Chamber and committees

In the interests of time, I will try to merge my questions into one. I know that we have seen some progress, such as the incorporation of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 into the updated Scottish social housing charter. Some of the submissions to the committee specifically pointed towards the need for funding around different prevention models. From your experience—and perhaps from your knowledge of what is happening globally—what different models do you think that Scotland should be looking at and the committee should be aware of? I will start with Dr Marsha Scott, and if anyone else wants to come in, they can put an R in the chat box.

Funding and beyond that. For example, one of the things that I have specifically been looking at is the family court model in Australia. I know that is more within the criminal justice side of what we might look at, but I just wondered what we should be looking at on this topic in terms of experiences and learning from around the world.

I totally realise that I have just put on the table a huge topic, so I would appreciate it if you could write to the committee with any further information.

Thank you for that. I have a final question. What plans does the Scottish Government have to carry out a fundamental review of the charter in the next five years? There has been quite a gap between 2012 and 2021. What are the plans for potentially updating the charter in the future?

Graeme Dey responded to a question by alluding to outcome 12. I think that we all welcome the inclusion of homelessness and rough sleeping in the charter. However, an aspect that I do not think is necessarily captured is how supported or assisted living is to be provided for the many individuals who will need it. Is the Government looking at that, too? I believe that around 5 per cent to 7 per cent of homeless people need a supported living model to be put in place, but few people provide that. Rowan Alba Ltd, which is based in the capital, is doing a lot of good work around that in Leith.

I would like that aspect to be looked at, too. That important group of tenants often find themselves homeless and need that supported living model. It would be a positive thing for the charter to include that as the homelessness offering is developed further.

I want to ask a few questions about some of the outcomes, starting with outcome 5, on repairs, maintenance and improvements. I am sure that every MSP meets tenants to discuss, and knows of concerns around, the timescales for works taking place. How will those be properly monitored? I am always shocked not by the work of the teams that deliver the improvements but by the length of time that people face for those improvements being made. I have a case in which people have been waiting up to five years to get a problem resolved. What difference do you hope that the charter will make?

Thank you—that is helpful and informative. Finally, I want to ask—

I want to raise the issue of further support for kinship families, which overlaps with much of the conversation that we have had. I am thinking specifically of how we can improve referral pathways and signposting. We have already touched on what happens when young people are in education. Should we be looking for a better model so that all the professionals who are involved—especially teachers—are aware of the needs of children in kinship care and of young carers in the classroom setting?

CELCIS’s survey highlighted the root of the situation when it identified that many children in kinship care have experienced trauma and that children in kinship care are less likely to receive mental health support than children in foster care. What is your view on that? How do we improve that model? I am thinking of the classroom setting in particular. Although we are not the education committee, there is an opportunity to take on board some of the work in that area.

I realise that that was a long question. Maybe we can hear from Vivien Thomson first, as she has touched on the issue.

That is a very useful question/point, which we can perhaps take away and pursue.

Specifically, the committee wants to focus attention on the potential model to change the situation and get it right. As Micheleine Kane has outlined, local authorities all have different things going on, and it will often come down to the key people in a council who are driving services to change and respond. What would you like to see that model look like—especially for informal kinship carers—and how do you think that it would best be developed? Micheleine Kane touched upon legislation. A national rate has also been highlighted, with the suggestion that that change should really have been put in place already.

I am sorry—I wittered on a bit there. The question was around what you think we should suggest to help change this. That is the key point that we want to get into.