���˿���

We should make it as straightforward as possible for people to get the help that they need when they are at risk of losing their home. Scotland is known around the world for its progressive housing and homelessness legislation. Our groundbreaking homelessness prevention legislation will strengthen rights further. We do not want people to face barriers to getting the support that they need to prevent their homelessness.

There is a strong case for reforming the intentionality test. As Kevin Stewart said, the Government supported a recommendation in 2018 from HARSAG that the Scottish Government should

“Revise legislative arrangements”,

including on intentionality,

“that can result in difficulties with people being able to access their rights”.

As a result, the Scottish Government formally consulted stakeholders and, in 2019, introduced discretion for local authorities in assessing homelessness applications for intentionality. Our statistics show that few people are found to be intentionally homeless and the figures have remained fairly static—between 1 and 2 per cent—since we made changes to legislation.

In the longer term, our aim is to replace the test for intentionality with a new test that focuses on deliberate manipulation of the system. However, although I support the principle behind Maggie Chapman’s amendment 1052, I cannot support the amendment. I will come on to that in a bit more detail later. The meaning of “deliberate manipulation” is not provided in amendment 1052. That would be left entirely to regulations. However, in subsection (2) of the proposed new section that the amendment would insert, local authorities are authorised to assess whether someone is deliberately manipulating the system. It is not clear what the local authority can do with that assessment without regulations on the meaning of “deliberate manipulation” being in place.

The test for intentionality should not be removed entirely without proper consultation with local authorities. That is even more important at a time when councils are responding to the housing emergency. An informal survey of a small number of councils showed that they had grave concerns about removing the test for intentionality entirely. They were, however, more relaxed about removing the test for intentionality when someone is threatened with homelessness.

I support amendment 1032, in the name of Kevin Stewart, which would remove the test for intentionality only when someone is threatened with homelessness. I also support amendments 1033 to 1035, 1037 to 1039, 1046 and 1048, lodged by Kevin Stewart, which would remove references to intentionality from the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in relation to persons who are threatened with homelessness. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 1052 does not do that for persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, as the removal of section 26 is not sufficient to achieve it.

Amendment 1052 is not the right approach at stage 2 when we have had only minimal stakeholder input. However, we support the wider principle and are committed to removing intentionality in the longer term in line with the recommendations from HARSAG.

I will come on to that point in a second.

Kevin Stewart was also minded to address the wider removal of intentionality in a further amendment at stage 3. On that basis, I would be happy to work with Maggie Chapman, Kevin Stewart and others to pick up on what we have heard and on how a new test of deliberate manipulation might work in practice, which brings us back to consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the points that Meghan Gallacher and other members raised. That would allow us more time to undertake the necessary stakeholder engagement and the policy and legal analysis.

I support the amendments in Kevin Stewart’s name. I ask Maggie Chapman not to press amendment 1052 but to work with me, Kevin Stewart and others ahead of stage 3 on something that works for councils, addresses unintended consequences and, most importantly, protects the people who are in the most need from being excluded from full homelessness assistance.

No. To come back to some of the points that we talked about in the consultation, it needs to be discussed further and I am happy to discuss that with Mr Griffin and Mr Simpson. The point that Mark Griffin made about the wraparound care is an important part of that.

I turn to amendment 1014, in the name of Alexander Stewart. I recognise the unique challenges that Gypsy and Traveller communities face. However, a duty to develop a separate strategy, as proposed in the amendment, risks us taking a piecemeal approach. The needs of different groups should be addressed through a better understanding in mainstream services. That is best done by updating the code of guidance on homelessness, informed by the lived experience of those groups and the stakeholders who work with them. Updates to existing guidance will be undertaken following the passage of the bill, and we will engage with Gypsy and Traveller communities to ensure that their needs are reflected. To come back to the point that Mr Simpson made, the updated code of guidance on homelessness is important.

The same argument applies to the proposal in amendment 1070, in the name of Ms Chapman. Those matters are better addressed in guidance to avoid a piecemeal approach to homelessness prevention.

Turning first to Alexander Stewart’s amendments 1008 and 1009, I would not want to support amendments that would narrow the definition of homelessness. I am concerned that amendments 1008 and 1009 would prevent people in temporary accommodation from being classed as homeless. That would only remove the duty on local authorities to find permanent accommodation for those people under section 31 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I could not support the removal of homelessness rights for those people.

I recognise the desire for there to be more clarity on the definitions of homelessness and of being threatened with homelessness. That is why, having consulted stakeholders such as Crisis, I have lodged amendment 1047 to enable the definitions of homelessness and of being threatened with homelessness to be modified by regulations, which will give us the flexibility to respond to issues or potential barriers as they arise.

Nevertheless, I am keen that we do not lose the broad definitions that already exist in primary legislation.

I will come back to that. The next sentence that I read out will cover that point.

Under section 32A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, local authorities must already have regard to the best interests of children in fulfilling their duties under sections 31 and 32 of that act towards people who have dependent children and who are either homeless or threatened with homelessness. Section 32A also requires local authorities to ensure that accommodation provided for children in those circumstances is suitable for occupation by them.

As I have said, I am happy to engage with Mr Griffin and Ms Duncan-Glancy on how we might enforce that aspect. The Scottish Government’s code of guidance on homelessness guides local authorities on how to meet their duties relating to people who are threatened with or are experiencing homelessness. The code is clear that homelessness services should be offered on the basis of a thorough assessment of the household’s needs. Local authorities should also have regard to the Scottish Government’s guidance from 2011 on acting in the best interests of children who face homelessness.

We expect relevant bodies to meet their existing legal duties relating to children as part of the delivery of new homelessness prevention duties. We have worked constructively with ���˿��� and stakeholders to strengthen the bill and ensure that the homelessness prevention measures are as robust as possible, so that they can protect all children in households.

I will. There is also a further statute that I will mention.

It is too early to say, at this stage, before we have the discussions. A key point is that, as I have laid out, statutes are already in place. Obviously, though, there are still issues with temporary accommodation, so we need to look at what we need to do to enforce the current legislation. I am happy to engage with Mr Griffin and others on that point. I am not going to say what will happen in relation to amendments between now and stage 3, before we have that discussion, but I am willing to have that engagement with Mr Griffin and others.

I oppose amendment 1077. Ms Boyack and I engaged on the matter last night. At that time, we had not heard from the City of Edinburgh Council on the particular point, and we agreed that we would try to get more detail on it.

I will touch on the essence of my opposition and how I would advise members to vote on the amendment. Local authorities already have a record of those who make an application to be assessed as homeless or who are threatened with homelessness. That information is required to enable a local authority comply with its statutory functions under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

It is unclear what the purpose would be of a separate register maintained by the Scottish Government. The information would need to be collected for a specific purpose and used only for that purpose, in order to comply with the United Kingdom’s general data protection regulation. In the amendment, there is no stated purpose for the register and no powers to use the information contained in the register in any specific way. The register could not be a public one because it would contain sensitive personal information. It is therefore not clear why a register would be necessary.

For those reasons, I encourage members of the committee to oppose the amendment, which would serve no benefit to those who are homeless and could conflict with the Scottish ministers’ duties under data protection legislation. I ask Sarah Boyack not to press the amendment. As I said in our engagement last night, I will discuss the matter further with her.

I am sorry, convener, but I have not finished my speech.

I will take Roz McCall and then Pam Duncan-Glancy.