Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will leave it at that. The important thing is that trading standards officers, who will have to enforce the regulations, have said that they are content.

I was not suggesting that. Rather than be a pedant, I will seek an assurance, which I think that Mr McPhee gave, that trading standards officers are content that they have appropriate powers, but that the Government will keep that under review, along with trading standards officers, and would act if there was a gap in the regulations that needed to be plugged.

Officers will have to identify vapes as such. It has been put to me that they would have to take a sample and identify an item as a single-use vape before they can then move to seize and confiscate it. Under the regulations, they cannot take a batch of items that they suspect to be single-use vapes at that point, so there could be a delay in the process. Are the powers drawn too narrowly? Will enforcement officers be able to go in and, if they have a reasonable suspicion that there are boxes upon boxes of single-use vapes, seize them at that point?

I have a couple of brief questions, convener. I return to the issue of enforcement. Under regulation 9, enforcement officers will have the power to sample and take possession of single-use vapes. That is quite a precise definition. The powers are not framed more broadly, such as to seize or sample single-use vapes or items that are suspected of being single-use vapes. Is the instrument too restrictive to enable enforcement officers to take appropriate action? Will you give assurances about that?

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?