Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments in the group are aimed at strengthening the framework for relevant bodies under the bill to closely follow those that are identified in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The aim is to widen the scope of the ask and act duty while making homelessness prevention a core element of community planning provision across the country. Substantially mirroring the statutory bodies in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, my amendments would widen the scope of the ask and act duty framework and would deliberately bring homelessness and homelessness prevention into the community planning sphere, which is crucial for success when the bill is enacted.

I am also happy to support the other organisations listed by colleagues in their amendments in the group, particularly those relating to general practitioners, who have a crucial role in identifying patients who might be threatened with homelessness, and those relating to students.

I move amendment 1080.

It is helpful to hear the positive thought that you are not against adding public bodies, but what would be the timescale for that? Are you considering a consultation on the issue, so that there can be action in this area after the bill is passed?

This has been a constructive discussion. The issue for me is around timescales and action. It is about what will happen after our discussions today to ensure that public sector bodies are more engaged in relation to putting homelessness up the list of priorities, and to ensure that we have the appropriate accommodation, where and when it is needed.

Underpinning a lot of our discussion today is the issue of homelessness prevention. We all know from our constituents that the effects of pressure and stress on health before someone becomes homeless are huge, that they rocket once somebody becomes homeless, and that the recovery process is huge. Mark Griffin made points about that, and those points have been made by colleagues across different parties.

Graham Simpson made a point about students. I have also met Slurp, of Edinburgh University Students Association, which is very involved in the cross-party group on housing. It is a now issue for students, not a theoretical issue, because it is impacting on their studies now. The constructive nature of this discussion is therefore important.

Mark Griffin referred to work in relation to GPs and the pilot scheme, which all needs to be pulled together.

Legislation is important in giving legal duties, but we need to see what action is going to be taken in relation to the partnership working that Bob Doris mentioned. It is about the culture of getting moving on this.

On the point about prisoners, I have been to a prison in my region and I know that it is moving to talk to somebody who is about to be released. They have served their time, and they honestly do not know what is going to happen the week after. That makes them vulnerable, which is not good in terms of people moving out of the justice system and on to proper jobs and employment.

There is strong agreement here, which I hope that the minister will pick up on. I therefore want to withdraw amendment 1080. However, the minister needs to listen to all of us, cross party. We need action on this issue. There is time between now and stage 3, which gives us scope to come back with detailed amendments if we are not happy. However, I hope that the minister will work right across the public sector, because the human cost as well as the economic cost of homelessness is massive, and this bill is an opportunity to address it.

Amendment 1080, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 1065, 1001, 1081, 1021, 1082, 1002, 1066, 1083 and 1084 not moved.

Amendment 1049 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1085 and 1091 not moved.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

There are missed opportunities, are there not? There is lots of infrastructure, but we are not maximising its use. The rail freight industry lobbied us recently about that. You cannot get from ferries on to the mainland and straight on to rail infrastructure, which would take a lot of stuff off our roads. Do witnesses have any other thoughts on how we can integrate that and get planning? Frustratingly, I have been discussing this issue since 1999, not just in the past decade. What would be your top priorities to make it happen? Stephen Smellie, you stuck your hand up.

Does that mean that capital investment for bus infrastructure is needed to make bus services more accessible and bus stops more usable and safe?

The points about working from home are interesting. In fact, we are beginning to see a shift away from working at home, and people might have to get to work every day.

Jackson Cullinane, do you want to respond to my initial question about how to encourage people to use buses and trains?

We have talked a lot about the fact that concerns about reliability put people off using public transport. We have focused on buses, but it is also an issue with regard to rail. How do we ensure that choices are available for people? We have talked about rural areas, but communities on the edge of urban areas are in exactly the same position with regard to not having services. What should we do to address the issues that prevent people from using bus and rail? I ask Robert Samson to talk about Transport Focus’s research on that.

That is really well put—thanks for that.

Yes. We need to think about a joined-up approach. You have all talked about unreliable bus services. That is partly due to road congestion, but if it costs that much to get a train, it is a very difficult choice for people to make.

Also, people will not be able to afford to do that.