³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

My amendments in the group are aimed at strengthening the framework for relevant bodies under the bill to closely follow those that are identified in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The aim is to widen the scope of the ask and act duty while making homelessness prevention a core element of community planning provision across the country. Substantially mirroring the statutory bodies in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, my amendments would widen the scope of the ask and act duty framework and would deliberately bring homelessness and homelessness prevention into the community planning sphere, which is crucial for success when the bill is enacted.

I am also happy to support the other organisations listed by colleagues in their amendments in the group, particularly those relating to general practitioners, who have a crucial role in identifying patients who might be threatened with homelessness, and those relating to students.

I move amendment 1080.

It is helpful to hear the positive thought that you are not against adding public bodies, but what would be the timescale for that? Are you considering a consultation on the issue, so that there can be action in this area after the bill is passed?

This has been a constructive discussion. The issue for me is around timescales and action. It is about what will happen after our discussions today to ensure that public sector bodies are more engaged in relation to putting homelessness up the list of priorities, and to ensure that we have the appropriate accommodation, where and when it is needed.

Underpinning a lot of our discussion today is the issue of homelessness prevention. We all know from our constituents that the effects of pressure and stress on health before someone becomes homeless are huge, that they rocket once somebody becomes homeless, and that the recovery process is huge. Mark Griffin made points about that, and those points have been made by colleagues across different parties.

Graham Simpson made a point about students. I have also met Slurp, of Edinburgh University Students Association, which is very involved in the cross-party group on housing. It is a now issue for students, not a theoretical issue, because it is impacting on their studies now. The constructive nature of this discussion is therefore important.

Mark Griffin referred to work in relation to GPs and the pilot scheme, which all needs to be pulled together.

Legislation is important in giving legal duties, but we need to see what action is going to be taken in relation to the partnership working that Bob Doris mentioned. It is about the culture of getting moving on this.

On the point about prisoners, I have been to a prison in my region and I know that it is moving to talk to somebody who is about to be released. They have served their time, and they honestly do not know what is going to happen the week after. That makes them vulnerable, which is not good in terms of people moving out of the justice system and on to proper jobs and employment.

There is strong agreement here, which I hope that the minister will pick up on. I therefore want to withdraw amendment 1080. However, the minister needs to listen to all of us, cross party. We need action on this issue. There is time between now and stage 3, which gives us scope to come back with detailed amendments if we are not happy. However, I hope that the minister will work right across the public sector, because the human cost as well as the economic cost of homelessness is massive, and this bill is an opportunity to address it.

Amendment 1080, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 1065, 1001, 1081, 1021, 1082, 1002, 1066, 1083 and 1084 not moved.

Amendment 1049 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 1085 and 1091 not moved.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Where would you start in terms of priority? Is it about the regional transport partnerships working with community groups and local authorities and, on the islands, getting people to talk to CalMac—all those kinds of things?

I think that you will soon be able to use an integrated tram and bus ticket in the Lothians. That is coming soon, because they are prioritising it. Doing that and making it work right across the country is really important.

Thank you. That was really helpful.

I want to invite some more feedback on that. The previous witnesses were quite relaxed about different models of delivery. However, this year, the bus infrastructure fund is worth only £10 million. What would your priority for expenditure be, so that we can deliver the new services that are needed by people who use buses, which are simply not available? How would you get that process going again?

I am thinking about the impact on the choices that people have. We have 18 million fewer trips because there are reduced services, and 20 million fewer trips because of increased journey times due to congestion. There is a question about how we can actually make the buses available for people.

I was looking at the statistics. The bus partnership fund was meant to be £500 million, but only £20 million has been allocated to date, and nothing was allocated for last year. The community bus fund, which is allocated to local authorities and regional transport partnerships, is only £7 million. Is there an issue about how we support an increase in the provision of buses rather than allowing there to be a reduction in the first place?

There is an issue of inequality, in that people who do not have cars do not have a choice, so buses are absolutely critical in terms of equality. There is also an issue about how to persuade people not to use cars.

Robert Samson, what do you think our priority should be with regard to ensuring that we do not lose bus services in the first place?

I very much agree with you. It feels very odd that there were so few consultation responses and that one of them was not considered. It would also have been helpful to have a bit of a note on how the regulations impact on people’s daily lives and on the sectors where they will be implemented. However, I do not object to the instrument.

Where should investment in those routes be prioritised to make them more reliable?