We enjoyed the visit and it was much appreciated. I am here to represent the Legal Services Agency, but I am also a member of the campaign for housing and social welfare law, which is a flexible umbrella body. The points that I will make have been discussed with quite a number of people.
Broadly speaking, our position is that, although Scottish homelessness legislation has rightly been praised as a model of good practice, the same cannot be said of its implementation. To reflect what has just been said, I note that there is a disparity between principles and practices. We have not taken on board the unintended consequences of a variety of changes, and the committee’s inquiry is a welcome opportunity to look at some of them.
The major change that we see as having happened is that, as an effect of stock transfer, local authorities in many areas have a duty but not the means to carry out that duty. Local authorities need access to RSL stock, but often that seems not to work—I do not know why. I am not in a position to comment on that, as it is a separate issue, but I can say that the legal basis for local authority referrals to RSLs is weak. Section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 is controlled by section 6, which provides for an arbitration process, but that is cumbersome and weak and, as far as I am aware, it has never been used. If it has been used, it has hardly ever been used. It does not seem to represent the right sort of legal relationship, and the arrangements were based on the requirements of another era.
Another issue—it has been a theme throughout the evidence that I have heard today—is that homeless people have no direct voice. It is not surprising that key documents get out of date. The most obvious example is that the code of guidance, which was published in 2005, makes no mention of a load of issues. It does not mention equalities law or people with no recourse to public funds—I am sure that my friends on the panel will comment on that—and it does not discuss in detail the issues about temporary accommodation, such as the exorbitant charges that are often made and the major difficulties in accessing it.
Our experience in providing advice, assistance and representation is that lots of people have difficulty accessing the most basic temporary accommodation, even though there is a clear legal obligation to provide it. The code of guidance does not adequately address the low speed at which permanent accommodation is offered. This morning, someone told me about a case where a client who is in perfectly ordinary circumstances has been in temporary accommodation for well over 32 weeks. That is just a wee example.
The code of guidance includes a section on the now-abolished concept of priority need. As a key document, it needs to be updated. That will take a fair amount of work, but it would be worth while. In terms of cost savings, if everything is in one place, we can give the document to people and say, “Read this and you will understand it”. That cannot be said to anyone at the moment because the code is completely misleading on a number of important points. However, it is an important document.
Once that document is updated, section 37 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 should be amended to require local authorities not merely to have regard to the guidance but to comply with it. At the moment, local authorities do not need to comply with it so, once it is updated, that obligation will need to be tightened.
We also need to discuss services to prevent homelessness further. Research clearly shows that most homelessness is caused by factors that are out of the control of the people who are affected. We have had clear and articulate evidence to that effect. We need to quash the idea that it is a lifestyle choice. We never hear people at conferences saying, “Oh, homelessness is a lifestyle choice; let’s discuss this strange lifestyle,” but I have heard people say that on numerous occasions. That idea needs to be rejected and the reality must be recognised.
We need to ensure that everyone is given a second or third chance and appropriate support. We need to look outside the box to see what the appropriate support is. Support at the right time saves a lot of money—we have discussed that today. How to save money is a strong theme. A stitch in time does not save nine or hundreds of pounds—it saves tens of thousands, if not millions.
One preventative service that has popped up in discussion recently is the Seattle rent assistance programme, where forbearance is given to people with rent arrears to prevent them from becoming homeless and the programme pays off rent arrears—in whole or in part—as part of a structured rights and money-advice based procedure. The upstream preventative measures have been documented by the voluntary organisations concerned and have saved large amounts of money. We need to look at that experiment—I volunteer to go to Seattle to find out more if members are interested. Actually, an academic who is working in Edinburgh has worked on that programme, so we can get information about such things really easily.
Under the new private rented sector regime, people will be threatened with eviction and could lose their house for really quite small levels of rent arrears. Maybe partly through charitable giving and partly through a Government programme, providing small amounts might make a really big difference, to prevent unnecessary homelessness—although it is always unnecessary.