Chamber and committees

No, convener, thank you. My questions have been answered and I am happy to hand over to the next member.

Perhaps we can bring in Maggie Brünjes here.

On the point that Beth Watts has raised and on one of the issues that is important to note, we have already heard that nine local authorities—or at least seven—are likely to be in breach of the unsuitable accommodation order. What accommodation is there for the individuals whom we are talking about? I know from a visit that I undertook last Friday in my region that there are more than 50 people in Edinburgh with alcoholic brain damage who are currently on waiting lists to get into supported living. That accommodation does not necessarily seem to be in existence currently.

On the support that people need, wraparound care is expensive, and the workforce is not necessarily there. I turn to Maggie Brünjes now. What should the committee suggest to the Government needs to be put in place for that group? My experience is that people often end up pinging around services, sadly. What, in your expert opinion, could be a solution for that cohort of clients?

On that note, we have lost you, Maggie.

I have a question about temporary accommodation and I will ask for your input on trends in relation to the individuals that we are talking about. Findings from the “Hard Edges Scotland” research by Heriot-Watt University show the complex needs of those individuals and that they often fall through the gaps of services.

From my five years as an MSP trying to help such people, I know that they are often ex-military, people with learning disability issues or people with drug and alcohol problems. Do you have any evidence that you could provide the committee with about individuals who seem to be constantly in temporary council accommodation? Should we consider different models, such as a supported living model when individuals cannot hold down a tenancy?

Having referenced the “Hard Edges Scotland” research, I will bring in Dr Watts first.

I will ask a few questions on the theme of prevention and on future opportunities for the Scottish Government.

The programme for government contains plans to strengthen the law on homelessness prevention. I put on record that I often feel that people have to declare themselves homeless before any support is made available. What would panel members’ ideal model be for changing that, so that support starts earlier? For example, some ideas that have been put forward include public sector bodies having a conversation with vulnerable individuals up to six months before they face a crisis point.

I will start with Gordon MacRae, because he touched on that earlier, and I will then go around any others who want to come in.

I want to go back to a point that Gordon MacRae made earlier, with regard to Edinburgh and the east of Scotland, and specific pressures that we are seeing in our cities with regard to delivering services. Mr Balfour, Mr Choudhury and I represent Edinburgh. We see and we know from our public bodies the pressures that Edinburgh faces in delivering these services.

I wonder about potential solutions. Would you support, for example, pressured areas, such as have been developed for London, specifically, given the cost of delivering services that we have seen. Do you have other suggestions on the specific issue of cities, which you have highlighted? Gordon, I will bring in you, as I referenced you in the question.

Yes.

I agree with Neil Gray, but it is still early days. We do not necessarily know what uptake will look like or whether payments will be easier to access.

I also agree with Neil Gray in relation to the new assessments that might be needed. At the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, we have discussed who will undertake those assessments and whether that could put people off applying, as is the case under the current system.

It was interesting to hear on Monday about the work that has been undertaken on supportive documentation, because I think that there is a need to consider reform in that area. We already know about the challenges that exist in building an integrated system that involves general practitioners, health boards and local authorities. It is not clear from the conversations that we have had whether that will be any easier under the new system. It is clear that the public organisations that I have mentioned need to consider how they can become an integral part of the process of designing and developing any new system.

In the time that I have left, I want to touch on the Social Security Scotland charter. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, section 3 of the 2018 act places a duty on ministers to promote the take-up of benefits. The act specifies that ministers must publish a strategy for promoting the take-up of benefits, on which they should consult individuals and organisations. The review has recently completed its work on that, and the thinking in that regard is being considered by the Government. It is important that the many organisations that work in this area and the many people with lived experience are an integral part of what comes out of the review.

The Social Security Scotland charter sets out what people can expect from the Scottish social security system and how Social Security Scotland will uphold those principles. However, it is important that, as part of that, a commitment is made that people’s wellbeing will be assessed. It would be interesting to hear from the minister or the cabinet secretary—I do not know which of them will close the debate—what evaluation there has been to date of the new system and the efforts that have been made to embed the charter and the values that it embodies, on which we all agree.

Today’s debate provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss the new Social Security Scotland systems that are being put in place, and I hope that it will give all members an opportunity to contribute to what should be a cross-party effort to establish those systems.

If I have time, I will take both interventions.

There is still concern about who is going to be delivering some of that potential work, especially when it comes to assessments. We know of the delays that currently exist in GPs’ provision of those. Where is the Government on the work programme that deals with the workforce that is expected to undertake assessments or to provide evidential documentation on people’s conditions?

The committee has heard concerns about applications for the young carer grant. Has the Government looked into that issue, given that take-up has not been what was expected?