Chamber and committees

I worked for Scottish Women’s Aid for more than a decade, and there are definitely instances of coercive control under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 in which it is recognised that instances of theft of pets or harm to pets, especially dogs, are related to the perpetuation of such coercive control and domestic abuse. Could the proposed bill be strengthened in any way in that regard, or do you think that the existing legislation takes on the seriousness of that perpetuation of coercive control by the theft of dogs?

I start by putting on record my deep thanks to Maggie Chapman for securing this debate and bringing to the chamber the urgent issue of the destitution that is experienced by people who find themselves classed as having no recourse to public funds or restricted eligibility for such funds. We are talking about people having their ability to access sufficient food, shelter, care and opportunity either denied or savagely curtailed. They are destitute by design.

I also express my deep gratitude to Professor Jen Ang for everything that she has done over the years, but in particular for her recent legal briefing publication, “Ending Destitution in Scotland—A Road Map for Policymakers”, which was commissioned by I-SPHERE and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of the fair way Scotland partnership.

I point members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of Simon Community Scotland’s connect hub for women development board. Simon Community Scotland is an integral part of the fair way Scotland partnership, and the connect hub provides person-centred, trauma-informed support to women who are experiencing homelessness or insecure housing, some of whom find themselves with no, or limited, access to public funds.

I became acutely aware of the flaws in our safety-net scaffolding many years ago while I was working in a women’s refuge. Our Women’s Aid group was supporting two young Polish mothers who had fled domestic abuse, but the Department for Work and Pensions and the local council were telling us that they had no recourse to public funds because they were unable to satisfy the habitual residency test, as they had come from what were then still considered accession states that were not fully in the European Union—again, that is destitution by design.

We had two women in their 20s, for whom English was their second language, with several young children, including a baby, who had not one penny to either of their names and only the clothes that they stood up in. All the agencies to which we would normally go in order to get support for women to access help were closing their doors in our faces, and we ended up using money from our own pockets to buy essentials to bridge the immediate gap. Our Women’s Aid collective took the decision that, as an organisation dedicated to supporting women to live free from abuse, we would shoulder the financial burden and forgo housing benefit and supporting people payments for the duration of their stay with us. It was either that or they returned to their abusers, and that was not an option for us.

I want to underline today, in this place, just how difficult the next year was for us as a charity, but it was more so for those women and their kids. We lost tens of thousands of pounds in revenue; anyone who knows anything about the third sector will know that that is not a sustainable position, but the alternative was unthinkable. I and my two refuge colleagues became experts in all things NRPF, and challenged decision after decision made by institutions that never seemed to apply the law in the same way twice.

We got decisions overturned with regard to provision for the children, as we knew that the local authority had discretion and also obligations. We dug deep ourselves to help to feed and clothe the two families and searched out every type of support that we could find for them, all the while trying to ensure that their whereabouts never got back to their abusers on the grapevine.

Eventually, we managed to help those women to secure all the necessary information and proof that enabled them to successfully challenge the original decision that had determined that they had no recourse to public funds—it was not backdated, though. Nonetheless, I will never forget the absolute joy and relief that was so very palpable in our refuge that day. That joy was replicated when both women moved into their own tenancies, away from abuse, with the necessary social security scaffolding and access to rights that we all take for granted. Both women went on to college and into employment and, more than a decade on, I have never, ever forgotten them.

However, the system should not be so opaque, punishing and brutal, and direct and indirect discrimination should not be the norm. The route map to ending destitution is now in black and white, and Maggie Chapman powerfully outlined its key steps today. As the former COSLA community wellbeing spokesperson, I worked on the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, and I am glad to hear that it is being refreshed. Nonetheless, I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together to flex powers under devolution and dispense with the hostile environment, and finally deliver for this marginalised, maligned and terrified group of people.

I thank the individuals who engaged with the committee on the issue and who have sent representations to individual MSPs. I also thank the clerking team for their efforts to engage with those who have living experience of the situation, to try to ensure that their voices could be heard, which is not an easy task. That was one of the things that I felt was missing from the evidence that we took, but it was not for want of trying by the clerking team.

Is the no-wrong-door approach fundamental to engaging with a person and the totality of their needs as they present?

Thank you—that was very helpful. Do the other witnesses have anything to add?

For the purposes of this session, I declare an interest as a former East Ayrshire Council councillor and COSLA spokesperson.

I want to explore the right to receive a treatment determination. The bill seeks to give people who are diagnosed as having a drug or alcohol addiction by a relevant professional the right to receive a treatment determination and be provided with treatment. However, a number of submissions that we have received highlight concerns about the requirement in the bill for individuals to be given a diagnosis in order to receive a treatment determination and any subsequent treatment. What impact could the requirement to receive a diagnosis for addiction have on people’s ability to access services—particularly people who do not wish to seek a diagnosis? I will start with Eddie Follan and then bring in other witnesses.

I will hand back to the convener, because I know that we are short of time.

Thanks. That is most helpful.

As someone who used to work as an independent advocate in this area, I think that that is helpful. If something is formalised—MAT standard 8 has started to do that underpinning work—that gives weight to what an independent advocate says to services, which has not always been the case. Would that help in the long run?

That complexity is key, and it leads on to my next question, which is about advocacy. We know that people require advocacy when they come to deal with such issues. MAT standard 8 is about the independent advocacy and social support that are required. That includes thinking about housing and other, wider factors that we know impact on people’s lives.

Do you think that the bill provides adequate reassurance on the need for independent advocacy and on factoring that into people’s journeys, or do you think that it needs to be strengthened in that regard?