Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the fact that you have said that you will seek to withdraw amendment 1077 in order to work further with the Government. I think that one of the reasons that you gave for having the register related to applications being made to two local authorities, which would mean that there could be duplication. Could the double counting of people who are homeless be an issue? Might that issue need to be resolved at a later date?

I have a few comments about Mr Griffin’s amendment 1072 in relation to the housing first model. I went to Finland with Mr Simpson and other colleagues to look at the housing first model there, and one of my take-home messages was that there is no one housing first model—lots of different models are badged up as housing first—so, if we were to act in the way that Mr Griffin suggested, having a clear definition of housing first would be important. However, the amendment is incredibly well intentioned, and there might be benefits to it.

In relation to giving priority access to welfare services, I think about my constituency case load and the purpose of the bill, which is to prevent homelessness. The housing first model involves, quite rightly, picking up people who have experienced the homelessness system—they might have been rough sleeping—and providing them with wraparound support. In my casework, I deal with people who need intensive support because of significant rent or council tax arrears and who have precarious tenancies, so I hope that the bill is aimed at supporting them. It can be quite difficult to get the attention of local authority welfare services and third sector services so that they can provide those people with that intensive support. However, we have managed that from time to time, and tenancies have been retained and secured.

Mr Griffin’s amendment 1072 would give one group in the homelessness system priority access to services, but that could be at the expense of other groups of people who are threatened with homelessness, which I am sure is not his intention. I am unsure how I feel about his amendment, but I will probably not support it.

Alexander Stewart’s amendment 1014 and Maggie Chapman’s amendment 1070 seek specific homelessness strategies for different groups in society. I am conscious that, although there are protected characteristics, when possible, we want to mainstream our homelessness strategy and be attentive to all of the various groups at the same time. If we prioritise some groups above others, we might lose that mainstreaming approach.

Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on the impact of digital exclusion on poverty levels among pensioners, the reasons for that, and how those might be addressed. This session follows on from the round-table evidence session that we held in February.

I welcome our witnesses: Louise Coupland, digital health and social care manager, Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, or the ALLIANCE; Jillian Matthew, senior manager, Audit Scotland; Kyle Scott, policy manager, Citizens Advice Scotland; and Miriam Craven, chief operating officer, Social Security Scotland. I thank you all for joining us today and helping us with our short inquiry.

We will move straight to questions from members. I ask Jeremy Balfour to open the questioning.

Before I move on to the next questions, I note that it would be quite helpful for the committee to look at other concrete examples of real issues that are being caused by services that are digital by default or digital first. When the committee is in private session, we will want to have a chat about what we can meaningfully do to address the situation and be part of the story of improving things instead of just hearing what is wrong.

We have heard about council tax reduction in some local authorities, council tax payment, blue badge applications and the warm home discount. Are there other examples? You do not have to go into detail, but it would be helpful if you could draw our attention to examples, so that, when we consider the evidence, we can have a look at them.

I will leave it there. We will give you a copy of the DWP’s evidence, Mr Scott, and you should feel free to put in writing any reflections that you have. I feel that you should be paid overtime for your time here today.

This is just a time check for witnesses and members. I was clearly told to finish by 11 o’clock, but that has not happened. I was then told 5 minutes past 11, but that probably will not happen either. It should definitely be 10 past 11 at the very latest.

I will pass over to Mark Griffin—no pressure on you, Mark.

That is helpful.

Kyle Scott, when you or your colleagues give details to the committee about banking hubs, it would be helpful to have information on where they are springing up. What is the percentage of older people in those areas? What percentage are in cities versus remote and rural areas? Are they in areas of income deprivation? They could be set up in areas where there are lots of middle-class people and pensioners who are less likely to be income deprived. There might be a lot of demand from those people, so it is understandable why banking hubs might be set up in those areas, but hubs might not necessarily be doing all the things that we have been talking about for the most at-risk groups. If your colleagues could identify where the banking hubs are being set up, that would be really helpful. Would that be okay?

Marie McNair mentioned that the DWP had hoped to be here today. However, quite late in the day, it gave us some written evidence. We cannot quite test that evidence, but I would like to put some of it on the record briefly. If Kyle Scott or others could give a brief reflection on it, that would be helpful.

For pension credit, which we know is one of the most underclaimed entitlements in the country, there is a freephone—an 0800 number—claim line. So, there appears to be a public-facing claim line for that; it is not digital by default. For attendance allowance, which is still migrating over to Scotland, there is a freephone helpline. For universal credit and mixed-age couples, there is help to claim, which I think that Citizens Advice Scotland is involved in. However, that is for the initial claim; it is not for those who have made a claim after which there has been a change of circumstances and all of that.

I do not want to take this meeting off at a tangent, but we need to test some of that evidence. I am afraid that it might be for you to respond again, Kyle. What is your reflection on the DWP’s services—whether digital by default, customer facing, face to face or through contact at the end of a telephone—in relation to pension credit, attendance allowance and universal credit? We have written evidence here, but we cannot actually test it.

Kyle Scott, can I briefly check something with you? That does not appear to be digital by default. As I understand it, there is a partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland to help clients to navigate digital by default, but it remains digital by default. Is that a fair reflection?