Chamber and committees

The challenge of being the last questioner is that we have covered a lot of ground. However, it is important to pull together some of what we have heard this morning.

In our conversation, we have focused on multiyear funding, as is right—it is at the core of the discussion. However, fair funding principles go beyond that, and a number of different things need to happen in order to move the issue forward. Witnesses might want to touch on anything that we have not covered on relationships or structures. We have heard about parity of esteem. What sorts of things need to be not just put forward but implemented and sustained in order to really help to renew that relationship?

Some of the evidence that we heard when we met organisations over the summer was about the challenge between innovating and trying to sustain something that works. They said that, very often, people get stuck in a cycle between things having to be new and things that have been proved to work. You touched on that. Do you recognise it?

Good morning. One aspect of the bill that the committee is interested in and concerned about is the domestic abuse provisions. We want to ensure that they are being engaged with. I note that, in the summer engagement, you met the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing to discuss those provisions. Will you give an update on those conversations? Do you feel that the discussions were productive in enabling understanding of the required training and the capacity of social landlords to take the action that they will need to take?

Thank you for that answer. I make a similar point to Mr Stewart’s point about not reinventing the wheel. A lot of good practice already exists, and many RSLs have good policy. However, the challenge is often to ensure that those policies can be put into practice and that action can follow, which is what everyone wants to see in such scenarios. The responses of Scottish Women’s Aid and the Scottish Women’s Convention pointed to the fact that the actions that were outlined and the recommendations that were contained in the report, “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” still have to be pushed forward and not lost in this context. Will the minister say something about progress on that and engagement with that piece of work?

Ian Bruce, when you comment, will you say something about the connection and relationship with local government, about which we have also heard? We heard a lot about good and positive relationships from TSIs that are helping to manage funds for whole-family wellbeing, for example. That does not work everywhere, and there is no consistency. What do you want to see in that space?

We certainly will.

Good morning, minister. On that broad theme, I have some specific questions on the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill and its interaction with this bill. Is the Government still minded to include within the LDAN bill a commissioner who would look at specific issues for people who have learning disabilities and autism and are neurodivergent?

We have debated the variance of views on the commissioners and whether they are the right avenue, but does all this come from disabled people across the board feeling that there is a lack of avenues for them or that there has been a failure on the part of other agencies, other organisations and indeed Government to meet many of the duties that have been placed collectively on Government and Parliament? Do you feel that those views are very often born out of people’s frustration?

I appreciate everything that the minister says and I know that more detail will be forthcoming this afternoon and tomorrow. I am trying to understand whether the Government is generally now less predisposed to having commissioners than it was. We have two pieces of legislation—a member’s bill and a Government bill. Are we saying that there should be a commissioner for one and not the other? Will there be a broader discussion about this? When many disabled people look at this, I think that some will support one but not the other and some will support both. I am just trying to understand the broader picture.

We all recognise the importance of the role that stakeholders play, but it is our 32 local authorities that have responsibility for enacting the duties. Kevin Stewart made the point about culture change and the challenges around trying to refocus the work of housing departments and so on. Are adequate resources available to enable the shift to be made? Often, training and support are key to that, and the situation can develop into a bit of a postcode lottery—I do not like using that expression. What I mean is that there can be different experiences for young people depending on where they are. How do we get more consistency on that front?