Absolute bovine anal secretion!!
The government does NOT have to define the term 'vulnerable' at all, that is total nonsense.
What the government has to do is decide what is eligible to be funded from HB and that is already defined in regulations.
Supporting People has been around since late 1999 and pays for "housing-related support" - something that has no definition and not even a working definition despite 150 separate administering authorities attempting it for the past 12 years.
So the premise put forward by Rhiannon above is a false one.
It is not the individual (who is vulnerable however defined if indeed it can be) it is the service that requires definition. This is why services such as hostels and refuges have been definedd for years as "exempt" - If individuals have to be defined as vulnerable does it means a women with 10 resported cases of DV is less vulnerable than a woman experiencing 40 cases of it? If so is one vulnerable and the other not? That is bloody ridiculous.
Rhiannon may well be only reporting what it being discussed, but if that is what is being discussed then it is nonsensical.
When the exempt accommodation consultation came out last summer it was stated correctly that the current exempt accommodation provisions are complex but they are tranparent and have been thought through for years.
This bizarre government wants to change them because they are complex - WHY!! - ease of administration is no reason to change the current regulations which despite being complex work perfectly well. The government is using dogma to hoodwink the sector over this such as defining 'vulnerable.'
There is no need or indeed rationale for this at all excpet in the minds of government.
When a person flees DV or is roofless and needs emergency accommodation (refuge and hostel) provision should we being assessing whether they are "vulnerable" or whether they are fleeing violence and abuse or are roofless? The latter obviously but something this stupid and dogmatic government doesnt want to see.
In practical terms does a women fleeing violence flee with the kitchen sink strapped to her back? No they dont. Therefore a refuge needs to provide such furnished facilities and HB needs to pay for that as it does now. No ifs, no buts, no need to define vulnerable
So when Rhiannon states above "But as part of this, the government needs to work out a definition of ‘vulnerable’ so it can define who qualifies for an exemption and who doesn’t." That statemant and deduction is fundamentally flawed and is bovine anal secretion!