���˿���

Moving on to group 8, I acknowledge the vital importance of information sharing and co-operation between different bodies in ensuring that the new duties, in particular the ask and act duty, are successful. I welcome the importance that stakeholders and members of the committee have attached to those issues, and, based on feedback, we have been working to ensure, through amendments in my name, that there is clarity in legislation, which will be supported by guidance that will be developed in partnership with stakeholders and relevant bodies.

Amendments 1041 and 1043, in my name, will strengthen the duty on relevant bodies to co-operate on actions to be taken by them to support a person who is threatened with homelessness. That new duty will also require those bodies to consult other bodies as appropriate.

Amendment 1045, in my name, confers a new power on those bodies to share information in connection with their ask and act duties. I believe that my amendment goes further than the information-sharing powers that Jeremy Balfour has proposed. We do not wish to prevent valuable information from being shared or to make those who are seeking assistance share distressing information on multiple occasions with different services. I also invite members to support amendment 1016, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, as that minor technical change is needed in consequence of amendment 1045.

I believe that amendments 1041, 1043 and 1045, together with Mr Balfour’s amendment 1016, address the issues that stakeholders have raised in relation to the need to strengthen the duty of co-operation and the powers to share information. The bill already requires relevant bodies to take appropriate action in relation to a person who is threatened with homelessness and to make an application to a local authority for accommodation or assistance only if they are unable to remove the threat of homelessness themselves. The Scottish Government amendments seek to ensure that the ask and act duty does not justify a default to a duty to defer to local authority housing departments, but can ensure a cultural shift in how relevant bodies work together to prevent homelessness.

Amendment 1017, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, provides a more limited information-sharing power for relevant bodies.

Amendment 1019, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, seeks to place a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with other bodies that provide support. That duty is set out in very broad terms, which could make it difficult for relevant bodies to comply with. The duty to co-operate in our amendments 1041 and 1043 applies only in relation to relevant bodies. I am happy to continue to engage with Mr Balfour if he still has concerns about that issue.

Amendment 1079, in the name of Sarah Boyack, provides for an information-sharing power to be set out in regulations, whereas amendment 1045 sets out the power in the bill. Amendment 1079 does not go as far on information-sharing as the Scottish Government amendment 1045, which places an information-sharing power in the 1987 act, not in regulations. There are rights in the United Kingdom general data protection regulations for data subjects to object to the processing of their data. Following a recent meeting with Ms Boyack, I would welcome further discussions on the principle of data.

Amendment 1020, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, requires relevant bodies to co-operate with a request for assistance from a local authority. Amendments 1041 and 1043 also require relevant bodies, including local authorities, to co-operate, but that duty begins at an earlier stage.

Accordingly, I ask members to support amendments 1041, 1043 and 1045 in my name and the consequential amendment 1016 in Jeremy Balfour’s name. I urge Mr Balfour and Ms Boyack not to move amendments 1017, 1019, 1079 and 1020. If they are moved, I ask members not to support them.

I move amendment 1041.

I am happy to commit to that.

It goes back to my earlier point: I am happy to consult the body in advance if adding it is going to reduce homelessness. If that is the case, we would consider adding the body to the list, subject to the approval of the Parliament. That will be based on the discussions that we have—on the consultation and on what comes back from the sector.

Moving on to amendment 1021, the Scottish Government is not aware of any consultation being undertaken with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the issue. That is an important step to be taken before consideration is given to adding ���˿��� to the list. Mr Balfour and I have discussed that previously, and I think that I asked Mr Balfour to look into the issue.

I see that Mr Balfour wishes to intervene.

I fully recognise the importance of continuing to improve the energy efficiency of our existing housing stock, including rural properties. Section 6 of the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 already requires the strategy to take account of support for fuel-poor residential buildings, which captures dwellings in rural and island communities. Amendment 1050 would not change that and is not required.

Furthermore, our fuel poverty definition accounts for the additional costs that are associated with living in remote and island communities. The legislation provides for uplifts to be applied to the minimum income standard for households in those areas. We presently support households across the length and breadth of Scotland through the warmer homes Scotland scheme and area-based schemes, which are our long-standing energy efficiency delivery programmes. I am satisfied that our current offer of support to households already broadly covers what is proposed in Ms Hamilton’s amendment 1050. Accordingly, I ask her not to press it. If it is pressed, I ask committee members not to support it. As Ms Hamilton and I have discussed, I am happy to engage with her further in respect of the support that is presently available.

My amendment 1051 clarifies that the proposed changes to the periodic reporting timescale will not apply to the first fuel poverty periodic report, which is due by the end of this financial year. I ask members to support the amendment when the time comes.

Section 42 does not specify “students” but looks at everyone’s needs. I understand the point that Graham Simpson has made, because we have previously discussed how important it is that local housing strategies include the needs of the student sector. As I have said, I am happy to have further engagement with Mr Simpson on that point.

That is something that we would have to discuss. When we met before, we agreed to meet to discuss that further. Without wishing to pre-empt any further discussions that we or you may have, I am happy to pick up on that point and to have further discussions. I am not going to pre-empt things, however, and say that we would support—

Mr Balfour, you will be aware of the discussions that are being had. At this stage, we think that that aspect should be dealt with in statutory guidance, but we can discuss that. You mentioned discussions in the future; as I have said, I think that this aspect should be addressed in statutory guidance, but I appreciate your point, and I am happy to pick it up in further discussions.

Amendment 1089, in the name of Katy Clark, would require social landlords, as part of their domestic abuse policy, to consider writing off a tenant’s rent arrears in whole or in part, where those rent arrears have arisen due to domestic abuse. The bill already contains provisions in sections 44 and 45 for social landlords to take action to support tenants with rent arrears arising from domestic abuse. Section 44 creates a pre-action requirement for social landlords to take such action as they consider to be reasonable to support the tenant in those circumstances, having regard to their domestic abuse policy.

Section 45 requires social landlords to have a domestic abuse policy that includes a description of the action that must be taken in relation to the needs of a tenant in such circumstances. Scottish ministers can specify additional pre-action requirements via regulations, which would offer the opportunity to consult social landlords on the proposal. We agree that we can go further with this amendment, but there are some drafting issues with it, and I ask the member to work with me on the matter before stage 3.

Amendment 1024, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, would require a court to delay a social landlord’s right to recover possession by one year and landlords and tenants to agree a reasonable payment plan for future and outstanding rents. Existing statutory provisions already require all social landlords and tenants to make all reasonable efforts to agree a payment plan for future and outstanding rents, and social landlords cannot raise eviction proceedings for rent arrears in court unless those existing statutory provisions have been complied with.

Delaying eviction by one year where domestic abuse is a factor in rent arrears would represent a significant interference in landlords’ property rights. The amendment proposes a blanket ban on eviction for one year, but provisions already in the bill will require the court to consider a delay to the enforcement of eviction in every rent arrears case. Where the court decides that a delay to the enforcement of eviction is appropriate, it will have discretion to determine the length of the delay according to the circumstances of the individual case. Amendment 1024 could be seen as a significant interference in the rights of landlords under amendment 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, and it is not clear whether such interference would be proportionate to the aim. I believe that further consultation would be required on that.

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.

On amendment 1066, the inclusion of strategic health bodies on the list would seem to be the best way to engage primary health services in their role, and doing so would be clarified in the statutory guidance. I know that GP practices are of particular interest, and we have been clear about the role that community link workers could play in the surgeries that they are being deployed to.

We have talked about the homelessness prevention pilots that are coming up, and one of the key things that we will be discussing with those who are successful in that scheme is the role of GPs on that particular point. I am therefore happy to engage with Mr Griffin and Mr Balfour on the issues that they raised, and the pilots will be coming on stream very quickly.

On amendment 1084, we are engaging with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about its potential inclusion at a later date, but again I would ask for time to have those discussions.

On amendment 1085, we propose to add the Scottish ministers to the list of relevant bodies in so far as they have functions in relation to social security, including those functions that are carried out by Social Security Scotland. That is achieved by amendment 1049.

On amendment 1091, which would add the Scottish Prison Service to the list of relevant bodies, the bill already includes the Scottish ministers and functions relating to prisons and young offender institutions, which includes the functions of the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish Prison Service is an executive agency of the Scottish ministers and has no separate legal identity. There has already been consultation and engagement with the Scottish Prison Service on the bill.

I ask members to support my amendment 1049 and not to press or move amendments 1080, 1065, 1001, 1081, 1021, 1082, 1002, 1066, 1083, 1084, 1085 and 1091, or, if they are pressed or moved, I ask members not to support them. I will also take into consideration the offer to meet members further to discuss the points that have been raised.

I will come on to that, but the more general point is that we are not starting afresh. Where there is existing training in place, it is important that we strengthen it. There have already been extensive discussions with the sectors that we are talking about, such as the Scottish Prison Service, local authorities and the national health service.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I urge Ms Gallacher not to press amendment 1011. If it is pressed, I ask members not to support it. That does not mean that I do not support Ms Gallacher’s aims, which are to ensure that people who work on the front line have the skills and knowledge to support individuals who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. Following our recent meeting, I am happy to engage further with Ms Gallacher on this important issue and on the points raised by the amendment and in her intervention.