Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 1010 seeks to insert into the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, alongside new sections 36A to 36D, a new section to ensure that a person who identifies as homeless has the right to request a review of the various stages of support that they receive, if they feel let down or if they have not been recognised as homeless. It relates to comments made by other members this morning about tightening the definition of the ask and act duty to ensure that all the relevant bodies that will undertake those particular duties know exactly what is expected of them and that everyone can receive the level of service that they believe that they should receive, should they present in such a way.

That is where my concerns lie with this particular section of the bill. The minister has lodged amendments that the Conservatives are supportive of, but I think that there is further work to be done on the bill as it stands, particularly to ensure that public bodies have the confidence to ask and act and that, as Jeremy Balfour rightly pointed out, no legal challenges can happen on the back of the legislation. We all need to be incredibly mindful of that in relation to the ask and act duty. I believe that the right of review should be contained in the bill. After all, if someone wants to request a review to see what level of service they should receive and to benchmark that against the service that they did receive, what will happen through that process—and, indeed, what will happen to them should they follow that route—has to be made clear in the bill.

I believe that the bill needs to be tightened. I am happy to work with the minister and my colleague Alexander Stewart on amendment 1010, but, again, with regard to the ask and act duty, I think that Jeremy Balfour hit the nail on the head when he talked about how the bill’s weaknesses have been laid bare at this morning’s committee meeting.

Are you willing to work directly with my colleague Alexander Stewart on amendment 1010? You said that your amendment 1040 stretches to local authorities, but, if we want the ask and act duty to work efficiently, that will surely have to be extended to other public bodies, too.

Amendment 1010 seeks to insert into the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, alongside new sections 36A to 36D, a new section to ensure that a person who identifies as homeless has the right to request a review of the various stages of support that they receive, if they feel let down or if they have not been recognised as homeless. It relates to comments made by other members this morning about tightening the definition of the ask and act duty to ensure that all the relevant bodies that will undertake those particular duties know exactly what is expected of them and that everyone can receive the level of service that they believe that they should receive, should they present in such a way.

That is where my concerns lie with this particular section of the bill. The minister has lodged amendments that the Conservatives are supportive of, but I think that there is further work to be done on the bill as it stands, particularly to ensure that public bodies have the confidence to ask and act and that, as Jeremy Balfour rightly pointed out, no legal challenges can happen on the back of the legislation. We all need to be incredibly mindful of that in relation to the ask and act duty. I believe that the right of review should be contained in the bill. After all, if someone wants to request a review to see what level of service they should receive and to benchmark that against the service that they did receive, what will happen through that process—and, indeed, what will happen to them should they follow that route—has to be made clear in the bill.

I believe that the bill needs to be tightened. I am happy to work with the minister and my colleague Alexander Stewart on amendment 1010, but, again, with regard to the ask and act duty, I think that Jeremy Balfour hit the nail on the head when he talked about how the bill’s weaknesses have been laid bare at this morning’s committee meeting.

That is a really important point, particularly, as you say, to ensure that the valuation matches the remedial work that has been done, as well as to ensure that it does not fall behind just because of what has happened across the board in some areas up and down the country. Gary Brady, do you have a costing associated with the remediation work that you have undertaken?

That is really helpful—thank you.

Good morning. The witnesses have given a brief overview of what the RAAC situation looks like in their area, but, as we know, RAAC remediation comes at a cost. Have you done an overall costing for how much it will cost your area, how it will be paid for and what role the Scottish Government should play in supporting social landlords and councils that are dealing with RAAC issues? It is a really big question—I do not know who wants to take it. Perhaps Jackie Timmons will start.

Thank you.

Convener, my questions about the support that local authorities and housing associations provide to tenants have been heavily touched on, and the issues for private home owners who live in properties with RAAC elements have also been touched on. I do not want to stray into questions that other members want to ask, so I will leave it there.

The points that have been raised in relation to data are very important with regard to different categories of persons who could be impacted. I wonder whether the Government might want to explore that further with members, looking toward stage 3. Members have referred to particular groups, but I am certain that there are probably more groups that have not been identified in committee.

The amendments raise a lot of concerns regarding strategy and whether various groups of people need direct support and therefore need to be included in the legislation. Perhaps the minister can expand on those points, because I believe that they are important. Care-experienced young people fall into a different category, right enough, given that we already have the Promise, which all political parties signed up to and endorsed and which they continue to support.

Roz McCall’s comments about how we need to do more are bang on. Housing is critical to ensuring that we deliver the Promise by its benchmark target dates, so amendments that would promote that and allow those targets to be met should be welcomed and supported.

That is all that I have to say just now, but I am interested in the aspects around the amendments in this group, and I think that other discussions might need to be had.

Will the minister take an intervention?

There are two housing waiting lists—a general waiting list and the homelessness waiting list. Given the minister’s local government background, how does he think that Kevin Stewart’s amendments would work in practice, should they be agreed to? Do they relate to the concerns that the councils raised in the short consultation that the Government carried out? If so, that would need to be looked at. That relates to Jeremy Balfour’s contributions on strengthening those elements. The minister would need to take a serious look at how the housing waiting list system works.