³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

On amendment 1057, I am reassured by what the minister has said on how it would work and the existing legislation that the Government feels already covers the matter. However, we still need to pay close attention to the operation of the bill if it becomes an act and guard against the potential for someone to be held in limbo between prevention and actual homelessness. It is worth keeping an eye on the different duties that would apply to the local authority in relation to such a person.

I have taken on board what the minister has said about amendment 1090. Although there is, as he will be aware, strong support for the principle of ask and act and prevention, there is also a clear desire for more detail about how it would operate for the individual and the rights that they would be able to pursue, if they felt that the ask and act duty had not been upheld by a particular public body. More crucially, there is also a clear desire for much greater clarity about training, knowledge and expectations with regard to the public bodies that would exercise it.

I do not plan to move amendment 1090 today, but I hope that there will be further discussions involving stakeholders and the Government. I am happy to be involved in any of those discussions to provide greater clarity on what ask and act specifically means.

I will close there, convener, and seek permission to withdraw amendment 1057.

Amendment 1057, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 1035 moved—[Kevin Stewart].