Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate everything that the minister says and I know that more detail will be forthcoming this afternoon and tomorrow. I am trying to understand whether the Government is generally now less predisposed to having commissioners than it was. We have two pieces of legislation—a member’s bill and a Government bill. Are we saying that there should be a commissioner for one and not the other? Will there be a broader discussion about this? When many disabled people look at this, I think that some will support one but not the other and some will support both. I am just trying to understand the broader picture.

We all recognise the importance of the role that stakeholders play, but it is our 32 local authorities that have responsibility for enacting the duties. Kevin Stewart made the point about culture change and the challenges around trying to refocus the work of housing departments and so on. Are adequate resources available to enable the shift to be made? Often, training and support are key to that, and the situation can develop into a bit of a postcode lottery—I do not like using that expression. What I mean is that there can be different experiences for young people depending on where they are. How do we get more consistency on that front?

You mentioned co-production, but are you concerned that local authorities are saying that they feel that there is a lack of detail in the bill? As you said, we will touch on resourcing, but do you accept that there will need to be a significant shift in resources for local authority housing departments to be able to deliver on our expectations and our desire for additional support and services?

On the point about reasonable steps, and more broadly, in the context of councils’ duty on homelessness prevention, some concern has been expressed about the lack of detail in the bill as to what would constitute meeting that duty. My concern is that we would want to set a floor, and not a ceiling, for our expectation. What is your view on the detail that is perhaps lacking in the bill? What is your view on setting a floor and not a ceiling in relation to what we expect?

Good morning. Following on from that line of questioning, and thinking about the flexibility that is required in terms of the duty, the committee has heard concerns about how we identify the threat of homelessness, and particularly about where the burden of proof might lie. For example, Aff the Streets spoke to us about the difficulties that young people face, particularly in a situation in which there is a difficult family breakdown, when investigating the reasons behind that and trying to offer support can be more problematic. Can you give us your thoughts on how that duty might work in practice and how it could help to ensure that the process is supportive of and affirming to the young people concerned?

Good morning. We are keen to understand how the current policy is working and how we could improve it. I want to understand some of the problems with the current legal framework, which considers people to be threatened with homelessness if it is likely that they will become homeless within two months. What would be the benefit of extending that to six months for people who are at risk of homelessness? What impact would that have?

That is the ideal—we all agree that that would be a positive step—but are there concerns about resourcing that so that the assessment is made well and follow-on services are provided? Would anyone like to comment on that? I will come on to local authorities. Pat Togher, do you want to come in?

It might be helpful if he could answer my next question as part of his more general response. I am keen to hear local authorities’ view of the proposal in the bill that, as part of a local housing strategy, councils should assess people’s housing support needs and the availability of housing support services, including in relation to homelessness.

Good morning. We are interested in hearing your views on the ask and act duty as defined in the bill. Perhaps the place to start is to build on some of the previous contributions on how the relevant bodies that are listed in the bill currently work to prevent homelessness and on the relationship between third sector organisations and local authority homelessness services. Do you think that the proposed statutory ask and act duties will address some of the issues and create improvement? I appreciate that that question covers quite a broad sweep, but we are keen to get your initial views on that.

Those contributions were helpful.

We had a discussion with the previous panel on the need for resourcing with regard to the bill, which we appreciate will be a challenge, and I wonder whether I can get your views on how the ask and act duties can be implemented and on the associated resourcing and financial implications. The Government has said that this should be about up-front investment in order to be preventative, but do you think that that will happen? What more needs to happen, particularly for those who are interacting with local authorities and those funding structures?