Seòmar agus comataidhean

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which notes my former work with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

It has been good to listen to the discussion this morning. The aim of amendment 1079 is to establish a national register of homeless households, which would help us to understand the scale of the national housing emergency. We do not currently have data that is detailed enough on those who are threatened with homelessness or those who are now experiencing homelessness.

I drafted the amendment following an excellent cross-party briefing from the City of Edinburgh Council, where there was a discussion on how we could improve the way in which we tackle the issue of people who are homeless or who are becoming homeless. It is a huge priority for the council to prevent homelessness and to support people who become homeless.

The aim of amendment 1079 is also to ensure that organisations are able to work together to allocate suitable housing. That would streamline the resources that are required for a household that has made homeless applications in multiple local authority areas. The amendment would provide more detailed information about the depth and breadth of the housing issues that are facing Scotland. It is also important that we understand the scale of the issue in order to identify how many new homes are needed.

Amendment 1079 aims to offer an opportunity to get exact information on the scale of housing need through a deliberative and preventative framework. Having a high degree of accuracy in the data on the number of homeless households and where they are will help us to be more accurate in building and planning for the homes that are needed to end homelessness.

I met with the minister several weeks ago and he told me that his amendment 1045 will go further and be more effective than mine. I am very interested in his offer of a follow-up meeting, so that I can also talk with stakeholders and reflect on his comments.

The concern is that we do not have enough information at the moment. My amendment would provide for regulations, so there would be capacity to fine tune that. This is a probing amendment, to allow for discussion, and I want to come back to reflect on the stakeholder feedback and have that follow-up discussion with the minister.

I very much welcome the support that Jeremy Balfour has offered. The meeting that we had in Edinburgh was on one of the top issues that the council is facing. We need only to walk around the streets in Edinburgh to see that people are physically homeless and understand the huge impact that that is having on them. I am keen to listen to comments from colleagues and to have a follow-up meeting with the minister. My intention is not to move amendment 1079 today but to reflect on the feedback that I get and to pick up on the details that other colleagues want to raise with me.

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.

We would also need to look at practical things. You are at the bus stop, and hopefully you have a seat, but do you have real-time information? If you have sight loss, how do you find out that information?

Are there any other comments about how we actually join up the improvements so that people can use different types of public transport, and walk or cycle into the system?

Kevin, do you want to come in on that?

I have a question that follows on from that. We have just been talking about reliability in the network, particularly for trains, and we have talked about the loss of bus and train services. How do we get multimodal travel? There have been lots of representations to the committee about how to enable people to travel from where they are to where they want to go using different types of transport, whether that is walking and cycling or getting on a bus or train. We have heard a lot of stuff about reliability and real-time information and making sure that people know when to get off the bus or train at their stop. What more can we do to make it work for people? Do we need to join up our thinking? Should that be local, regional or national? What solutions do we need to be looking at?

Stephen Smellie, do you want to come in?

Kevin Lindsay, do you want to come in? I presume that there is an opportunity to have such a plan, now that ScotRail is run by the Government.

I have a quick follow-up question on the cost issue. If you get more passengers on trains, I presume that the benefits include being able to plan ahead with a different number of rail carriages. For example, we know that getting on the last train from Fife to Edinburgh can be a nightmare, but if the provision is better planned, is that not good for the system? If the trains carried more passengers, compared with buses, that might mean that there would be fewer cars on the roads, so the buses would be more efficient, too. Is there a trade-off or a crossover here?