Chamber and committees

I agree with those points, but they do not address what I said about getting people into different models of housing—I am thinking of homeless people who want to get into a supported model that includes rehab, for example. I know that the drugs minister has been reaching out to a number of rehab and housing providers across Scotland, including the hugely impressive safe as houses project, which is run by Alternatives in West Dunbartonshire community drug services. That is a great model that could be extended across Scotland. We have not heard anything about it in the debate but I want it to be part of any future strategy. It is important.

I would be grateful to hear from the minister in his closing speech how housing will be an integral part of the response. The safe as houses project is one example of an approach that works in a different part of the country from Edinburgh, where we do not have such a model. I would like to see it here.

The amendment that was lodged by Alex Cole-Hamilton but not selected for the debate makes an important point. I have already raised concerns about the potential for drug and alcohol partnerships to be destabilised by the impact of being brought into a national care service at a point when they are fragile. I note that they are not included in the response that I received from the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care to a question in which I asked the Scottish Government

“which powers and responsibilities it plans to remove from local authorities under its proposed National Care Service.”

I am interested to find out whether ministers have already had a rethink on that. I hope that they will listen to the concerns and not introduce a top-down reform of drug and alcohol services, which would destabilise them.

I hope that we will develop a genuinely person-centred approach to mental health and substance abuse. If we are to do that, housing must be at the heart of delivering stability and a safe space for people who desperately need it in their lives.

For too long, individuals and their families have complained that trying to access support and drug and alcohol services has been complicated. In some cases, support networks have been cut out and individuals’ decision making for themselves or their family member has been disrespected. People often do not feel that they are in control of decisions about their care, recovery programmes or access to services. That needs to be reformed and I hope that that reform will be delivered.

We are only at the start of the journey to deliver the reforms but I hope that what the minister outlined will make a difference.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app disconnected, but I would have voted yes.

I will if I can get some time back.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I take the opportunity to again put on record my thoughts and sympathy for all those who have lost their lives to drug and alcohol addiction in Scotland. It is equally important that Parliament acknowledges the strength and campaigning of the many families and friends who are left behind.

For years, I have been calling on ministers to support those families, so I welcome today’s announcement regarding family network funding. It is long overdue and will make a difference in allowing people’s families and friends to support them.

As has been outlined already, access to rehab and treatments is absolutely critical, and I welcome some of the positive steps that are being taken as we look towards putting these reforms in place and, I hope, establishing a right to rehab, including through the bill that is to be introduced by my party leader, Douglas Ross.

In the time that I have today, I will touch on a key issue that I believe is missing from today’s debate, but which is critical if we are to develop a policy solution that will genuinely reduce drug deaths and harms. That issue is housing. Housing is at the heart of stability for each and every one of us across Scotland. For many people living with an addiction, or for individuals who are homeless, a lack of housing often results in the escalation of substance misuse, or issues developing or returning, not to mention the negative impact that that will have on an individual’s mental health.

The housing first model is a good one, but it has not delivered the outcomes that we all want to see from councils. There needs to be more funding for housing. Councils report that they simply do not have the resources to deliver the accommodation that is needed, particularly in the capital.

I strongly believe that housing must be at the heart of the drug deaths strategy—it can, and does, provide the stability that is needed by vulnerable individuals, from people who are homeless or rough sleeping, to individuals leaving prison—

I want to ask a couple of further questions on debt and potential new models. We know from some of the evidence that you have provided that council tax debt, for example, is sometimes one of the first that starts to build up and non-payment of council tax becomes problematic for people in managing their debt. I would like to hear people’s views on potential changes that could be brought forward to deal effectively with debts like that. I ask Lawrie Morgan-Klein to start, and then others can come in on the specific question of council tax debt.

It is about the concerns that were raised yesterday about energy costs. In one day, gas prices jumped 40 per cent, although the impact will probably be felt next spring. My question is on preventative models. Jon Sparkes touched on what we can do with preventative models for homelessness, but does any of the panel members have suggestions as to preventative models for debt management? Consumer advice is readily available online, but what work should we do in relation to people who do not have access to online services or those who have reading difficulties?

I will follow up on the questions from my colleague Marie McNair. The Scottish Government has pointed towards other potential benefits—just yesterday, we received a letter from the Minister for Social Security and Local Government with regard to the young carers grant. In your evidence, you have said that there could be 70,000 additional successful applicants for ADP. Are you doing any other work on potential future benefits and what those would look like?

How did the figure of 70,000 additional applicants come about?

Thank you for joining us. As my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy said, the briefing that you provided has been really useful in helping us to get into the granular detail of the cost projections for new benefits and the setting up of services.

I have two specific questions, the first of which is about Social Security Scotland’s costs and your original forecasting on those, in which you looked at the Government’s potential costs. I believe that those were set at £307 million, but the figure has now doubled to more than £651 million. Do you have any insight into where the Government’s forecasting on the initial set-up costs may have gone wrong?

My second question is about adult disability payment. From the information that you have given the committee, the scale of uncertainty around that is such that the costs are not clear. What impact might that have on Social Security Scotland and the benefits that it currently administers?