³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

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?

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.

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 is simply a piece of paper that 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 will happen 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.