Chamber and committees

Professor Fitzpatrick, did you want to jump in here?

Picking up on that point, the legislation says six months, not six-plus months. We are looking at a bill—that is, something that would become law. Maeve, you have said in your submission that you would want how this is defined to be set out in a bit more detail, probably in regulations. Do you want that period of six-plus months to be better defined in the bill itself?

My apologies, convener.

Yes, and any other matters.

I will start with Gordon MacRae, because he has already picked up this issue. How do we ensure that the new homelessness duties are embedded? What authority do we have in that regard? Perhaps you could unpack that a bit more. Would you want there to be an ability to carry out a review of whether the relevant bodies are failing, or would you want a more legally enforceable process?

Good morning, again, panel. What are some of the problems with a legal framework that considers people to be threatened with homelessness if it is likely that they will become homeless within two months? What would be the benefits of extending that to six months?

You have picked up this issue to some extent already, but you might want to expand on it slightly. The submission from Crisis states:

“More clarity will be needed to ensure people can access support when a problem is identified, and are not turned away and told to come back when the crisis is imminent”.

You have said a bit about that, but could you unpack that more so that we can understand what we should be looking at?

It is almost the biggest question of all. Is there anything else that the bill could include to improve homelessness prevention services and support for victims of domestic abuse? If you had a chance to rewrite any of it, what would you put in?

Perhaps I can push you on that a wee bit, just to guide the committee. What meat—to use your word—would you want to see?

Good morning, everyone. I, too, put on record my thanks to all the people who came to speak to us on Monday. The session was really helpful. The convener has covered a lot of what I was going to say, so I will not repeat that.

I will mention a few points. The first is that it was interesting that, during the pandemic, there was much more joined-up thinking and greater support, which shows that we can do that if we have the appropriate resources. We need to remember the lessons that we learned during that period, particularly about ways of working and about temporary accommodation. We should not forget those lessons as we move forward.

Secondly, people mentioned the importance of organisations working together, particularly at the interface between the third sector and local authorities. They said that the system was often almost like a conveyor belt. They had to go to one organisation then another, and so on, and they had to keep retelling their story and giving all their information. It would be helpful if there was improved working between the various sectors.

Two points came up on the bill. The first concerns funding. As the convener said, the measures in the bill will work only if the appropriate resources are put behind them. That aspect is not covered in the bill, but it is a concern. Secondly, what happens if the duties are not acted on? How will they be enforced, and by whom?

Although I have been a local councillor, I had never previously thought about a point that one individual whom I spoke to raised, but it is an interesting one. The person really liked their temporary accommodation and was getting on well with their neighbours, but they had to move and start again in another house because the first one had been deemed to be temporary accommodation. She then had to start rebuilding relationships, community and everything else around her. In a situation where someone is settled in a house or a flat, there should be a bit more flexibility on that becoming their permanent accommodation. There might be legal reasons that I do not understand why that cannot be the case, but it seemed to me to be a matter of authorities saying, “We’ve done it this way and this is how we always do it”, rather than looking at an individual’s circumstances.