Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is the converse, actually. The briefings that I have looked at ahead of today’s meeting say that if enforcement officers were not clear about whether items were single-use vapes, they could hesitate and not seize the items at that point. However, if the powers were drawn more broadly, they could seize the items, establish that they were single-use vapes and retain them. The instrument defines single-use vapes; it does not cover items that are suspected to be single-use vapes.

That is helpful. There was an announcement in 2022 that 65 per cent of Scotland’s train fleet would be replaced as part of modernisation and decarbonisation. I was just trying to check whether this initiative sits as part of that wider commitment. I am happy to take more information at a later date, cabinet secretary.

My second question is about the procurement process. Clearly, I want to make sure that Scottish companies can be part of the procurement supply chain. As I have done before, I note that I am delighted that the Caley works has reopened in Springburn and is now in the business of modernising and building trains, through Gibson’s Engineering Ltd. I just want to make sure that Scottish companies—wherever they are in Scotland—can be part of that huge economic, employment and skills opportunity, and get a slice of that very welcome announcement. Will the procurement process make sure that there is weighting towards Scottish supply chain businesses?

I have a couple of brief questions, cabinet secretary. First, can I check whether the announcement today is set in the context of the 2022 strategy and the Scottish Government’s commitment to replace 65 per cent of the train fleet, or about 675 carriages? That was placed on the Public Contracts Scotland website at the time. Is the announcement part of that wider modernisation and decarbonisation process?

If there is a grey area, I simply ask for a wee bit of clarity. I ask the cabinet secretary to give a commitment that, once the regulations are passed and we move into the enforcement stage, the issue will be kept under review and you will continue to work with trading standards to see whether there are any issues regarding enforcement.

Yes.

My apologies, minister, because I should have known the answer to the second part of the question. You are open minded about having more detail in the bill, but you obviously want to keep your powder dry at this stage, because of the engagement that you will have during the summer. However, I also asked you whether any secondary legislation or guidance will come back to the committee for scrutiny and what the process is. Hold on to that thought, though.

You mentioned ALACHO. Its concern is that the default action will be to refer back to the local authority, which defeats the purpose of the legislation. What reassurances can you give ALACHO that that will not become the default option?

Does that mean that you would seek an ask and act protocol, if we can call it that? You could say to the Home Office and the DWP, for example, that this is what we are asking public bodies in Scotland to do, that we think that it is best practice and that we would like to agree a protocol in relation to it. Is that something that you will take forward?

Before I ask my final question, I draw your attention to the work that this committee is doing on the housing emergency in Glasgow and the Home Office’s fast-tracking of asylum claims. I will not say any more just now, but I am sure that you are familiar with it. Please look into that issue, because there are certain things relating to homelessness and prevention duties that the Home Office is not ensuring take place.

My final question is about what is not in the legislation that could have been. The homelessness prevention review group considered a variety of things and made various recommendations, but not all of them made it into the legislation. One of the recommendations concerns the fact that the many different organisations that have ask and act duties have to talk to each other, and there is going to be overlap and, with regard to particularly complex cases, a need for co-ordination. A mechanism for that co-ordination was recommended, but it is not included in the bill. That is just one example. Perhaps you could say why that was not included and speak more generally about whether you are open to any additions as we go through the parliamentary process.

I am sorry that I cannot join you in person, but I have had to remain in Glasgow.

Minister, in your opening statement you spoke about working with partners to tease out the details of what the ask and act duty might mean in practice. In evidence, we heard concern about the lack of clarity about what the duty would mean in practice, so it is encouraging that you said that you are working with partners on that. Can you confirm whether you are open minded to some more details appearing in the bill as opposed to in secondary legislation or in statutory guidance? Can you give us a little bit of a feel for what the process of parliamentary scrutiny will be? Would the committee not see the guidance ahead of it being implemented, or would that be in secondary legislation, which would mean that the committee could take a view on it?

That is helpful, minister. I apologise for being discourteous, but you did not mention co-ordination of complex cases. Police Scotland, the national health service and education professionals are all worried about tenancies being sustained. Who is leading on this? Who is co-ordinating particularly complex cases? How will that be taken forward?