Chamber and committees

Good morning. Following on from that line of questioning, and thinking about the flexibility that is required in terms of the duty, the committee has heard concerns about how we identify the threat of homelessness, and particularly about where the burden of proof might lie. For example, Aff the Streets spoke to us about the difficulties that young people face, particularly in a situation in which there is a difficult family breakdown, when investigating the reasons behind that and trying to offer support can be more problematic. Can you give us your thoughts on how that duty might work in practice and how it could help to ensure that the process is supportive of and affirming to the young people concerned?

I join colleagues in offering thanks to all the emergency services that attended the fire. As we have heard, the plume of smoke could be seen from some miles away, and it drifted several miles northwards. Concern was raised with me locally that it took several hours for the public health information that people should close their windows and stay indoors to be forthcoming, and there was a sense of fear and alarm in the surrounding area. What learning will be done with civil contingency partners to understand how events unfolded that evening? How will the minister ensure that local residents are kept informed of the investigations?

Good morning. We are keen to understand how the current policy is working and how we could improve it. I want to understand some of the problems with the current legal framework, which considers people to be threatened with homelessness if it is likely that they will become homeless within two months. What would be the benefit of extending that to six months for people who are at risk of homelessness? What impact would that have?

That is the ideal—we all agree that that would be a positive step—but are there concerns about resourcing that so that the assessment is made well and follow-on services are provided? Would anyone like to comment on that? I will come on to local authorities. Pat Togher, do you want to come in?

It might be helpful if he could answer my next question as part of his more general response. I am keen to hear local authorities’ view of the proposal in the bill that, as part of a local housing strategy, councils should assess people’s housing support needs and the availability of housing support services, including in relation to homelessness.

Good morning. We are interested in hearing your views on the ask and act duty as defined in the bill. Perhaps the place to start is to build on some of the previous contributions on how the relevant bodies that are listed in the bill currently work to prevent homelessness and on the relationship between third sector organisations and local authority homelessness services. Do you think that the proposed statutory ask and act duties will address some of the issues and create improvement? I appreciate that that question covers quite a broad sweep, but we are keen to get your initial views on that.

Those contributions were helpful.

We had a discussion with the previous panel on the need for resourcing with regard to the bill, which we appreciate will be a challenge, and I wonder whether I can get your views on how the ask and act duties can be implemented and on the associated resourcing and financial implications. The Government has said that this should be about up-front investment in order to be preventative, but do you think that that will happen? What more needs to happen, particularly for those who are interacting with local authorities and those funding structures?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its on-going work with local authorities, Police Scotland and other partners to tackle the reported increasing antisocial behaviour in town centres. (S6O-03614)

The minister will be aware of the problems that antisocial behaviour causes across the country, but I want to mention specific incidents that have occurred in parts of Barrhead, which is in my region, and in particular around the Asda supermarket there. When we debated the issue last year, other members put to the minister the challenges that such behaviour presents across the country, and particularly around supermarkets. I have been engaging with the various stakeholders. I noticed that the minister mentioned that the independent working group on antisocial behaviour will report later this year. Will she agree to meet me to give me an update on that work? Can she be any more specific on the timescale for the publication of the working group’s report?

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I do not intend to speak for too long, but I want to offer some remarks.

In the stage 1 proceedings on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, I commented that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which I am a member of, had produced the smallest stage 1 report that I had ever seen in the Parliament and had reached the conclusion that the bill should proceed in order to tidy up the statute book. At stage 2, there were no amendments for the committee to consider, and this afternoon, in a rare occurrence, we have no amendments to the bill to consider at stage 3. It is clear that there is consensus on passing the bill and, therefore, taking the action that is required to ensure that the statute book reflects the legal judgment that was handed down in the Court of Session.

There are a number of things that we should take time to reflect on as we bring our consideration of the bill to its conclusion. As has already been outlined, we are here because of a legal judgment on the original act. I have sometimes felt of late that that has become a more common situation. We could look at some of the challenges around bringing the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to its conclusion and around other issues. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament collectively need to be better at ensuring that legislation does not end up in the courts and that we produce good legislation at every stage. We need to ensure that the scrutiny of legislation is well considered and well done so that we do not end up with a legal challenge.

It is worth reiterating at this stage in the proceedings the importance of the original legislation. I made some comments on that in my contribution at stage 1. Scottish Labour fully supported the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. I was not a member of the Scottish Parliament when the 2018 act was passed. However, although we are now seeking to rectify the statute book, I think that everybody recognises that the 2018 act is an important step on the journey to ensuring better gender parity and increasing the representation of women in public life.

We know that the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will not change anything that is happening on the ground, because the definition in the 2018 act has been defunct since Lady Dorrian’s initial judgment and the introduction of the Scottish Government’s revised guidance, which was subsequently affirmed by the court. Given that the act has been in effect with revised guidance since the judgments, it would be good to hear from the Government what assessment it is making of the impact of the original act and whether that is living up to its policy intent. We all want to see the original act meeting the policy intent of creating greater parity.

In speaking to colleagues this morning, I was reflecting that we are still falling short on that in many areas in public life. Just because there is legislation for public boards, that does not mean that we always get it right in every sphere of life to ensure gender balance. Indeed, changes today to the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee mean that that committee now has five male members and three male substitute members. It is incumbent on all parties that are represented in the Parliamentary Bureau to reflect on how we show leadership in the chamber and in the Parliament as a whole, and on how to have greater parity in decisions on Parliament committees, and to lead by example. I am sure that the business managers will reflect on that, as I am sure that you will, too, Presiding Officer.

I do not intend to detain members for much longer with my opening speech, and I do not intend to rehearse the old debates to any large degree. It is our job as responsible legislators to consider the court’s judgments, to respect them and to ensure that we have a tidy statute book to prevent any future confusion.

Given the brevity of the bill, I will leave my remarks there.