Scottish Parliament, 13 June 2001

549 contributions from 37 members. The official report.

Introduction

Time for Reflection

David (None, Lothians)

We welcome to lead our time for reflection this morning the Rev Kenneth D Macleod, a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland from the isle of Harris.

Oaths

David (None, Lothians)

We now invite two new members to take the oath: the new member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Mr Brian Fitzpatrick, and the new member for Banff and Buchan, Mr Stewart Stevenson. [ Applause. ]

The following members took the oath:

Brian Fitzpatrick (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab) Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

David (None, Lothians)

Our next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Euan Robson to move business motion S1M-2003.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Before moving the business motion, I draw members' attention to two changes to this week's business. This morning's business will end at 12 noon, rather than at 12.30, to allow for preparations for President Mbeki's address to the Parliament. Business will resume at 2 pm. The other changes are as set out in the business bulletin.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the following revisions to the Business Motion agreed on 6 June 2001:

Wednesday 13 June 2001 after Stage 3 Debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, delete:

2.30 pm Continuation of Stage 3 Debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill and insert:

2.00 pm Continuation of Stage 3 Debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill Thursday 14 June 2001 delete all for that day and insert:

9.30 am Stage 1 Debate on the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill followed by Procedures Committee Debate on its Reports on Written Parliamentary Questions and Changes to Standing Orders followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm European Committee Debate on its Report on the Common Fisheries Policy followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1937 Cathy Jamieson: Adult Learners' Week Motion agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

Business motion S1M-2008 is the timetabling motion for stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the time for consideration of Stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill be allocated as follows, so that debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion on the expiry of the specified period (calculated from the time when Stage 3 begins and excluding any periods when the meeting is suspended) -

Group 1 to Group 6 - no later than 1 hour 30 minutes Group 7 to Group 10 - no later than 2 hours 30 minutes Group 11 to Group 15 - no later than 4 hours Group 16 to Group 24 - no later than 6 hours Group 25 to Group 32 - no later than 7 hours Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 7 hours 30 minutes.—[Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

David (None, Lothians)

We now come to stage 3 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I do not think that I need read out the procedure—I hope that everybody is familiar with it.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With reference to the "Guidance on Public Bills", on the selection of amendments, I ask you to reflect—over lunch, perhaps—on your refusal to select an amendment. I believe that your decision contravenes the guidance, which states:

"Selection should not ... reduce the range of important issues considered."

However, you have excluded an important issue from the right-to-buy debate—whether the right to buy should be completely removed from the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I therefore ask you to reconsider your selection of amendments, so as perhaps to bring back on to the agenda the amendment to which I am alluding. It is important for the choice to be available to members who think that the right to buy should be removed from the bill completely, instead of just being watered down or extended.

David (None, Lothians)

I assure Mr Sheridan and all members that I spent longer on the selection and grouping of these amendments than I did on those to any other bill in our two-year history. That took most of Monday afternoon, together with all the clerks who have been involved with the bill. Each amendment was considered very carefully and I have to stand by the guidance that I have given the chamber. It is always possible to argue that this or that amendment should or should not have been selected, but I am afraid that the responsibility is mine—I have discharged it to the best of my ability. I am not willing to reopen the issue.

David (None, Lothians)

Let us proceed with the first grouping. Amendment 14 is grouped with amendments 17 and 20.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Section 2 imposes a general duty on local authorities to ensure that advice and information about homelessness is available in their areas. The detail of the advice, information and quality standards is to be set out in the supporting guidance. There is no good reason to elevate any element of that by including it in the bill.

We are absolutely clear about the importance of independent advice. We have already given a commitment that guidance will be clear on the need for local authorities to secure a comprehensive package of advice, including access to independent advice. However, that does not preclude local authorities from providing advice and information.

We informed the Social Justice Committee that the homelessness task force would draw up guidance and that the committee would be consulted during that process. In addition, the regulator will be able to monitor observance of that guidance. Therefore, amendments 17 and 20 are unnecessary and we will oppose them.

Amendment 14 is a technical amendment, which reflects a minor drafting error that crept in at stage 2.

I move amendment 14.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The minister referred to the need for certain situations to be illustrated in the bill. However, provisions that are included in legislation give not only guidance but instruction. It is important to include in the bill the idea of independent advice, rather than only advice from a local authority, as a local authority may be pursuing a tenant in relation to eviction or another aspect of housing policy. Amendment 17 is simple: it would write into the bill the idea that advice should be independent, rather than being from a potential pursuer, irrespective of whether that is a registered social landlord or a local authority.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I take on board the minister's comments, which I welcome, as I did at stage 2. However, the bill does not go far enough, as it should include reference to independent advice.

Amendment 14 is a technical, tidying-up amendment and it is obviously acceptable.

I have some worries about Tommy Sheridan's amendment 17, although I know that it was lodged with the best of intentions. The wording of amendment 17 could prevent councils from giving advice, although sometimes they are best placed to do so.

Amendment 20 is necessary. It proposes that homeless people should have access to all agencies that may be able to offer assistance, not just to councils. Independent advice is available from such agencies and it is important that people can access that advice and that they know where those agencies are located. Amendment 20 is not a slight on local authorities—it is about giving homeless people a choice. They should be able to choose, independently, from a citizens advice bureau, Shelter, a lawyer, a local authority or any other agency. The amendment is important and I hope that the minister will accept it.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Executive's position is clear. Amendments 17 and 20 are unnecessary. We debated this issue at stage 2 and we are clear that all advice, independent or otherwise, is captured by the legislation. The detail of where to find the most useful advice in particular situations is best left to guidance.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

Amendment 15 is grouped with amendments 135 and 189.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The bill marks another step in the mainstreaming of equality into the work of the Parliament. We introduced into the bill a general equalities provision—section 94A—which requires local authorities and Scottish ministers to exercise their functions under the bill in a manner that encourages equal opportunities. Since introducing that provision, we have been asked by equalities groups, including the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Equality Network, to detail how that general requirement will be pursued in practice. Amendments 15 and 135 require local authorities to set out how they are complying with the duty under section 94A in their homelessness and local housing strategies.

The equalities groups also asked for the duty under section 94A to be extended to RSLs. Amendment 189 extends that duty to RSLs in their provision of housing accommodation and related services.

I move amendment 15.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The SNP welcomes a stronger emphasis on equal opportunities. I acknowledge that the Equal Opportunities Committee worked hard to ensure that the bill enshrined the need for equal opportunities.

There is a concern that many people in society pay only lip service to equal opportunities. I ask the minister to make some mention of a method of assurance. How will the provisions be implemented and appropriately monitored?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

There is an argument that amendment 15 is unnecessary and that there is no requirement for it to be included in the bill. However, the amendment underlines a point and, on that basis, Conservative members find it acceptable and will support it.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I will respond briefly to those points.

I assure Linda Fabiani that we will make every effort to ensure that the provisions are implemented—I will take a personal interest in that work. The new executive agency will have a specific remit for monitoring and implementation. I guarantee the chamber that our commitment to equal opportunities is absolute.

We recognise that equality of opportunity is about more than just legislation and we will use whatever levers we can to ensure the implementation of equal opportunities in spirit and in fact.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

I ask Mr Sheridan whether he wishes to press amendment 17.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The will of the Parliament is clear.

Amendment 17 not moved.

[Amendment 20 moved—[Ms Sandra White].]

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20 disagreed to.

David (None, Lothians)

Amendment 21 is grouped with amendments 152, 22, 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 26, 192, 193.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

A nation should be judged on how it treats the most vulnerable people in society and Parliament should be judged on the steps that it takes to support the most vulnerable groups in society; that is what section 3 is about.

I will deal first with amendment 21, before dealing with the amendments that address priority need, and the remaining amendments in group 3.

Those who seek asylum from persecution and violence are some of the most vulnerable people in the world. Today, the Parliament can decide how to respond to their housing needs. We can also consider whether our councils are the most appropriate bodies to have the power to house asylum seekers—by treating them as homeless—as has been the case in the past, or whether the faceless, distant and bureaucratic national asylum support service in Croydon best serves that purpose.

What would amendment 21 do? It would restore to councils the powers that they had to house asylum seekers prior to the enactment of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It would allow asylum seekers to be designated as homeless under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Councils are in a far better position to respond to needs and to move asylum seekers if more appropriate accommodation is needed—for children, for example.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No—I want to move on.

Once NASS allocates an address from its pool of addresses, that address cannot be changed—however inappropriate it might be.

When I deputised as convener of the then Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee late last year, I was pleased to arrange—with the agreement of the committee—for us to take evidence on a petition on housing needs for asylum seekers. It was interesting that, the very week that the committee went to visit Sighthill in Glasgow, NASS devolved in practice to Glasgow City Council the powers that we seek today to make councils have in law. That was too late, because some arrangements had already been made.

Why are those matters relevant at stage 3 of the bill? I am pleased that amendment 21 has been accepted for discussion at stage 3. At stage 2, eyebrows were raised over its relevance or appropriateness. However, asylum is most definitely a topical issue—for all the wrong political reasons in some quarters. I want to put it on the agenda for the right reasons—to address the compassion, flexibility and standards with which we treat those who seek asylum.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I fear that the member might be trying to mislead members. Does she agree that asylum seekers and refugees have the same rights to housing accommodation as any British citizen?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am trying to discuss who has the power to decide on accommodation issues. I am not going to argue over a constitutional point about who decides British citizenship. The matter is very serious: at stage 2, I was accused by Labour members—as is happening now—of somehow trying to make constitutional mischief. We heard cheap and feeble jokes about Sean Connery, but the situation is desperately serious. It is so serious that, when the cross-party group on refugees wanted to lodge a motion for discussion during members' business, we decided not to lodge it in the name of an SNP member because we might have been accused of making constitutional mischief. Indeed, we asked Cathy Jamieson, who lodged that motion—

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

No one asked me to lodge that motion on behalf of anybody. I lodged that motion because it was something that I wished to be debated. We have just heard some misinformation; the SNP did not ask me to lodge a motion.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The vast majority of asylum seekers end up having their applications approved, and remain here as refugees. Scotland and, indeed, England have a long tradition of housing those who seek political refuge. We will be addressed in only a few hours' time by a man who sought political refuge from the British Government. Only a few weeks ago, Cardinal Winning wrote in a national newspaper about our responsibilities as a country and as a society to support asylum seekers. Housing is only one aspect of the problems that face asylum seekers. There are many others, but we are not here to address them today. We are here to address the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Housing (Scotland) Bill and how they treat homeless people.

At stage 2, the Minister for Social Justice rejected the argument that I advanced. She said that one could not give a statutory right to housing if the individual concerned did not have a statutory right to remain in the country. That response was flawed—Government does have a responsibility to house asylum seekers while they are seeking asylum and before a decision is made on whether they have a right to remain. The issue is not new. I raised it in June 1999 with Donald Dewar. We can make a decision on the matter if we want to.

Amendment 21 might not help to tackle racism and other problems that asylum seekers face. However, agreeing to that amendment would be a signal that this Parliament is prepared to take on its responsibilities and to deal with this issue compassionately and practically.

I will talk briefly about the other amendments in the group. At stage 1, the Local Government Committee report recommended that priority need be given to 16 and 17-year-olds. Often, the Government's answer to suggestions that we should progress in a certain way is to set up a working group or task force. I know that the homelessness task force is considering the need to specify priority needs in future. It might be that we can abolish priority need and similar references. However, such legislation might come too late for many 16 and 17-year-olds. If we have the opportunity—as we do today—why do we not give dignity and respect to 16 and 17-year-olds and give them priority need in the bill?

Amendments 23 and 24 are technical. The minister will speak to them. We welcome the reference to children in amendment 25. At stage 2, Robert Brown lodged many amendments on that issue and I am pleased that we will discuss it again today. We regard amendments 192 and 193 as quite sensible.

This is a test of the Parliament and of how seriously we take our responsibilities. Asylum seekers and their housing needs are very much the responsibility of the Parliament. I would like to restore to our councils the powers that they had prior to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That would be simple and practical, and it would send a very strong signal.

I move amendment 21.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Amendment 152 would allow houses that might not currently be in use—tied houses or houses that are associated with particular types of property—to be used as permanent accommodation. Some people are concerned that those who are allocated such housing might not be allowed the security of tenure that others have. When we struggle to find appropriate accommodation, we should at least consider every available vacant property for those who cannot currently find suitable accommodation. I do not whole-heartedly share the concerns that other members have expressed—which is natural enough, because I lodged amendment 152. The amendment would widen the range of houses that might be available for allocation.

I agree broadly with the technical measures that the minister wishes to introduce, and I whole-heartedly support what my colleague Fiona Hyslop said about amendment 21.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Group 3 is a large group that covers a range of amendments to sections 3 and 3A of the bill. I will do my best to cover all the main points as briefly as possible—but members should please bear with me, because there are some important issues to consider.

I will deal first with the Executive's amendments. Amendment 25 fulfils a commitment that I gave to Robert Brown at stage 2 in relation to children. It is absolutely right that the needs of children should be highlighted and amendment 25 will achieve that purpose. It will require local authorities—in exercising their functions under sections 31 and 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987—to have regard to the best interests of any dependent children in a case. That is an effective way to emphasise the importance of children in homelessness decisions.

Although amendment 25 is specifically focused, I should make it clear that guidance on local authority homelessness strategies will also set out the need for authorities to consider the needs of children more generally in the preparation of their strategies. The terms of amendment 25 are supported by Children in Scotland.

The other Executive amendments in the group will simply make some necessary tidying-up changes, either by clarifying legislative references or, in the case of amendment 26, by undoing a redundant stage 2 amendment.

I turn now to the non-Executive amendments in the group. Amendment 152 would add to the definition of permanent accommodation certain tenancies which, for good reasons, are exempt from the Scottish secure tenancy. The code of guidance makes it plain that

"local authorities should always seek to secure long-term solutions"

to homelessness,

"including the provision of permanent accommodation with security of tenure."

Therefore we do not wish to see tenancies in the categories that would be covered by amendment 152 being counted as permanent accommodation by local authorities when deciding whether there is a continuing duty to provide assistance.

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 revisit the stage 2 debate. The existing categories of priority need are set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and power exists for Scottish ministers to add to those through subordinate legislation. There is therefore no need to use primary legislation for the purpose of the amendments. However, there is a need for careful consideration to be given to the issue. The homelessness task force is made up of key bodies that are involved in working to tackle homelessness and it is examining priority need categories. It will report later this year and when it has done so we can reflect on what changes might be needed. I am pleased that, at stage 2, the Social Justice Committee rejected an ad hoc approach to adding to priority need and accepted that it would be much better to wait for the task force's considered proposals.

Robert Brown's amendment 192 would require an independent assessor to be appointed in every case in which the local authority reviews a homelessness decision. We acknowledge that in some cases an independent element might be helpful. Currently, ministers have the power to offer guidance on circumstances in which that might be appropriate—for example, a local authority might wish to seek independent advice on a particularly complex or contentious case to assist it in coming to a decision on review.

However, the approach that is set out in amendment 192 would allow no discretion. An assessor would be needed in every case, however minor or straightforward that case was. In every case, an independent assessor would have to be appointed, study the papers and participate in the review. Discussions would have to take place to resolve any disagreement. Although I have no problem with the principle behind the amendment, that would inevitably take time and it would complicate the review. Principles must be balanced with practical effect. The Executive believes that procedures should be quick and efficient as well as fair. The needs of the applicant are important; lengthy and bureaucratic procedures help no one. I am pleased that the Social Justice Committee supported that view at stage 2.

There is no definition in amendment 192 of who should be regarded as an independent assessor and there is no explanation of what should happen if the assessor and the local authority officer disagree. Robert Brown has consistently put forward the proposal and cares deeply about it. I hope that he can take some reassurance from the position that has been established by the Executive, and which he has helped to shape.

We have gone beyond the recommendations of the homelessness task force and inserted in the bill a statutory right of a person to request a review of a decision. The code of guidance sets out that an applicant can make representations in writing or in person and that an independent person may accompany them. We already have powers to offer further guidance on when an independent element might be appropriate, and regulation will allow us to monitor the operation of the review system and pick up on any difficulties.

Amendment 192 does not offer a helpful way forward that would enhance the current position. I ask Robert Brown not to move the amendment in light of the substantial reassurances that have been provided.

Amendment 193 seeks to integrate assessments of housing support needs and provision of housing support into the homelessness process. I made it plain at stage 2 that we are enormously sympathetic to some of the principles that underpin the amendment, but the amendment is not the way in which to meet those principles. Amendment 193 would require comprehensive assessment in every case and does not focus on those in most need. The wider issue of support needs for homeless people should be addressed through homelessness strategies, in which local authorities work in partnership with other groups—social work and health services, for example. The homelessness task force is also considering support needs for homeless people and will consider the need for any legislative change in that area. On that basis, I ask Robert Brown not to move amendment 193.

On amendment 21, we have already had the debate at stage 2 and I am disappointed that Fiona Hyslop has attempted to bring it back. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the way in which the needs of asylum seekers are handled, two things are clear: first, legislation on immigration and asylum seekers is outwith the competence of this Parliament; secondly, it is illogical to give a statutory right to housing to an individual who does not have a statutory right to remain in the country. In addition, it is important to remember that once an asylum seeker has been accepted as a refugee, he or she is entitled to the same rights to homelessness assistance and accommodation as anybody else in the country is. Cathie Craigie made that point.

I therefore urge the Parliament to reject amendment 21, which is beyond Parliament's competence. Passing that amendment would bring into question the overall competence of the bill.

David (None, Lothians)

Tricia Marwick will speak to amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the others in the group.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 all seek to extend priority need categories. I will address the amendments individually.

I am aware that the homelessness task force is examining the issue—as the minister said—but that is not an excuse for doing nothing, nor is it enough for the minister to say that ministers can introduce the amendments through secondary legislation. The minister has the opportunity to do something now. The matter has needed to be addressed for many years. It is no great secret that the homelessness task force will seek to recommend amendments that are similar to my amendments and I see no reason for further delay. Indeed, the Social Justice Committee recommended at stage 1 to extend categories of priority need to include single young women who have been abused, people who have institutional or care backgrounds, and all 16 or 17-year-olds. My amendments seek to do those things.

Amendment 2 concerns young people between the ages of 16 and 18. It is astonishing that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 accepts that all young people under the age of 18 are children and are therefore vulnerable, but that a number of other pieces of legislation—including homelessness legislation—and now the Housing (Scotland) Bill do not accept that young people under the age of 18 are vulnerable by virtue of their age. It seems contradictory that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 accepts that people under 18 are children, but that proposed homelessness legislation does not. We all recognise how vulnerable young people are. We need to give them support and I urge members to reject the minister's advice and make a commitment to young people—particularly to 16 to 18-year-olds who might end up on the streets with very little support from local authorities.

I will deal with amendment 3 very briefly. Amendment 3 seeks to give priority need to those who have left care institutions, other institutions and the armed services. Currently, those people have no priority under homelessness legislation, despite the fact that research shows that people who leave the armed forces are more than likely to end up on the streets. We have a duty to support them.

Amendments 4 and 5 deal with violence and the fear of violence. They are particularly relevant to this Parliament and to the support that it can give to women who are trying to flee from domestic violence, and to people who are in fear of violence, which is generally external violence that is perpetrated against them. Many people leave their houses because of the fear of violence. Unless we accept that they have priority need, we will not be able to address their problems.

Finally, I acknowledge that local authorities must have regard to the present code of guidance.

However, having regard to a code of guidance is not the same as adhering to statutory rights. The amendments seek to give very vulnerable people statutory rights. At the moment, not only are there postcode waiting lists in Scotland, but there is postcode treatment of homeless people. The code of guidance is merely guidance and has no statutory force. Unless local authorities act in concert throughout Scotland, people in parts of Scotland will be treated differently from those in other parts. That is why we need statutory rights, rather than codes of guidance.

I urge members to support amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5.

David (None, Lothians)

Robert Brown will speak to amendments 192 and 193 and the others in the group.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I pay tribute to the minister's responses to many points that were raised at the committee stage, which was quite substantial. I will deal with some of the substantive issues in the group.

On amendment 21, Fiona Hyslop has not hit the nail on the head. She has tried to make a political and constitutional point out of a matter that hides behind it a genuine issue. I had cause to visit a Scottish refugee group on Monday and talked to refugees about the problems that they face. One thing that emerged clearly was the hiatus at the point at which people have had their appeal refused, but at which their case was going on to judicial review at the Court of Session. At that point, people have no statutory right to housing and are often left with no recourse, despite the fact that they are still legitimately in the country, awaiting the outcome of legal proceedings.

It should be clear to the Parliament that there has been a change in phraseology from that of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The original section 24 said that a person is homeless if they have no accommodation in

"Scotland, or England, or Wales".

I am not sure why Northern Ireland is missing from that. That section would now read: "in the United Kingdom or elsewhere". I have no difficulty with the phrase "United Kingdom", although some members appear to, but I have some qualms about the phrase "or elsewhere". I imagine that there is no particular problem establishing whether people have housing in the UK, Ireland or Europe, but there may be considerably greater problems—leading to injustice—when dealing with people who have come from the Indian subcontinent or certain parts of Africa. The practical issues that may arise are substantial. I introduced an amendment at stage 2 on the issue and I would appreciate some assurance from the minister that those points will be taken up in the guidance.

I will deal briefly with the issue of priority need. At stage 2, I was among those who thought that there was merit in including in the bill the priority need extensions that Tricia Marwick has referred to. I am satisfied by the minister's assurances on the matter at this stage, but it is something that we should revisit. In due course, I would like to hear about the work of the homelessness task force and the outcome of its deliberations in that regard. That is the right way to proceed against the background of reviewing priority need.

I am pleased about amendment 25, which relates to children. As members have suggested, I took that issue up in several different ways at the Social Justice Committee and it is appropriate that it be included in the bill. However, I have a couple of points relating to the practical effect of the amendment. Amendment 25 refers to section 25 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, which defines those people who have priority need for accommodation, such as pregnant women and a person with whom "dependent children reside", among others. The minister has focused on those who have dependent children. However, if people were housed in terms of priority need—irrespective of whether they had children—under one or other of the headings, that would be a way round that particular aspect of the way in which the minister has rephrased the provision. That can be dealt with in guidance, but again I seek reassurance on how that will be done.

Finally, I will turn to amendments 192 and 193. Amendment 192 relates to the review of decisions under homelessness arrangements made by the local authorities. I began with the view that the proper way to deal with that was by a statutory right of appeal to the sheriff court. That is the usual way in which to deal with rights that are laid out in statute. I was persuaded that, in such a situation, that approach might lead to bureaucratic difficulties beyond the benefits that might be gained from it. We came to an intermediate position where people would have a statutory right to a review by a higher official of the council. However, I remain of the view that there are difficulties in that approach. There is a possibility that it will be a rubber-stamping operation, focused on the institution's desire to defend its own rights and so on. It is important to have an independent element.

I am reassured to some extent by the minister's comments on the discretionary element. However, if the right of review is to be effective and workable, it must not be left to the local authority's discretion. I hope that the guidance that the minister issues will take the maximalist position on the independent element. I suspect that Jackie Baillie will have problems in determining the difference between complex cases and more straightforward ones. If I may explain it to the chamber, the current wording would mean that the review process would not apply to every homelessness decision. It would apply to issues of principle about whether people have priority need, are homeless and so on. Not every homeless case would have a review in that context. I hope that the minister will go as far as she possibly can.

There is an important issue behind the debate surrounding amendment 193. The committee heard evidence about the problems that people experience in sustaining their tenancies. The Scottish Churches Housing Agency suggested an amendment, drawing on research done in Edinburgh, which indicated that in 1999, 46 per cent of tenancies resulting from homeless allocations terminated by the end of 2000 and 42 per cent of those terminated within 24 weeks. A considerable number of those cases involved youngsters. There is a resource issue, but support is important. The intolerable figures would suggest the revolving-door syndrome: we house people who have become homeless, they lose their tenancy and we start all over again. It is important that we get this right. I seek reassurance from the minister that support mechanisms will be given top priority in the guidance and the arrangements that are put in place. I accept that it may not be necessary to target every homeless person. However, a considerable number may need to be assessed to find out what requirements they have to enable them to sustain the tenancy and to eradicate the revolving-door syndrome.

I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but the amendments in the group address many important issues.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Several issues arise from the group of amendments. It is perhaps unfortunate that Fiona Hyslop should find herself castigated for lodging amendment 21. She was correct to highlight the problem. Having said that, the amendment asks the Parliament to act ultra vires—we have absolutely no control over UK legislation and we must adhere to that arrangement.

I was rather puzzled by Brian Adam's intention in amendment 152. I am not convinced by his explanation that that is the best way round the particular difficulty with such tenancies. Were the Parliament to support amendment 152, local authorities and bodies such as police boards and hospital trusts would be placed in an invidious position. We cannot support the amendment.

The Executive amendments are part of a tidying-up process. Perhaps they are needed to deal with failures in the drafting system over the past few months. That highlights the possibility that we have proceeded at a somewhat hasty rate—of course, I hold the minister personally responsible for that.

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, in the name of Tricia Marwick, have some merit, to greater and lesser extents. As the minister said, those elements are largely covered elsewhere. As such, we are unable to support those amendments.

I am pleased that the minister has recognised the concerns that were raised in the committee at stage 2 and has satisfied us by addressing them in amendment 25. We can all sign up to that amendment cheerfully.

On amendment 192, as I said in committee in relation to a similar amendment previously lodged by Robert Brown, the cost and bureaucracy involved would perhaps undo any benefit that might accrue. Clearly, one would wish to be as fair as possible to people in such circumstances, but Robert Brown's suggestion is not an appropriate way forward.

I was prepared to listen to what Robert Brown had to say in respect of amendment 193. Those who are particularly vulnerable should have a degree of support. We could all narrate from our own experience particular cases where that level of support has not been forthcoming and the revolving-door principle has applied.

That said, on balance, the issue should not be in the bill. If everyone in the Benefits Agency, the social work department and the housing department does their work, the problem should not arise. Like many others on the marshalled list, amendment 193 has a degree of merit, but the argument must be whether we should have such measures in the act, as it will be, or whether we should leave it to guidance and to the principle that the appropriate support agencies should fulfil their roles in a satisfactory manner. On balance, we go along with the latter proposition and we shall not support amendment 193.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I welcome Executive amendment 25 on local authorities having to have regard to the best interests of children and young people. That is a welcome development. I will address a couple of points that Tricia Marwick raised, because she rightly highlighted the difficulties faced by young people leaving the care system. As members will know, I have made strong representations on that issue over the years. However, it is important to recognise that a number of pieces of legislation are already in force and that greater use could be made of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in terms of planning for young people who leave the care system.

One issue that I have always campaigned on, and still do, is that it is an absolute disgrace that any young person leaving the care of a local authority has to declare themselves homeless in order to get a house. I would be concerned if the message from the bill is that that is an acceptable practice, because it is not.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Cathy Jamieson acknowledge that what I was trying to say was that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 acknowledges that young people under the age of 18 are children? I was not referring to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the duty of care on local authorities. I was suggesting that while we do have a duty of care for young people who leave care, there is no duty of care on homelessness authorities to look after 16 and 17-year-olds who have never been in social work care.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I appreciate that. I know that Tricia Marwick has taken a particular interest in the issue over the years and I recognise the work that she has done, but my point was about young people in the care system and ensuring that appropriate plans are put in place. I know that many local authorities are examining that. There are issues about the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and recognising that a young person is vulnerable up to the age of 18, but there is a contradiction in assuming that a 16-year-old could be put into a tenancy without support and be expected to cope.

We must examine the issues in a more rounded manner, by considering all the legislation and resources that are in place. Simply putting something in the bill will not help that process. I hope that the minister will take forward the issues—I am sure that she will in the homelessness task force—and that in future we may see some guidance or changes in legislation that will ensure that young people get appropriate support.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I wish to say a few words in support of amendment 21. I am disappointed at and surprised by the tone of some of the comments on amendment 21. Members of other parties should consider whether they are hiding behind the constitutional argument, rather than addressing a practical problem.

I advise Cathie Craigie, or anyone else who is sceptical, to speak to refugee organisations and to refugees and asylum seekers who face difficulties because of the housing policy that is dictated by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. We have a commitment to review this year the impact of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The review will examine housing policy and I hope that members will keep open minds. There is no point in having a review unless people are prepared to consider the problems that that legislation has caused.

I will highlight one problem with the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is the removal of the right of local authorities to rehouse asylum seekers. I am aware of an asylum seeker who suffered extreme racial harassment, including threats of petrol being put through the letterbox and bricks being put through the windows; nevertheless, NASS decided that it was safe for that asylum seeker to remain in that house. Any rational person would have deemed it not to be safe, but NASS deemed it to be safe and the racial harassment of that asylum seeker continued. Local authorities would not have responded in that manner, because they are better placed to decide whether it is safe or otherwise for an asylum seeker to remain where they are.

There are problems with the housing policy for asylum seekers. I am not hiding behind a constitutional argument and I appeal to everyone in the chamber. The issue is not the constitution; it is the practical difficulties that have been caused by the implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I hope that members will keep an open mind when the review of that legislation is carried out.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will respond briefly. Robert Brown started off wondering why we missed out Northern Ireland and then substituted

"the United Kingdom or elsewhere".

I have no difficulty with talking about the United Kingdom. The reason we referred to "elsewhere" is that it is not right for people to be considered homeless if they have, for example, a house in America or Spain—which must be reasonable for them to occupy—even if they have no housing in Britain.

I hope that Tricia Marwick will appreciate that we have given an overarching commitment to how we deal with dependent children that goes beyond the narrow focus of amendment 2, in terms of homelessness strategies. That should address the points that she made earlier.

We are clear that the right of review will work. The executive agency will be responsible for monitoring the observance of section 3A and we have give a commitment to the Social Justice Committee that it can help us to resolve some of the issues in guidance. The system will be robust.

Assurance was sought on amendment 193. I understand, as does the homelessness task force, the need to integrate assessments of the support needs of homeless people with provision, but that does not necessarily apply in all cases. We want to consider the issue and ensure that we get it right. If there is a need for legislation, we will come back to the chamber. The homelessness task force is considering the issue.

On amendment 21, let us not confuse the wider issue of sympathy for asylum seekers, because of what is happening to some of them in parts of Glasgow, with legislation. We are clear that amendment 21 is outwith the competence of this Parliament.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No, I am just about to finish.

How we take forward what is currently happening elsewhere is a wider matter for the Parliament, not for this legislation.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It would show more respect for the Parliament if we recognised that the clerks and the Presiding Officers would not accept amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill were they not within the competence of the Parliament. Legislation affecting housing is most definitely relevant to this Parliament.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

rose—

David (None, Lothians)

I will intervene to say that that is not right. There is no question of legislative competence when it comes to amendments. The chamber itself must decide on amendments. It is not a matter for me.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Let us be clear. The Presiding Officer made it clear that amendment 21 is competent. To say that it is not is mistaken. Housing services provided by councils or others are within the competence of this Parliament. Asylum seekers use services, such as the national health service, that are provided by public agencies in Scotland. We must recognise that. We can do something useful with the Housing (Scotland) Bill if we allow councils, rather than NASS in Croydon, to decide where people are housed. Councils will know what is practical and what is impractical far better than NASS.

On priority need, Tricia Marwick made the point well that amendment 2 addresses those 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in care. We must decide whether measures on priority need should have the force of law or be dealt with in guidance. A clear choice must be made.

A measure of this Parliament is how it treats vulnerable groups. We can either support those vulnerable groups here and now in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, or we can wait for another task force and another report at another time. I suggest that we do it now.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 21 disagreed to.

Amendment 152 not moved.

Amendment 22 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 79, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Amendment 4 moved—[Tricia Marwick].

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

[Amendment 5 moved—[Tricia Marwick].]

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

David (None, Lothians)

There will be a division.

David (None, Lothians)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 81, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

[Amendments 23 to 25 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.]

David (None, Lothians)

The timetable guillotine for groups 1 to 6 falls at 11.10 am, so we have just over half an hour in which to complete groups 4 to 6.

Amendment 6 is grouped with amendments 27, 7, 28 to 30, 8, 32 and 33.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Section 4 sets out the relationships between registered social landlords and local councils in providing housing for homeless people. Amendment 6 would give RSLs a statutory duty to co-operate with the local authority on providing accommodation and on "alleviating and preventing homelessness", to help councils exercise their duties. At present, a voluntary code of guidance, issued by Scottish Homes, requests RSLs and housing associations to have a duty to co-operate.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Let me develop my point slightly. That might be helpful.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have a point of information.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I will explain my point and then allow an intervention.

The bill will make Scottish Homes' responsibilities part of the responsibilities of the Scottish ministers, so the guidance and the duty will be passed to ministers. It would be extremely useful if the bill placed a duty on RSLs to co-operate with councils.

At stage 2, there was some controversy when the Social Justice Committee agreed to an amendment, which I moved, to ensure that councils had some understanding of housing associations' policies.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Please let me develop my point. The member will have an opportunity to speak later.

My amendment placed a duty on councils to have regard to the allocation policy and other policies of a registered social landlord. I appreciate that the homelessness task force was asked by the Executive to consider what would happen to a council, such as Glasgow City Council, that transferred all its stock to RSLs. How can a council reasonably allocate "appropriate accommodation"—as section 4(2) puts it—if it has not had regard to the allocation policy and other policies of the registered social landlord? A purpose of the bill was to achieve balanced communities. If we want balanced communities in which members of a family can stay together to create sustainable communities, regard must be had to provision for ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and elderly people.

It is not suggested that RSLs would be prevented from taking on their responsibilities. To reinforce that point, amendments 7 and 8 were lodged. The Executive's amendments say that RSLs must comply unless they have a good reason for not doing so. That is rather weak. We should be more specific and say that RSLs can fail to comply only if they abide by strict guidance. It is interesting that the Executive has lodged amendments in that vein.

It is undoubted that members of all parties are committed to ensuring that homeless people are given priority, but if a ballot in Glasgow or other areas goes ahead, a council may have no stock yet have to provide accommodation without understanding or having regard to the policies of RSLs.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does Fiona Hyslop agree that amendment 6 has been lodged only because she undermined the work of the homelessness task force and the rights of homeless people in Scotland when she pressed amendment 93 at stage 2?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If Karen Whitefield had listened at stage 2—

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I was listening.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

At that stage, I made the point that we have to look in the round at the balance in the relationship between RSLs and councils. At stage 2, I was inclined to the view that a statutory responsibility on RSLs to house homeless people ought to be included in the bill, but the point was well made that homeless people are housed not only by being provided with a roof: other services are involved and RSLs might not be best placed to provide them.

We propose a statutory duty to co-operate that is similar to the code of guidance that currently exists, but we have given it the force of law. The amendment tightens up homelessness legislation and provides the solution that we are looking for.

I move amendment 6.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Section 4 encompasses the recommendations of the homelessness task force and the new housing partnership steering group and seeks to ensure that the transfer of stock to RSLs does not disadvantage homeless people. It is designed to underpin the day-to-day working relationship between local authorities and RSLs. That relationship has to be based on mutual trust and co-operation: it cannot be rigidly prescribed in primary legislation. Executive amendment 27 would reverse the effect of amendment 93, which was passed by the Social Justice Committee at stage 2. At the time, I made it clear that because amendment 93 inserted wording that is unacceptable, the Executive would seek to reverse it by lodging an amendment at stage 3.

When the homelessness task force made its recommendations, it was clear that when a local authority transfers some or all of its stock into community ownership, the rights of homeless people must be protected. The task force recommended that a statutory duty be placed on RSLs to comply with the request to house a homeless person or family. The bill, as it was originally drafted, reflected that position.

The bill also took account of the homelessness task force's acknowledgement that there may be circumstances in which an RSL had a good reason for not complying with a request. The report suggested examples including where the only accommodation available is specially adapted for people with special needs. In that case, it would not be appropriate to let to a household without special needs.

The SNP's stage 2 amendment undermined the balanced position that was established by the homelessness task force. It created a loophole that put the RSL's allocation and other policies above the needs of the homeless person. That cannot be right. Indeed, amendment 93 has been described by Shelter as a body blow. I want to make it absolutely plain that I know that RSLs play an increasingly important and vital role in housing homeless people—indeed, they have an impressive record in that regard—but the loophole would allow an RSL to refuse to accept a homeless person on the ground that it was against our policy.

I understand some of the concerns that were expressed at stage 2. Robert Brown rightly emphasised that some housing associations provide specialised accommodation of various kinds or provide for particular housing needs in particular areas. The SNP approach, however, is not the way to address those concerns. The needs of the homeless person must be paramount.

We will cover in guidance the valuable points that were raised by Robert Brown. A working group, with representatives from local authorities, Shelter, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and others, is drawing up guidance on the situations in which an RSL may have good reason for not complying with a request to house a homeless person. The Social Justice Committee will be included in the full consultation on the guidance.

Reversal of amendment 93 is supported by Shelter, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and other task force members including The Big Issue in Scotland, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, Glasgow Council for Single Homeless, COSLA, Positive Action in Housing, Glasgow City Council, Glasgow Women's Aid, Dumbarton law centre, Dumbarton citizens advice bureau—the list is endless.

I urge the chamber to support Executive amendment 27. The SNP has plainly got it wrong. Its actions are misguided and it has ignored the needs of homeless people.

Amendment 28 straightforwardly fulfils a commitment that we gave at stage 2. Karen Whitefield and others expressed concerns that there may be occasions when temporary accommodation would be preferable to permanent accommodation and that the key should be to find the right type of accommodation for a homeless person. Amendment 28 therefore disapplies the requirement on an RSL to provide a Scottish secure tenancy or short Scottish secure tenancy if a local authority has expressly requested other forms of accommodation.

Amendments 29 and 30 address the information that RSLs should provide to a local authority. We do not want to create an inflexible approach—co-operation between local authorities and RSLs is vital—so amendments 29 and 30 would require an RSL to comply with reasonable requests for information that relates to housing and is in connection with the authority's duties and allow ministers to issue guidance on what is reasonable.

The SNP's amendments in this group do not offer any strengthening of the relationship between RSLs and authorities; neither do they remedy the inherent weakness in the system that the SNP's stage 2 amendment 93 introduced. We urge members to reject all the SNP amendments in the group.

Tommy Sheridan's amendments 32 and 33 relate to the arbitration process that is laid out in section 5. Similar amendments were debated and rejected at stage 2. As I said then, it is important that the arbitration process works quickly and effectively. I note that the homelessness task force envisaged a quick, informal arbitration process that would take no more than 48 hours. I see no reason why that should not be achievable in the vast majority of cases. I am therefore reluctant to set a maximum of 21 days, which would unfortunately become the norm. Guidance is the best place to set out the time scale and to retain flexibility to cover complex cases.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Amendments 32 and 33 have two purposes. The first is to ensure that when there is a dispute between a council and an RSL, the arbitration process does not drag on indefinitely. The minister talked about the hope that such disputes would be sorted out within 48 hours. The problem is that there is nothing in the bill about that time scale. Guidance is guidance; it is not applicable in law to any dispute that goes to court. From that point of view, I hoped that the minister would accept that amendment 33 sets a reasonable time scale: I hoped that she would accept that, once arbitration has begun, specifying that a decision should be made within 21 days is perfectly reasonable, given that the person whose case is being disputed is homeless.

Secondly, amendment 33 tries to ensure that the result of the arbitration, whatever that may be, is given to the homeless applicant. The bill as amended at stage 2 contains no provision for the subject of the arbitration to find out the decisions that have been taken on the dispute that is under arbitration.

Amendments 32 and 33 are intended to provide a clear description in the bill of how any dispute between a council and an RSL will be sorted out. The minister is worried that 21 days will become the norm. That will be up to practice, but it is better to have a maximum of 21 days than to have guidance that has no powerful effect and could mean that disputes drag on well beyond 21 days. That is the worry of many organisations. I hope that the Parliament will support amendments 32 and 33.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If amendment 30 is agreed to, amendment 8 will be pre-empted. Several members want to speak and we still have two groups to complete by 11.10 am.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

This group of amendments deals with the relationship between RSLs and local authorities. We all hope that that relationship will be reasonably civilised and that difficulties will be few and far between. With amendment 6, Fiona Hyslop seeks to underline the necessity of co-operation. I have no particular objections to its terms, but I do not feel that it is necessary.

Amendment 27 deals with the legal requirement on RSLs to accept homelessness cases. I must tell the minister that by no interpretation is special needs housing prejudiced in that respect: local authorities are statutorily required to house homeless persons. I can envisage few homelessness cases that an RSL would not agree to accept. Such cases would be extreme and I would think that, in those circumstances, RSLs would have the right, if that particular application would go against their housing policies, to maintain that it should not be granted.

I have little difficulty with amendment 30, but whether amendment 8 should appear in the bill is arguable. Amendments 32 and 33 have some merit, in that the arbitration process must be carried out as speedily as possible if it is to be as fair as possible to the person whose application is being determined, but Tommy Sheridan is being unnecessarily prescriptive. I hope that the vast majority of applications would be concluded well within the 21-day limit that he proposes, but there are occasions when that might not be possible, which is why we cannot accept the amendment.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are right against the wall, so I intend to take only one speaker from the floor.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I want to speak in particular to Executive amendment 27. It would delete the successful stage 2 amendment 93 which, although lodged by the SNP, was supported by a further two of the main parties in the chamber.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Not yet.

Amendment 93 did not give RSLs the right to refuse homelessness nominations: it said that a local authority should have regard to the allocation policies of an RSL—and, indeed, why not? Following that successful stage 2 amendment, a lot of nonsense has been spoken about RSLs.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Not yet.

I stress the uniqueness of community-based housing associations and the voluntary work by committee members that makes those housing associations unique. A lack of partnership and understanding between landlords dealing with homelessness does no good. I emphasise that at no point in all this talk has any evidence been produced—by anyone in the chamber or by any lobby group—that shows that housing associations do down homeless people. There is no evidence that when Scottish Homes guidance says homelessness categories should appear in their allocation policies they do not take their share of homeless allocations. I know from experience that many homeless people are housed directly by housing associations and indirectly through councils. If anyone can give me evidence to the contrary, I am willing to give way.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will Linda Fabiani comment on the lists of people the minister highlighted who described the SNP's stage 2 amendment as a dangerous loophole that would allow RSLs to exempt themselves from the same good practice policies that she describes?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I can certainly comment on that. The homelessness task force is appointed by the Executive. I have great respect for the people on that task force, but we have to guard against complacency among MSPs who believe that only the representatives who sit on task forces are able to recognise what happens on the ground. There are very committed people throughout the country who work hard for no pay. They are volunteers because they happen to care about homelessness and they do their bit to work on it. They deserve a say as well. The Executive sits on task forces, discussing things and doing little deals, and we come along and upset the apple cart. [ Interruption. ]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We upset the apple cart and the Executive turns all its forces against us. Why do some MSPs in the chamber not think for themselves?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Linda Fabiani is making accusations without foundation; she should be asked to withdraw them.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have made no accusations; I have stated an opinion.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are rapidly running out of time, but for political balance I will allow Robert Brown to come in briefly.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The debate so far has generated more heat than light. This is a difficult issue—it is not as black and white as some people have made out. It is appropriate that we try to get the balance right. I yield to no one in my support for a proper means of dealing with homeless families, but that is not the only objective in housing policy. There are the objectives of community stability and support for the rights and involvement of the housing associations.

I was reassured to a degree by the minister, who said that the matter will be dealt with by guidance. I would like fairly substantial guidance, which gives substance to the idea of good reason for refusal, to be introduced in due course. There are a number of issues. It has to be done properly. The tone of the debate this morning has not been a particular credit to the Parliament.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Central to what we are doing are efforts to protect the rights of homeless people while recognising that the co-operation between RSLs and councils is critical and based on mutual trust and respect. I reject entirely any notion—I am sure that they will do so themselves—that organisations such as Shelter Scotland, COSLA, Scottish Women's Aid and The Big Issue in Scotland, who have a wealth of experience to contribute, are in some way not independent of government. I respect their right to be independent. We in the chamber and in the Government do not know it all. It is important that we involve civic Scotland in what we are doing. If the SNP is suggesting that it will reject that, civic Scotland should think carefully about its dealings with the SNP.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The debate has been about the relationship between RSLs and councils and how they provide their services.

I have two brief points. It is unfortunate that some of Cathie Craigie's proposals on contracts were not lodged at stage 2 or at this stage, as they might have strengthened the bill. That will come later on, in the amendments that the Executive expects to lodge. However, we have the responsibility at stages 2 and 3 to scrutinise amendments—whether they are from the Executive or a task force—in open debate. That is what stages 2 and 3 have been about.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the member give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to brief, as I am conscious of the time.

The Parliament will decide the appropriate way to scrutinise the amendments. I appeal to members to include in the bill the statutory duty to co-operate and to recognise Tommy Sheridan's point, which is that we have to deal swiftly with homelessness so that we ensure that satisfactory provision is provided. The SNP will support his proposals on that.

If the Executive is so concerned about housing associations' ability to house homeless people—if it has doubts—perhaps it should think again about transferring all the stock of seven authorities to housing associations.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 6, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In that case, I suspend the meeting.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My regrets to all members. It is obvious that the Brähler system merits investigation.

The timetabling motion deals with actual time, with the specific exclusion of periods when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended, so the knife will now fall at 11:25. I will start the voting at 11:23.

We will now have the division on amendment 6. The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 83, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

[Amendment 27 moved—[Jackie Baillie].]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 66, Against 44, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 27 agreed to.

[Amendment 7 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 67, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

[Amendments 28 to 30 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 8 has been pre-empted, so we move to amendment 32.

Amendment 32 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 81, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

[Amendment 33 not moved.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 35 is grouped with amendments 36, 37, 38, 153 and 39. If amendment 35 is agreed to, amendments 36, 37 and 38 will be pre-empted.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I will be brief, given the time. Amendments 35 and 39 seek to enshrine in legislation the rights of hostel dwellers much more than is currently the case.

Amendment 35 lays out some of the situations that could arise in relation to evictions of hostel dwellers and provides recognition that hostel dwellers often do not have the same rights as other tenants. I believe that any housing bill for the 21st century should recognise and enshrine the rights of hostel dwellers. The Executive has given a commitment to try to arrive soon at a situation in which there are no hostel dwellers because there is no need for hostels. I look forward to that situation developing, but in the meantime, I ask the Parliament to support amendments 35 and 39 to enshrine in legislation the rights of hostel dwellers, but in a way that does not supersede common law in relation to grounds for eviction and reasonableness.

I move amendment 35.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Jackie Baillie to speak to amendments 36, 37 and 153 and the other amendments in the group. The knife will fall in three minutes.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We had a lengthy discussion about this section at stage 2, which reflected the wide range of views about the rights and responsibilities of people in hostels. Robert Brown's stage 2 amendment that inserted section 6(3A) was accepted as coming closest to getting the balance right. Amendments 36 and 37 are minor technical corrections to his wording to ensure that it achieves what he intended.

Amendment 153 follows on from Robert Brown's new subsection and reflects concerns expressed by the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

Bill Aitken's amendment 38 is unnecessary, because it is quite clear that the existing terms of section 6(3A) allow for what he is trying to achieve, which is the protection of other residents and staff.

Tommy Sheridan's amendments 35 and 39 also have serious disadvantages. Amendment 35 attempts to list the factors that should be covered by the regulations. Given the complex nature of this area of rights and responsibilities, that is dangerously prescriptive. It is particularly difficult to get the balance right. A sub-group of the homelessness task force is considering the issue and because regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative procedure, Parliament will have the chance to consider and debate them.

Amendment 39 aims to make a point about not using our powers under the bill to introduce regulations that would undermine or be inconsistent with the rule of law. As I said at stage 2, that is unnecessary as the regulations would need to be consistent with other legislation.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Aitken has one minute if he wants it.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I will be brief. Amendment 38 will provide greater protection for other hostel dwellers and people who work in hostels. I do not accept the minister's proposition that that is dealt with elsewhere. Although persons who cause serious difficulty can be removed from the hostel by means of police arrest, sometimes the necessary corroboration is not available for an arrest to take place. As a result, I feel that amendment 38 is required.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are now out of time. The procedure for the remaining amendments in groups 5 and 6 will be move then vote, move then vote until they are done. I must start before 11:25.

The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 109, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 35 disagreed to.

Amendments 36 and 37 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 38 moved—[Bill Aitken].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 17, Against 93, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 disagreed to.

Amendment 153 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 39 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 105, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 154 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 40 is grouped with amendments 41, 42, 43 and 44.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Amendments 40, 42 and 43 seek to expand on section 8, which is concerned with the allocation of housing by local authorities and registered social landlords.

Section 8, which amends section 20 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, places a duty on local authorities and RSLs to give reasonable preference to certain groups, such as homeless persons, in the allocation of housing. It also specifies matters that landlords should not take into account when allocating housing, such as the income of the applicant and his or her family.

The amendments add to the list of matters that local authority and RSLs must not take into account. They are based on amendments lodged by Tommy Sheridan and Kate MacLean at stage 2. We gave a commitment to consider those further with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3.

Amendments 40 and 43 seek to limit the circumstances in which landlords can refuse to house an applicant because of their previous debts. It is reasonable for landlords to refuse to house an applicant if he or she has significant outstanding rent arrears; the amendments would not prevent landlords from doing that. However, they would prevent landlords from refusing to house an applicant because of non-housing debt or if they have had arrears of rent or service charges that have since been repaid.

Landlords would also be prevented from refusing to house an applicant if the rent or service charge arrears amount to no more than a month's charges—to avoid penalising applicants for purely technical arrears—or if the applicant has come to an arrangement for repaying arrears, has kept to that arrangement for at least three months and is continuing to make the payments. That provision is designed to help applicants who are making a genuine effort to pay off arrears.

We believe that amendments 40 and 43 represent a reasonable balance between the interests of applicants and the interests of landlords.

Amendment 42 seeks to prevent local authorities and RSLs from refusing to house an applicant who is not living in their area if the person concerned is vulnerable to domestic violence where she or he currently lives and wishes to move into the area. We agree that it would be wrong for landlords to discriminate against non-local applicants in those circumstances. I thank Kate MacLean for making the proposal on which amendment 42 is based.

Amendment 41 is exactly the same as an amendment that Mr Sheridan lodged at stage 2. We promised to consider it carefully and we have done so. I am not sure why Mr Sheridan has lodged his original amendment again. I hope that he recognises that our amendments pick up on all the points that he made. The only difference is that we require tenants to have demonstrated a commitment to repaying arrears for at least three months. That is surely not unreasonable. It makes no sense to have duplicating amendments, so I ask Mr Sheridan to consider not pressing amendment 41.

Tommy Sheridan lodged amendment 44 at stage 2 as well. I explained then that we agree on the need for guidance on information. I also clarified that section 70 gives us the power to issue guidance in that area. I am happy to repeat my previous commitment to using that power in due course. Indeed, as I explained at stage 2, we have commissioned work from the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland that could form the basis of guidance. In the light of those reassurances, I hope that Mr Sheridan will not press amendment 44.

I move amendment 40.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am glad that the Executive has moved on at least one aspect of amendment 41 regarding arrangements for paying rent arrears. It would not be acceptable for individuals to be suspended from housing waiting lists because of arrears on which they have reached an agreement, even though the arrears are not yet paid off. However, the Executive has not moved on council tax arrears. I would like to hear more from the minister on that.

In the debate so far, members have been shouting about which organisations support their amendments, as if that means that everyone else should support them. It is therefore worth making the point—as I did at stage 2—that Shelter asked for amendment 41 to be lodged. I do not know whether that makes some members more likely to support it.

Shelter asked specifically that we remove reference to council tax arrears as a criterion for suspension from housing lists. Shelter feels—as I do—that it is discriminatory that a council tax problem can be used to deny housing to individuals who do not have the option of private house purchase and are restricted to seeking accommodation in the social rented sector. In the private housing sector, there is no such discrimination—council tax arrears do not present a problem as long as the person can afford to buy their own house. It is inherently unfair that council tax arrears can be taken into account when it is being decided whether a person's application should be suspended or whether they should be suspended from housing lists. I appeal to members to recognise that and to support amendment 41. I have lodged the amendment in its original form because it refers specifically to exclusion on the ground of council tax arrears, which the minister failed to address.

I appreciate what the minister said about amendment 44, but I hope that she appreciates that it was important for me to have a statement on the guidance to local authorities and RSLs regarding information that is given to individuals who are suspended from housing lists. It is important that the fullest possible information is provided, because if individuals are suspended from an allocation list without knowing the grounds for that decision, they cannot challenge it. That is why amendment 44 is important.

For the reasons that I have set out, I ask the Parliament to support amendments 41 and 44.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The issue is one of balance. We have no difficulty with amendment 42 and will support it fully.

We need to strike a balance between not disadvantaging applicants on the basis of technical arrears—as the minister has already said—and ensuring that applicants commit themselves to making rent payments. On that basis, we will go along with amendment 43—with some hesitation and reluctance. Amendment 40 is closely related to amendment 43, so we will support that, too.

I will not engage in debate with Tommy Sheridan over the extension that he seeks relating to unpaid council tax. That is a quite separate issue that should not concern us under this heading. As ever, I would be keen to debate that issue with him in another place and at another time.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I would like to clarify a number of points for Mr Sheridan. I know that the amendment that he lodged at stage 2 was proposed by Shelter. With all due respect to Mr Sheridan, Shelter influences my thinking a wee bit more than he does. I am not saying that Shelter always agrees with me—sometimes it gets things wrong and sometimes it gets things right—but on this occasion I thought that Shelter had a case and we listened to that. I point out to Mr Sheridan that I used the phrase "non-housing debt", which refers to council tax arrears. I hope that that reassures him.

The provisions are about striking the right balance between the interests of applicants and the interests of landlords. We have refined the legislation governing allocation and we think that we have a substantial package. I commend the Executive's amendments to the chamber.

Amendment 40 agreed to.

Amendment 41 not moved.

Amendments 42 and 43 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.

Amendment 44 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 81, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 44 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 151, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 45 to 51, 194, 52 to 56, 73 and 156.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

This group includes several detailed amendments that are linked to the recovery-of-possessions provisions in the Scottish secure tenancy part of the bill. I appreciate the pressure on our time, but I shall outline each of our amendments and set out our views on those that have been lodged by other members.

I shall first deal briefly with amendments 151, 45 and 46. These are essentially technical amendments that are designed to tackle a problem that Robert Brown identified at stage 2. The bill as drafted requires a tenant of a Scottish secure tenancy to use the house as his or her only or principal home and for tenants of fully mutual co-operatives to be members of those co-operatives. That is in line with our policy. However, that creates uncertainty over the precise legal status of the tenancy if those conditions were broken. The amendments resolve the issue by making it clear that the tenancy would still be a Scottish secure tenancy, subject to the normal recovery procedures. Our policy objectives are protected by making those conditions a mandatory part of the tenancy agreement.

Amendments 48, 49, 50 and 51—our second set of amendments—are based on proposals that Robert Brown made at stage 2, which we undertook to consider in more detail. Under section 12 of the bill, local authorities or RSLs that are seeking to repossess houses that are let under a Scottish secure tenancy need to notify the tenant or joint tenant and raise proceedings in court. That is based on the procedures that apply at present for secure tenancies.

Tenants have the right to defend themselves against such actions, and it is our understanding that the courts would normally allow other occupiers to have their say if they so wished. These amendments, however, make it absolutely clear that "qualifying occupiers" can be a party to possession proceedings, which puts their right to appear in court beyond doubt. Qualifying occupiers are members of the tenant's family, lodgers and other persons who sublet part of the house with the consent of the landlord. The amendments also place a duty on landlords to make inquiries to identify whether there are any such qualifying occupiers and, if any are identified, to serve a notice on them as well as on the tenant.

We believe that those measures will help to clarify the position of other members of the household who are affected by repossession proceedings. First, there will be a specified duty on landlords to notify them and, secondly, they will have the right to attend the proceedings to explain, for example, the consequences of the repossession for them personally, which the courts will be able to take into account in coming to a decision.

I now turn to amendments 47, 52, 56 and 73. At stage 2, Tommy Sheridan lodged a number of amendments relating to court procedures for the recovery of possession. I undertook to consult colleagues in the justice department on the points that he raised and I have since written to Mr Sheridan. He has, however, lodged the amendments again today.

These amendments would require that all recovery-of-possession proceedings would be by way of summary cause procedure. Tenants would be allowed to seek a recall of the court order at any time before the eviction was carried out, if they chose not to defend the action when the original court hearing was scheduled. I am afraid that we cannot accept these amendments. Virtually all recovery actions are by way of summary cause, but ordinary cause procedure is appropriate, in the interests of both the landlords and the tenants, when relatively large debts are at stake.

Mr Sheridan's amendment 156 requires courts to consider the conduct of the tenant before agreeing to recovery action under a short probationary tenancy. Although that may seem reasonable at first sight, we must understand the full implications of that. Local authority landlords and RSLs can use probationary tenancies only when the tenant has previously been evicted from a tenancy for anti-social behaviour or if the tenant is subject to an anti-social behaviour order. They are intended to encourage landlords to offer applicants in that situation a second chance—an opportunity to show that they can maintain a tenancy and act responsibly towards their neighbours. The bill provides for an automatic conversion of a probationary tenancy into a full tenancy after 12 months if no action is taken to terminate the tenancy.

Frankly, landlords are not going to use probationary tenancies if they have to go through a complicated court process to recover possession. We have received evidence from landlords that shows that, at present, it takes them an average of nine months to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour using the normal recovery procedures linked to full tenancies. For probationary tenancies, landlords need a simple and quick procedure if the tenant in question does not live up to their trust. Amendment 156 would completely undermine the probationary tenancy concept.

Amendments 53, 54 and 55 are Mr Sheridan's final three amendments in this group. The first two of them require landlords to act reasonably in recovering an abandoned house. However, the bill already contains real safeguards for tenants in that situation: for example, they can go to court if necessary, to challenge the landlord's action. Tommy Sheridan's proposed amendments add nothing of substance to the provisions.

Amendment 55 relates to tenants whose tenancies are repossessed for management reasons, whose right it is to be appropriately rehoused by the landlord. In such cases, the courts can take a view on what constitutes suitable alternative accommodation. At present, the court is directed towards an objective test of that: do the house and its locality meet the tenant's requirements and those of their household in terms of work and schools?

What Mr Sheridan is suggesting is much more subjective—the character of the locality. He was not able to clarify at stage 2 what exactly he has in mind. To our thinking, such a subjective test would be virtually impossible for the courts to apply. Mr Aitken and Mr Sheridan voted together on this amendment at stage 2, if my memory serves me correctly.

Amendment 194 has been lodged by Robert Brown and relates to the way in which courts interpret reasonableness in recovery proceedings. Specifically, it requires them to take account of whether arrangements for the repayment of rent are likely to have a reasonable chance of success. We have much sympathy with what Robert is trying to achieve through this amendment. It is in nobody's interest for evictions to go ahead if they can be prevented, and one way of achieving that is by the tenant and the landlord coming to an arrangement on the repayment of the arrears. Nevertheless, we think that amendment 194 is unnecessary. Section 13(1) of the bill allows a court to adjourn proceedings linked, if it so wishes, to the payment of outstanding rent. In short, if the tenant comes forward at that late stage with a proposal to repay the arrears, the court can adjourn proceedings to allow that to bear fruit.

In considering whether it is reasonable to grant the order, the amendment that we brought forward at stage 2 would apply to recovery on the ground of rent arrears and, among other things, it requires the court to consider what action the landlord had taken before raising recovery proceedings with a view to resolving the problem. That was intended to ensure that eviction proceedings were taken only as a last resort. I would expect sheriffs to check to make sure that, in rent arrears cases, the landlord had sought to come to some arrangement for the repayment of arrears, for example, by instalments. We believe that there are some difficulties with Robert Brown's amendment.

I commend our amendments to the chamber and ask Tommy Sheridan and Robert Brown to withdraw theirs on the basis of the arguments that I have made.

I move amendment 151.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I ask members to be particularly sensitive in relation to our discussion of this part of the bill. We are talking about the termination of the Scottish secure tenancy and, inevitably, about eviction. Therefore, it is important that there is a proper balance between the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords.

Amendment 47, as the minister says, seeks to ensure that the pursuit of an eviction proceeding by a landlord is only by way of summary cause procedure. Members with a legal background or those who have been at the wrong end of that sort of action will be able to testify that summary cause procedure is relatively simple, cheap and easy to defend. Ordinary cause procedure can be much more expensive and complex and, although the minister says that it is rarely used, I have evidence from law centres across Scotland that it is often used as it makes it much more difficult for those who are being evicted to defend themselves.

It is important to differentiate between an action to recover a property and an action to recover money. The idea that I am asking members to support is that, in order to recover property and evict someone, only summary cause procedure should be used, although if a landlord or someone else is pursuing outstanding money, they should still be able to use ordinary cause procedure. Many in the legal profession believe that that is a strong argument.

In a letter responding to the points that I made in the stage 2 debate, the minister said that she understood that there would be changes in relation to summary cause procedures and ordinary actions that would make ordinary actions more difficult to secure in the future. I hope that that is the case. While it is not the case—and the order that the minister referred to in her letter was withdrawn in 1999, although it may be brought back—I would have thought that the Executive would accept that the landlord is not being disadvantaged by having to use summary cause procedure, which would give the person against whom the eviction order is being raised the best possible protection. I therefore hope that the Parliament will accept amendment 47.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Tommy Sheridan indicated that he believed that the rights of the tenant against whom the action is being taken and the rights of the landlord must be balanced. Does he appreciate that another group, the other tenants who are suffering because of the problems in their communities, must be involved as well? For their benefit, it is important that the parties involved are able to resolve the matter quickly.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I agree with that absolutely. I hope that the member has not misinterpreted what I have said. I am suggesting that eviction proceedings should be carried out by summary cause actions, which are perfectly reasonable mechanisms from the landlord's point of view but also allow tenants against whom the action is being taken to defend themselves more easily. If the landlord has a good case—and there should be a good case before an eviction order is raised—there should be no problem in having that eviction granted.

The problem with the ordinary cause procedure is that it is more complex and expensive, which disadvantages the tenant against whom that eviction order has been raised. I hope that the member does not think that my proposal would make it more difficult for evictions to take place. I repeat: if the eviction order is raised on good grounds, the use of a summary cause procedure should make it no more difficult to secure an eviction but would make it easier for the tenant to secure proper defence. I am sure that all members would agree that everyone deserves proper defence in actions of this character, particularly in a situation in which a home may be taken away from a family or an individual.

Amendments 53 and 54 attempt to remove the unconditional discretion that landlords may be able to use. The idea of including "reasonably" in the bill is to ensure that landlords should behave reasonably at all times, but particularly in relation to the securing and repossession of a property. I am surprised that the Executive has advised against supporting those amendments.

Amendment 52 is important as it deals with the ability to recall a decree. The minister will remember that there was an involved debate on that matter at stage 2. At the moment, the practice in courts is to allow eviction actions to be recalled until 48 hours before the eviction would take place, when the sheriff officer posts the notice of eviction. That is in recognition of the fact that, often, someone who is about to be evicted does not seek legal advice before they get that final notice. Not including in the bill the proposal that is suggested by amendment 52 would mean that, if an individual does not seek legal advice before 14 days have transpired after the granting of the order, they will not be able to challenge or recall the order at any other time. Their failure to act in relation to the initial notice would make it impossible for them to defend themselves against the eviction action. Some might say that that is right, because the person should have sought legal advice earlier. However, I would argue that many people who are facing eviction have multiple debts and often bury their heads in the sand, although that is not what they should do. Because of that fact, people should have the right to recall the eviction up until the eviction takes place.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Wind up, Mr Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I stress that people have only one chance to recall an eviction. They cannot recall it more than once.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am trying to get through group 8 before we adjourn. Given the earlier suspension, we have until 12.10. I call Robert Brown to speak to amendment 194. Please be brief.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This group of amendments deals with the issue of repossessions. Tommy Sheridan rightly distinguished between eviction proceedings in which people lose their homes and proceedings to recover money. Evidence that has been produced by projects such as Edinburgh sheriff court's in-house project has identified that around 70 per cent of the people who get assistance at the court at the last stage of an eviction process can be put back on the tracks by making arrangements for repayment. There is a big prize to be had if we can identify a mechanism by which that assistance could be delivered.

I have been endeavouring for some time to get a form of words that would be acceptable to the ministers and the chamber and would encapsulate that idea. My amendment is a further attempt to do that. Unfortunately, the amendments that the minister lodged at stage 2 in relation to the issues around anti-social conduct clouded the issue to a degree as the phraseology of conduct is not all that useful when examining the vast majority of evictions, which are to do with rental arrears. Amendment 194 attempts to direct the attention of the court to the arrangements that might be made by the tenant against whom an eviction order is being sought, before it gives an eviction order of any kind—not only a continuation, as that is simply a power and it is the way that the power is exercised that is important. I want the court to have regard to whether there are mechanisms under which the situation can be put right. I should say in passing that amendment 194 has the support of Shelter Scotland—that did not go too far in Tommy Sheridan's favour earlier, but it is nevertheless helpful to mention that.

I urge the chamber to support amendment 194. This is not a party issue—I have not sought my party's support on the amendment, but I can inform the minister that I intend to press it. I urge the chamber to consider the amendment on its merits. There is a big prize to be won if we can get this right and stop people being evicted, with all the social and individual costs that go with that—unnecessarily, as the evidence from the in-house court project would suggest. Amendment 194 would give some assistance towards achieving that.

I know that some of these matters can be dealt with by better sheriff training and so on, but there is no substitute, with such matters of right, for implications being included in the bill. That directs the court, solicitors and clients coming before the court to the important aspects to which they must have regard. I commend amendment 194.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In view of the time strictures, I will deal only with the matters that are likely to be subject to division. Tommy Sheridan has put forward a cogent and well-argued case on the whole question of eviction. As he says, it is an evocative and sensitive matter. We are seeking to achieve a degree of balance, as was well articulated by Johann Lamont. She pointed out that the good tenants too are entitled to some consideration. I am concerned that a number of Tommy Sheridan's amendments would undo that balance.

I very much hope that the vast majority of evictions would be dealt with by summary clause—indeed that they would almost exclusively be dealt with in that way—as they are clearly more easily defendable in respect of the person who is likely to lose their home. At the end of the day, some cases cannot be dealt with by the summary procedure, and we must have a facility to take account of that in the bill.

The other aspects that Tommy Sheridan addressed are worth while, and it is quite true, as the minister pointed out, that I supported him on one of his amendments at stage 2. Having heard the minister and having researched the matter, however, I am now satisfied that the court could take the circumstances into account, and that amendment 55 should therefore not be supported.

I am also concerned about the effects of amendment 52 on probationary tenancies. I am not entirely sanguine about the amendment, which would further weaken those tenancies.

Amendment 194, in the name of Robert Brown, is worthy, but I have some doubts as to its practicalities. In my view, he seeks to be unnecessarily prescriptive, and, with improved sheriff training and with a degree of expertise, which should develop, the problem that he is seeking to address could be greatly reduced.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I ask Margaret Curran to reply. Please be brief, so that we can get a run of votes in before lunch.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I will be as brief as I possibly can, Presiding Officer.

I will start by dealing with Mr Sheridan's points. We have listened carefully to what he said, and I gave it much consideration after stage 2. I do not think that it is appropriate for us to cut across the rules of court, which specify which procedure should be used. I repeat that summary cause is right and proper in most cases—the bill provides for that.

The current procedure allows tenants to request a recall for at least 14 days after the court hearing, but it would be very unfair to give an explicit right to a recall at any time up to when the eviction takes place. That would impose considerable delay and cost on landlords, which would in turn be at the expense of tenants. I do not think that it would be appropriate.

I return to Robert Brown's points. I gave a lot of consideration to the points that he made. I recognise his substantial commitment to rights within this field—which is what he is driving at. It is not just a question of anti-social behaviour, and I hope that we never give that impression. There are issues of rent arrears. We strongly argue that amendment 194 is unnecessary because of section 13(1), which allows the court to adjourn proceedings. Section 13(2)(a), as I understand it, makes reference to rent arrears cases. We think that we are making the proper moves on those matters.

That theme has run throughout this bill, and we will no doubt hear about it again today. There has been a drive to include certain things in the bill and to indicate individuals' and the Parliament's commitment to certain issues. I genuinely understand that, but sometimes that is legislatively not significant: if we kept doing that, the bill would not be workable. I recognise Robert Brown's commitment, but we do not think that his amendment is necessary. We still have our commitment to maintain low levels of rent arrears and evictions.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have six minutes, during which I will try to clear the divisions on group 8.

Amendment 151 agreed to.

[Amendments 45 and 46 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 disagreed to.

[Amendments 48 to 50 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 109, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 194 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Sheridan, do you wish to move amendment 52?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Can you lump together my amendments 52 to 56, 73 and 156, Presiding Officer?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am afraid not. We must take them individually on this occasion.

Amendment 52 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 79, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 52 disagreed to.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Sheridan, do you wish to move amendment 53?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Can we take the two amendments in section 15 together?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am afraid that I have to take them singly.

Amendment 53 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be a division.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 105, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 53 disagreed to.

[Amendment 54 not moved.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That brings us to the end of that group of amendments. I remind members that, before the knife falls on groups 9 and 10 this afternoon, we have only about 12 minutes. That is a warning.

President Mbeki will address the Parliament at 1 o'clock.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We continue our proceedings on stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Amendment 56 is hanging over from this morning.

Amendment 56 not moved.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 59 is grouped with amendments 155 and 62.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I understand that we are pressed for time, so I will keep my comments to a bare minimum.

Amendment 59 combines the amendments lodged—and accepted—at stage 2 by Cathie Craigie and Sandra White and deletes that part of Sandra White's amendment that required landlords to provide information about the consequences of mortgage arrears. Landlords should be obliged to give advice not on owner-occupation generally but only on the right to buy.

Amendment 62 seeks to achieve what Robert Brown intended with his amendment at stage 2. However, amendment 62 links the duty to provide information more explicitly to tenants' rights and obligations on the right to buy.

Although we have some sympathy with amendment 155, we believe that it would promote energy efficiency in the wrong way. Under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, local authorities have a duty to devise strategies for the energy efficiency of their housing stock. Any advice that is given to tenants should be part and parcel of the strategy. The fact is that landlords may not always be the right people to give advice and they would certainly have difficulty in estimating future heating costs, which depend on a variety of different factors.

I move amendment 59.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I indicate to members that we are very short of time on this group of amendments.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I shall nevertheless speak to amendment 155, because it is important.

The Scottish Executive has made a number of key pledges to tackle fuel poverty as part of the UK fuel poverty strategy. The Executive has a share in commitments to address energy consumption and CO2 emissions. The flagship central heating initiative, which started in April, and a number of other initiatives add up to a concerted effort to address fuel poverty. To reach its targets, the Executive needs to raise awareness about energy matters.

The new housing improvement task force is considering whether there is a need in the home-ownership market for a seller's pack, which would include an energy survey. Amendment 155 would provide for energy audits for tenants. In the 1996 Scottish house conditions survey, 133,000 council houses and 10,000 housing association houses were rated poor on energy efficiency and scored 2 or less out of 10. The problem exists and there is a big gap to fill.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I understand what Robin Harper is attempting to do with amendment 155; we are all committed to tackling energy efficiency in homes. However, is he aware that the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 already requires local authorities to provide advice and produce energy conservation strategies? As local authorities already have that duty, I am not sure what amendment 155 would achieve.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

If Karen Whitefield pursues what I am saying to the end, she will see.

Amendment 155 is much the same as the amendment on energy efficiency that I lodged at stage 2. However, instead of providing for an energy audit at the point of sale under the right to buy, amendment 155 would ensure that the tenant was given information about energy costs and what energy-related improvements could be made to the property. The amendment would ensure that that information was given at the start of any Scottish secure tenancy of a housing association house or council house—it is important to note that the amendment covers both.

Much more could be said about amendment 155 but, in the interests of brevity, I will say only that it would ensure that tenants received the best advice on their rights, on what they could do and on what landlords should be doing for them. That advice would be in the form of an energy audit.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Conservatives will support amendment 59, because we believe that the appropriate information should be forthcoming. Having heard the minister's comments, we will also support amendment 62.

Although amendment 155 is meritorious, the practicalities are such that we do not think that what it proposes would be possible. Bearing in mind the steps that are being taken in other directions, we will not support amendment 155.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Amendment 59 will

"leave out lines 33 to 35".

I take it that that means not the whole of line 33, but only the phrase beginning "including responsibility for maintenance". I ask for clarification on that.

Amendment 155 raises a more substantial issue. Like other members, I have considerable sympathy with what Robin Harper is saying. However, the issue that the amendment raises should be dealt with in the context of local housing strategies rather than under section 18. The proposals could be considered as a target to move towards or as one of the mechanisms that we might consider when the Administration issues guidance to local authorities about the implementation of the local housing strategies. I support amendments 59 and 62 but, given what I have just said, not amendment 155.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will be as brief as possible. I take on board what Margaret Curran has said, but I ask her, even at this late stage, to withdraw amendment 59. As she pointed out, at stage 2, the relevant amendments received the overwhelming support of the committee. I had hoped that the minister would take on board the committee's views—this is a democracy, after all.

Amendment 62 appears to be an afterthought, because ministers decided to delete part of my stage 2 amendment. I urge the minister not to move amendment 62.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I will deal with Robin Harper's points first. We will debate fuel poverty when we come to later sections of the bill, but I would like to mention energy audits specifically, because they are an important issue that we must consider carefully. I have asked the housing improvement task force to consider and report on energy audits in the wider context of the information available to house buyers. We argue that that is the best way forward.

I appreciate Sandra White's point about the decision made by the committee, which we considered carefully—I have great respect for the committee's engagement with the bill and the work that it did on this issue. However, the Executive reserves the right to tighten up the two amendments that were passed in the committee, which otherwise would have led to overlap and confusion. The Parliament has a responsibility to produce tight and effective legislation. Given that the committee passed two amendments but did not merge them properly, we had a duty to clarify the provision as appropriate.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 68, Against 27, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

[Amendment 155 moved—[Robin Harper].]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 93, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 155 disagreed to.

[Amendment 62 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 66 is grouped with amendments 67 and 69. Because of the short amount of time that we have remaining to us in this section of the debate, I ask the minister to move the amendment formally.

Amendment 66 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 67 would have been debated with amendment 66.

Amendment 67 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 102, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 67 disagreed to.

[Amendment 69 moved—[Ms Margaret Curran]—and agreed to.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 70 is grouped with amendments 71, 195, 72 and 74.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The bill provides for a short version of the Scottish secure tenancy to be offered when a prospective tenant has been evicted previously for anti-social behaviour. At stages 1 and 2, we had considerable discussion of anti-social behaviour and listened carefully to representations on that. We believe that we are introducing a package that balances tenants' rights with tenants' responsibilities.

The bill allows tenants to be given a second chance to sustain a successful tenancy. After 12 months on probation, tenants will automatically receive the full tenancy, provided that the landlord has not served a notice on the tenant for recovery of possession of the house. We appreciate that punitive action alone is not the answer.

An amendment that was lodged by Karen Whitefield at stage 2 and agreed to by the Social Justice Committee ensures that landlords provide appropriate support for probationary tenants to enable them to achieve a successful conversion to a full Scottish secure tenancy after 12 months. In addition, section 29A was inserted at stage 2 to provide for the conversion of a Scottish secure tenancy to a short secure tenancy when the tenant or anyone residing with the tenant is subject to an anti-social behaviour order.

Amendment 71 extends the requirement on landlords to provide support to those who are given a short tenancy under the new provision and amendment 74 ensures that the short tenancy can also convert back to a full Scottish secure tenancy after 12 months. The bill suggests that landlords should provide support that is considered appropriate for the task—that is, to achieve, in so far as it is possible, a successful conversion from a probationary to a full tenancy.

Robert Brown's amendment 195 would require landlords to provide the support that would be necessary for the tenant to facilitate conversion, rather than the support that the landlord considered appropriate. The amendment assumes that it would be possible to determine objectively what level and type of support would be necessary to achieve a given end. Housing support cannot be objectively determined. Therefore, it is a matter for judgment. The bill makes it clear that judgment should be exercised on what is reasonably appropriate to help to improve the tenant's behaviour to allow a conversion to a full tenancy to go ahead after 12 months. It is in the landlord's interest to try to get that right and I am not sure whether that difficult task would be helped by changing the word "appropriate" to "necessary".

At stage 2, Robert Brown suggested that tenants should have a right of appeal against conversion. We were sympathetic to the need to protect the rights of tenants in that way and undertook to lodge an amendment at stage 3. Amendment 72 is based on the amendment that Robert Brown proposed, but does not limit the right of appeal to the four-week period that he suggested. That will allow tenants to appeal at any time during the life of a tenancy if, for example, an anti-social behaviour order has been revoked.

Amendments 71, 74 and 72 represent important refinements to the probationary tenancy provisions. Amendment 70 is simply a minor drafting change to clarify that, in relation to compensation for improvements on termination of a tenancy, a tenancy does not terminate by virtue of conversion to a short Scottish secure tenancy. I commend all those amendments to members.

I move amendment 70.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for amendment 72, which—in the usual generous fashion in which the minister treats my suggestions—goes beyond my proposal. The amendment is important and provides the degree of right that I have talked about before.

I hear what the minister says about amendment 195. I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote, but I think that the issue goes a bit further than being just a matter of judgment and is capable of being subject to a more objective standard.

There is, of course, provision in section 29(8) for the Scottish ministers to issue guidance on appropriate housing support services. In lodging amendment 195, I was trying to push the ministers a little bit further in that direction so that, when the guidance is being drawn up, they should go beyond saying that the appropriate housing support services are entirely a matter for the landlord. That is a matter on which, to some extent, an objective standard can be set.

During the passage of the bill, an important theme that has emerged is the idea of linking various decision-making points on housing matters to the necessary housing support, with a view to the long-term sustainment of tenancies.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister commented on anti-social behaviour orders leading to the conversion of Scottish secure tenancies to short Scottish secure tenancies. At the beginning of May, I asked in a parliamentary question whether the Executive's legal advice was that that complied with the European convention on human rights. I have not yet had a reply to that question and I would be obliged if the minister could give me an answer now.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Conservatives consider amendment 70 to be an anodyne response to a growing problem, but on the basis that half a loaf is better than none, we will support it.

We do not feel able to support amendment 71 because, once again, Robert Brown seems to be bending over backwards in favour of an appeals procedure that is becoming fairly exhaustive.

Amendment 72 has merit and we shall support it.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I say to Linda Fabiani that the entire bill is ECHR-compliant. We are therefore satisfied that that answers her question.

I return briefly to Robert Brown's point. I do not want to fall out with him over what are and are not objective standards. I assure him that we will address such issues in the guidance.

I hope that, given those assurances, the Parliament will support amendment 70.

Amendment 70 agreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 80, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 73 disagreed to.

[Amendment 156 not moved.]