Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a question about the elephant in the room. We are all talking about the proposed housing bill but we have legislation that our councils are not following through. The Parliament, the Government and the committee will spend most of the rest of this session of the Parliament considering a housing bill and bringing everything into one piece of legislation. Given the emergency that we are facing, would it not be better to examine what has gone wrong with all the legislation that we have passed in the past 25 years and focus on getting that right for different communities? Is a housing bill—which you will invest all your energies in—the right thing at this point or should we ensure that the legislation that we have performs?

A few of the witnesses have touched on the question that I was going to ask about solutions. During the meeting, I have been looking at the homelessness statistics. What stands out to me, as an Edinburgh MSP, is the fact that the number of households in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh is more than twice the national rate. We know that there are different circumstances and challenges in different parts of the country, whether they be urban or rural communities. Are those issues and the allocation of resources being taken into account in Government policy, including in the proposals for the housing bill? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities also needs to be part of the conversation. What other options and models should be available to take such issues into account?

I note that, at stage 1, the minister commented that it would make sense to look at ensuring consistency in the reporting of incidents of restraint. I also note the calls from a number of organisations for the Government to develop statutory guidance and for there to be reporting specifically in relation to persons with disabilities. Does the minister feel that that information is being properly reported by anyone other than the Care Inspectorate?

I listened to what the minister had to say about this group of amendments. I am keen for the bill not to be a missed opportunity for us to strengthen a statutory framework. Last week demonstrated the need for some of that, with the Care Inspectorate raising serious and significant concerns about the safety of students at Hillside school in Aberdour, in Fife.

Those issues need to be addressed, but I am happy to work with the minister at stage 3 to see whether the Government can accept that a stronger framework is needed, not just for this bill but for other bills that the Government is committed to bringing forward for people with disabilities.

I am happy not to move the amendments if the minister is willing to take that work forward.

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

Amendment 110 moved—[Natalie Don].

Good morning to members, the minister and her officials. I, too, have been working with the “Hope instead of handcuffs” campaign over a number of years on how the issue can be looked at and how the bill could create a framework, such as, I think, we all want.

I very much welcome Ross Greer’s amendment 212. I also note that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland commented on amendment 163 in relation to elements of the strengthening of data collection. Amendment 212 would achieve what I wanted, so I am happy not to move amendments 162 and 163, but I hope that the minister might, in summing up, look at comments that organisations have made about strengthening data collection.

I start by paying tribute to and thanking a number of people who have helped to shape my amendments: Beth Morrison and her son, Calum, who have been working towards Calum’s law; Daniel Johnson, my Lothian colleague, who is working on a bill that is related to the issue; and a number of organisations, very much including those that sent the letter that all committee members received on 23 November. It was from the Promise Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and it was on how we can develop a statutory framework on restraint and seclusion. My amendments in the group look to secure that for secure accommodation.

Amendments 155 and 156 look to ensure that we have consistency in training regulations. It has been noted that the councils that are responsible for delivering training have different systems and that different commissioners are provided for that. That needs to be tightened up.

Amendments 155 to 161 not only provide duties to record and report restraint within secure accommodation, but look towards restraint being used as a last resort.

I hope that the minister considers that the amendments reflect what the Scottish Government and members of the committee want to see at stage 2. If not, I will be happy to work on the amendments at stage 3.

Good morning, minister and officials. I have a couple of questions that are a bit scattergun, but bear with me.

I want to go back to our previous conversations about other private entities. Has there been a conversation about other private entities—for example, organisations that design, manufacture and install cladding systems—being required to help to fund cladding remediation? Is that too complicated for the current system?

In reality, such buildings almost have a version of a night-watch in place. However, we need to consider how hotels and student accommodation are regulated and how fire evacuation programmes are managed. Perhaps some of the work that is going on in England should be replicated up here. That might require a wider piece of work that goes beyond the bill and includes the factor management aspects of these buildings that we have discussed.

That is good. Thank you.

That is helpful. Thank you for that.

During the investigations that we have undertaken, specific concerns have been raised about electric cars and bikes in buildings that will be part of the scheme. What discussions are taking place about car parks underneath those developments specifically? There has, quite rightly, been quite a drive to have more electric vehicle charging points fitted, but there are not necessarily any regulations on what that will look like. Will that be considered as the bill progresses? There were quite serious concerns. Factor management is involved. I know that that is not specifically part of the bill, but there are various issues that relate to how management around that will be taken forward. Has that been picked up? Will it form part of what is coming?