³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I appreciate that. I will take up your offer and will write to you about that.

To go back to Graeme Dey’s point, there are significant concerns among landlords in the private rented sector. They do not feel that they have had the minister’s ear with regard to what the impact on them will be. What plans do you have to include the sector as you draw up guidance? The devil will be in the detail, and it is important that guidance is developed that goes beyond what is in place in relation to the public health emergency legislation that the Parliament passed. The sector should be able to influence that. You gave Mr Dey a commitment that you would listen to the sector, but I would like an assurance that its suggestions will be taken on board in the guidance.

Good morning, minister and officials. I want to go back to where we started and the rationale for the measures in the bill. In a number of your answers, you have described different workstreams that are out to consultation or on which consultation will be launched next year. Analysis of the consultation on the bill shows that a majority of responders were opposed to the proposals. Why has the Government decided to introduce the proposals now when, next year, there could be an opportunity to look at the issues and potentially widen out the approach to include more housing matters? It seems to be a bit of a dog’s breakfast to introduce all these different measures at this stage, when there will be an opportunity to do it next year.

I want to move on to an issue that relates to the important points on preventing homelessness that Mark Griffin raised but which does not seem to have become a key part of what is being done. For example, with regard to responsibility for homelessness services, the City of Edinburgh Council is currently missing out on about £9.3 million of funding, because those services are administered by the council and not by the integration joint board. I have raised the situation about five times with ministers and have not got an answer on why it is being allowed to occur. I believe that the council is also still trying to get answers.

Why has something like that, which is really important, not been part of these measures, in order to try to fix that sort of problem, which we see across Scotland? I imagine that I will try to have that dealt with in relation to the housing bill, but lots of things have been highlighted to us, and it is only the specific issue that we are dealing with today that ministers have taken forward in this bill, when, in fact, there are lots of other things that we should be looking at.

I thank the witnesses for joining us this morning. I want to look across the two themes that we have been talking about today.

What are the barriers to leaving an abusive relationship in Scotland? Are there cultural barriers that we have not looked at properly? Is there more that we need to consider? I know from my work in Edinburgh supporting constituents in a couple of cases that one barrier is whether they can take their pets when those animals are also being abused. What additional services need to be put in place?

My second question—I do not know whether the witnesses want to answer it at the same time—is about funding gaps in specialist services.

I will hand that to Carolyn Fox McKay first. If anyone else wants to come in, please do.

It certainly did; it was very helpful and there was a lot of information in there. Could you provide the committee separately with information about access, or lack of access, to interpreters? I know that Glasgow City Council has more than 100 interpreters for various languages, but the picture will be different in other parts of the country. If you could provide any information about that, it would be very helpful. Thank you.

In the interests of time, I will try to merge my questions into one. I know that we have seen some progress, such as the incorporation of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 into the updated Scottish social housing charter. Some of the submissions to the committee specifically pointed towards the need for funding around different prevention models. From your experience—and perhaps from your knowledge of what is happening globally—what different models do you think that Scotland should be looking at and the committee should be aware of? I will start with Dr Marsha Scott, and if anyone else wants to come in, they can put an R in the chat box.

Funding and beyond that. For example, one of the things that I have specifically been looking at is the family court model in Australia. I know that is more within the criminal justice side of what we might look at, but I just wondered what we should be looking at on this topic in terms of experiences and learning from around the world.

I totally realise that I have just put on the table a huge topic, so I would appreciate it if you could write to the committee with any further information.

Thank you for that. I have a final question. What plans does the Scottish Government have to carry out a fundamental review of the charter in the next five years? There has been quite a gap between 2012 and 2021. What are the plans for potentially updating the charter in the future?

Graeme Dey responded to a question by alluding to outcome 12. I think that we all welcome the inclusion of homelessness and rough sleeping in the charter. However, an aspect that I do not think is necessarily captured is how supported or assisted living is to be provided for the many individuals who will need it. Is the Government looking at that, too? I believe that around 5 per cent to 7 per cent of homeless people need a supported living model to be put in place, but few people provide that. Rowan Alba Ltd, which is based in the capital, is doing a lot of good work around that in Leith.

I would like that aspect to be looked at, too. That important group of tenants often find themselves homeless and need that supported living model. It would be a positive thing for the charter to include that as the homelessness offering is developed further.