Chamber and committees

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?

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.

Where would you start in terms of priority? Is it about the regional transport partnerships working with community groups and local authorities and, on the islands, getting people to talk to CalMac—all those kinds of things?

I think that you will soon be able to use an integrated tram and bus ticket in the Lothians. That is coming soon, because they are prioritising it. Doing that and making it work right across the country is really important.

Thank you. That was really helpful.

I want to invite some more feedback on that. The previous witnesses were quite relaxed about different models of delivery. However, this year, the bus infrastructure fund is worth only £10 million. What would your priority for expenditure be, so that we can deliver the new services that are needed by people who use buses, which are simply not available? How would you get that process going again?

I am thinking about the impact on the choices that people have. We have 18 million fewer trips because there are reduced services, and 20 million fewer trips because of increased journey times due to congestion. There is a question about how we can actually make the buses available for people.

I was looking at the statistics. The bus partnership fund was meant to be £500 million, but only £20 million has been allocated to date, and nothing was allocated for last year. The community bus fund, which is allocated to local authorities and regional transport partnerships, is only £7 million. Is there an issue about how we support an increase in the provision of buses rather than allowing there to be a reduction in the first place?

There is an issue of inequality, in that people who do not have cars do not have a choice, so buses are absolutely critical in terms of equality. There is also an issue about how to persuade people not to use cars.

Robert Samson, what do you think our priority should be with regard to ensuring that we do not lose bus services in the first place?

I very much agree with you. It feels very odd that there were so few consultation responses and that one of them was not considered. It would also have been helpful to have a bit of a note on how the regulations impact on people’s daily lives and on the sectors where they will be implemented. However, I do not object to the instrument.