���˿���

I apologise that I have had to be remote this morning. It has been a really interesting conversation.

I am conscious that the minister will not have an opportunity to come back in and reflect on the points that I make, so if he feels the need to intervene on me at any point, he should feel free to do so.

Many of the arguments about the list of public bodies that could be added are well made, particularly around higher education and healthcare. If there had been the ability to add the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office to that list and to put the ask and act duty on them, we should have done so, but there was not. I will make an alternative suggestion that will be within the powers of our Parliament.

Let me make the case first. We all know from our constituency casework that when someone relies on benefits and entitlements from the DWP, advances or sanctions can indicate a threat of imminent homelessness, yet we do not have any provisions in relation to the DWP.

In relation to the Home Office, if we look at our asylum system, it is absolutely clear that, when an individual or a family gets a property anywhere in the UK, such as somewhere in Glasgow, on day 1 of the asylum process, one thing is guaranteed—that individual and their family will end up homeless, irrespective of the outcome of their asylum claim.

We can put the ask and act duty on organisations and relevant bodies through the amendments in this group, but we cannot do that with the DWP and the Home Office. However, we can proactively seek partnership agreements with the DWP and the Home Office and we should do that, whether it be through a protocol or set of principles. I do not know what it should be, but we have to do something.

People who are watching this will look at the main drivers that lead to people being threatened with homelessness. The provisions in the bill will not tackle those drivers because of the UK benefits system and the Home Office, so we have to work in partnership with the Home Office and the DWP. Rather than just chastising them for things that I do not like them doing, we have to work constructively and in partnership with them to stop people becoming homeless. Crisis has told me that there are already models in England where there has been partnership working between the DWP and local homeless sector partnerships to do that prevention work on homelessness.

I know that the minister will say that the DWP and the Home Office would do those things anyway, but sometimes it is good to have such things in the bill. I would therefore be inclined to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that mandates that the Scottish Government be required to seek those partnerships, and that specifically mentions the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, given the huge drivers of homelessness and pressures on homelessness services in Scotland today that come through those two particular agencies.

I give my apologies for not notifying Mr Marra that I was coming along to the meeting.

My involvement in the petition came when my constituent Julie Love contacted me and made me aware of it—it was remiss of me not to know about it until now. Julie and I campaigned on the issue ahead of the Cullen review, which led to a change in the law for fatal accident inquiries so that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office have the discretion, in exceptional circumstances, to make deaths that happen abroad subject to an FAI. My constituent and I have an interest in making sure that the system works as it was intended to at the time.

I offer my sympathies to the family that Mr Marra is representing. Julie lost her son, Colin Love, several years ago now, but I know that it still feels as if it was yesterday. She wishes that there had been a fatal accident inquiry at that point.

My only observation from a quick look at the evidence is that, although we might not need to define the term “ordinarily resident” in legislation, I want to know that the term is not restrictive and that, if the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office deemed someone not to be ordinarily resident, they would still be able to investigate appropriately and, ultimately, to have a fatal accident inquiry if it was in the public interest to do so.

I totally understand why that term is in the legislation. Back in 2016, we did not want to see—I hate to sound glib; that is not my intention at all—the thousands of expatriates who have made their lives in Benidorm, Spain and elsewhere being subject to fatal accident inquiries when they passed away. That was one of the reasons why the term “ordinarily resident” was placed in law. However, that was clearly not the case with the family that Mr Marra is supporting.

I want to make sure that the law is working as it should be. I also want an assurance that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office have the discretion and flexibility to action investigations should they wish to do so, and that they are not duty bound to follow a definition of “ordinarily resident” that is restrictive.

I thank Monica Lennon for exploring a lot of these issues. I found that incredibly helpful, and it is important to examine the bonus structures. For a bit of context, I note that Welsh Water was paying its chief executive a pay and bonuses package of £892,000 in 2021; in 2023 it was £792,000. It still does not sit comfortably with me that we are talking about having to be competitive to pay the best. It is reported that, in England and Wales, water companies got £9.1 million in 2023—not in salaries; that is bonus-specific.

My question is for Deirdre Michie. I am not at all comfortable with that level of bonus, but is it symptomatic of a market that is broken across the UK, in which Scottish Water feels that it has to be competitive? Is it a race to the top, if you like, whereby others are paying eye-watering amounts of money and Scottish Water is following suit? Would you like there to be reform across the UK, simply so that, in the market more generally, it is not possible for companies to pay such huge bonuses?

I appreciate your answer, Deirdre, but I was not giving you a bit of wriggle room over why you have paid those bonuses. My question was more about whether you believe that reform in relation to the water market elsewhere in the UK—including reform of the eye-watering level of bonuses—would give Scottish Water better value when it comes to the recruitment and retention of the best senior executives. I think that the unions that are watching will still feel deeply uncomfortable with such levels of pay and bonuses for senior executives. Would UK-wide reform to cap a lot of that be beneficial?

I appreciate that Scottish Water is trying to strike a balance in responding to what I see as a flawed marketplace. Ofwat has recently been given additional powers, but we will see whether that does what it says on the tin. Perhaps I have a few doubts about that.

I have one final question, convener. Workers and union members will follow this exchange primarily through Monica Lennon’s line of questioning. What are the bonuses for ordinary workers on the ground in Scottish Water, who do an exemplary job, separate from whatever the pay increase award is? Do ordinary workers get a suite of packages, measures and bonuses?

Peter Farrer could be going into pay discussions saying, “We will give you more for better performance”. That is potentially a—

Before we come to an informed view on this, would the deputy convener’s suggestion preclude an oral evidence session at a later date, depending on the Scottish Government’s reply?

Only for clarity, rather than as a follow-up question, is that subject to the on-going pay discussions?

I thank Monica Lennon for exploring a lot of these issues. I found that incredibly helpful, and it is important to examine the bonus structures. For a bit of context, I note that Welsh Water was paying its chief executive a pay and bonuses package of £892,000 in 2021; in 2023 it was £792,000. It still does not sit comfortably with me that we are talking about having to be competitive to pay the best. It is reported that, in England and Wales, water companies got £9.1 million in 2023—not in salaries; that is bonus-specific.

My question is for Deirdre Michie. I am not at all comfortable with that level of bonus, but is it symptomatic of a market that is broken across the UK, in which Scottish Water feels that it has to be competitive? Is it a race to the top, if you like, whereby others are paying eye-watering amounts of money and Scottish Water is following suit? Would you like there to be reform across the UK, simply so that, in the market more generally, it is not possible for companies to pay such huge bonuses?

I am listening carefully to you, Mr Balfour, and I am not sure what I feel about your amendment, but my question is about something that is not in it. A lot of survivors of domestic abuse are under threat of losing homes in the private rented sector. There are some landlords who are not working at scale and have just one or two registered properties, but there are many large, almost industrial, landlords and letting agencies out there. Do you feel that this should also be a requirement on private landlords and letting agencies?