Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise for my late arrival to the committee. Having reflected over recess and heard what the minister has said, I do not intend to move any of the amendments in the group on domestic abuse. However, I would welcome further conversations with the minister before stage 3.

A number of members have raised important points about domestic abuse, and I think that the bill can go further at stage 3 to give greater protection to those who face it. I look forward to having discussions with colleagues from all parties as well as with the minister to see whether we can reach some kind of consensus that shows us, as a Parliament, coming together to send the clear message that those who face domestic abuse need to be protected by the law with regard to their tenancy.

Amendment 1021 adds MSPs to the list. I am sure that all of us take homelessness seriously. I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say about the competency of adding MSPs to the list. It is important that, if we are going to include other organisations, that duty should lie with us if that is legally possible.

I will speak to Mark Griffin’s amendment 1066. I am interested in hearing from the member and the minister on the legal competency of including GPs in the list. My understanding is that, because GPs are privately employed, they cannot be included in the duty. If that is not the case and they can be added, I would be very supportive of adding them. However, even if they cannot be included in the bill, this is an opportunity for the Government to include GPs in the pilot scheme that it will roll out sometime this year. I am interested in whether the minister has had any thoughts about approaching GPs in the relevant local authority areas, to see whether they are willing to be included.

On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 1085, I agree that Social Security Scotland should be added to the list. I am not as convinced that the other bodies that are mentioned should be added, but, because the amendment seeks to include Social Security Scotland, we will support it if she moves it.

The importance of including the Scottish Prison Service, which is proposed in amendment 1091, seems obvious to me, although I have to confess that I overlooked it when I first drafted my amendments. We know, from our case loads and from evidence, that many people do not have a place to go when they leave prison. Everyone knows the date on which they are going to be released, and it seems to me that putting a duty on the Prison Service to make sure that the homelessness status of the individual is dealt with before they leave prison would save a lot of time.

I wonder whether Sarah Boyack’s amendments 1083 and 1084 almost go too far in expanding the scope. I wondered whether amendment 1083 would place a duty on bus drivers, but I note that it would not. The serious point is that we want to make sure that the provision is tight enough to work in practice but, at the same time, includes all the relevant bodies.

I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say about the amendments in the group.

We have previously debated, both publicly and privately, the place of guidance instead of making provisions in the bill itself. Does guidance go far enough, given that it has no legal authority and can be changed without any scrutiny by this Parliament? Is there at least some room for secondary legislation or for including provision in the bill itself to give that aspect greater prominence in the years to come?

Good morning. The standing item on the agenda when you and your colleagues come to visit us is the historical commitments that the Government has made to the committee in relation to instruments. On numerous occasions, the committee has requested an update on the amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Functions and Transfer of Property etc) Order 2019 (SI 2019/183). The last time that you gave evidence, you said that there might be an update in this calendar year. Are you able to update us?

Thank you. As you are aware, this committee’s remit includes consideration of bills that come from the Scottish Law Commission and, after the Easter recess, we will look at the Leases (Automatic Continuation etc) (Scotland) Bill. Do you expect any other bills to come to the committee this session?

What engagement has taken place since the last time that you came to give evidence?

What is the hold-up?

Okay, that is helpful. In addition to that commitment, there are six other outstanding commitments that the Scottish Government has made to the committee. Four of those date from 2023 and two date from last year. What has been done to ensure that those six commitments will be met?

I am not sure whether that was a yes or no to my question. Is it likely that something will come forward this calendar year?

Good morning. As we go through the amendments in this group and those in other groups, I suspect that we will see some of the weaknesses that exist in the bill. I am sure that all members want the bill to work, but, as it is constituted at the moment, there are simply too many unanswered questions and too many uncertainties with regard to the duty to act.

In his comments about amendment 1090, Mr Griffin said that there was a lack of clarity on the ask and act duties. I think that he was being kind, because there is a gaping hole with regard to what those duties will mean in practice if the provisions come into play.

I will give the committee an example that I have given to others. If someone comes into the royal infirmary up the road at 2 am on a Saturday night and discloses—or it becomes clear—to a nurse that they are homeless, what should that nurse do? What is her duty in that regard? There is no clarity on that. I think that we will be setting up public bodies to fail unless we give people a clear definition and a clear understanding of what is required.

When Kevin Stewart was on the committee, on one occasion on which we were taking evidence, he forcefully pointed out that there needed to be a change of culture if the ask and act provisions were to work. It is true that there needs to be a change of culture, but there can be a change of culture only if people understand what that culture change is meant to look like in practice. At the moment, the bill simply does not provide such an understanding.

On Mr McLennan’s amendment 1040, I note that one of the problems with the bill is that it puts a lot of weight on guidance. As the minister will understand, guidance has no legal authority—there is no way to enforce it. Guidance can be a piece of paper that comes out but gives neither the public body nor the person who might be threatened with homelessness any rights or any possibility of legal challenge in relation to it. We will support amendment 1040, but, in my view, this should be done by amendment and not by guidance.

On amendment 1018, in my name, I suppose that we are hoping and expecting that there will be a cultural change in public bodies and that everyone will simply understand the ask and act duty on them. However, there is no stick in the bill for a public body that does not achieve that change. There is a lack of clarity on what happens if NHS Tayside, NHS Lothian or any other public body that we end up with does not achieve that. There is absolutely no stick to hit them with. That is what amendment 1018 would allow. It would allow somebody who has not been treated correctly by a public body to at least have the option of challenging the decisions made by that body. That seems to me to be a legitimate right.

I appreciate that you can already have a judicial review in regard to the decision of a public body, but my amendment would put it in the bill. It would not create a new right or something that is not there in law already, but it would give a strong indication from the Parliament that we expect public bodies to take the ask and act duty seriously and that, if they do not, they could be open to legal challenge. That seems to me to be where we want to get to. I will leave it there.