³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We have previously debated, both publicly and privately, the place of guidance instead of making provisions in the bill itself. Does guidance go far enough, given that it has no legal authority and can be changed without any scrutiny by this Parliament? Is there at least some room for secondary legislation or for including provision in the bill itself to give that aspect greater prominence in the years to come?

I apologise for my late arrival to the committee. Having reflected over recess and heard what the minister has said, I do not intend to move any of the amendments in the group on domestic abuse. However, I would welcome further conversations with the minister before stage 3.

A number of members have raised important points about domestic abuse, and I think that the bill can go further at stage 3 to give greater protection to those who face it. I look forward to having discussions with colleagues from all parties as well as with the minister to see whether we can reach some kind of consensus that shows us, as a Parliament, coming together to send the clear message that those who face domestic abuse need to be protected by the law with regard to their tenancy.

Amendment 1021 adds ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ to the list. I am sure that all of us take homelessness seriously. I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say about the competency of adding ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ to the list. It is important that, if we are going to include other organisations, that duty should lie with us if that is legally possible.

I will speak to Mark Griffin’s amendment 1066. I am interested in hearing from the member and the minister on the legal competency of including GPs in the list. My understanding is that, because GPs are privately employed, they cannot be included in the duty. If that is not the case and they can be added, I would be very supportive of adding them. However, even if they cannot be included in the bill, this is an opportunity for the Government to include GPs in the pilot scheme that it will roll out sometime this year. I am interested in whether the minister has had any thoughts about approaching GPs in the relevant local authority areas, to see whether they are willing to be included.

On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 1085, I agree that Social Security Scotland should be added to the list. I am not as convinced that the other bodies that are mentioned should be added, but, because the amendment seeks to include Social Security Scotland, we will support it if she moves it.

The importance of including the Scottish Prison Service, which is proposed in amendment 1091, seems obvious to me, although I have to confess that I overlooked it when I first drafted my amendments. We know, from our case loads and from evidence, that many people do not have a place to go when they leave prison. Everyone knows the date on which they are going to be released, and it seems to me that putting a duty on the Prison Service to make sure that the homelessness status of the individual is dealt with before they leave prison would save a lot of time.

I wonder whether Sarah Boyack’s amendments 1083 and 1084 almost go too far in expanding the scope. I wondered whether amendment 1083 would place a duty on bus drivers, but I note that it would not. The serious point is that we want to make sure that the provision is tight enough to work in practice but, at the same time, includes all the relevant bodies.

I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say about the amendments in the group.

This is one of the most important parts of the bill. When we were taking stage 1 evidence, Kevin Stewart, who was part of the committee at that time, spoke on a number of occasions about a cultural change having to take place within the national health service and local authorities if co-operation was going to work in practice. He was absolutely right about that. However, a cultural change can happen only if there is a legal basis to allow it to take place.

I still have concerns about what information on someone’s housing situation can be shared among relevant bodies. We all know from our casework that we have to get NHS consent forms and local authority consent forms before we can use any information for a constituent. Will the minister clarify what the legal situation is with regard to legal sharing?

That came up in a committee discussion that I had earlier in the week. Again, there seems to be some confusion in Government and, if I am honest, among ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ about what can be shared and what cannot be shared. If I approach a local authority with a homelessness issue, can the local authority share that information with NHS Lothian or whichever health board is appropriate, and with other relevant bodies? Does it require an individual to opt in or opt out? What paper documentation does the person have to give to the local authority for that information to be passed on? If a health board, Police Scotland or whichever organisation we are talking about uses data protection as an excuse not to engage with other organisations, the duty to co-operate will simply not work in practice.

I will not move amendments 1017, 1019 and 1020, but I would appreciate it if we could get some kind of briefing from the Scottish Government about what its understanding of the law is, so that, when we take the provisions forward, we are clear about what we can expect a relevant body to have to share.

If Sarah Boyack moves amendment 1079, I will support it.

The bill will be looked at next by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, and I understand that our deputy convener has lodged an amendment for consideration by that committee. In some ways, it would have been helpful if we had been able to debate that amendment today in the light of the amendments in this group, but that is simply the way in which the procedure works. The deputy convener’s amendment, which I hope will be accepted by that committee, would strengthen how we take things forward.

With regard to my amendment 1031, I will be slightly critical of us, as a committee, in that I do not think that we have made enough effort to look at how the pilot schemes will work. Those schemes will be essential if we are to get this right. With respect, I say to the minister that he and the Government are dragging their feet in that regard.

There was an announcement, and the Parliament has approved a substantial amount of money to take the pilot schemes forward. However, my understanding is that, as of the Easter recess, no local authority area had been identified, and there has been very little progress in that regard. I understand that the pilot schemes have to go out to tender under the appropriate legal procedures, but I worry that we will not see them up and running until perhaps even late this year. If they are then going to run, how will they be reviewed, and how will we see how they are working in practice?

That is why I support Maggie Chapman’s two amendments in the group. We are going into fresh waters here. It is all very well for us to put the legislation in place, but the Parliament has, for a number of years, been criticised for its lack of post-legislative scrutiny. We are not good at that, and it is very possible that, having seen how the pilot projects work, we will see that the legislation is not working in practice and that substantial changes need to be made.

My amendment 1031 would simply provide for a report by the Scottish Government on the pilot projects to be put forward. I think that it would be helpful for the Parliament in order to give this committee, and the committee with its remit that will be formed in the next session of the Parliament, an opportunity to look at whether the provisions are working in practice.

I am interested in hearing where the minister thinks we are with regard to the pilot projects and how long he thinks they will operate for. Depending on his reflections, I will decide what to do with my amendment. In addition, there needs to be more engagement between the committee and the Government on the pilot projects, and I hope that that can happen after we get through the formal stage of the bill process.

One of the very few positives of Covid was that we showed that we could get rid of rough sleeping in Scotland. I think that that happened across every part of Scotland—it certainly happened in the region that I represent. However, it came with a cost. A choice has to be made to put money towards that.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that we can have all the policies in the world, but that, unless they are followed up with appropriate funding for local authorities and the third sector, they cannot be implemented? Ultimately, it is a political choice. Is he committed to seeing rough sleeping end by the end of this decade?

I am just wondering if the minister has a view regarding the competency of the proposal. I am happy to do any further consultation, but I would be wary of doing lots of work only to be told, on a wet Wednesday afternoon, that the proposal is not competent. Would the Government at least be willing to write to me to say whether it thinks that it is possibly legally competent?

Can I push you a wee bit, minister? Are you saying that you are willing to look at the principle of getting rid of rough sleeping by the date that has been set out by Jamie Halcro Johnston if we can get the wording of the amendment right?

What engagement has taken place since the last time that you came to give evidence?

What is the hold-up?