Homelessness
Agenda item 2 is on homelessness. Over the past few months, the committee has heard evidence from a variety of stakeholders on the progress that has been made towards meeting the 2012 homelessness commitment. The committee would like to thank the many organisations that have submitted written evidence in response to its call for views on this topic. Today, the committee will hear its final evidence on the 2012 commitment. I welcome Keith Brown, the Minister for Housing and Transport, and his supporting official, Marion Gibbs, team leader in the Scottish Government’s housing options and services unit.
I invite the minister to make an opening statement.
Scotland’s 2012 homelessness commitment, which is to give all unintentionally homeless households the right to settled accommodation by the end of this year, is internationally acclaimed and has rightly been referred to as the most progressive in Europe. However, the target is challenging. Unlike targets that were set by Governments in other places, it was not set in the full knowledge that it could be fairly easily met but is a genuinely challenging target to achieve.
With the target, we are trying to remove the bureaucratic distinctions between different categories of homeless people. That was always going to be a challenge, but it has become much more difficult in the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. However, I have made it clear that we are committed to achieving that, and I want to restate that commitment today.
Meeting the target is not, by any means, the end of the journey. The causes of homelessness are not going to end in 2012 because we have set the target and met it. Among the key tasks that we will have as we move forward should be that of maintaining a continuing and persistent focus on preventing homelessness.
The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have a joint steering group that directs work on the target. It is an enthusiastic and active group that is focused on homelessness prevention, investment in the appropriate areas, access to all housing tenures, joint working and corporate buy-in. We have also developed five successful and innovative regional hubs containing most local authorities, to promote the housing options approach. In August 2011 we held a successful seminar to highlight the work of the hubs, and they have agreed to certain action plans, which are currently focusing on mitigation activity around the changes to housing benefit.
We aim to deliver 30,000 affordable homes over the next five years, including at least 20,000 for social rent over the life of this Parliament. Over the next three years, we will be making more than £630 million available for housing, which follows around £1.7 billion of investment in affordable housing over the previous three-year period, from 2008 to 2011.
In 2010, regulations were introduced to allow local authorities to use the private rented sector to discharge their homelessness duty.
In the quarter ending 31 March 2011, six local authorities assessed 100 per cent of homeless households as being in priority need, which is essentially the target. Those authorities are Angus Council, Dundee City Council, Orkney Islands Council, Renfrewshire Council, Stirling Council and West Dunbartonshire Council. In another 10 council areas, more than 90 per cent of homeless households were regarded as being in priority need, which again shows progress towards meeting the target.
Interestingly, the repeat homelessness figures have reduced from 9.8 per cent in the period 2002-03 to 5.5 per cent in 2010-11. We look forward to the publication next week—on 14 February—of the new homelessness statistics.
There is strong support among stakeholders for the 2012 commitment and the promotion of the housing options approach, which seeks to identify the possibility of homelessness at the earliest opportunity and to provide different options to those facing homelessness. That approach and the development of the hubs have been taken forward in the context of meeting the 2012 homelessness target. That work is also important in establishing a foundation for responses to homelessness beyond the 2012 target, with a clear focus on prevention and partnership work, which, in our view, will lead to improved outcomes for homeless people.
Thank you.
The Scottish Government’s written submission states that progress towards the 2012 commitment is being made and that in 2010-11
“88% of those assessed by local authorities were ... in priority need.”
However, we all know of the recent changes in the financial and policy environments. Given recent developments, how confident is the Scottish Government that local authorities will be able to meet and sustain the 2012 commitment?
That is a key question. When I have spoken to stakeholders I have likened the current situation to climbing a hill. As we reach the last, most difficult part of the climb, we are suddenly hit with two other factors, one of which is the economic situation. Obviously, the recession that we have just gone through led to an increase both in demand for housing and in homelessness. The second factor is welfare reform, particularly the housing benefit proposals, which is starting to bite and which makes the situation extremely difficult.
When we set off on this journey in 2003—when I was one of the signatories as a council leader—we probably did not expect the last part to be as difficult as it is. That said, we remain determined to achieve the target. As you said, real progress has been made. We will get a better idea about the progress that has been made most recently when the figures come out next week.
Do you think that there might be some slippage, given the financial and policy environment?
Two authorities in particular have problems just now. East Lothian Council has issues in identifying land for future development, so the supply side is a particular problem for it, and the City of Edinburgh Council has particular pressures, too. They have both said that they have real challenges, but we are determined to work with those authorities to ensure that they can get through the gate, if you like, by the end of the year. Although that is important, we are trying to focus on ensuring that what we achieve in terms of the target is sustainable in future years. We are therefore pushing very hard to ensure that every council gets through the gate this year and meets the target.
What is your impression of how meeting the target has impacted on services for homeless persons and the outcomes that are achieved?
It has to be an improvement, which is obviously the point of the target. The idea is that people will have a right to an offer of permanent accommodation. Much of the trauma around homelessness is to do with the fear and anxiety that it causes, so it is good if the target helps to eliminate or at least reduce such fear and anxiety. Of course, it just seems right that instead of facing the prospect of being shifted around temporary accommodation people have the right to an offer of permanent accommodation. That is important in a civilised society, and it is part of the reason why our approach has drawn such favourable comment from other countries. For example, although I was not there at the time, at Shelter’s conference yesterday, somebody from the States apparently spoke highly about what has been done here on homelessness. The policy has made and is making a difference to people.
The housing options hubs are a relatively recent development. England concentrated on that side of things to quite good effect, whereas in Scotland we had a hard target. Latterly, we have had both approaches. I highlight the prevention work that goes on in the hubs. As soon as someone thinks that there is a prospect that they might be homeless, work is done and different options are presented to them. That means that, in many cases, people no longer present as homeless at all, which is a very good outcome. The rights-based approach involving the target and the prevention approach are now working well together in Scotland, and we have learned some lessons from the work on prevention down south.
You are right. In Scotland we often beat ourselves up about not being good enough at what we do, but when Adam Ingram and I took evidence in Glasgow, we heard that people from around Europe and further afield were looking at Scotland as a model of how to do things, so we must be getting some things right.
Good morning, minister. I will ask a couple of questions, and probably a supplementary too.
The housing supply budget for 2012-13 has reduced by 41 per cent since 2011-12. How will that impact on your ability to meet and sustain your 2012 commitment?
There is no doubt that there are constraints on capital. We have rehearsed the figures before: there is a £1.3 billion cut to the Scottish Government’s budget, which is most pronounced in the area of capital, to the extent that our capital allocation will reduce by a third in the next three years. There is no doubt that that will have an impact.
We have tried to safeguard the areas in which we want to make progress, such as housing and transport, and which add to economic activity, as building houses does to a great extent. As I said to Shelter yesterday, building houses involves employing people who then pay tax rather than claim benefits, so it creates a virtuous circle.
I mentioned the target of 30,000. When I first got this job last year, people said, “You’re not going to achieve that.” Shelter said that to meet the target we would need around £610 million of expenditure; we have gone well above that amount in very difficult circumstances. It is not just about the money that the Scottish Government puts in, but about what we can do in concert with others: the £111 million that we allocated through the innovation and investment fund will draw in more than £200 million from other sources.
There is no doubt that we live in different times with regard to capital allocation. A major constraint that we face is the absurd situation in which the small council from which I came—Clackmannanshire—can borrow more money than the Scottish Government can.
Under the other part of my portfolio, we are building a new Forth crossing, which is the biggest ever capital project undertaken by this Parliament. We are looking to pay for that at the same time as we build it. However, if we sought to build houses, we would pay for that with a mortgage. Those are the constraints under which we operate, but despite that situation we have made available for housing an amount in excess of the £610 million for which Shelter asked, which shows the level of priority that we attach to the issue.
The legislation refers to those who are unintentionally homeless. Will there be a clarification for all councils of what that terminology means so that people do not interpret it differently?
Giving the homeless priority—while it is an excellent thing to do—will create tensions with people who are already on the housing list, perhaps because they are in smaller homes but need to move to larger accommodation or vice versa. What will be done to try to accommodate those families and individuals who are already on the list and waiting to move?
The fact that councils have, by and large, not built properties for the best part of 30 years has meant that local authority housing lists have grown. In the council area in which I was involved, the number of available council houses halved during that period, which creates pressure further down the line.
We have tried to address that by starting a substantial council house-building programme. At least 5,000 of the socially rented houses that I said would be built in the next four or five years will be council houses. Those are just the ones that we are supporting; councils are of course now free to build for themselves.
There was no point in councils building when the right to buy meant that they might build a house for £100,000 and then have to sell it for £50,000 a few weeks later. We have taken away that block to building.
You are right to identify the frustration of people who are trying to access a new house or a transfer not because of homelessness but because they have other needs. We recognise that frustration; the answer has to be new supply. That is one of the ways in which we are seeking to address the issue; another is through grants from the innovation and investment fund, from which housing associations have benefited.
Marion Gibbs might want to comment on the first part of your question. I think that the distinction is fairly well understood, but you are right to talk about the potential for local variation.
10:15
Marion Gibbs (Scottish Government)
The concept of unintentional homelessness has been around since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, so local authorities have come to understand what it means. We have supplemented the legislation with the code of guidance on homelessness, which gives more information about what unintentional homelessness covers. The tests are in the legislation; the code gives additional guidance. As far as we are aware, local authorities have not asked us for further clarification on unintentionality, but if there was an issue in that regard we would look at it.
I read an article about how one of the Ayrshire councils is looking at preventative action to reduce the number of people who make themselves homeless. How can such good practice be spread to other councils?
All councils will have the chance to be involved, through the five regional hubs. I take the point that currently not all councils are involved.
If, for example, someone is starting to get into difficulties with their mortgage, homelessness becomes a possibility, but things can be done to prevent that person from becoming homeless. Not long ago, Moray Council said that it would have difficulty achieving the target, but it has taken a preventative approach and has made huge progress—I think that it is about 95 per cent of the way towards meeting the target.
All councils have the chance to get involved in the prevention hubs, as do other partners, and councils should be aware of the dividends that have accrued from the approach. If a council has an issue with the target, it should consider getting involved, to enable it not just to achieve the target but to alleviate the pressure on other householders, as you said.
Can more be done to make public sector land available for acquisition by social landlords, for example through a public sector assets protocol?
Yes. There is always more that can be done. It requires a different way of thinking. During the previous session of the Parliament, John Swinney was keen to ensure that the different arms of the public sector were working together to achieve what is required.
The situation is different in different parts of the country. There is less pressure than there has been, because of the economic conditions. With the notable exception of land in East Lothian, land tends to be more available. The funding that is needed to make use of it is more of an issue.
Public bodies in all their guises should try to work in a more co-ordinated way to free up land for housing.
In the Scottish social housing charter, is there provision for a probationary period for tenants of new houses, to ensure that they adhere to the rules and regulations and do not become antisocial neighbours who upset other tenants?
We will come on to the charter later. During the past week we issued a consultation document that asks that very question. Behind the question is the idea that there are responsibilities that go with people’s rights to housing, which tenants should observe. We are consulting on the idea of graduated accrual of rights, such that a tenant gets the gold standard of a Scottish secure tenancy after a probationary period, and on the idea that people can lose rights in a graduated way, for example if they engage in antisocial behaviour that infringes other people’s rights. Such a loss of rights should not happen lightly, because the right to a house should be secure. However, antisocial behaviour is a blight on people’s lives and it is right that we try to address it. The matter, including the idea of probationary tenancies, is out to consultation.
Is there a facility to take preventative action with antisocial tenants so that they know what their problem is and try to address it?
That question belongs more to the next agenda item, on the Scottish social housing charter. Perhaps you can come back to the issue then, but I want to stick to housing supply and homelessness.
I will touch on an issue that the minister has mentioned. Can he tell us when a Scottish local authority last sold a brand-new house at a 50 per cent discount?
I do not have that information, but I can get it and pass it on to you.
I would be interested to hear the answer.
My next question is a straightforward one on an issue that the minister has mentioned a couple of times. Many councils have highlighted the difficulties of developing land for housing in the current market and economic environment. What support can the Scottish Government give local authorities to help them to kick-start private housing developments?
As you know from asking questions on the issue in the past, we have the national housing trust initiative, which seeks to draw together the private sector and local authorities to do that. In its first phase, the trust should produce around 600-plus houses, and a second phase is to follow. There has been a focus on the fact that the initiative started slowly, but it is effecting a cultural change, which does not happen quickly. There has been interest in the national housing trust from elsewhere and people are now looking at it positively. That is one way of drawing in the private sector. In that respect, we are tenure neutral—if we can get new housing in the private sector, we are happy to do that.
Over and above that, I return to the consultation to which I referred and to the issue of the extent to which social landlords can, if they want, move into the intermediate rent area. Currently, restrictions are placed on that, so we are considering whether we can make it easier for local authorities, for example, as social landlords to move into that area.
To turn to broader issues, can the Government do anything else to change the environment? To pluck an example out of the air, planning law was set in a rather different economic environment. Are changes required to the planning system to achieve what we want?
Changes are required, but they are happening. John Swinney has done work to simplify planning processes. A large planning application down south could involve payment of up to £0.25 million in planning fees whereas, under the current structure in Scotland, the maximum that will be paid is about a tenth of that. That takes us back to the convener’s earlier point that we often do not acknowledge what we do well. We try to make the planning process as easy as possible and there has been a huge drive towards achieving that, although more can always be done.
To return to the general point about making the process as easy as possible, you will know about the housing infrastructure loan fund, which seeks to help private developers—in fact, any developer, I think. If, for example, a developer is asked to provide a new road or community facility as part of a development, we can provide cheap finance, which would otherwise be difficult to get, to kick-start that development. On your basic question, we can always do more, and we are willing to consider that.
On the existing stock, Capability Scotland has voiced concerns about a shortage of what it describes as accessible housing stock. How can the Scottish Government address that issue?
One way of addressing it is through the money that we give to social providers to carry out adaptations. They can make adaptations in any event, but we provide them with money to help them to do so. Such work is valuable because it means that people can sometimes stay in their home when otherwise they would have to go into an institution.
I am struck by the extent to which new housing developments incorporate accessibility requirements as a matter of course. Yesterday, as is in the nature of my job, I visited two new housing developments. One of those developments had 32 houses, six of which were immediately adaptable. Increasingly, houses are built so that, even if they do not have adaptations already, they can be made easily, unlike tenements that were built many years ago. Many builders incorporate in new houses a wet room or shower room that is accessible by wheelchair, or wider corridors and spaces. Adaptations of existing stock can help but, increasingly, social housing developments and, in many cases, private developments, incorporate accessibility requirements from the start.
Minister, you said that you hoped that everybody would get through the gate by the end of the year. I was interested that you mentioned East Lothian and Edinburgh, which were the two councils that I visited—obviously, I know quite a lot about the situation in Edinburgh anyway. I am interested in how you will know whether someone has gone through the gate.
One thing that might happen is that people will spend longer in temporary accommodation. Officials in Edinburgh told us that a homeless person in Edinburgh already spends an average of nine months in temporary accommodation. Do you have concerns about that? To be fair, Shelter said that there was not necessarily a correlation between a local authority that assesses a high number of people as being in priority need and a spike in temporary accommodation—it gave quite strong evidence in that regard. However, given that Edinburgh already has people who spend a long time in temporary accommodation, by the end of the year will more people be spending longer in temporary accommodation? If so, what is your view of that?
When is someone through the gate under the legislation? There is supposed to be a right to permanent or settled accommodation, but within what time period is it reasonable to expect that that should happen?
As I said earlier, a basic requirement seems to us to be that a person knows that they will be made an offer of permanent accommodation. Previously, it was possible to have an offer of temporary accommodation that could go on for a long period.
Temporary accommodation is not always a bad thing. Many people prefer the temporary accommodation that they have to permanent accommodation elsewhere. By and large, however, people want to have permanent accommodation. In Edinburgh and elsewhere, some of the public focus has been on the quality of temporary accommodation, with bed and breakfast accommodation often being deemed to be the worst—that is not an environment in which you would like to bring up children.
Difficulties exist. As I said earlier, getting through the gate is not the end of the story; part of the continuing story is how long it takes someone to be made an offer of permanent accommodation. In the first instance, however, ensuring that people have that offer is important. Your question underlines the fact that there is much more to the legislation than what we have become focused on, which is the target of treating everyone in a particular way.
I met the City of Edinburgh Council recently because, as you know, there are particular issues in the city, some of which concern land acquisition and opportunities for development, although Edinburgh has been innovative in its approach to such issues. At the end of that meeting and subsequently, the council assured me that it is determined to try to achieve the target.
Marion Gibbs can say more about the time that is taken for an offer of permanent accommodation to be made.
The target does not cover the time that someone might need to spend in temporary accommodation. That is not part of the target, as such. The target simply concerns the right to settled accommodation of someone who is unintentionally homeless. However, obviously we are aware of the potential for increases in the time that people spend in temporary accommodation.
Much of the housing options approach is about trying to prevent homelessness in the first place by not putting people into temporary accommodation at that point. However, local authorities, such as Moray Council, which the minister mentioned, are able to use the housing options approach to reduce their use of temporary accommodation by reducing the number of people who have the right to it, which means that it is easier to meet people’s needs in a way that means that they do not have to spend as long in temporary accommodation as they might have previously.
Reducing the flow means that the council has a bit more time to spend with people. Moray Council has reduced its bed and breakfast usage to the extent that its bed and breakfast accommodation is used only for emergency periods. It has shelved plans to open a new hostel, because it does not need it anymore following its work on housing options, and it has reduced the number of temporary accommodation units in its area because it does not need as many of them.
We have always been aware that the implications of meeting the target might include more use of temporary accommodation and people spending a longer time in temporary accommodation. However, it seems that some councils are able to reduce the use of temporary accommodation and get the best outcome for the households that they are dealing with.
10:30
I understand that. I do not know about Moray, and obviously I am influenced by what I have seen particularly in Edinburgh but also in East Lothian, two councils that the minister has acknowledged face particular difficulties. Nevertheless, how will you know that councils are through the gate? I presume that they will be through it as long as they abolish priority need and that, as far as targets are concerned, you are fairly relaxed about whether the people in question are in temporary accommodation for a long time.
The issue that I wanted to ask about was the use of the private sector, which, again, the City of Edinburgh Council and East Lothian Council highlighted, although I know that other councils use the sector. Do you regard strengthening links with the private sector as an important part of the solution? I know that Edinburgh allocates people to private sector tenancies on a quasi-permanent basis, whereas East Lothian uses the private sector to provide extra temporary accommodation; however, East Lothian has said that it might consider whether the Edinburgh model might help in solving its problems. To what extent do you see the private sector as being part of the way forward? What might be the implications of such an approach? A year or so ago, you introduced regulations that modified the legal entitlement to settled accommodation to ensure that the duty could be discharged through the private sector. Do you have other plans to make it easier to use that sector?
The opportunity was taken up more by some authorities than by others. Given the pressures that Edinburgh was having to deal with, it was allowed to go down that route to help it achieve the target. My understanding is that the approach has worked extremely well; in fact, through that very initiative, a family member of mine has taken up private rented accommodation in Edinburgh.
Obviously, the situation will be different for different councils. For example, East Lothian has made more of a push towards acquiring former council houses; indeed, it has set aside a substantial amount—I think that the next tranche will be £14 million—to buy back such properties. Although different authorities will take different approaches, this particular approach has been successful where it has been taken.
As you rightly point out, we introduced regulations to make the private rented sector more available as an option for discharging the duty. In constructing those regulations, we got quite a number of different organisations, including Shelter, around the table to discuss the best way of taking this forward and of protecting people from certain aspects of the private rented sector. The draft regulations were introduced and now the regulations themselves are in place. However, having carried out a review, we have discovered that they have not been used to the extent that we thought they would be and we want to go back and consider the matter.
The only other point to make is that, when we first introduced the regulations, the details of the welfare reform agenda were not as clear as they are now; as a result, the private rented sector presented a more attractive option for discharging the homelessness duty. However, the proposed housing benefit changes, particularly for the under-35s—the group that we thought might benefit more from the sector—have created a number of challenges and risks. We were following the English model, in which the private rented sector offered a major means of helping people threatened with homelessness.
Is it right that the duty can be discharged in that way only if the potential tenant gives consent?
Yes.
Do the Welfare Reform Bill and its implications raise questions about possible changes to tenancy regimes? You mentioned changes to the private sector regime, but that could be problematic for the supply of private rented housing. On the under-35 group, which will face problems under the new regime, has any consideration been given to shared tenancies in the social rented sector?
This actually provides a good example of how the housing option hubs have been able to assist. We have been able to put some money into the hubs to do different types of housing benefit mitigation work—for example, publicity about the changes or tracking how people are being impacted by the changes and trying to help them. Perth and Kinross Council is looking at shared accommodation schemes involving flat sharing. A lot of such work is being done and we will pull it all together. The money started to be released in November and December last year, following the minister’s announcement in November.
Lots of different models are being used out there to try to mitigate the worst part of the housing benefit changes. Obviously, the under-35s are the critical group. The demographic of homelessness shows that that is the main group of single people who approach authorities for help. So, a lot of scrutiny and mitigation work is being done, which we will share across the hubs. If a hub comes up with lots of good ideas, they will be shared with other hubs, which can pick up on them if they are relevant to their area.
Other aspects of welfare reform are crucial for the private rented sector as well, particularly the change in relation to direct payments. We will require to consider further how that might impact on the private sector’s ability to continue to be involved to the same extent. In that regard, underoccupancy is perhaps not as big an issue for the private rented sector.
Having the housing benefit block of funds at our disposal would mean that we could do much more, for example to direct new supply. That is one reason why we think that that resource should be devolved; it would allow us to take a more co-ordinated approach.
People think that by the end of this year the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 will be fully implemented, but there are two uncommenced bits of the 2003 act. Does the Government have any views on those, which I think are local connection and intentionality? Are there any plans to commence those?
At the moment, the focus is mainly on the 2012 target itself and removing priority need status. Local authorities currently have the power to consider local connection, but the 2003 act proposes to remove that power completely. Arguably, though, local authorities do not have to consider local connection, given that it is a power but not a duty.
We have not taken the intentionality part of the 2003 act further forward because there are concerns about what it might achieve at the end of the day. It is still on the statute book and is definitely something that the Parliament passed, but the focus has been on the removal of the priority need test and on helping local authorities and others get to that part rather than on other provisions in the 2003 act.
We have changed certain elements. For example, the idea now is that people coming out of the armed services should not have to demonstrate a local connection.
Although local authorities have a legal duty towards homeless persons, they rely on making use of registered social landlord stock, particularly in stock transfer areas through, say, the section 5 referrals process. Obviously, that places pressure on RSLs to meet demand—for example, if the bulk of new lets went to homeless people, that would affect the ability of RSLs to meet other housing needs. How can the Scottish Government help to manage the pressure on RSLs in allocating their housing to different groups of people in housing need?
As I hinted earlier, there are competing pressures and if one of those pressures is prioritised, as we have prioritised tackling homelessness, there is the idea that other pressures can be exacerbated. Back in 2003, the choice was made that homelessness was a priority that was worth highlighting and focusing on. However, that does not mean that there are not other pressures and frustration for people, for example who want to downsize or increase the size of their house within an RSL’s housing stock or move to a different area.
The only answer to that is to increase the supply of suitable accommodation. I mentioned the Government’s investment programme, but many RSLs are exploring alternative ways of accessing finance—perhaps not publicly at this stage, because they are still working on it. In order to meet demand, some very dynamic RSLs are considering ways in which they can attract institutional finance to help them to increase their development programme. They are increasingly doing so in ways that will—with the Scottish Government’s encouragement—create new builds that are very energy efficient.
Affordability is usually expressed in terms of how high the rent is, but a house with very low rent and very high energy costs is not very affordable. If RSLs can drive down energy costs virtually to zero, they can increase the rent and the housing will still be affordable. That element is important, because it can attract institutional finance from investors who view the rate of return as being more attractive than it previously was.
The crucial point is to increase the supply of accommodation so that the additional demands—aside from the homelessness demands—can be met.
As you pointed out in a previous answer, the Scottish Government is under severe pressure with regard to its ability to support or increase housing supply. You mentioned innovative solutions to that. What are they?
I just mentioned one of the solutions, which involves RSLs. Traditionally, they have built because they received a certain level of grant from the Government, but that grant is not sustainable for the reasons that have been mentioned. Therefore, they are having to look at other ways of doing things, which has the potential to be hugely important for new supply.
I mentioned the council house-building programme. The 5,000 new houses alone will not meet the additional demand, but they are a huge step towards doing so, and we are seeking to increase that number. We are encouraging councils—whether or not they get the grant from us of around £30,000 per unit—to build more houses anyway.
We recognise that some councils, such as Renfrewshire and Dundee, are so close to the ceiling of their borrowing capacity that they cannot do that, so we will try to provide support for them, based on their needs, through other methods such as the innovation and investment fund.
In response to Alex Johnstone’s question, I mentioned the idea of trying to make it easier for private developers to build. We are genuinely tenure neutral, and we recognise that whoever is building the houses is employing people and creating a supply of stock. We can ask local authorities to help in that regard. East Lothian Council, for example, has done some tremendous things to try to make it easier for developers to build houses, some of which will be affordable housing.
Innovations such as the national housing trust, the mortgage-to-rent scheme that we introduced and the shared-equity initiatives are all designed to try to increase the supply of housing, which is the only way in which we will meet the pressures that you mentioned.
I will focus on the housing options hubs and the prevention of homelessness, which has been mentioned quite a bit already. Some of the issues that I wanted to touch on have been covered, but I have a few questions nonetheless.
You spoke very highly of the housing options hub approach, minister, so I presume that you believe that it has a future. Can you tell us what sort of future it has? Is the membership base of the hubs likely to be broadened? What type of support will the Scottish Government provide for the hubs in future?
10:45
Initially we provided the start-up funding of £0.5 million. The people involved are, by and large, stakeholders in the sector already, so we are not directly employing people to set up the hubs. Those people come from RSLs, councils and various third sector organisations that are involved in dealing with homelessness. The idea is to make the hub a first point of contact for people who may be facing homelessness. They can be given a range of options, some of which might involve debt counselling. For example, the citizens advice bureaux can provide them with information, which may mean that they do not lose their current house and therefore do not present as homeless.
As has been said, we have provided additional money to try to mitigate the worst effects of the housing benefit reforms, as we see them, and we have provided start-up funding, but the hubs have really been an attempt to bring different groups together. That has happened on a voluntary basis; we have not compelled people to come together. You ask about how the hubs will develop going forward. To an extent that will be based on what people feel that they get from them.
I mentioned the seminar that I spoke at. It is often hard to convey at a committee meeting such as this, but there was huge enthusiasm. It was as if many people, having worked in the sector for a number of years, felt liberated to be doing this kind of work with other people who are involved in the sector. It seems quite an obvious point now, but it is fair to say that England got to grips with the matter before we did. We have learned the lesson. We were much more focused on rights in the 2003 legislation.
The hubs definitely have a future, but their future depends first and foremost on those that are involved in the sector seeing the value in them. So far they seem to see that value.
So the hubs will sustain themselves, take on a life of their own and develop.
Questions arise. For example, at Shelter’s conference yesterday, somebody from a citizens advice bureau in the west of Scotland queried why they could not be involved. They felt that, by and large, their involvement was to stand up in—to be specific—Hamilton sheriff court and, when someone was about to be evicted, say why they should not be. That is the wrong end of the process to be involved in; they need to be involved much earlier. I did not get much chance to discuss the issue further with them, but they felt that there was a block on their being involved.
We will continue to take a role in ensuring that people who should be involved are involved. So far, we have done that by talking to people and encouraging their involvement and that seems to be working well. However, in the end it will depend on whether the people involved in the hubs see value in them. Every indication is that they currently do. None of that precludes further Government support if we deem that to be appropriate.
You are obviously very positive about the hubs.
I will play devil’s advocate and come back to the gate analogy that you and Malcolm Chisholm bandied about. Is there a danger that housing options hubs could become, as it were, a gatekeeper? Someone could present to them as unintentionally homeless and all that the hubs might do is to discourage the person from being registered as such. How do you ensure that such people do not just come back again a little further down the line? Is the system working? Are people going away because it is judged that they are not unintentionally homeless after all?
I return to the point that repeat homelessness is substantially falling, but the figures that we have for that predate the hubs coming into being, so we will have to keep an eye on the issue. If the trend were to reverse and there was an increase in repeat homelessness, that would be an issue for us. We have to have a look at how the hubs are working. The evidence does not seem to indicate that what you suggest has been happening.
The approach that is being taken is about housing options, so people are presented with options; it is not about trying to circumvent any desire that they have to get housed. They can still go straight to the council and say, “I am homeless—I need to be housed.” The hubs are there in addition to that option. I do not know whether Marion Gibbs wants to say more about their work.
The gatekeeping argument has always been the one that has come alongside the housing options one. We have learned from the experience in England of housing options, which is why the model is more about partnership working with local authorities than about individual local authorities doing stuff, so that they can learn from each other about how best to do it.
The important point is that we still have the critical safety net of the homelessness legislation, and this is not about eroding that in any way. If an individual household presented to the hub, they would have an opportunity to look through the housing options. If those were not available for them, the homelessness legislation would be the safety net that would pick them up and give them rights. It is about trying to get the best solution for the household, which may or may not involve use of the homelessness legislation, depending on the circumstances and options available in the area and on their needs.
I can give you a little more reassurance on that point. We have asked an independent organisation to undertake an evaluation of the housing hubs. The organisation concerned is Ipsos MORI, which generally produces very good information, so I look forward to seeing its findings at the end of March. That will give us an evaluation from an outside organisation of how well the hubs are doing and will cover the issue that has been raised.
I hope that we will be able to see that information as well, as the committee has an interest in it.
One other aspect of the prevention of homelessness that has been touched on a few times is the repossession of people’s houses—you touched on it with Margaret McCulloch. In the first quarter of last year—from January to March 2011—local authorities received from creditors 4,495 notifications of households that were at risk of homelessness as a result of eviction proceedings. That was an 81 per cent increase on the same period in the previous year, which probably reflects the times that we are in as much as anything else. What can the Government do with the limited powers that it has to influence the repossession policies of lenders?
I hope that underlying that question is an acknowledgement of the Government’s frustration at having to deal with the consequences of things the causes of which it cannot deal with.
We have done work on preventing repossessions—I think that Nicola Sturgeon undertook it. I acknowledge the figures that you mentioned, but we have not had anything like the numbers of repossessions that were predicted at the start of the recession back in 2008-09. The lenders are helping with that to an extent, but it is up to us to try to address the matter.
To marry this and your previous question, the housing options hubs have the chance to go in and bring other expertise to bear, such as debt counselling. I have mentioned that service a couple of times, although it is not the only thing that the hubs do.
Have I answered your question, Jamie? Were you trying to draw out a particular aspect of the matter?
What interactions do you have with lenders and what influence can you bring to bear on their repossession policy?
We have dialogue with the Council of Mortgage Lenders—in fact, I was at a dinner last week at which the CML was present—although it focuses much more on access to finance to buy houses in the first place.
On retail lending, if the banks do not start to listen to what many people have been asking of them over a number of years, they will simply be bypassed. I mentioned the work that some of the housing associations are doing on accessing wholesale finance to try to produce new supply.
It was suggested that it costs as much to provide one 95 per cent mortgage as it does to provide seven 75 per cent mortgages. In response, I made the point that people are looking for 95 per cent mortgages, provided that they are sustainable.
We have a dialogue with the CML, but I do not pretend that we are in the driving seat. The United Kingdom Government obviously has much more ability to influence lenders than we do. That said, there has been a real benefit from the work that was done in the previous session of Parliament, such that there have been far fewer repossessions than were predicted.
Marion, do you want to say anything about other dialogue that we have with the lenders?
The Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 ensures that lenders have to go through particular processes before they can seek repossession, so it gives a degree of certainty that they are going through the right procedures. Part of that process is to negotiate and try to ensure that people are able to remain in their homes. We already touched on mortgage-to-rent schemes for people who are threatened with homelessness. They come through that act as well.
The notices that Jamie Hepburn mentioned—section 11 notices—are just indicators that lenders might take repossession action; they are not necessarily always an indication that repossession is happening. There is a slight mismatch in the figures, partly because of the way that the notices come through. There is always a bit of a lag, so we will need to look at the homelessness statistics that will come out next week to see some of the impact and find out whether people have come through the homelessness route or found other solutions to their housing issues.
I have a question on joint working. I visited the Ayrshire and south housing options hub and found that people were highly enthusiastic. They felt that that initiative and the homelessness target agenda had brought people together not only across local authorities in the area but within local authorities. The minister mentioned the welfare reform agenda, which brings its own pressures. Can the Government do more to encourage services to work together and to bring about a culture change in our approach to the housing, social work, social care and health agendas?
Yes, we can always do more. We want to sustain the enthusiasm that exists for that approach, which was evident in the seminar that I mentioned. To be honest, I do not always get a buzz at COSLA meetings, but there was a real buzz in the room at that seminar. There were some people who even worked in the same authority—and, I presume, towards the same ends—but who had not had that conversation previously. Increasingly, local authorities, RSLs, debt counselling organisations and others are working together. Our role must be to encourage that further, which might mean further Government financial support if that is necessary.
Given that dynamic, I do not envisage that people will want to walk away from that work. The issues that they face will exist well beyond the achievement of the target. The momentum is such that the work will continue of its own accord, and the Government wants to encourage that. As I said, yesterday, I had drawn to my attention an instance of somebody who should be inside the tent but who is still outside. We want to help people to make the connections where we can.
More generally, Adam Ingram’s point is about work across the sectors. More can always be done on that. For example, 13 years ago, the council of which I was a member set up a housing, health and social work committee to try to draw together those cross-cutting activities. Nowadays, there is more recognition of the way in which housing impacts on health, and vice versa. We have established the change fund, which will mean that people will think about those issues. For example, as I said in response to a previous question, if houses are adapted so that people can stay at home, rather than having to go into an institution, that provides benefits for everybody. The approach that we have taken so far has been about encouragement but, if further Government support is needed, we will consider that.
The hub that I visited was strong on addressing the needs of children and young people to prevent homelessness. It also provided mediation to deal with family issues, which are the root cause of many of the problems. That is a move towards a prevention and early intervention agenda, which the Government is trying to progress more generally. What relationship do you have with other ministers who are pushing forward that agenda? Are you taking particular initiatives on that front?
Yes. To return to the point that I made about the change fund, there are meetings between ministers on that, because we have a joint interest in it. Generally, as Adam Ingram will know, a number of meetings are held at which ministers from different portfolios come together to achieve things jointly. That is best done by having a direction or purpose that is about trying to achieve certain outcomes, and then considering how people can contribute to that.
To return to Adam Ingram’s point about what is happening on the ground, social landlords—not all of them, but the best ones—have been doing mediation for some time. For example, some have child and adolescent mental health teams that deal with antisocial behaviour. Although, as I mentioned in response to Margaret McCulloch, it is important that we stress that people have responsibilities as well as rights when they are given a tenancy, the work that can be done before that must happen, whether it involves social work services, the police or other agencies. It is clear that that will not work with certain individuals, for whom we must have a different way of dealing with the issues, but it should happen as a matter of course. We can always do more to ensure that it happens in every instance.
I want to ask about the Welfare Reform Bill. The committee has heard evidence about the potential negative impact of the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reform agenda on homelessness policy in Scotland. The Scottish Council for Single Homeless said:
“no account seems to have been taken of the homelessness legislation in Scotland, whereby local authorities in Scotland have a legal duty to provide temporary accommodation, which is not the case in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 14 December 2011; c 555.]
Given the impact that the bill would have on the 2012 target, did the Scottish Government get the opportunity to make any representations prior to its being introduced?
11:00
Yes, we made a number of representations. I am not sure how many times I wrote, but I know that Alex Neil, in his previous role as well as in his current role, and Nicola Sturgeon have written to their relevant counterparts. However, it is not obvious that that has had much of an impact. Indeed, when I went to meet the UK housing minister last year, he asked me what the issues were, despite the fact that I had written to him about them more than once. That suggested that he was not fully cognisant of what the issues in Scotland might be. I told him that we understand the point that the UK Government is making about its pressures in the south-east of England in particular, with the housing market there being as it is, but explained why things are different here, not least in some of the ways that have been mentioned. However, that has not had the required impact on the UK Government so far, although it seems to have had an impact in the House of Lords.
We have made our representations in an extremely reasonable and measured way, and we have tried to point out some of the difficulties. Direct payments are a potential problem, as is underoccupancy. That will become less of an issue when we get back to the right levels of supply, but telling somebody that their housing benefit will be cut because they have an extra room although they cannot easily go to smaller accommodation does not seem to be smart to us. It is quite possible that the housing benefit changes will end up costing the state more because of their effect. We have made those points clear, and we are continuing to do so.
As part of the homelessness inquiry, Malcolm Chisholm and I visited the City of Edinburgh Council, which raised the concerns that you have raised to do with under-35s and housing benefit being paid to tenants. An issue relating to underoccupancy was highlighted. Traditionally, that council has not built one-bedroom flats; rather, it has built two-bedroom flats to give more flexibility. Some 4,500 tenants in Edinburgh are underoccupying properties although, obviously, not all of them will be on housing benefit. Given the changes that are coming along, can the Scottish Government do anything to mitigate the housing benefit changes?
Two things occur to me straight away. First, we have given extra money to the housing hubs specifically for mitigation activity, to prepare in the best way for what is about to come and to protect people from some of its consequences. We can directly support that, and we are doing so.
Secondly, you rightly mentioned the accommodation that people currently have. The underlying assumption is that people are living in accommodation that is too generously proportioned. Councils and other social providers can start to address that anomaly through their allocation process. That is not easy to do, but let us consider, for example, a person who has lived in a three or four-bedroom council house for 30-odd years and whose kids have moved on. In the past, many councils have said, “Right. If you want to get a new property, you qualify for a one-bedroom house.” People would have the right to stay in the existing house, but they might want to have a two-bedroom house, because somebody frequently comes to stay with them. The issue is making the system more flexible so that the person is offered a two-bedroom house and the three or four-bedroom house is thereby freed up. Therefore, there are things that social landlords can do to try to address anomalies, and we are encouraging them to do them. We are looking at how we can take that process further in the consultation that I mentioned.
However, we cannot get past the current levels of housing stock. Over time, all the new build will replace around 10 per cent of the current stock, but the current stock will still make up a high proportion of housing. It is important to make the best use of it, but I think that the underoccupancy provisions in the Welfare Reform Bill were really to address an issue that does not exist across the whole of England but is concentrated in the south-east. They do not fit with what we are trying to do in Scotland, and we have made the point that the approach is wrong. I think that things are particularly difficult for councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council.
When we were taking evidence out and about, we heard that many people who present as homeless do so as a result of family relationship breakdowns. Young people are leaving home as a result of such breakdowns. Also, people leave prison without having a positive destination. What more can be done, which is not already being done, to address the root causes of homelessness?
More can always be done and improvements can always be made in every area of public policy—we have to start with that mindset.
There is sometimes rather sensationalist reporting about people who come out of prison and are housed under the homelessness legislation, while other people are waiting for housing, as members said. However, we should consider the social and economic consequences of homelessness among ex-prisoners. Repeat homelessness presentations are much higher in that group than they are in the general population. Whatever the interests of the prisoner, it must be in the interests of society to have people come out of prison and into sustainable tenancies.
A lot of work has been done on that. The housing options approach helps. There is also the supported accommodation implementation group, which is coming up with proposals in relation to people who are at particular risk of homelessness. Prisoners and young people are both in that category—I hate to categorise the two groups together. We are working hard with justice colleagues to ensure that offenders have access to appropriate advice and support, to help to ensure their reintegration into the community.
I can give an example, although it is not to do with prisoners or even young people in particular. The Bethany Christian Trust in Edinburgh provides housing, often for people who have drug addictions and so on. Not only is the trust good at finding houses for people in such a situation, in areas that will suit them, it provides support to ensure that the tenancy is sustainable. There is an acknowledgement that, for a person who has a chaotic lifestyle, a tenancy is a huge responsibility to take on, so the person might need support to sustain the tenancy. The benefit is that the person might not revert to their previous way of life, losing the tenancy and perhaps leaving the house empty and in a bad condition for a long time.
There are real social benefits from providing such a level of support—for prisoners and young people, too, to different extents. We want to give young people such support, partly through education. Through the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, which is based in Edinburgh, we fund work with young people on the responsibility of taking on a tenancy, to support them in that move.
That perhaps does not answer your question about family breakdown. As Adam Ingram said, we need to encourage mediation to address the problem.
Young people are a focus of the Scottish Government and COSLA 2012 steering group, because a high percentage of the overall statistics relates to young people. In about 67 per cent of cases, family breakdown was a reason for the homelessness. Colleagues in the group—such as North Ayrshire Council, as Mr Ingram knows from his experience of the hub—have done a lot of work on the issue.
It is about acknowledging that, although a young person has come to the local authority to present as homeless, there is potential to work with them to enable them to go back to the family home, perhaps with periods of respite. Of course, we must be very aware of safety considerations in that regard. Such an approach can lead to a far more planned move out of the family home, which does not disrupt important social networks. There are interesting ways of addressing homelessness among young people—there are definitely things that can be done. North Ayrshire Council has had great success in setting up mediation and other activities in that regard.
On prisoners, we are working closely with colleagues in the supported accommodation implementation group, as the minister said. We are also trying to ascertain how we can prevent homelessness, through the reducing reoffending project. We want to ensure that, if someone has accommodation but is sent to prison, they do not lose their accommodation—that happens—and that, when someone comes out of prison, they will not immediately have to make a homelessness application, by identifying appropriate accommodation options for people on release. A lot of work is going on to try to address the issue.
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The committee will consider all the evidence that it has heard and we will produce our findings during the next few weeks.
11:10
Meeting suspended.
11:14
On resuming—