Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has been really good hearing the answers to the questions thus far from members of the panel.

I will ask about support for people who have made it to Scotland. It is complicated for many people to arrive here. As one of the witnesses said, we have 18,000 expressions of interest from people who are prepared to host refugees from Ukraine. I am conscious that a lot of the people who have been in touch have already improved or decorated their housing and bought new furniture to be ready for people.

One of the witnesses said that there is an issue with what happens when the match is not right. I want to explore that. It will not be easy for everybody to do the work of hosting a family once they have arrived. What follow-up work is being done to check that matches have worked? If they do not work for whatever reason, the family or person does not automatically become homeless. I have spoken to Afghan and Syrian refugees recently, some of whom are still homeless years after arriving, particularly Syrian refugees.

I ask Gayle Findlay to pick up that question from an overall COSLA perspective first.

It is really useful to get feedback on that. It needs to happen because, as you say, it is not necessarily about people falling out. It is just a reality check. It could be about the food that is eaten if somebody is vegan, for example, and all the other things that cannot necessarily be predicted before people arrive.

The other issue that I wanted to ask about was safeguarding, not just for an initial matching process but for follow-ups. What support will be there for families? I am thinking particularly about people who have come from Ukraine having experienced sexual abuse, or who have had contact with traffickers because of the length of time that it has taken for them to get to safety. What follow-up work is being done to provide support—for example, mental health support—as well as making sure that there are not just checks carried out once by Disclosure Scotland but a follow-up process for people?

If you want to keep going on that one, Gayle Findlay—

The other issue is monitoring. There will be an initial wave of people, but on-going issues, such as PTSD, could emerge afterwards. Help for such issues might not be immediately available. Support might be needed for the host and for the family that has come to Scotland. Have you got systems in place to keep an eye on that?

Thank you. That is really useful.

I have a final question for Elaine Ritchie and Hazel Chisholm about the challenge that you talked about of working on the ground—going to people’s houses or wherever. What translation support are you putting in place? I am guessing that going from zero to having the capacity to translate everything will be quite a challenge. How are you coping with that and what resources are being put in to make sure that people make a successful transition?

That is a welcome commitment. You are booked for a year from now—

The test is not just the culture and creative budgets—it goes right across the public sector. That is the question for the Scottish Government with regard to cross-Government working: what are the budget issues? I say to the health secretary that the benefits of preventative spend are that you save money, but you have to start spending in order to get the infrastructure in.

I would therefore make a plea that goes back to your very opening comment about the commitment with regard to the 2026 target for GP access. The evidence we have had on social prescribing suggests that it could be very critical in helping people not just get through but recover from the pandemic, and it cuts across culture to take in, for example, mental health and wellbeing in young people, older people and people on low incomes. However, we heard evidence today that social prescribing is not reaching low-income communities in the way that we would want, so the question is how you make that transformative change now.

That is helpful—thank you so much. I will pick up on those points and take them to our other witnesses. I will start with Kirsty Cumming, because you made points in your submission about community investment for there to be investment on the ground. You talked about

“significant loss of reserves across public culture charities”

and a solvency issue due to the pandemic, as well as future pressures. Do we need core funding and more investment? How would you link that through to preventative investment that brings multiple benefits and to looking at outcomes rather than just inputs?

The need for core funding and multiyear funding in order to plan ahead and deliver comes across clearly. I ask Duncan Dornan the same questions about the funding aspect and the impact on wellbeing and preventative health, which was highlighted by the Christie commission.

That is pretty consistent feedback from the witnesses. I thank you all very much.