���˿���

I will bring in Pamela McBride on that particular point. For me, with the two months or six months, it could be a day or two on either side, because cases will not involve just the six months—we know that it does not work in that way. I will bring in Pamela McBride on the point about the wording but, within reason, there is always a degree of flexibility when it comes to the two months or six months. Cases do not work in that way, unfortunately.

Pam, do you want to touch on the point about the wording?

That will be a worthwhile visit. I have been to a cook school event, and I was asked to prepare a bit of a meal, so be prepared for that. The Cyrenians do an absolutely incredible job, as many people know. I whole-heartedly commend the work that they do.

That is an important part of the legislation. We have engaged with stakeholders such as Scottish Women’s Aid, and we are aware of the legislation that is already in place. There is also the question of what the guidance actually looks like.

I had experience of a case, and I am sure that we have all had such experiences regarding domestic abuse cases. A woman will arrive at a surgery and does not know what the situation is. We are trying to prevent that from arising in the first place. For example, I was down in the Borders about three or four months ago and some housing associations down there had set up a project. I met a women there who had suffered domestic abuse. It was very much a prevention duty that was being considered, and the housing associations had specific housing officers who had done training on how to deal with such situations. They worked closely with Scottish Women’s Aid, and they considered how to deal with the financial situation that women found themselves in. That was an example of really good work, and it was a lesson for us all to learn from.

I was at one particular meeting that has stuck with me. The event was arranged by Scottish Women’s Aid, and one woman there had been in a particular situation. We were all asked to stand up. There was a piece of string that started with the woman who, it was found, had been suffering from domestic abuse. It was passed around the various organisations that she would have to work with before she got temporary accommodation. There were 30 people involved in the process for one domestic abuse case. Suffering the domestic abuse was traumatic enough; her having to go through 20 or 30 different organisations highlighted the longer-term issue not just for the woman but for her family.

How we simplify the process is a really important subject for me. That will come through the statutory guidance, and we are working with Scottish Women’s Aid on that as part of the training. One key thing that we identified previously and that we have been piloting is the fund to leave, which gives women financial opportunities to get some funding to leave. It is not just about domestic abuse; it is about financial abuse and other things, too. It is a matter of working closely with organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, incorporating the existing legislation and ensuring that it is embedded. Becoming homeless is a really difficult situation, but there are so many issues behind it and it is important that we get that work right. As I say, we are working closely with Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations on that.

Returning to the point that I made about the Borders housing associations, the work that they did, including on prevention duties right at the start, was really important, as was their method. They had evidence to show how their project had worked and was making a difference. I spoke to a few women who had suffered and who had worked with the housing associations down there, and we were delighted with how that had made a difference in the women’s lives. We have to work really closely in embedding that legislation. As we know, domestic abuse is the biggest cause of homelessness for women. That is a really important part of our work, which we need to get right. I do not know whether Pamela McBride wants to add a wee bit on that. We have been working closely in developing the guidance.

No. Again, it comes back to the point about housing officers and how they deal with domestic abuse. I have had individual cases, as all members probably have, of people who are suffering domestic abuse. They will go to one housing officer, and the housing officer will have had training and guidance and knows how to deal with it. However, I have had other cases in which a woman has gone to a housing officer and, quite frankly, it has felt almost as though they have been dismissed and that the abuse has been seen as being of no relevance. The vast majority of the time, it is the woman who moves out of the home, despite the fact that it is the perpetrator who has caused the situation. Again, I think that that takes us back to the point about statutory guidance and training—and also culture. That demonstrates the need for the training aspect for housing officers, because the picture is very mixed.

We cannot have the situation in which how you are treated literally depends on which housing officer you get, because that can have an influence all the way through the process. I have seen good examples where the response has made a real difference, but I have seen bad examples where the response has further exacerbated the problem and brought mental health issues and so on into the mix. Therefore, we need to ensure that the existing legislation is embedded.

However, there is a lot of work to be done on that particular point with regard to what we are trying to do around the prevention duties. It comes back to the need to legislate for that and ensure that it is picked up. Again, it comes back to the point that you mentioned: a woman might try to leave seven times before she actually leaves. Part of that is the thought of, “If I leave, what next?”. We cannot have women going into that situation and then thinking, “What next?”, because that impacts on her and on her children, and that impact can remain for a long time.

Therefore, we need to make sure that we change that. That comes back to the point about prevention duties and what we can do if we identify the issues at a much earlier stage. I will go back to the example that I gave from the Borders, where they were very clear in the training about what advice was available, so it was all part of the process. It cannot just come down to what happens when a woman turns up to see a housing officer to deal with the issue, because that will not work and that response has a real on-going impact.

There are several things. We are talking about resources, which is incredibly important. I touched on the fact that there are 32 different local authorities with 32 different solutions. The situation in island communities will be different from that in urban Glasgow, for example, and we must recognise that that is the case.

The resourcing for island communities must be right. Part of the work that we did with COSLA identified that. It is really important and is something that we must be cognisant of because it will need a different approach. If you are talking about involving six, seven or eight organisations in one case, that is much easier to do in Glasgow than it would be in parts of rural Scotland. Financial resourcing is important, but physical resourcing and knowing how many people are required is important too. Island communities and the local authorities that deal with that have responded on that particular point and we are cognisant of that. The resourcing and financial implications will be picked up, as will training.

We need to consider how we ensure that training is in place, as we have to be aware that that will be much more difficult in rural communities than in Glasgow. Organisations have shared that view, but we are also talking to people with lived experience.

Parts of the Borders can be quite rural. I have done some work on a project in the region, and the team were cognisant of how people access their services. Advice cannot always be given face to face, so they have considered how to ensure that there is access to the services that people require. We should not only talk about how practitioners deal with those things but look at it from the perspective of someone who has experienced domestic abuse, for example. Lessons have been learned from how four housing associations in the Borders operate, and there are other lessons that can be learned from best practice. It is really important that we look at it from the point of view of a person who could become homeless, which is reflected in the evidence that we received from rural communities and local authorities.

We have to get the resources right so that we can ensure that, anywhere in Scotland, there is access to the services that are required. We need to ensure that it is not more difficult for someone to access services because of where they live. Someone in a rural area should not face more difficulty than someone who lives in urban Glasgow, who might be half a mile away from a place that they could visit in person. It does not matter whether someone lives in Glasgow or in rural Scotland; it is important that we deal with the challenges they face. How practitioners deal with a situation and how people access services will be different, but people cannot suffer because of where they live. Local authorities have identified that and have given feedback to us on that process.

Yes. We have engaged with the Law Society of Scotland over a long period of time and it raised that point about the order. We are still in discussion with it about that, and we would certainly look to engage with it on that point. We got its feedback at a relatively late stage in the process, we continue to engage with it, and we will continue to engage on that point. If we need to amend the guidelines or whatever, we will ensure that we do that. However, we are still in discussion with the Law Society on some of the points that it has raised.

There have been a number of consultations. Looking back, I remember what was said at the time when I was on the committee. I have probably met the ASSC on about a dozen occasions. We have spoken to the short-term let providers—the trade groups such as the STA, as well as Airbnb and other such organisations. We have spoken to the industry advice group and I have met it on a number of occasions. That group includes VisitScotland and other stakeholders.

I have also spoken to and met the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators, as have my officials—I might bring my officials in to speak about their broader consultation as well. SOLAR represents the local authorities in Scotland. We have therefore had feedback on the particular point from across the whole group of stakeholders. That includes individual authorities within SOLAR, because it is partly about their individual interpretations of the scheme and how they see it. Different local authorities will have different aspects and issues that they would like us to deal with. It was really important to meet SOLAR so that I could listen to people who are on the ground and hear about the impact.

We have heard from stakeholders ranging from individual groups, such as the ASSC, to those who represent the broader sector, such as VisitScotland and the industry advice group, along with local authorities. We have tried to cover as broad a range as possible. That is my involvement, but I will bring in Jess Niven if that is okay, convener, to talk about officials’ engagement on a daily and weekly basis and the broader work that has been going on.

When it comes to provisional licences, I remember that, when I was a member of the committee, an issue was raised about the financing aspect and what was required in that regard. At the time, there were applicants who had had issues with their lenders, and the committee took evidence on that. I have also spoken to other stakeholders about that point, including the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers. There was an issue in relation to finding finance, particularly for people who were new to the business. There was an accumulation of evidence that indicated that we should make it easier for people in that position to proceed.

That is the main thing that we are trying to do. We will work with stakeholders on that. That is an issue that has been raised over a period of time. It is important that we try to get people into the sector.

There are a number of things. Returning to your previous question, I add that we spoke to two other groups as well. We met the Edinburgh International Festival and Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society, and we had a joint meeting with them and the City of Edinburgh Council to clarify their understanding. We worked closely with them in that regard, because Edinburgh is a major city and the festival is literally just weeks away. We will meet them again after the festival period to analyse what it looked like from their side.

The broader point is that it is an iterative process and the legislation is still in a transitional period. The key things that we have acted on are the key measures that were picked up on, and we have tried to reflect those in the draft order.

The other key thing was to be cognisant of the impact on tourism more broadly. Again, we have had meetings in that regard—we have spoken to VisitScotland and tourism officials to get that other perspective. It is not just about the safety aspect. That is the main point of the order, but we also want to ensure that there is no detrimental impact in the tourism figures that come through. In that regard, what we have seen so far has been reasonably encouraging. One of the key things for me is to try to strike that balance in the interpretation of where we need to go with this.

It is very much an iterative process, and I think that I have shown that in the engagement with the sector. We have met the ASSC approaching a dozen times. We have also met other stakeholders—SOLAR and others—on a number of occasions, and we will continue to do that. I think that I have mentioned before that I am happy to come back to the committee at any stage to discuss the issues and the impact of the legislation as we see that coming through. I think that we have struck the right balance, but it is very much an iterative process.

That brings me back to the point that I made about Edinburgh. We have another meeting planned with the festival, the fringe and the council after the festival period in order to, almost, analyse the impact on the Edinburgh festivals, which are some of our biggest festivals with regard to tourism. There is a broader question about what the scale of the festival and the fringe should be and what the capacity of the city is in that regard. We have already agreed to meet the festival, the fringe and the council again after the events in August to interpret that. If we need to make changes accordingly, we will do so.

There is a broader overview when an application comes through. Jess Niven mentioned the fit-and-proper person test, for example, which is one element of it. If you are talking about a larger organisation taking over single individuals, that would be a much bigger issue. Local authorities would still assess an application during the application process and they would be aware if there was a particular issue along the lines of the scenario that you mentioned. There is enough in the current guidelines to allow local authorities to pick up on any such instances and deal with any issues. I do not think that that would come out of the blue, if you know what I mean. Craig McGuffie wants to come in on that.