Chamber and committees

I do not know whether you want to come in on that, Councillor Aitken. I thought that Andrew Morrison wanted to come in, but that was for the previous point.

I think that Pat Togher wants to come in on that point.

If there is information that you would like to receive in writing, we will make sure that we get it for you.

I know that Jeremy Balfour has some more questions, after which we will go to Pam Gosal.

I can see that Pat Togher would like to come back in briefly.

I understand that we do not have Calum Maciver back. I do not know whether it would be helpful for us to get that information from him. He could write to the committee.

Given that the £10 Christmas payment is a reserved benefit, does the minister agree that Jeremy Balfour might like to join me and others in calling for the full powers over social security to be devolved to this Parliament?

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am still a serving councillor in East Ayrshire Council. It is also important to advise the chamber at the outset that I was a member of the prevention review group that was convened by Crisis on behalf of the Scottish Government to explore homelessness prevention duties, I was a co-signatory to the ending homelessness together joint action plan, and I have been homeless twice.

I worked for many years in homelessness services, supporting individuals to access, navigate and come out the other end of what was often referred to as the sausage factory. I realised very early on that services were not talking to each other, as siloed approaches had built huge walls, which meant that individuals were often being failed at every turn.

Back in 2002, I tried in vain to argue that adverse childhood experiences, trauma, abuse, addiction, mental health issues, experiences of being in care and underlying and crushing poverty were all drivers of the high levels of homelessness that we were seeing. They were exacerbated by an ever-increasing drop in the number of socially rented houses and by the severity of the priority need category. Some days, it felt like I was going into battle—another day, another 22-year-old man self-medicating with street drugs. He would be care experienced and have multiple ACEs and severe and enduring mental health issues, and I would be advised to take a set of keys from the low-demand pile of long-term, shuttered void properties, as that was the best that he could hope for. As I tried to pick the least-worst option, I knew that this would be yet another tenancy that, no matter how hard he or I tried, would not be sustained.

I heralded the abolition of priority need, as that direction of travel meant that Scotland—despite what Willie Rennie may say—now has some of the world’s strongest homelessness legislation, in terms of giving individuals great legal protections when they are facing imminent homelessness. However, I knew that we needed to increase our housing stock and do much more work to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place.

The housing options approach that was adopted at that time meant that councils were already looking at ways to prevent homelessness by supporting individuals and families early on. However, we in councils were accused of gatekeeping—of preventing individuals from accessing their rights, as no homeless presentation was taken—rather than seen as doing the preventative work that was so desperately needed. For example, women fleeing domestic abuse should not be required to enter the homelessness system; managed moves or support to remain in their homes safely are the ideal solutions.

The ending homelessness together joint action plan is clear that we need to work upstream to prevent people from entering the homelessness system in the first place. The proposals that are being consulted on will do that by requiring public bodies to ask and to act regarding a person’s homelessness situation.

A big part of that needs to be about a sense of real choice and control. I knew that housing someone in an area that they did not know and that was far from their supports would increase the likelihood that the tenancy would not be sustained in the long term. Therefore, in the last part of my speech, I will focus on the prevention review group’s recommendation on maximal housing options.

Offering a range of housing options to those who are at risk of or experiencing homelessness gives them choice, control and flexibility in their housing journey. It gives them the same experience as other members of the community, but with additional protections to prevent the future risk of homelessness by ensuring that the chosen option is a suitable and settled one, even if it is in the private rented sector or, more unusually by Scottish norms, shared housing.

The proposed change to the law would not necessarily mean that there would be fewer allocations of social housing to homeless households. Rather, it would mean that a household should not be required to journey through the homelessness system, with potentially long stays in temporary accommodation, as the primary route to accessing social housing.

Despite the sterling efforts of the Scottish Government, local authorities and registered social landlords with regard to the ambitious affordable housing supply programme, there are undeniable pressures on a finite stock of social housing. The PRG proposes a system whereby applicants who would prefer a different kind of housing option are allowed that possibility, which could in theory free up social housing stock. Reducing the numbers going through the system will also free up social housing that is currently used for temporary accommodation and allow it to be used for more settled housing.

Sadly, I supported and cajoled people into permanent social houses, as I believed that it was their best and only option, and I did not listen to them. They knew that a private let near their mum’s or a flat share with a friend suited them best. We must afford people a choice.

Thank you for that answer. I want to revisit an issue that my colleague Miles Briggs brought up: stigma. That is a huge force that drives people away from services.

I previously worked for Scottish Women’s Aid, in support of women fleeing domestic abuse. Many faced addiction issues that were born of self-medication. They faced stigma and the fear of losing the custody of their children not only due to the abuser’s actions but due to bringing their addiction to light—that is, their letting it be known that they had such an addiction. That fear was palpable. How can we address stigma and the harm that it causes? Surely a true public health approach must not seek to retraumatise or stigmatise.

We can also think about people who are stopped for simple possession and then find themselves incarcerated for a time. Again, a true public health approach should take a different path. Does the Drug Deaths Taskforce believe that as well?

What are your views on a community justice or smart justice approach? Do you see that as being soft-touch justice or as a crucial part of how we tackle the crisis that we are facing?

Good morning, minister. Following on from my colleague Gillian Mackay’s questions, I note the argument that the high drug deaths rate in Scotland is partly a delayed health effect of circumstances in the 1980s. How should current anti-poverty policies respond to that, and do we need more of an emphasis on whole-community regeneration with a public health and wellbeing approach right in the heart of our communities to reduce stigma and ensure that everyone gets support, including those experiencing problem drug use?