³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

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.

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.

We would have to consider that, if that were to happen. I cannot pre-empt what another committee will say with regard to amendment 230. If that amendment was not agreed to, we would have to consider that point before stage 3.

I appreciate and understand the purpose of the amendments on the timing of commencement of the bill’s provisions. I understand any member’s desire to see progress on the delivery of the new duties and to avoid a loss of momentum. However, those objectives would be better met by supporting Mr Doris’s amendment 230 on commencement.

I hope that Mr Balfour will understand why I oppose amendment 1031, in his name, and amendment 1075, in the name of Mark Griffin. I share Mr Balfour’s desire to see progress, and I am happy to report back to the committee on the homelessness prevention pilots when that information is available. We might be able to pick that up outwith the bill process. Mr Balfour has made a very relevant point. However, my strong preferences is for that not to delay commencement of part 5. Similarly, I do not see any need to delay commencement pending a review of the costs of the ask and act duties. However, I appreciate the relevant points that Mr Griffin and Mr Balfour have made, and I am happy to engage with both of them before stage 3.

Finally, I ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 1076, which would impose a backstop date of 31 December 2028 for commencement of part 5 of the bill. I hope that Mr Griffin will agree that that is not necessary, given the amendment that Mr Doris has lodged, which will fix a backstop date for commencement with reference to royal assent and will therefore avoid any difficulty in timing should royal assent be delayed for any reason. The timing of the interim statement, as set out in amendment 1076, might also create difficulties in relation to the Scottish elections next year.

Yes, of course.

Apologies, convener, but I am not finished yet.

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 move amendments 1080, 1065, 1001, 1081, 1021, 1082, 1002, 1066, 1083, 1084, 1085 and 1091, or, if they are 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.

I am happy to come back on that issue, which I think will form part of the discussions that Mr Halcro Johnston and I will have, in which we can also pick up any other issues that he has raised. Mention has been made of the definitions; we can have further discussions about those.