Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 1066 seeks to ensure that GPs are covered by the ask and act duties that are set out in part 5 of the bill. A number of organisations have pointed out that GPs are an obvious omission from the list of relevant bodies that are subject to the ask and act duties. Aberdeen City Council pointed out the connections between health and housing and that people’s use of health services peaks just before they make their first homelessness application. However, setting out a distinct list of bodies that will have duties placed on them almost creates a lack of clarity regarding our expectations of those that are not listed.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has also said that it would be helpful if GPs were covered by the proposed homelessness prevention duty. It points out that they would be involved in considering the extent to which any particular medical condition could impact on an individual’s capacity to sustain a tenancy.

I accept that there are compelling arguments that GPs do not currently have the capacity to be covered by the bill and that there are potential legal obstacles to including them in the obligation, as they are essentially private providers. However, the evidence that people access health services, and particularly GP services, right before they make a homelessness application suggests that GPs are a glaring omission from the ask and act duties. That omission could mean that a lot of people who could be covered by the ask and act duty at a crisis point in their lives might fall through the cracks.

Although I do not plan to move my amendment 1066, I want to hear from the Government how it intends to cover that point of contact with a public service, so that people who are threatened with or at risk of homelessness are not missed out. It is a glaring omission from the ask and act duties, and I am really keen to hear from the minister and the Government how they intend to cover that gap.

Thank you, convener, and good morning minister. We have heard from previous witnesses that social housing tenants who have been decanted from properties that have been affected by RAAC have had a really challenging time. Some have been forced to accept unsuitable accommodation and some have had to spend money that they do not have to replace furniture because they could not get access to their previous properties. What support and guidance has the Government issued to registered social landlords in particular about supporting tenants who have been decanted?

The committee heard evidence from people who are affected by RAAC—owners and social tenants—so I am sure that we can forward the Official Report of that meeting.

You mentioned that you are planning to go to Aberdeen to meet some of the residents who are affected by RAAC, and you made the point that residents seem to fall into two categories: those who have been decanted—the likely outcome is demolition—and a separate category of residents who feel that there is a technical solution for repair and that they can carry on living in a property. Have you met specifically with any of the groups who have been talking about the technical challenges around repair, as well as the Aberdeen groups?

You mentioned the approaches taken by local authorities. In the previous evidence session that I mentioned earlier, the point was made that the response from local authorities is very variable, and that is putting it politely. In the Government’s discussions with local authorities, have you talked about a minimum level of service that you expect local authorities to provide to residents who are affected by RAAC? Has the variable response from local authorities been raised? If so, how have you responded to that?

Is there, as with the cladding remediation scheme, a legislative barrier to a RAAC remediation scheme?

Thank you.

RAAC campaigners and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland have made the case for the Government to establish a RAAC remediation scheme for private home owners, based on the previous scheme for owners of defective system-built homes and the current cladding remediation programme. Has the Government formally responded to those calls? Is the Government actively considering a remediation scheme?

I support all the amendments in the group. My amendments 1057 and 1090 would add an overall set of principles for the duties in part 5 to prevent homelessness that relevant bodies would work under, to add clarity. With amendment 1057, I am seeking clarity and reassurance from the Government that there will be a clear end point in the application of the prevention duties, so that a person is not trapped in a prevention process without getting to the point at which they are declared homeless—so that they are not left in limbo, so to speak. I seek reassurance from the Government on that.

Amendment 1057 would ensure that, when a local authority has taken all the relevant steps to remove a threat of homelessness and the applicant still does not have stable accommodation, the applicant should be considered homeless. It would create a power to limit the time allowed to take those steps without there being a successful outcome, so that the applicant is not trapped in that situation. If, after reasonable attempts, the steps taken by the local authority under section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 fail to secure accommodation, there needs to be a clear point at which it is then decided that homelessness cannot be prevented through the duty. I am looking for clarity and reassurance from the Government that it feels that such a situation should not arise and that there must be a clear point at which someone goes from being dealt with under the prevention duty to being treated as a homeless applicant.

On amendment 1090, I have a concern that the bill lacks detail on how the prevention duty will work in practice. There is strong cross-party and cross-sector support for the duty, but there are still questions about how it will work in practice. I am attempting to introduce a set of principles to the bill to alleviate some of those concerns. Examples of legislation in which a set of principles has been introduced include the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.

The principles that I have set out seek to underpin the prevention duty. Homelessness prevention is a shared responsibility that requires actions to be taken by all relevant bodies. Relevant staff of named bodies would be provided with the necessary training to ensure a person-centred approach to homelessness prevention. Named bodies would work together towards shared outcomes for households that are at risk of homelessness or are homeless. Relevant bodies would be held to account to ensure that all opportunities for homelessness prevention are explored.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my two amendments.

I move amendment 1057.

I support all the amendments in the group. My amendments 1057 and 1090 would add an overall set of principles for the duties in part 5 to prevent homelessness that relevant bodies would work under, to add clarity. With amendment 1057, I am seeking clarity and reassurance from the Government that there will be a clear end point in the application of the prevention duties, so that a person is not trapped in a prevention process without getting to the point at which they are declared homeless—so that they are not left in limbo, so to speak. I seek reassurance from the Government on that.

Amendment 1057 would ensure that, when a local authority has taken all the relevant steps to remove a threat of homelessness and the applicant still does not have stable accommodation, the applicant should be considered homeless. It would create a power to limit the time allowed to take those steps without there being a successful outcome, so that the applicant is not trapped in that situation. If, after reasonable attempts, the steps taken by the local authority under section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 fail to secure accommodation, there needs to be a clear point at which it is then decided that homelessness cannot be prevented through the duty. I am looking for clarity and reassurance from the Government that it feels that such a situation should not arise and that there must be a clear point at which someone goes from being dealt with under the prevention duty to being treated as a homeless applicant.

On amendment 1090, I have a concern that the bill lacks detail on how the prevention duty will work in practice. There is strong cross-party and cross-sector support for the duty, but there are still questions about how it will work in practice. I am attempting to introduce a set of principles to the bill to alleviate some of those concerns. Examples of legislation in which a set of principles has been introduced include the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.

The principles that I have set out seek to underpin the prevention duty. Homelessness prevention is a shared responsibility that requires actions to be taken by all relevant bodies. Relevant staff of named bodies would be provided with the necessary training to ensure a person-centred approach to homelessness prevention. Named bodies would work together towards shared outcomes for households that are at risk of homelessness or are homeless. Relevant bodies would be held to account to ensure that all opportunities for homelessness prevention are explored.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my two amendments.

I move amendment 1057.