Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sure that they will do. Your points are well made. I do not want to get into the weeds of whether universal credit claimants should have a five-week wait in the first place—that is a highly politicised line. However, the fact that someone who is fleeing domestic and economic abuse should be immediately indebted, having struggled to make a claim while still in the abusive household, is a significant issue.

Dr Glinski, would you suggest that there should be a specific point of contact in universal credit or the Department for Work and Pensions whereby a woman—it is invariably a woman—who is seeking to flee an abusive relationship can have a private and confidential claims pathway for universal credit that would not involve a five-week wait so that they can get their ducks in a row before they leave the abusive household? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but the committee needs to identify conclusions as well as looking at the issues. Does that seem reasonable?

Good morning, everyone. I will come first to Dr Glinski with a specific question, but I flag up to the other witnesses that, in a moment, I will ask about how the benefits and entitlement systems in the United Kingdom and in Scotland could work more effectively, what they do well and what they could improve on. That is not the first question; I just want to set the context so that you can get your answers ready.

Dr Glinski, I want to ask you specifically about the fund to leave pilot, which ran from October 2023 until March last year. It was a £500,000 fund that provided up to £1,000 for each victim/survivor who took the plunge—it is a major decision—and left home. If the fund were to be introduced more widely, what changes would you make to it? What worked well in the pilot? The committee would find it helpful to get that on the record, and then we can look at the ways in which other systems can provide financial support. Could you comment on that, please?

If a woman is seriously considering leaving an economically abusive relationship, they need to make sure that they are clear about their entitlements, and they need to be able to make a claim independently of the abusive individual, and to do so privately. There needs to be expertise, and there should not be a five-week wait to get access to cash. I am thinking about what an ethical and appropriate system would be. It could be totally different from what I have described, but, as the committee will have to make recommendations at some point, what do you think that an appropriate system would look like?

It is very helpful that you have put that on the record.

I am hearing voices saying that they support rolling the fund out nationally, reviewing the payment levels and ensuring that there is consistency and appropriate levels of awareness and signposting, but I am not hearing calls to fundamentally change the fund as it existed in the pilot.

Do you want to add anything on that, Stuart?

I turn to Lyndsay Clelland. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve the system in relation to Social Security Scotland or our local authorities?

For clarity, I agree with you, but I am thinking about the art of the achievable with regard to the recommendations that the committee may make.

I turn to the other witnesses. It is fine if you want to add anything about the UK system, but I want to ask you about the Scottish system. What improvements need to be made? I am thinking in particular about crisis grants and community care grants. Although there is no specific directive, by and large someone will have to demonstrate that they are without an income or are on a low income before they can access those grants. Of course, someone who is in an economically abusive relationship cannot always provide evidence for that, or they may not even be aware that they are in that situation. Changing the criteria for the Scottish welfare fund may be one way of improving the system in Scotland.

What works well, and what could be improved in relation to Social Security Scotland or our local authorities?

As my colleague Paul O’Kane alluded to, the Housing (Scotland) Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament. It has often been said that we know what we need to do on the ground and that we could do some of that now. One of the reasons that we were keen to have both of you as witnesses is to comment on that. What could we do on the ground to help prevent homelessness for abuse victims and survivors? I will turn to Viki Fox first.

That is helpful.

Moving on, I want to look specifically at the UK and Scottish benefits systems; perhaps we could deal with them a wee bit separately.

I do not want to put words in the witnesses’ mouths, but as well as looking at the way in which the UK system works, can you tell us what you think works well? It would also be helpful to have any clear points that you think need to change to better support victim/survivors when they wish to leave economic abuse?

Lyndsay, would you like to add anything to that?