���˿���

I will come back to that point, because I want to address it in relation to another amendment. It is a fair point, and I will deal with it.

As for amendments 1024 to 1030, I will not be moving them this morning, but I am interested in hearing more about where the Scottish Government is on the matters in question. The first of those amendments would put the duty that will exist for social landlords on to private landlords, too. I have had helpful conversations with the minister about this, and to pick up on Mr Doris’s point, I think that such a duty would probably be overly burdensome for someone who owned one or two flats, so it should not be followed.

However, as Mr Doris also pointed out, the duty should perhaps apply to someone who owns multiple flats, and I think that that should perhaps be the case for not just amendment 1023 but amendment 1024. I am interested to know whether the Government would look at those amendments in a different light if they were to set out the number of flats that the duty would apply to, so that they did not pick up landlords with just one or two individual flats.

The rest of my amendments are in some ways similar to Katy Clark’s, in that they would put a duty on social landlords to think about whether they should evict someone simply for being in arrears. Arrears are an important issue, because every social landlord has to keep revenue coming in to make their cash flow work, but I would be interested in hearing from the minister whether there could be a longer grace period for social landlords and whether we could explore that at stage 3.

We all want those who have experienced domestic abuse to be protected from eviction, and it makes little sense for someone to be evicted from a property, become homeless and then have to start the journey all over again. We are aware that such situations often affect children, who have to move school and lose friends and their support network. As a result, we all want greater protection for people to allow them to stay in tenancies if at all possible, while at the same time recognising that social and private landlords need to have rent coming through so that they can continue to exist. I would be interested to hear what the minister has to say about the rest of my amendments.

This is an important part of the bill, and one which, I am sure, all members will want to see work in practice.

I appreciate that Katy Clark will not be pressing amendment 1061 or moving her other amendments in the group, but I should say that we would have supported them, because the intention behind them is right. However, going back to the meaning of the phrase “including consideration”, which I raised in my intervention, I do not want to teach my granny to suck eggs, as Katy Clark is a better lawyer than I ever was, but I do think that there needs to be a better legal test. My fear is that this will simply become a box-ticking exercise.

We will support Maggie Chapman’s amendments 1022 and 1069, if she decides to move them. We also support the amendments that will be discussed later by Meghan Gallacher and Rachael Hamilton.

Amendment 1023, in my name, creates a duty on social landlords to point those who have experienced domestic abuse to appropriate legal advice and opportunities. I claim no expertise on what it must be like to experience domestic abuse, but I am sure that people need legal help and advice at an appropriate point. Often, though, it is not clear where to get such advice, nor is it clear which legal firms still do that type of work, wherever you are. There is, particularly in rural areas of Scotland, a lack of criminal or civil lawyers who do legal aid work on domestic abuse. The amendment, therefore, would make the social landlord not do the work themselves but point the individual towards it. That would be really helpful.

Will the member take an intervention?

With regard to the wording of amendment 1089, what do you understand by the phrase “including consideration”? That could mean someone thinking about it, then simply moving on. What would you expect “including consideration” to actually mean in practice to a local authority housing officer sitting there on a Tuesday afternoon?

I want to explore further the point that Mr Griffin made in his intervention about the Government’s proposed ability to redefine homelessness through regulation. We are making legislation not just for the current Government in this session of Parliament but for future Governments in future sessions of Parliament.

I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which spends a great deal of time looking at regulations. It is obvious from our work that regulations do not get the same scrutiny as primary legislation does. We do not know what a future Government might look like in five, 10 or 15 years’ time.

Will the minister tell me why there might be a need to introduce a new definition of homelessness via regulations? Why can we not simply include a definition in the bill? If a future Parliament or a future Government wants to change that, it should do so through primary legislation rather than through regulations.

I am very sympathetic to amendment 1078. If a future Government did not make such housing available, what would be the consequences? How would the provisions be enforced?

On a point of order, convener.

I thank the member for his intervention, and I appreciate that. I still think that there needs to be some clarification before such a measure is put into the legislation.

As I have said, we are sympathetic to the amendments and we hope that they could appear as final amendments at stage 3, but at this stage, we think that a little more work is required to be done on them.

I have no issue with the Government’s intentions on that. My concern is that we must pass legislation that is fit for future generations. Yes, there has to be consultation, but the mechanism for considering amending regulations in the Parliament involves much less scrutiny than is the case for primary legislation.

I appreciate that time is moving on. We will support amendment 1047, but we would welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with the Government and other members about whether it could be slightly tightened up at stage 3. I hope that such conversations can take place.

I welcome the amendments from Maggie Chapman and Kevin Stewart. This is one of the important debates around the bill. I also add my thanks to Crisis for its briefing on the matter; I know that this is a key area of the bill for Crisis.

It is clear that a line needs to be drawn between someone intentionally making themselves homeless for whatever reason and giving that protection to people who become homeless for different reasons. That is a difficult balance to strike. It is also clear that Maggie Chapman’s amendment 1052 would simply get rid of intentionality completely. I do not think that that is the right way forward, because that would open up the system and cause issues in dealing with the most vulnerable people in our society. For that reason, we will not support amendment 1052.