Seòmar agus comataidhean

I return to Carolyne Hair of the Law Society. We will get into the detail of the bill in a moment through our questions. First, considering the bill holistically and taking an overview, do you think that it goes too far and brings about too much change? I was not quite sure what your position was regarding the general principles of the bill. Is it too wide in its scope, and does it need to be pared back?

We might seek to amend the bill; I am just trying to get some expertise from practitioners. If I were to lodge a stage 2 amendment to stipulate “28 days”, “30 days” or “50 days”, what would be reasonable, from a practitioner’s perspective?

On that issue—others can pick this up—we heard that, in other jurisdictions, there is a much more fixed way of doing it. For example, there can be a 30-day period. Not necessarily from a practitioner’s point of view, but from the perspective of your clients, would that be too much of a change to the law?

Carolyne, I appreciate that you have not consulted your members, so you might not want to answer that question.

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.

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?

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?

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 MSPs 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.

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?

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.