Committee
Social Justice Committee, 25 Apr 2001
25 Apr 2001 · S1 · Social Justice Committee
Item of business
Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
I can deal with amendment 45 briefly. It is linked to amendment 115, which is in the next group and is part of our group of amendments on homelessness and anti-social behaviour, of which the committee has already been supportive.The other amendments in this group deal with the workings of section 4. Some have expressed worries about how homelessness will be tackled if local authorities have little or no housing stock of their own. That issue was examined in depth by the new housing partnership steering group and the homelessness task force. Section 4 implements their recommendations.The measures in section 4 ensure that homeless people are not disadvantaged and do not become the victim of a breakdown in communication or co-operation between two organisations, but they are not intended as a step-by-step guide for local authorities on how to get accommodation from an RSL and neither they should be. Nothing can replace the value of co-operation and understanding at a local level—I looked at Bill Aitken when I said that; that is quite bizarre—with each partner knowing what is expected of them and what they expect of each other. Local authorities and RSLs will need to work together as effectively as possible and reach agreement, based on model contracts and the homelessness strategies, on how they will do so.That means improved and explicit co-operation, more trust, more day-to-day contact and more shared local strategic priorities. We are keen to ensure that the bill supports that co-operation rather than harms it. For instance, if the relationship between local authorities and RSLs is dominated by statutory duties and obligations, that will lead to a compliance culture, not a true partnership. That is why the statutory duties section in section 4 concentrates on the main priorities, not the day-to-day operations.Bearing that in mind, we are clear that the terms of amendment 93 are completely unacceptable. That amendment seems to suggest that the allocation policies of individual RSLs will take precedence over the needs of homeless people to access accommodation. The priority must be that homeless people get accommodation; RSLs must play a full part in that. That is the principle behind section 4; amendment 93 would severely weaken that position.I will run through amendments 114, 161 and 162 quickly. We need to be clear about the different types of accommodation that can be secured under the homelessness legislation, and the best way to secure them. First there is interim accommodation which, as I explained earlier, is provided before an assessment is completed.Secondly, there is other temporary accommodation, which is secured as part of the minimum package of support for homeless people who are assessed as not being in priority need, or who are in priority need but are intentionally homeless. Finally, permanent accommodation is secured for unintentionally homeless people in priority need who may also require temporary accommodation before the permanent accommodation becomes available.The task force envisages that local authorities should have statutory back-up to ensure that when they require RSLs to provide permanent accommodation for unintentionally homeless people in priority need, RSLs will need to comply. I believe that Karen Whitefield suggested that temporary accommodation for those people should be included in that request. I accept her point, as there may be cases, albeit a few, where temporary accommodation is needed, for example when the local authority requires accommodation in the period before permanent accommodation becomes available.While we continue to believe that, generally, temporary accommodation should be secured on a more strategic basis by local authorities—we are making £27 million available over the next three years to do that—we accept the basic premise of Karen Whitefield's argument. However, we will have to recast amendment 45 to make the argument fit in the bill. I therefore propose that the Executive consider this issue with a view to lodging a suitable amendment at stage 3. I hope that Karen Whitefield will accept that commitment.The principle of amendment 162 appears to be the same as that of amendment 114. We accept its intention also, but it is important to emphasise for the avoidance of doubt that it should be for the local authority to request either permanent or temporary accommodation, not for the RSL to be able to comply with the request for permanent accommodation by giving temporary accommodation.Regretfully, we do not agree with Robert Brown's proposal in amendment 161 that the statutory requests be extended to all types of accommodation for all categories of homeless people. Aside from being impractical, given the high turnover and constant use of temporary accommodation, it would discourage local authorities from taking a strategic approach to ensuring the availability of temporary and interim accommodation in general. Taking a strategic approach may involve entering agreements with other accommodation providers to ensure that accommodation is available for the required purpose at all times. That is far better than relying on a large number of ad hoc requests, which could be made on a daily basis.I hope that I have given a full explanation of our position. I urge the committee to accept amendment 45, but to resist all the other amendments in the group.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Johann Lamont):
Lab
Welcome to this meeting of the Social Justice Committee. We may get to know each other quite well by the end of this process. The first item to discuss is th...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Before we get to that—
The Convener:
Lab
Sorry, we will deal with item 1 first.
Brian Adam:
SNP
Convener, I—
The Convener:
Lab
No, I ask you to bide your time. You have raised an issue with me that we will deal with later, but I want to deal with the timetabling of the bill first. Wi...
Brian Adam:
SNP
I understand the desire and the need to make progress with the bill. It is not just Robert Brown who has a problem on a Tuesday. Bill Aitken and I are involv...
Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I do not want to reiterate what Brian Adam and Robert Brown have said, but members should think back to the beginning of the process. That was when I joined ...
The Convener:
Lab
I do not want us to rehearse another discussion about the timetable for the bill as it was introduced. That is something that has been well aired at the comm...
Ms White:
SNP
Convener, your interruption meant that I was unable to finish what I was saying.
The Convener:
Lab
I am asking members to discuss a specific question about the timetabling so that we can come to a conclusion—
Ms White:
SNP
No, the convener interrupted me and I was good enough to let her in. The convener mentioned that members have other commitments on Tuesdays, and it may be th...
The Convener:
Lab
I ask Sandra White to clarify whether her position is that we do not meet twice each week.
Ms White:
SNP
Yes.
The Convener:
Lab
Okay.
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
I was not at the last meeting, but the report that I have indicates that progress was tortuous, to say the least.
The Convener:
Lab
It was extremely well-convened torture. Laughter.
Bill Aitken:
Con
What is at issue this morning is how we manage the timetabling difficulty that faces us. I would find it virtually impossible to do the Tuesday stints. I rec...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
I have no difficulty with the concept of meeting twice a week. The bill is important and it is important that it be got through, if at all possible, by the s...
Ms White:
SNP
That was a cheap swipe.
The Convener:
Lab
Sorry?
Ms White:
SNP
May I come in?
The Convener:
Lab
No.
Ms White:
SNP
Oh.
The Convener:
Lab
Can we have a bit of discipline here?
Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab):
Lab
We have spent 15 minutes discussing how we will meet. Our time is scarce and I am not sure that we are using it wisely. I support much of what Robert Brown h...
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):
Lab
It is important that the committee meets twice a week so that we get through the business. The committee has been preparing for the Housing (Scotland) Bill f...
Mr Kenneth Gibson (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
Convener—
Bill Aitken:
Con
The clerk could advise us whether there is another solution to this. Perhaps it would be possible to obtain the permission of the Parliament to meet while th...
Mr Gibson:
SNP
The—
The Convener:
Lab
I will not allow you to come in on this discussion, Kenny. This is a matter for members of the committee.