Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 350)
TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2007
MR ANDREW
GIRVAN, MR
JOE CONNOLLY,
MS FRANCES
TRAN, MR
JOHN WALLACE
AND MR
IAN DOBSON
Q340 Mr Davidson:
I understand that but it seems to me the example you have given
us is a case of the way in which you have constructed your charging
mechanism to try and maximise your income from Housing Benefit
that has created the benefit trap for the young people.
Mr Girvan: This is the best way
in which we can construct our budgets in order to deliver the
level and quality of support needed. We do not control the way
in which the supporting people money is targeted. That is the
cost of delivering the level of support that these young people
need and that is how they are penalised at the moment. I would
be happy to supply some case studies if you would like for the
Committee.
Q341 Chairman:
I think that would be very helpful.
Mr Connolly: That would be more
comprehensive and also show the background and the challenging
nature of the issues for these young people. It is not just about
accommodation, it is about the intensity of support that is needed.
As Andrew said, there is a high level of self-harming and lots
of other issues. We can give you comprehensive case studies, which
is probably the best way to take it forward.
Q342 Mr McGovern:
At the start, just before you gave us those figures, you said
that this is not a devolved item, this is something that can be
dealt with by us.
Mr Connolly: It is not for the
Scottish Executive, it is a national UK issue.
Mr Girvan: In terms of benefits
paid to 16-18 year olds.
Q343 Mr McGovern:
Housing Benefit?
Mr Connolly: It is Housing Benefit.
Ms Tran: The Department for Work
and Pensions.
Mr Girvan: It is not a reserved
matter.
Q344 Mr McGovern:
It is not a reserved matter?
Mr Connolly: It is not a reserved
matter to the Scottish Parliament, no.
Q345 Mr McGovern:
It is reserved to Westminster.
Mr Connolly: Yes.
Mr Girvan: It is not a devolved
matter.
Ms Tran: Can I say in terms of
incentives for people getting back to work, the other issue is
about appropriate training and availability of that and other
things kick in in relation to that because you then need appropriate
childcare, the training that people are getting to go out with
some form of qualification. I heard earlier on from representatives
from the other group saying that more and more people are required
to have particular qualifications for particular kinds of posts.
Q346 Mr MacNeil:
There is a minimum wage that the Forum talked about earlier and
they said that the minimum wage for the younger people should
be the same as the minimum wage for older people. Do you agree
with that?
Ms Tran: Yes.
Mr Girvan: In terms of broader
points on incentivising people to get back into work, where we
get involved as an organisation is very often getting people on
the first rung of the ladder and there is the whole thing about
getting confidence back, the first priority of having the confidence
to get back into the labour, employment or education market. We
have expressed concerns on the key aspects of the Welfare Reform
Bill and have asked for MPs to reject any changes that would reduce
or remove benefits, particularly in relation to the disadvantaged
groups who could potentially be stuck in the poverty trap, some
groups in relation to minimum wage, some in relation to their
support needs and links to Housing Benefit and some in relation
to the additional costs they will incur in trying to move back
into employment.
Q347 Chairman:
Can you tell the Committee Members two significant things that
Government can do to alleviate poverty. I start with Mr Dobson.
Mr Dobson: I would like to reinforce
what Joe Connolly was saying about the need for supported accommodation.
I recognise that is a costly way of running things and the benefit
system does not support it and in some ways provides a benefit
trap but my experience in homelessness over the last 15 years
is that the need for supported accommodation, whether that is
low level or intensive support, is increasing. There is a whole
range of societal factors that are affecting people and, as Joe
says, homelessness is not homelessness, it is something that affects
people at a period in their lives. Accommodation is not the only
answer to it. People need to be supported, whether it is drug
problems, alcohol, mental health or learning disability. Folk
need that kind of support to allow them to have some stability
and move on. I cannot give you hard figures here but my anecdotal
experience is that people who move through the homeless route
by going through supported accommodation do not end up becoming
repeat homeless applicants. They tend to move on and the support
often goes with them into independent living and they tend to
be supported into employment and end up as more useful members
of society and not come back to us. I would like to make a plea
that we look at the mechanisms for funding support. Again, I would
not dream of telling you exactly how you should go about that
but there is a need to look at the way we find supported accommodation
and to make the funding streams so much easier to access. We have
heard quite a lot today about the time it takes to pull together
funding cocktails in order to support projects for quite short
periods of time. NCH is a national organisation and has a lot
of expertise in this field but there are a lot of other organisations
out there which are much smaller who do not have the expertise
who are providing essential services, in my view, and half their
time is taken up trying to scrabble around to pull together funding.
Local authorities need to work in partnership with these organisations.
We cannot do it alone. We rely very, very heavily on specialist
support organisations. If there is one thing that I would ask
you to do, it is to recognise the need for support for people
who are coming through the homeless route or, indeed, people who
are affected by poverty and to oil the wheels so that we can bring
the support to where it is needed.
Q348 Chairman:
Thank you. Mr Wallace?
Mr Wallace: I would make a plea
that we give children prospects, that we ensure there are parenting
services available to help parents so that their children can
have futures. That is probably one of the things that I notice
in our day-to-day work, that where families are in crisis for
whatever reason, be it that there is a parental dependency, a
mental health problem, these are people who are not yet ready
to go into the employment market, they are not yet ready to provide
adequately for their children, they are caught in the poverty
trap and it is very difficult sometimes for them to access appropriate
services. With drug problem services, three strikes, you miss
three appointments and you are out. These are chaotic families,
people who live in chaos, who cannot keep appointments because
of the chaos in their lives because they are looking for their
next fix, and the very services that are supposed to help them
resolve that chaos cannot stick with them. Gill Strachan, in some
of the work that she has done for the Respect taskforce, talks
about "gripping" families. I would not say that we should
be quite so macho, we should go that extra mile for families and
services should be encouraged to do that. If we can get services
that will go that extra mile for families, for the parents so
that they can give their children prospects, then those children
will have futures. That is one of my pleas. The other one is that
we look at the question of funding of projects because in the
voluntary sector very often, as has been said, a lot of energy
goes into trying to secure ongoing funding, energy that we should
be using to develop our services further.
Q349 Chairman:
Thank you. Andrew, do you want to say anything?
Mr Girvan: I will limit myself
to saying two things. On a broad point, going back to the idea
of keeping child poverty at the top of the agenda, that would
be one thing, and ensuring that it stays there, identifying the
fact it is not children alone, it is children within families,
so it is part of a broader policy agenda. I would ask the Committee
here and our own Government to look at the UNICEF report and ask
the question why we are bottom of the league. I know a lot of
the media response has been to say it is old information, and
to deny it, and say we are in a better place, but I think if there
was a degree of honesty in responding to that report we have a
lot to do to change that situation and look at how much we do
or do not value children in society. That is the broad point,
to make sure the Welfare Reform Bill does not further exclude
or penalise parents or families on the margin of society. I would
echo the point on sustainable long-term funding. The culture of
best value in today's climate is very much focused on pushing
costs down rather than looking at quality. When we see the value
the voluntary sector is bringing to services to support vulnerable
families, we are becoming more crucial and a lot of our time is
needlessly wasted, and that goes for both government money and
voluntary income, in terms of chasing sustainable funding. If
we could make those mechanisms easier across the UK that would
be really helpful.
Mr Connolly: My point would be
around employment training, ensuring that we do not repeat the
sins of the past and that in terms of the employment training
initiatives we do create real jobs and empower young people or
families sending them to real jobs that pay a decent living wage
and that have future prospects with training. Those kinds of initiatives
have to be driven by the Government both at Westminster and here
in Scotland.
Ms Tran: I suppose my point is
about the Welfare Reform Green Paper, the New Deal for Welfare,
and urging MPs to reject any changes that will reduce or remove
benefits. That is because 68% of our households with children
where both parents are out of work include one disabled parent
and 32% of lone parents who are out of work are disabled and disabled
people's employment plays a major part in relation to child poverty.
If that Bill is about getting people into work we need to have
support packages and mechanisms to allow that to happen if that
Bill goes through.
Q350 Chairman:
Thank you for your evidence. Before I declare the meeting closed,
would you like to say anything in conclusion, perhaps something
we have not covered in the questions?
Mr Girvan: I would just want to
say that we have welcomed the opportunity to give evidence to
you today. We would be happy to supply further information and
case studies if you would find that helpful. We mentioned the
research that was carried out by Glasgow University for Dundee
Families and there is also the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit
that is currently carrying out a long-term evaluation of the project
and we would be happy to pass on the findings to yourselves in
regard to that. Sheffield Hallam University have researched similar
projects based on the Dundee Families model and if you would like
the executive summary of that, without overwhelming you with papers,
we could certainly send that to you as well because I think that
carries a resonance across England and Wales as well as Scotland.
Chairman: Thank you.
| 
