Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 30 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2046 contributions

|

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Local Authority Housing Emergencies

Meeting date: 12 June 2025

Bob Doris

Jeremy Balfour’s question was very interesting and made me think about housing allocation policies more generally. I know many families who are homeless and sofa-surfing because they are in work and want to avoid paying for expensive temporary accommodation, storing furniture and all the rest of it. I also know lots of families whose housing needs are fairly significant but are not substantial enough that they are likely to be allocated a property move any time soon. Are we getting the balance right if we are saying that we will allocate a property, whether that is to someone who is in a permanent tenancy but has a significant housing need or is in temporary accommodation seeking a permanent tenancy, only if we can wholly meet their housing needs, but that we will not move them to more suitable accommodation?

Time and time again, I see families in cramped accommodation who need an extra two bedrooms. We can find them an extra one bedroom and the housing association will say that that does not fully meet their housing needs, yet their housing needs would be dramatically improved if they could be moved to more appropriate accommodation. Housing associations always fall back on allocation policies, and homelessness teams have similar allocation procedures. Is it simply a matter of reviewing that and showing a bit of common sense in allocation policies in order to get churn in the system?

Mr Balfour’s question has triggered a bee in my bonnet and I would like to know whether the same holds true for any of the witnesses today. Would they like to see a review of allocation policies in order to get churn in the housing system, so that we could meet some housing needs, even if we cannot meet not all housing needs? Are there no takers?

I will give an example. A family of five is in a small two-bedroom property and a three-bedroom one comes up, but the housing association says that that will not meet the family’s housing needs and that it might be three years before those can be met. Does no one see that as an issue?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Local Authority Housing Emergencies

Meeting date: 12 June 2025

Bob Doris

Thanks, Tony.

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Local Authority Housing Emergencies

Meeting date: 12 June 2025

Bob Doris

Thanks for talking me down off my rant. [Laughter.]

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Local Authority Housing Emergencies

Meeting date: 12 June 2025

Bob Doris

If you are sitting comfortably for the next 15 minutes, I will begin. Actually, you will be delighted to hear that it is a brief question, convener.

ALACHO’s submission for today said:

“there is a pressing need to ensure that those impacted by homelessness are safe and properly supported whilst they wait for settled accommodation.”

That seems eminently sensible. None of us has a magic wand to make this better right away and people are enduring while they wait for appropriate accommodation. Would Tony Cain like to say how he thinks that that can happen or share any good practice in what does happen?

10:45  

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 June 2025

Bob Doris

I am sure that Tim Eagle followed very closely the evidence that we received at stage 1. Does he recognise that large landowners told us that, by and large, all the things that are to be contained in the plans are best practice and are taking place anyway? If that is true, where is the additional cost?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 June 2025

Bob Doris

If I understand—

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 June 2025

Bob Doris

Cabinet secretary, I hope that you can give further clarity in relation to amendment 31. I am pleased to work with you ahead of stage 3 to make sure that it is drafted accurately and appropriately, but I do not think that my amendment, which seeks to make it easier to access a land management plan that the Parliament has so far agreed should be accessible anyway, will have any implications for commercial sensitivity whatsoever. The amendment does not require additional information to be published in the plan; it simply requires that the plan is published in an accessible way. I am still not sure where commercial confidentiality or sensitivity comes in with this amendment.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 June 2025

Bob Doris

Will the member take an intervention?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 June 2025

Bob Doris

I thank Mr Eagle for giving way. I point out that the spa activities in Deeside are much more like what I would dream about than what you apparently dream about, but we will leave that hanging.

Some of your amendments to part 1 are simple deletions, but some of them would have amended part 1, on the basis that you thought that they would improve it. Had those amendments been agreed to—not the deletions but the other amendments—would you still move your amendments to delete part 1 in its entirety?

I am trying to understand whether your presence at the committee last week and today, which is always very welcome, is destructive or constructive. Would you ever have agreed to part 1 in any shape, size or form?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 June 2025

Bob Doris

Will the member give way?