Chamber and committees

That is really helpful.

Maeve McGoldrick, you have been very patient. Do you want to make some comments?

As that question was at the convener’s discretion, my business is done. I have taken too much of your time.

Good morning, everyone. I will roll my questions together. There are various questions—I will leave it up to the witnesses how they wish to address them.

On the ask and act duty, what is your view of how the relevant bodies that are listed in the bill currently work to prevent homelessness? How good are the links with local homelessness services? Do you think that the proposed statutory ask and act duty will help to address any areas for improvements?

There is a lot in that. I will leave it up to the witnesses how they want to respond.

That is very helpful evidence.

That is helpful. I was going to ask whether witnesses think that the proposed statutory areas will lead to improvements, but I suspect that might be a case of stating the obvious, so I will leave that hanging. Does anyone disagree with the view that, if properly resourced, with appropriate pathways and so on, the statutory areas have significant potential to dramatically improve matters?

Annika Joy might want to comment on that.

On that point, I note that this committee has taken evidence in relation to that. In a meeting that I had before Christmas with the Mears Group—the housing agents for the Home Office—I was told that it is not allowed to do any kind of scoping work with individuals and families who are in Mears accommodation and who, to all intents and purposes, are likely to get a positive decision. The first time Mears can talk to those people about potential homelessness is at the point where it has to say, “You have had a positive decision, you now have a notice to quit.” That has surely got to change.

Do you expect a lot of that to be spelled out in the financial memorandum? I am conscious that local authorities and a range of partner public bodies will get annual budgets from the Parliament, and Government might say, “That is on a year-to-year basis. The financial memorandum concerns the transition, but the annual budgets for how we resource the work adequately are just that: annual budgets.” What are your views on that?

Good morning, and thank you for supporting our evidence session this morning.

I want to ask about land management plans, but can I ask you not to talk yet about compliance, enforcement, monitoring, reporting or the size of holdings, as I will ask questions about those things later.

First, and principally for large holdings that will be required to produce a land management plan, do the provisions adequately articulate meaningful extensive community engagement, including using the land rights and responsibilities statement? I am not sure who is best placed to answer that.

That is helpful. There is a balance to be struck, of course, Mr Russell, which I think is the point that you are making. The bill does not include cumulative holdings. A landowner could have four concerns each of 2,000 hectares—a massive operation that would not be covered by this bill. Should the bill consider cumulative holdings, Mr Russell?

I am sorry to focus on you, Emma, but this is a line of questioning that I was hoping to pursue. Land management plans would have to take cognisance of the land rights and responsibilities statement, but they would not have to follow it. I understand that they will have to have regard for the land rights and responsibilities statement, but that it has no statutory underpinning and will be voluntary. What is your view on that? If any of the other witnesses have different views, it would be good to get them on the record, too.