Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of thoughts on that. An outcome group and a task-and-finish group were set up to look at measurements and how we monitor these things, and the issue has also been discussed by the homelessness prevention and strategy group that we referred to at the start of the meeting.

You are right in saying that one of the key things about sharing data is co-ordination and that we also need to be cognisant of data protection. However, when it came to identifying key issues, there were specific task-and-finish groups, and I think that the matter has already been talked about by the homelessness prevention and strategy group.

As a previous member of the committee, I know that we have talked about sharing information on, for example, social security. Data protection is there for proper reasons, but it does make it difficult to share information. I suppose that it will come down to having broader co-ordination right through the process. After all, a person tends not to arrive at homelessness for one specific reason—the situation tends to be more complex than that. Recommendations have come out of the groups that I have mentioned, but we are reviewing what any approach might look like and how much information and data can be shared. With specific cases—I come back to Mr Doris’s question about the co-ordination of complex cases—one of the most difficult issues is how we ensure that the data is shared without breaking any data protection rules. We are trying to ensure that the process is as co-ordinated as possible.

It is a really relevant point. Sometimes it can be difficult to share data if it is not within the data protection legislation, but this is something that has been and will continue to be looked at. I do not know whether Pamela McBride wants to say any more about that.

Crisis has been one of the most important stakeholders all the way through the process. I have regularly engaged with and talked to the organisation and I will continue to do so. We have the bill, but there are also things that we can do now to prepare for implementation of the provisions, so we have been speaking to Crisis about that.

I point out that the Scottish Government and COSLA have the ending homelessness together action plan, which sets out the actions that we will take behind all of this, and the other key thing that I should mention is the prevention review group. Crisis is a main part of that—it has been included in the process from the start—and we will continue to work with it. Plans are already in place. Crisis will inform us as we go through the process, and we will continue discussions with it.

A key point is that we will have the national plan. When it comes down to it, there are 32 different local authorities and almost 32 different solutions. How we deal with the issue in Glasgow will be different from how we deal with it in the Highlands, for example. There is always an individual local government element, which is really important.

We will continue to work closely with Crisis as we move ahead, as we have done throughout the process. It has been an integral part of the prevention review group, and it will be integral in the months and years ahead as we implement the legislation.

Again, that comes back to local authorities and other groups demonstrating what reasonable steps they have undertaken. As we know, every case will be slightly different but, with regard to guidance, training and resourcing, the issue concerns the reasonable steps that are taken.

On the role of family mediation, some months ago, I was at an event at which people from the Cyrenians were talking about the work that they undertake with families. They do incredible work, and it is clear that their mediation made a real difference—I heard about situations in which, for example, kids aged 15 or 16 were going to leave home until the mediation service came in. That role is important, and it is part of the reasonable steps that groups are taking.

That is part of the discussions that will be had during the summer, but we need to look at resourcing as well. We will probably touch on resourcing later, but we have undertaken work with local authorities, during which we asked what resourcing they need, what they need it for and what the impact will be. It relates to a much broader discussion. If we are talking about the resourcing that is required for prevention duties, we need to consider what it is that we are preventing from happening. We need to consider not only the material difference that the bill will make to someone who becomes homeless but what the financial cost would be if we did not get things right. That is an important consideration in the development of the resourcing part of the bill.

We touched on the work that is being undertaken on that, but we are getting into the bill process and resourcing that is required. Other committees have asked about that specific point as well, which is great. Again, we are having discussions about what the reasonable steps are and how we resource and fund those.

I would be happy to write to the committee after the summer recess and reflect on the process. We have correspondence from stakeholders on that. Most of the consideration that will take place over the summer will be on the statutory guidance, but there will be a lot on implementation, too. Again, we will be guided by what stakeholders say to us about that.

Do you mean information about the progress that is being made by the legislation?

I will bring in Pamela McBride to talk about the discussions that have been held on a daily basis at the official level. At the ministerial level, that point has been discussed in the ministerial oversight group and I have had discussions about it with Crisis, the Cyrenians and other groups. I have also raised preparations for the prevention duties in discussions with local authorities and stakeholders. That is something that I ask about when I meet every local authority and the stakeholders. This summer, we have a designated programme of stakeholder engagement to talk about those issues now that the bill has now been introduced.

Convener, I note that Kevin Stewart mentioned the minutes of the ministerial group. I am happy to provide those to the committee if you would like to see them.

You are right. It is about a floor rather than a ceiling, and we should look to do the best that we can. The prevention review group informed the shape of the bill. That is important. Stakeholder engagement during the consultation process is also incredibly important. The Government is not coming in and saying, “This is what we should do.” Co-production is an important part of the bill. When we talked about the recommendations of the prevention review group with Crisis, Cyrenians and others, they said that co-production is important to them. It is also important to me. As we develop the guidance, training and the culture—which Kevin Stewart mentioned—it has to be about co-production.

I am happy to come back to the committee at any stage to talk about the bill as it proceeds, or to talk more generally as we develop it and it moves into legislation. However, co-production is important as we develop it. An example of that co-production is that the ending homelessness together group was part of the discussions. The prevention duties are also all about co-production. The feedback that the committee has received is also feeding back to us, so we will make sure that we pick that up as we move forward.

That is a good point. That has been mentioned in my discussions, as well. The question was specifically about women and girls, but I recognise that domestic abuse is not just about women and girls; men are involved, as well. I apologise if that did not come across, but I was answering a specific question. You are right, and I have had similar discussions to yours. You have made a really important point.

I come back to Mr Doris’s point about asylum. I had a meeting last week with Mears and Glasgow City Council about how we can make sure that the process is as effective as possible. I am taking a few points from that forward, and I am happy to discuss those with your colleagues, but it is very high on my agenda.

Health and social care services were one of the main points that other groups raised, and health boards and integration joint boards are part of that. Culture change is one of the most important things that need to be embedded. Sometimes there are blockages in how issues are picked up. That issue was raised in most of the discussions that I have had around the country. It needs discussion, and over the summer I will be discussing how health boards and IJBs make sure that they feed into that process. It could impact on, for example, mental health and substance abuse. There has to be flow-through.

I have seen that, in some parts of the country, the process is not as effective as it could be, which is why we are bringing in the ask and act duty as part of the bill. However, the process also needs culture change, and that is a key piece of work for me over the summer. We will be working with the health boards and IJBs on what the process looks like and how we make sure that we are getting that flow-through. The legislation is one part, but how we change the culture is incredibly important.

Having the health boards and IJBs involved is probably the best avenue to discuss that. How it flows down will depend—for example, Glasgow’s approach of involving the health and social care partnership is different from the approaches in Edinburgh and Dundee. It is about trying to include local experience and knowledge in how we embed that.