also in the name of Katy Clark, would require Scottish ministers to conduct, within one year of royal assent, a review of emergency temporary housing provided to women fleeing domestic abuse. The amendment reflects a recommendation in the “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” report that the Scottish Government commissioned and whose 27 recommendations the Government accepted in principle.

However, it is important to note that the provision of emergency temporary accommodation, including women’s refuges, is the responsibility of local authorities and their commissioning services. Our overall aim with the duty on social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy is to keep victims of domestic abuse in their own homes and to remove the perpetrator, if that is what the victim wants. The use of emergency temporary accommodation would be a last resort to be used when there are no other housing options available.

The statutory guidance accompanying the duty on social landlords will be crucial in outlining what we expect social landlords’ policies to look like, and the issues that amendment 1088 seeks to address can be addressed in it. The guidance will be developed with the sectors dealing with housing and violence against women and girls, including Scottish Women’s Aid, and I am happy to engage with Katy Clark as the guidance is developed.

Amendment 1022 would amend the definition of “abuse” being added to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 specifically to include controlling, coercive and degrading behaviour, including sexual violence. We believe that the definition in the bill is sufficiently broad to capture all those behaviours. We understand Ms Chapman’s desire to protect those who are experiencing abuse by other family members, and we are sympathetic to her proposal, but our focus in part 5 of the bill is on better supporting tenants who are affected by domestic abuse, in line with the recommendations in “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse”.

Katy Clark’s amendment 1062 is also about ensuring that the definition of “abuse” that relates to her other amendments aligns with what we are already proposing in the bill in relation to the definition of “domestic abuse”. We recognise the need for clarity in the 1987 act, but we have already provided for the definition of “abuse” that is being added to the 1987 act to apply to the whole of part 2 of the act. We have introduced provisions in the bill to update the definition of “domestic abuse” in line with the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, and our current definition of “abuse” is wide enough to capture the behaviours that give rise, or which are likely to give rise, to physical or mental harm, fear, alarm or distress. Again, we are engaging on this with those in the sector, including Scottish Women’s Aid.

Amendment 1023, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is designed to ensure that tenants are directed to legal advice as part of the pre-action requirements for social tenancies for rent arrears that arise from domestic abuse. There are already plans to revise existing statutory guidance for pre-action requirements to reflect the bill’s domestic abuse-related provisions, and we will include the details of organisations that provide legal advice on family law.