Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. Last week, we took evidence from stakeholders about their aspiration for the new benefit. We heard some evidence welcoming that aspiration, which will be rooted in the dignity, fairness and respect that we speak about, but there were also notes of caution about the experience of the transfer of other benefits and about wait times, too. I would like to get a sense of how the experience of applying for and receiving PADP will differ from the current process for attendance allowance.

I have a brief question on short-term assistance. Last week, SCOSS talked about its reservations about STA’s interaction with reserved benefits. I know that there is an on-going dialogue with the Scottish Government about that, because of the variance in view in that regard. Could you comment on the issue and on those discussions?

Last week, the committee heard about the 30-page form for attendance allowance. The cabinet secretary referred to the different formats of application for the Scottish benefit. How long will the form be for PADP? To what extent has Social Security Scotland tested it and worked with people to understand their needs in that respect?

Earlier this month, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board approved the permanent downgrading and reduction of the out-of-hours general practitioner service in Inverclyde, which is now the only area of the board that does not have a full service. That was despite widespread opposition to the closure in the public consultation and the unanimous opposition of Inverclyde Council. Although local Scottish National Party parliamentarians have tried to excuse the cut, reports to the board have made it clear that there has been a lack of investment in front-line services, including out-of-hours services. The director of finance for the board has said that it will have to review every line of spend in order to meet its savings targets.

Why did the Scottish Government call in the decision in the face of widespread opposition? Will the cabinet secretary be yet another SNP health secretary who comes to Inverclyde and tells people that services are safe with the Government and then presides over cuts, closures and second-tier provision?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. (S6O-03446)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association could collapse due to the withdrawal of Scottish Government funding. (S6T-01982)

I think that the cabinet secretary would want to acknowledge that the national organisation is extremely important in supporting delivery on the ground. Without that umbrella organisation, many of the men’s sheds would not be able to do the work that they do. The situation is evidence of a larger challenge in the third sector in relation to sustainable funding, ensuring that processes are not complex and ensuring that there is clarity about where funding is coming from.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that changing decisions mid-year and not giving information on time is a chaotic way to deliver funding, and that it does not allow organisations such as the umbrella organisation for men’s sheds to function properly? What will the Government do more widely to reset its strained relationship with the third sector and finally deliver on long-promised improved funding models?

I am sure that the Parliament will be pleased to hear that reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the Government has looked again at the funding decision. Indeed, I think we heard from the First Minister on Thursday that the decision would be looked at again.

I think that everyone in the chamber can agree that men’s sheds are a linchpin in tackling poor mental wellbeing, isolation and loneliness. They take a preventative approach, with thousands of men voluntarily engaging about their vulnerabilities for the first time.

It is clear that we have been here before: this is not an unusual situation with respect to the funding. The Men’s Sheds Association needs proper stability of funds to ensure that the sheds can continue to have a huge impact on men’s lives. Will the Government go a step further than the answer that was given just now and say what longer-term funding options are being considered by the Government?

Thank you. I will turn to SCOSS. One of the differences in provision is in short-term assistance. SCOSS has said that it has concerns about its interaction with other benefits. Marilyn Howard, do those concerns remain, or has interaction with Government changed that position?

Good morning. I will build on the discussion that we have had so far. Committee members are keen to understand the ways in which PADP will differ from attendance allowance, particularly in relation to the experience of going through the application process. We had begun to touch on some of that. Does Mr Stachura want to continue on those experiences? We will then hear from other witnesses.