Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with the minister’s sentiment of not wanting to narrow the definition of homelessness. However, I am concerned that the Government is moving away from that definition being set in primary legislation towards a mechanism that would make it easier to narrow the definition of homelessness. Will the minister give us a reassurance that it is not the Government’s intent to use that mechanism—in place of primary legislation—to narrow the definition of homelessness?

I agree with the principle behind amendment 1015. As Jeremy Balfour set out, there are potentially circumstances in which homes are not suitable for people, for a range of reasons. However, those circumstances might not be covered by a protected characteristic, which is why my amendment 1015A would add paragraph (c) to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment. I am particularly thinking about a rural context, where houses might not have appropriate adaptations, or where residents perhaps live too far from the health or social care services that they rely on. That would make their home no longer fit for purpose, because they would not be able to access the services that they need to live their lives. My amendment asks authorities to take those circumstances into account.

In essence, amendment 1015A is a probing amendment, because I want to hear what the Government has to say on it. Paragraph (b) in the amendment is sponsored by Scottish Land & Estates. The housing emergency is at its sharpest for many people in a rural setting. If someone loses their job, they may have to travel a vast distance to take up a new job, so the house that they live in will no longer be suitable for that. They might end up having to make a choice between being unemployed and not being able to sustain a mortgage or tenancy because they have lost their job, and accepting a new job in a different location where they cannot find anywhere to live.

That is why I lodged my amendment to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1015. As I said, my amendment is very much in the realm of a probing amendment. I would like to hear the Government’s response to the instances that I have set out and the particular impacts in a rural setting.

My amendment 1072 seeks to ensure that individuals who are in receipt of a housing first tenancy are given priority for welfare services to ensure that their tenancies are successfully maintained, and that existing resources are allocated to the housing first approach in order to deliver what we hope it will achieve. The link between maintaining a tenancy and access to other forms of support is broken in some instances. For the housing first approach to work, flexible support must be provided for as long as it is needed and individuals must be given the right wraparound support to help them with issues such as substance abuse and mental health issues. There is a misconception that the housing first approach provides the solution but, actually, it is the wraparound services that come with it that help to sustain the tenancy, and a multidisciplinary approach is needed.

The evidence from stakeholders, including those who are now choosing not to engage with housing first, is that there is a real concern that, because of budget cuts, the wraparound support in housing first to sustain tenancies is falling away. There is a real concern that, because of cuts, it is not working as we all envisaged it working and in the way that we all think that it is working. We know that a multidisciplinary approach is needed, and I am concerned that people are not getting the wraparound support that they need because of cuts.

In that case, housing first can become counterproductive, which none of us wants to see. The potential pressure of having a tenancy without wraparound support can sometimes be more damaging. That is why amendment 1072 seeks to ensure that housing first is always part of a wider multidisciplinary approach to helping people with complex needs. I urge members to support the amendment.

I move amendment 1015A.

Perhaps I picked the minister up wrongly in the chamber yesterday, but I understood from his closing speech that he had planned to support my amendments. Could he clarify his comments made in the chamber yesterday?

I had hoped that amendments 1053 and 1053A, in combination, clarified what would happen to 17 and 18-year-olds. The amendment to amendment 1053 changes the age to anyone under the age of 18. As I have said, I hoped that that would give clarity.

Peter, your organisation has called for a remediation programme for RAAC, similar to what exists for cladding. Can you expand on why that is necessary and how you think it could operate?

Some of the points that I wanted to ask about have been covered. Beyond the actions that the Government has said that it is taking, such as issuing guidance about not blaming tenants, the actions of the regulator on statistics, and the potential inclusion of a form of Awaab’s law in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, what else do the Government, landlords and the regulator need to do on damp and mould?

We have heard about skills and the accreditation of assessors, the potential for recourse to tribunals for tenants, and the withholding of rent. Are there any points that have not been covered so far on what powers we should give to tenants or action that the Government or landlords should take?

Another area that I want to cover is the guidance that is out there, which is more focused on non-domestic buildings. What is the Government’s role in producing guidance when it comes to RAAC in domestic properties? I am talking about guidance on surveying, remediation and potentially demolition that applies to both owner-occupiers and tenants. Is that a space that the Scottish Government should be entering?

My last question is about an issue that I touched on with the previous panel. There are flats or terraced rows or semi-detached properties where one person is an owner-occupier and one is the tenant of a social landlord. The RAAC panels cross the ownership boundary. It is impossible to remediate one side without impacting the other. How can the Government give guidance to local authorities or social landlords to get around that legal minefield, so that we are not in a position where nothing happens because we cannot agree on how to manage the difference in and the legal complexities of ownership?

Yvette, are owner-occupiers being given any support at all if they have to decant from a property that has been certified as unsafe?