Chamber and committees

That is helpful.

Before I ask my final question, I draw your attention to the work that this committee is doing on the housing emergency in Glasgow and the Home Office’s fast-tracking of asylum claims. I will not say any more just now, but I am sure that you are familiar with it. Please look into that issue, because there are certain things relating to homelessness and prevention duties that the Home Office is not ensuring take place.

My final question is about what is not in the legislation that could have been. The homelessness prevention review group considered a variety of things and made various recommendations, but not all of them made it into the legislation. One of the recommendations concerns the fact that the many different organisations that have ask and act duties have to talk to each other, and there is going to be overlap and, with regard to particularly complex cases, a need for co-ordination. A mechanism for that co-ordination was recommended, but it is not included in the bill. That is just one example. Perhaps you could say why that was not included and speak more generally about whether you are open to any additions as we go through the parliamentary process.

I am sorry that I cannot join you in person, but I have had to remain in Glasgow.

Minister, in your opening statement you spoke about working with partners to tease out the details of what the ask and act duty might mean in practice. In evidence, we heard concern about the lack of clarity about what the duty would mean in practice, so it is encouraging that you said that you are working with partners on that. Can you confirm whether you are open minded to some more details appearing in the bill as opposed to in secondary legislation or in statutory guidance? Can you give us a little bit of a feel for what the process of parliamentary scrutiny will be? Would the committee not see the guidance ahead of it being implemented, or would that be in secondary legislation, which would mean that the committee could take a view on it?

That is helpful, minister. I apologise for being discourteous, but you did not mention co-ordination of complex cases. Police Scotland, the national health service and education professionals are all worried about tenancies being sustained. Who is leading on this? Who is co-ordinating particularly complex cases? How will that be taken forward?

Sorry, minister—I hate cutting across people’s answers, especially when I am joining the committee remotely, but I am interested in the specifics more than in a general view. How will that be monitored, audited and reported on? We can say that the culture needs to change, but how do we take the temperature of what is happening in practice? I am sure that ALACHO will tell us quickly enough if it does not think that things have changed. What will the Government do to monitor the situation in order to ensure that we are not just setting expectations but monitoring what public bodies do?

I am not sure that that answers my point, but what you have said is helpful and I will reflect on it and the committee can follow up on that issue.

It has been suggested that it would be helpful if bodies and people that the Scottish Government cannot place duties and obligations on—such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office and general practitioners—were subject to something like an ask and act duty, perhaps in the form of a protocol, and there have been calls for such a protocol to be put in place. However, those bodies are missing from the legislation. Are they missing because we do not have the power to compel or for another reason? Would you expect an ask and act duty to be embedded culturally in those organisations? What is the Government’s thinking on that?

Does that mean that you would seek an ask and act protocol, if we can call it that? You could say to the Home Office and the DWP, for example, that this is what we are asking public bodies in Scotland to do, that we think that it is best practice and that we would like to agree a protocol in relation to it. Is that something that you will take forward?

My apologies, minister, because I should have known the answer to the second part of the question. You are open minded about having more detail in the bill, but you obviously want to keep your powder dry at this stage, because of the engagement that you will have during the summer. However, I also asked you whether any secondary legislation or guidance will come back to the committee for scrutiny and what the process is. Hold on to that thought, though.

You mentioned ALACHO. Its concern is that the default action will be to refer back to the local authority, which defeats the purpose of the legislation. What reassurances can you give ALACHO that that will not become the default option?

I nominate Michelle Thomson.

Michelle Thomson was chosen as deputy convener.

Mr Ruskell makes reasonable points. On the question of whether, on balance, we should support the SI that is before us, I am minded to look at the cabinet secretary’s reply to the committee on 21 May, which says:

“The SI also revises and adds new conditions to substances in Annexes IV and V of the UK POPs regulation, which relate to the disposal of waste containing POPs. These proposed changes go beyond the requirements of the Convention and are designed to give certainty to operators and industry on their responsibilities when dealing with POPs waste.”

The SI goes beyond the requirements and gives certainty for operators and business, which is important.

Also, in the “EU Alignment” section, in relation to annex V, the notification document says:

“Therefore, while there is temporary EU misalignment, it is expected that the EU POPs regulation will also soon be amended in accordance with the Stockholm Convention.”

There is a temporary misalignment.

I am not seeking to block the instrument but, in allowing it to go ahead, we should ask for further information in due course on how the issue will be monitored by the Scottish Government and how realignment will be achieved. I do not dismiss or make light of Mr Ruskell’s comments, but I support the instrument as it stands.