Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I apologise to the witnesses. I have been quiet not out of a lack of interest but because I have a blinding headache. That is why I have been so passive during the evidence session.

I hope that I have picked a small but beautifully formed part of the bill that we can get some evidence on: the part that makes changes to the rules of good husbandry and estate management, which, my notes tell me, have not changed since 1948. I understand that the reason that we are changing them on this occasion is that they might cut across the reforms to agricultural support and the four tiers that will be introduced. An enhanced level of direct payments will be brought in, and there might be a conflict between meeting lease obligations under the current rules and getting the relevant payments under tier 2.

The Scottish Tenant Farmers Association made some comments on that issue in its written evidence. Christopher, do you think that the changes that are proposed are adequate? Is there anything else that you would like to see being included in the bill?

Okay. Whenever I hear the expression “relatively gentle”, it makes me wonder whether what is being proposed is a bit too modest. Would you like the bill to have done more in that area?

The 2016 provision does seem like a nuclear option. That was a helpful point to put on the record. I have no further questions.

So you are concerned that we might be passing a bill without having clarity on what it will mean in practice.

Right. You think that they should connect with each other in a meaningful and coherent way.

I am really sorry for cutting across you; it is just because of the time constraints. As Susie Fitton did, you are giving examples of existing best practice in Police Scotland. How might the bill make a difference?

I will throw in a second question to all the witnesses. How can we ensure that the duty is not simply to make a standard referral to homelessness services, which would defeat the point of legislation?

It was helpful to hear that the bill could drive consistency in approach across public bodies six months out.

Susie, do you have any final comments on this line of questioning, including the suggestion that GPs and the Home Office be added to the statutory list?

Do the other witnesses agree that we should add to the list? I do not think that we have heard from Valerie Arbuckle on that yet.

That is helpful, because local authorities’ current statutory duty is the easy bit to analyse, but things have gone wrong by the time you get to counting those numbers.

Valerie Arbuckle, does Police Scotland have a view on that?