Meeting of the Parliament 30 September 2025
I will begin by addressing Katy Clark’s amendments 309 and 310, which would oblige the relevant body to ask
“whether the person is homeless or threatened with homelessness”
as a result of abuse. Amendments 311 and 312 refer to the provision of details of support services, as Ms Clark set out.
I am pleased to confirm that the provisions in all four of those amendments are already catered for in the bill. The bill contains provisions on addressing homelessness that arises from abuse, including duties on relevant bodies to provide appropriate support. Indeed, section 45 of the bill will require all local authorities and registered social landlords to publish a policy that sets out how they support tenants who
“have experienced, are experiencing or are at risk of domestic abuse”.
Landlords will have to take into account guidance from the Scottish ministers on how those policies should be developed and how they should be used. The guidance could require information on support services to form part of the support that is offered. I intend to work on the development of that guidance with Katy Clark and others for whom I know that that is a priority.
Amendments 240 and 241, in my name, will ensure that the term “abuse” is used consistently in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. One part of that act currently refers to “domestic abuse”, but the bill includes a broader definition of abuse to cover a wider range of harmful behaviours. My amendment will update the wording so that the broader definition is used and that it is in line with the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 327 is not required, as my amendments, which I have just elaborated on, will ensure that the broader definition is used throughout.
I turn to amendment 328, which is another of Katy Clark’s amendments. The first part of it would require ministers to lay regulations to commence part 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. I have discussed with Katy Clark the fact that I am entirely committed to doing that, and I confirmed to Ruth Maguire during part of last week’s stage 3 consideration that it is my intention to lay regulations to ensure that part 2 of the 2021 act comes into force. My aim is to do that by Christmas. I want those powers in force.
Had that provision been an amendment on its own, I would have accepted it. However, there is a fundamental problem with the second part of amendment 328, which means that I cannot accept it. As has been set out, it seeks to reduce the statutory notice period for a victim or survivor of domestic abuse to end their interest in a joint tenancy from four weeks to one week, and, crucially, to remove the requirement to notify a joint tenant and to do so without the consent of the landlord.
Creating a circumstance in which a joint tenant could unilaterally end a joint tenancy at short notice would be extremely challenging. It could be open to misinterpretation; it could even be open to misuse. The amendment would represent a significant change to the property rights of social landlords and, therefore, to the operation of social housing. It could unintentionally provide a route for any tenant to leave their tenancy on one week’s notice—we can imagine the impact that that would have on social housing.
I will expand on that a bit more, because I know that there are interests in this—