Seòmar agus comataidhean

One issue is that each local authority is slightly different in terms of where the RAAC is in their areas. The situation is different in West Lothian, Clacks and Aberdeen. Our approach is based on what the local authorities’ approach would be, which has given them flexibility in their local approaches. Working collaboratively with local authorities is the key thing in that regard.

If members have specific concerns, I am happy to pick those up with local authorities. As I said, I have engaged with all local authorities that have issues with RAAC. If the committee or individual members have any specific concerns, I am happy to pick those up and take them forward. We expect the local authorities to take that approach.

I have engaged with local authorities and I think that they have been engaging with tenants and home owners on that point. If there are any specific issues and if members think that local authorities should be doing more or there is feedback from residents on that, I am happy to pick those issues up with Mr Griffin or with other committee members.

I do not know whether colleagues have anything to add on that. We continue to engage with all local authorities, and officials do so on a regular basis. Stephen Garvin might want to talk about that.

The issue has been raised with the committee before. There is a role for all of us as MSPs to ensure that the culture change that you have just asked about happens; indeed, we have probably all had cases of constituents being blamed by their landlords. I am also aware of an evidence session that you had with Tenants Together Scotland and various local authorities, and I think that guidance to local authorities will be incredibly important in this area. The issue is becoming more prevalent since the sad case of Awaab Ishak, because people are now aware of their rights. That is an incredibly important part of the issue, and it has been acknowledged in the amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that we have lodged.

In my introductory remarks, I touched on the Scottish Housing Regulator’s new indicators for damp and mould, which I think will help here, and there is a role for the Government to disseminate that information, working with local authorities. After reading the evidence from Tenants Together Scotland and others, I think that there is a role for all of us, whether local authorities or whoever, to ensure that people are aware so that the sort of thing that you have highlighted does not happen and that tenants know that they have the right to have their property repaired in good time. The amendment and the indicators will set a direction of travel by which people will be made aware of their rights, and their behaviours will not be blamed.

There are a number of things to highlight. A key issue is that we were keen to discuss the matter with the United Kingdom Government, and to work very closely together on it. We have certainly had those discussions and have tried to follow what it has been looking at.

As you know, our amendment was lodged on 17 March, and it will be discussed formally at committee. It gives Scottish ministers the power to introduce, through secondary legislation, timescales for social landlords to investigate hazards such as damp and mould and to commence repairs in that respect. It will also allow us to consider additional health-related hazards that should be covered by regulations in Scotland and, again, we will be very much following examples in the rest of the UK.

We have committed to further engagement and consultation across the sector and with tenants prior to the introduction of secondary legislation, and I think that that will be really important. Obviously, we are working with the regulator on the issue, too.

Another key thing will be to set out clearer rules and responsibilities when it comes to investigating and commencing repairs of hazards, although that is probably a matter for the consultation.

A key issue at the moment is, as you have mentioned, enforcing the right. That will also be part of our further engagement, and I am happy to come back to the committee on the matter, either in person or in writing, as we progress our discussions. It is really important that we engage with local authorities and others on what that will actually look like.

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.