Chamber and committees

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which notes my former work with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

It has been good to listen to the discussion this morning. The aim of amendment 1079 is to establish a national register of homeless households, which would help us to understand the scale of the national housing emergency. We do not currently have data that is detailed enough on those who are threatened with homelessness or those who are now experiencing homelessness.

I drafted the amendment following an excellent cross-party briefing from the City of Edinburgh Council, where there was a discussion on how we could improve the way in which we tackle the issue of people who are homeless or who are becoming homeless. It is a huge priority for the council to prevent homelessness and to support people who become homeless.

The aim of amendment 1079 is also to ensure that organisations are able to work together to allocate suitable housing. That would streamline the resources that are required for a household that has made homeless applications in multiple local authority areas. The amendment would provide more detailed information about the depth and breadth of the housing issues that are facing Scotland. It is also important that we understand the scale of the issue in order to identify how many new homes are needed.

Amendment 1079 aims to offer an opportunity to get exact information on the scale of housing need through a deliberative and preventative framework. Having a high degree of accuracy in the data on the number of homeless households and where they are will help us to be more accurate in building and planning for the homes that are needed to end homelessness.

I met with the minister several weeks ago and he told me that his amendment 1045 will go further and be more effective than mine. I am very interested in his offer of a follow-up meeting, so that I can also talk with stakeholders and reflect on his comments.

The concern is that we do not have enough information at the moment. My amendment would provide for regulations, so there would be capacity to fine tune that. This is a probing amendment, to allow for discussion, and I want to come back to reflect on the stakeholder feedback and have that follow-up discussion with the minister.

I very much welcome the support that Jeremy Balfour has offered. The meeting that we had in Edinburgh was on one of the top issues that the council is facing. We need only to walk around the streets in Edinburgh to see that people are physically homeless and understand the huge impact that that is having on them. I am keen to listen to comments from colleagues and to have a follow-up meeting with the minister. My intention is not to move amendment 1079 today but to reflect on the feedback that I get and to pick up on the details that other colleagues want to raise with me.

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.

There are missed opportunities, are there not? There is lots of infrastructure, but we are not maximising its use. The rail freight industry lobbied us recently about that. You cannot get from ferries on to the mainland and straight on to rail infrastructure, which would take a lot of stuff off our roads. Do witnesses have any other thoughts on how we can integrate that and get planning? Frustratingly, I have been discussing this issue since 1999, not just in the past decade. What would be your top priorities to make it happen? Stephen Smellie, you stuck your hand up.

Does that mean that capital investment for bus infrastructure is needed to make bus services more accessible and bus stops more usable and safe?

The points about working from home are interesting. In fact, we are beginning to see a shift away from working at home, and people might have to get to work every day.

Jackson Cullinane, do you want to respond to my initial question about how to encourage people to use buses and trains?

We have talked a lot about the fact that concerns about reliability put people off using public transport. We have focused on buses, but it is also an issue with regard to rail. How do we ensure that choices are available for people? We have talked about rural areas, but communities on the edge of urban areas are in exactly the same position with regard to not having services. What should we do to address the issues that prevent people from using bus and rail? I ask Robert Samson to talk about Transport Focus’s research on that.

That is really well put—thanks for that.