Social Justice Committee, 23 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 23, 2002

Official Report 85KB pdf

---

Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (Homelessness)

Item 4 is on the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and the use of interim accommodation for unintentionally homeless applicants in priority need. We have been asked to give our views on the Scottish Executive consultation by 5 April. Members are invited to comment on the approach.

I am a little unhappy with the content of the Executive's consultation paper. If members recall, a lot of the discussion of this aspect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill was about the revolving-door syndrome. On a number of occasions, the accommodation arrangements that people are offered fail, for whatever reason—youth or something of that kind—and the same people come back to be rehoused in a few months' time.

I am not sure that the procedure that the consultation paper sets out, which looks bureaucratic and does not hit the nail on the head, is quite what we want. I accept that there is not much supported accommodation and that not everyone can be given such accommodation, but we want there to be proper consideration of the issues.

It seems from the discussion in paragraph 7 of the paper, particularly the second and fifth bullet points, and from the recommendations at the end of the paper, that a stage is missing. We are saying that interim accommodation should be used only where it is concluded that a household needs support. Do not we need a process that identifies what the support needs are, indicates what could be done to meet those needs and decides, on that basis, whether supported accommodation is appropriate? It seems to me that the paper glides over that central issue. Perhaps I am reading the paper wrongly or have not got a full grasp of it, but that was my perception as I read it.

The third page of the paper, on the proposed content of the subordinate legislation, talks about having a housing support services assessment, which might take care of Robert Brown's concerns.

The homelessness task force spoke strongly on the matter and the Executive took on board its recommendations. One of those was that it should be recognised that there are circumstances in which somebody might require supported accommodation, because of their age, its usefulness or the number of years that they have managed to get under their belt.

Although the paper is short, we must consider whether we can go into too much detail. There will be a responsibility to assess the individual applicant's needs. The assessment would not be long-term; it would have to be reviewed within a reasonable period.

We have a bit of time to consider the paper. Our views do not have to be in until 5 April.

We decided at our last meeting that a model for dealing with such points would be for members to think about them and direct their comments to the clerks. The clerks could read in the Official Report what we said about the matters when we were dealing with the Housing (Scotland) Bill and try to pull something from that.

We could schedule discussion of the consultation for 20 March. If people were reminded nearer the time that they would have to give comments to the clerks, it would allow us to match what we said during our consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill to our consideration of the consultation.

Cathie Craigie and I do not disagree on the consultation. It is a matter of what is spelt out in the procedure. When somebody presents as being in priority need, an assessment is done. My point is that the assessment should say X, Y and Z and that, on the basis of X, Y and Z, certain things should happen. The procedure should be spelt out a bit more.

I have always been more concerned about the point at which whether somebody is in priority need is assessed than about what happens after they are assessed as being in priority need. Perhaps that concern will be alleviated if my memory is refreshed. Has any guidance on how to assess priority need been put in place or is there any intention to put such guidance in place?

I think that something is on the way, but we have not received it yet.

Would it be worth while having a sheet about that for information while we are discussing the consultation?

If we meet the Minister for Social Justice and the Deputy Minister for Social Justice at our away day, it would be useful to get a sense from them of how the guidance is being rolled out.

So much is being introduced that it is sometimes difficult to remember where it all fits in.

For me, the major concern is who makes the decision about whether someone is in priority need rather than what happens to people who are in priority need. I am perhaps more concerned about those who are not in priority need than about what happens to those who are deemed to be in priority need, whom the system will assist.

I think that that is being considered in phase 2 of the homeless task force's work, which is going on at the moment. Recommendations will come out of that in due course with a view to introducing primary or secondary legislation. That is the next stage, rather than what we are considering now.

Could we check that to find out where everything fits in?

The consultation paper says that part of the purpose of the regulations is to facilitate the implementation of the task force's recommendations. Given that it is a consultation, the points that people make will help to shape the regulations.

Do we agree to discuss the consultation paper on 20 March? Committee members should make their comments through the clerks and we will consider the consultation paper.

Members indicated agreement.