Chamber and committees

Carolyne, I appreciate that you have not consulted your members, so you might not want to answer that question.

Thank you all for coming along this morning. I want to go back to sections 4 and 5, which Carolyne Hair commented on. She and others have said that there is a lack of clarity and too much ambiguity in the drafting. If you are not happy with the drafting as it is, what would you like to see in its place?

I appreciate that, as members of the judicial sector, you might regret answering this question, but, in one sentence, what would you define as “a reasonable period”? If you were advising a client who was coming in today, what would you say to them was a reasonable time?

We all understand, and it has become clear this morning, that this is a complicated bill and area of law at the moment. What other parts of the bill are overcomplicated? Could they be simplified?

Does the faculty have a view?

Fergus, I am a wee bit confused on where the Faculty of Advocates is on the bill. Do you want it to be withdrawn, thought about again and fundamentally rewritten?

We have previously debated, both publicly and privately, the place of guidance instead of making provisions in the bill itself. Does guidance go far enough, given that it has no legal authority and can be changed without any scrutiny by this Parliament? Is there at least some room for secondary legislation or for including provision in the bill itself to give that aspect greater prominence in the years to come?

I apologise for my late arrival to the committee. Having reflected over recess and heard what the minister has said, I do not intend to move any of the amendments in the group on domestic abuse. However, I would welcome further conversations with the minister before stage 3.

A number of members have raised important points about domestic abuse, and I think that the bill can go further at stage 3 to give greater protection to those who face it. I look forward to having discussions with colleagues from all parties as well as with the minister to see whether we can reach some kind of consensus that shows us, as a Parliament, coming together to send the clear message that those who face domestic abuse need to be protected by the law with regard to their tenancy.

Amendment 1021 adds MSPs to the list. I am sure that all of us take homelessness seriously. I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say about the competency of adding MSPs to the list. It is important that, if we are going to include other organisations, that duty should lie with us if that is legally possible.

I will speak to Mark Griffin’s amendment 1066. I am interested in hearing from the member and the minister on the legal competency of including GPs in the list. My understanding is that, because GPs are privately employed, they cannot be included in the duty. If that is not the case and they can be added, I would be very supportive of adding them. However, even if they cannot be included in the bill, this is an opportunity for the Government to include GPs in the pilot scheme that it will roll out sometime this year. I am interested in whether the minister has had any thoughts about approaching GPs in the relevant local authority areas, to see whether they are willing to be included.

On Sarah Boyack’s amendment 1085, I agree that Social Security Scotland should be added to the list. I am not as convinced that the other bodies that are mentioned should be added, but, because the amendment seeks to include Social Security Scotland, we will support it if she moves it.

The importance of including the Scottish Prison Service, which is proposed in amendment 1091, seems obvious to me, although I have to confess that I overlooked it when I first drafted my amendments. We know, from our case loads and from evidence, that many people do not have a place to go when they leave prison. Everyone knows the date on which they are going to be released, and it seems to me that putting a duty on the Prison Service to make sure that the homelessness status of the individual is dealt with before they leave prison would save a lot of time.

I wonder whether Sarah Boyack’s amendments 1083 and 1084 almost go too far in expanding the scope. I wondered whether amendment 1083 would place a duty on bus drivers, but I note that it would not. The serious point is that we want to make sure that the provision is tight enough to work in practice but, at the same time, includes all the relevant bodies.

I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say about the amendments in the group.

This is one of the most important parts of the bill. When we were taking stage 1 evidence, Kevin Stewart, who was part of the committee at that time, spoke on a number of occasions about a cultural change having to take place within the national health service and local authorities if co-operation was going to work in practice. He was absolutely right about that. However, a cultural change can happen only if there is a legal basis to allow it to take place.

I still have concerns about what information on someone’s housing situation can be shared among relevant bodies. We all know from our casework that we have to get NHS consent forms and local authority consent forms before we can use any information for a constituent. Will the minister clarify what the legal situation is with regard to legal sharing?

That came up in a committee discussion that I had earlier in the week. Again, there seems to be some confusion in Government and, if I am honest, among MSPs about what can be shared and what cannot be shared. If I approach a local authority with a homelessness issue, can the local authority share that information with NHS Lothian or whichever health board is appropriate, and with other relevant bodies? Does it require an individual to opt in or opt out? What paper documentation does the person have to give to the local authority for that information to be passed on? If a health board, Police Scotland or whichever organisation we are talking about uses data protection as an excuse not to engage with other organisations, the duty to co-operate will simply not work in practice.

I will not move amendments 1017, 1019 and 1020, but I would appreciate it if we could get some kind of briefing from the Scottish Government about what its understanding of the law is, so that, when we take the provisions forward, we are clear about what we can expect a relevant body to have to share.

If Sarah Boyack moves amendment 1079, I will support it.