Author: Janice Higgins

Where help to access food is needed, this should be provided indoors in a way that maximises dignity, choice and reduces future need, according to a joint response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on ending the need for food banks from 36 organisations working in partnership to prevent homelessness in Scotland.

The Everyone Home collective formed during the early months of the pandemic to protect progress that was made on issues around homelessness and prioritise action that can be taken together.

The draft plan for ending the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity was prepared by the Scottish Government’s ‘Tackling Food Insecurity Team’ with responses to the consultation requested by 25 January. The plan is expected to be published later this year.

The submission from Everyone Home sets out three key points of interest guiding its response to the consultation.

• Poverty is the primary driver for homelessness in all its forms, with child poverty a powerful predictor of adult homelessness.
• The homelessness third sector in Scotland has a long history of food provision using many approaches and has valuable learning and experience to share.
• The collective is inspired by the leadership of the foodbank networks to co-design a plan to bring about an end to their own delivery in its current form, which resonates with recent and future aspects of homelessness service provision.

And with two key parts to the Everyone Home response:

• Place based: help to access food and end food insecurity should be factored into the design of the 20-minute neighbourhood policy in Scotland. Local communities are best able to determine whether this type of service is needed in their area and can coproduce its development and monitor its impact.
• Prepared and shared: the positive benefits of prepared and shared food for people who also seek a social interaction or stronger social network are clear and demonstrated. These benefits can be diluted if care is not taken in how it is delivered.

The charity Move On is the delivery partner for FareShare Glasgow and the West of Scotland, which takes good-quality surplus food from retailers and suppliers and distributes to community groups or charities.

John Hinton, Executive director of Move On, said:

“As a FareShare delivery partner, Move On welcomes the Scottish Government’s consultation on the draft national plan for ending the need for food banks. Along with our partners in Everyone Home, we have long recognised the importance of properly prepared food, which can be shared in a suitable environment firmly embedded in communities. We are pleased to add our voice to the calls to ensure that whatever arrangements replace food banks meets the needs of people affected by homelessness and destitution.

“FareShare partners with many community-based charities and social enterprises that know exactly where the need lies in their communities. We are committed to linking people with wider supports and services to address the underlying issues contributing to food insecurity.”

Cyrenians work with community partners to deliver community pantries in seven locations across the capital. To promote dignity, the pantries are open to the whole community with no referrals or joining criteria required and offer a range of fresh, chilled and ambient foods in exchange for a £1 fee.

Lynne Collie, Senior Manager of Good Food from Cyrenians, said:

“From surveys carried out we know that visitors find using our pantry service a positive experience, that it helps them to better manage finances and makes it easier to access a wider variety of foods.

“We are keen to see that any changes suggested within the proposal draws from the evidenced success of the community pantry approach. By maximising choice and control we can ensure access to food is done so with dignity, whilst also providing added benefit through further opportunities for volunteering and training.” 

Maggie Brunjes, Chief executive of Homeless Network Scotland, said:

“Sitting at the heart of Everyone Home’s response is the need for dignity and choice. Income inequality is the primary driver for both homelessness and food insecurity. Every household in Scotland should have enough money to remove the need for foodbanks and where help is needed this should be cash-first with rapid access to cash to financial assistance and money advice.”

View the Everyone Home collective Response to the Draft Plan here. More information is available at www.everyonehome.scot and follow-on Twitter at #EveryoneHome to keep up to date with developments.

Homeless Network Scotland is pleased to provide a response to the proposed Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Members’ Bill lodged by the Scottish Conservatives and drafted with activists and advisors, including people with experience of addiction. Our response has been informed by a briefing and consultation event attended by over 50 organisations from different sectors and with various roles. The information slides from our consultation event are available here [pdf].

Which of the following best expresses your view of the proposed Bill? 

Partially supportive

This response is based on feedback we received at our Right to Recovery Bill event with 50 Homeless Network Scotland members on 14 December. Attendees included frontline organisations and people with lived experience. Answers we have provided against each question present a summary of the views noted at the event.

Attendees were generally very supportive of a new bill being developed that will focus on people’s rights to treatment and recovery and provide them with more choice and control, thereby (according to international evidence) increasing the likelihood of successful treatment. People with lived experience told us that they have previously felt they had limited choice and control over the treatments they were offered and would also value more options including those used in addressing trauma e.g. hypnosis, acupuncture and physiotherapy.

The bill needs to be in line with the Scottish Government’s current drug strategy to ensure effective delivery and positive impact. Some amendments may be needed to ensure this is the case and this must be very carefully considered.

Do you think legislation is required, or are there other ways in which the proposed Bill’s aims could be achieved more effectively? Please explain the reasons for your response.

Legislation would help ensure everyone will be treated fairly across Scotland. Attendees were clear that the Bill has the opportunity to re-dress current inconsistencies in availability of different treatment and rehabilitation options.

Another benefit to enshrining the aspect of choice and control in legislation is that it make the system and response more equitable. Not everybody will be in the same place or benefit from the same response, and finding a way to reflect this in legislation is important.

How do you think the right to treatment established in the Bill would be most effectively implemented and enforced? Tick all options that apply.

Duty on Health Boards

Duty on Integration Joint Boards (IJB’s)

Established targets/standards

Other (For example Local Authorities – please specify below).

Clear leadership from Scottish Ministers would help encourage other organisations to support and deliver the legislation. It is essential however that this is not seen as solely an NHS issue, the public sector as a whole should be involved as the social issues being addressed by this bill cut across all sectors. The bill should clearly set out what is expected of which sectors and how they will be expected to work collaboratively to ensure person-centred care is provided. The future role of a National Care Service in relation to a rights-based framework for addiction treatment options should also be considered.

Importantly, taking a collective responsibility for a ‘no wrong door’ approach to accessing treatment options. This means working across current silos – for example, homelessness, addictions, criminal justice, mental health – so that people can get the best outcome, regardless of their experience of existing service use. People need to be aware not just that they have a right to treatment, but also aware of what options are available so that they can exercise choice and control to access the best option for them and their family.

Which of the following best expresses your view of allowing those suffering from addiction to choose a preferred treatment option, and for them to receive that option unless deemed harmful by a medical professional?

Fully supportive

Having choice and control is the best approach with the best chance of success. The individual and the service provider both need to have access to the correct information about what treatment is available and provide support to the individual so that they can make an informed choice about what is best for them at that time. People can only access their rights if they know what rights they have.

This would mean a new approach on training and include more focus on treatments to support trauma. People with lived experience also suggest that the methods for treatment should be expanded.

We know from evidence across several sectors that people engage with and buy in to responses and solutions better when they feel that they are involved in the decision making and they have more positive outcomes when they have more control over decisions (including treatment decisions) that impact on them.

Which of the following best expresses your view of requiring the Scottish Government to establish a national funding scheme?

 Fully supportive

Taking into account all those likely to be affected (including public sector bodies, businesses and individuals etc), is the proposed Bill likely to lead to:

some increase in costs

Implementation of a right to treatment should lead to increased numbers of people taking up treatment options, which would lead to an increase in the costs attached. However, there are a significant number of other costs that must be fully considered (e.g. primary and secondary health care, justice and welfare costs) which could significantly decrease once people are accessing treatment that works for them. There could in the longer term be significant savings as a result of this bill.

Properly reviewing the costs attached to the bill, including those it reduces – primary and secondary – will be important so that it can be implemented effectively, ensuring funding is available for delivery. Cost benefit analysis should be undertaken as part of the implementation plan and subsequent evaluation for the bill.

What overall impact is the proposed Bill likely to have on equality, taking account of the following protected characteristics (under the Equality Act 2010): age, disability, gender re-assignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation?

Positive

Development and implementation of the bill has the potential to ensure everyone has the same rights to the treatment that is right for them and ensure people have ownership of their own lives. People should have the opportunity to challenge decisions on their treatment plan. However, development of the bill needs to be informed by an in-depth understanding of robust evidence on equality to sure that delivery of the bill avoids exacerbating current inequalities.

The bill could also help gain a better understanding of what recovery looks like and requires across different groups and characteristics.

In terms of assessing the proposed Bill’s potential impact on sustainable development, you may wish to consider how it relates to the following principles:

• living within environmental limits
• ensuring a strong, healthy and just society
• achieving a sustainable economy
• promoting effective, participative systems of governance
• ensuring policy is developed on the basis of strong scientific evidence.

With these principles in mind, do you consider that the Bill can be delivered sustainably?

Yes

As noted above, thorough cost benefit analysis will be required to inform the development of the bill from a sustainable perspective economically. In addition, better community-led treatments as a result of this bill could help more people access and sustain employment.

Do you have any other additional comments or suggestions on the proposed Bill (which have not already been covered in any of your responses to earlier questions)?

There are opportunities for this bill to bring a better approach to working with families, including them in decisions about treatment options and harnessing the informal advocacy role they often provide. This may also earn services a better understanding of the person as a whole, the security of their housing, the environment they are living in and the impact on any children or young people in the household.

In summary, we support a rights-based framework to underpin access to all addiction treatment options, including recovery. We believe access to new rights, and clear information about those rights, can better ensure people have choice, control and advocacy where required. Having cross party support to move forward on a legal framework will be essential.