���˿���

Again, it comes back to working with the other stakeholders. We will be working closely with local authorities and other social landlords on that point. I am happy to come back to or to write to the committee on it, but it is part of the further consultation that is already happening.

It is a work in progress.

We must work closely with social landlords on that issue, and we need to ensure that what we are doing is sustainable and realistic. It will very much mirror the UK Government’s approach. I am happy to come back on the specifics, but those discussions and consultations are going on as we speak.

I have been made aware of the concern, and I have asked officials to look into the matter and see whether, if there is a gap in legislation, there is anything that we can do in that respect. I am happy to keep the committee informed on that. I do not know whether Stephen Garvin has anything to add, but we are looking into the issue and we will come back to the committee on it.

Is it okay to make a short statement?

A really important point is that I do not think—I do not expect—that we intend to have a prioritisation process for support under the single building assessment or the single open-call process, but I will have discussions with colleagues on that.

Expressions of interest will be checked against the eligibility criteria, which include residential status, building height and date of construction. If the criteria are met, we will invite owners to apply for Scottish Government support.

You asked about people being dealt with on a first-come, first-served basis. We want to help people as much as we can and as quickly as we can. If an immediate risk is identified, we will pick that up and deal with it as soon as we can. We have allocated an initial £10 million to support the work, and we have set an initial end date for expressions of interest and applications of 30 September.

Beyond that, we will assess the wide range of affected buildings. The first stage is trying to identify them and getting them on to the SBA process. If there are immediate concerns, we will deal with those as soon as we can. There have been 32 expressions of interest in four weeks, so there is interest.

I come back to a point that I have made in the chamber and to the committee: every case is different in terms of the single building assessment, the mediation work that is carried out and the timescales that go beyond that. It is very much a case-by-case basis. If there are immediate risks, we will take action to address them as soon as possible through the SBA process and remediation. I have mentioned the increase in the budget to £52 million this year.

On the point that I made in the chamber about making progress on the SBA process and moving to remediation work as soon as possible, which is an important part of the process, the indicative budget shows that more remediation work will be carried out during this financial year. The number of responses that we have had so far to the single open call is encouraging.

My officials and I engage with local authorities on that point. I can write back to you and the committee about the actions that have been taken in the local authorities that you mentioned. I am happy to take that forward as a point of action and come back to the committee and Ms Gallacher on it.

I begin my remarks by making it clear that the Scottish Government has listened to stakeholders and members of the committee at stage 1 on the need to bring more clarity to the operation of the new duties and, in particular, the ask and act duty.

We have heard calls for more detail to be included in regulations and about the importance of guidance, and we will work closely with stakeholders and members of the committee to ensure that the content of both is fit for purpose.

I recognise why there is concern that, if prevention interventions are not successful, a person should be considered homeless and action should be taken. Amendment 1057 looks to amend section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 act so that, where steps that have been taken under proposed new subsection 2ZA to secure continuing or alternative accommodation do not provide the individual with accommodation after a prescribed period, the individual is automatically classed as homeless. A fixed timescale would have to be set by Scottish ministers via regulations, after which point every individual who is threatened with homelessness would be automatically classed as homeless.

However, that is already provided for in current legislation. There is no need for further application to be made if an individual becomes homeless having previously been threatened with homelessness. There is no way to provide one set period of time after which every individual who is threatened with homelessness should be treated as homeless; each case turns on its individual circumstances. However, I am happy to engage further with Mr Griffin if he continues to have concerns on that issue.

Local authorities need to act to ensure that accommodation remains available as part of their duty to prevent homelessness; if circumstances change in that regard, a homelessness assessment should be made. There is no need for an individual who is threatened with homelessness and has applied for homelessness assistance to make a further application for homelessness assistance once they become homeless.

Amendment 1036, in my name, makes a minor technical change to proposed new section 32(2C) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, to clarify the duties of a legal authority under section 32.

Amendments 1092 and 1093 seek to ensure that a person who is threatened with homelessness is informed about the advice and assistance to be provided under section 32 of the 1987 act. I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s intention behind the amendments, but they are unnecessary because, under proposed new section 32(2C) of the 1987 act, which the bill will insert, Scottish ministers will have the power to prescribe the types of advice and assistance that must be provided by the local authority and, under section 37 of the 1987 act, they have the power to produce guidance for local authorities. The new powers that my amendments 1042 and 1044 will confer may be used to require local authorities and other relevant bodies to take additional action in relation to those matters. Amendments 1092 and 1093 would create a confusing regulatory landscape alongside those powers, so I urge Ms Chapman not to move those amendments.

We have heard from stakeholders of their concerns that the right to review decisions by local authorities in relation to a person who is threatened with homelessness is not clear enough and needs to be extended to cover the new ask and act duties. We have taken action through amendment 1040 to clarify and extend that important right. We will work with the relevant bodies, through the provision of guidance, to ensure that the right to review works as intended.

More broadly, we have listened to stakeholders such as Crisis and have considered the recommendations of the committee’s stage 1 report that ask us to provide more detail in legislation about the operation of the ask and act duty.

Amendment 1094, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to expand the right to review, which I have addressed through my amendment 1040. Amendment 1094 would duplicate what amendment 1040 does, so I ask Ms Chapman not to move it.

My amendments 1042 and 1044 will confer regulation-making powers to specify additional action to be taken by relevant bodies in relation to any person who is threatened with homelessness, including any action to be taken in relation to the assessment process and the provision of information. That will be an important and flexible way to achieve the level of detail that we have been asked to provide, through regulations that are developed in consultation with stakeholders.

Therefore, amendment 1095, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is not necessary. My amendments 1042 and 1044 will create a power for ministers to specify additional action that relevant bodies may take. That power is clarified in amendment 1044. All the issues that amendment 1095 attempts to address can be addressed by the powers that will be created by amendments 1042 and 1044.

Amendment 1018, in the name of Mr Balfour, seeks to do something similar to my amendments 1042 and 1044 but creates the risk of narrowing the duties that a relevant body must fulfil. The regulation-making power to be created by my amendments will enable Scottish ministers to specify additional action that a relevant body must take, over and above their general duty to take such action as they consider to be appropriate. Amendment 1018 also refers to a potential appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, but no such appeal rights exist at present. The right to review is considered sufficient in that regard, and I add that the right to review was a key issue for Crisis during our engagement on potential amendments.

Amendment 1010, in the name of Mr Stewart, seeks to create a right to review the actions of every relevant body under the ask and act duties. My amendment 1040 simply seeks to extend an existing right to review the decisions of a local authority. Mr Stewart’s amendment would require new review processes to be created by the relevant bodies, which would require further consultation with them. Were such a right to be considered necessary, the power to prescribe additional actions that a relevant body must take would enable that to be introduced via regulations.

I briefly discussed that with Mr Stewart and said that I was happy to continue to engage with him on that point.

Amendment 1090, in the name of Mark Griffin, proposes to create a duty on the Scottish ministers to set out a statement of principles that would apply to the ask and act duties. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, but there are very clear principles in the bill in relation to homelessness prevention. First, relevant bodies must take appropriate action to remove and minimise the threat of homelessness, and, secondly, that action must be taken when a body is informed or has reason to believe that a person might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. That makes it clear that the prevention of homelessness is everybody’s business and that those who are threatened with homelessness should get help earlier.

I am concerned that amendment 1090 would place a duty on the Scottish ministers that they cannot guarantee compliance with. Regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure are not within the gift of the Scottish ministers—they are at the discretion of the Parliament. I note that some of the principles that are listed in the amendment paraphrase duties that are already placed on relevant bodies, such as those that state that relevant bodies must work together. A statement of principles could be set out in guidance under proposed new section 36D of the 1987 act, and guiding principles are clearly more suited to guidance than subordinate legislation.

I ask members to support my amendments 1036, 1040, 1042 and 1044, and I urge Mr Griffin not to press amendment 1057 or to move his other amendments in the group, and Ms Chapman, Mr Balfour and Mr Stewart not to move their amendments. If those amendments are moved, I ask members not to support them.

I whole-heartedly reassure Mr Griffin on that point.

The existing definitions allow local authorities to take a person-centred approach to assessments. The intention behind the power to modify them is not to change that approach; it is to provide clarity on certain circumstances in which people might not currently be considered to be homeless or to be threatened with homelessness.

The existing homelessness legislation is broad enough to allow a flexible and person-centred approach to defining whether someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness, but we have listened to stakeholders who are concerned that there are scenarios in which people who require support might slip through the net. Including specific definitions of circumstances in regulations, as proposed by the Scottish Government, will better ensure that nobody is prevented from getting the support that they need, while keeping both definitions together in section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

I ask Alexander Stewart not to move amendment 1013, which would remove some of the changes made by the bill to section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to provide a broader definition of “abuse”. Amendment 1013 would retain some of the existing definition in section 24 of the 1987 act, despite a new, broader definition of “abuse” being provided in section 43(5) of the bill. Amendment 1013 would therefore create confusion as to which meaning of “abuse” applied for the purposes of the 1987 act.

I ask members to support my amendment 1047, and I ask Alexander Stewart not to press amendment 1008 or to move amendments 1009 and 1013. If he does so, I ask members not to support them. I have been engaging with Alexander Stewart on the matter, and I am happy to continue to do so.

In response to Mr Balfour’s point, I make the point that the key thing is flexibility. I cannot speak for future Governments, but we extensively consulted Crisis on the matter. The approach of using regulations will give us more flexibility to deal with issues that come up. That is one of the key reasons why we want to be able to make changes through regulations.