Evictions Due to Underoccupation Deductions (PE1468)
The next item of business is to welcome the convener, who has arrived. [Laughter.]
Thank you, deputy convener. I start off by thanking the Welfare Reform Committee for giving my colleagues and I the opportunity to speak on behalf of Govan Law Centre’s “no evictions for bedroom tax” petition.
Thank you very much, Mike. I apologise to you, to committee colleagues and to members of the public present for my late arrival. I set off 15 minutes earlier than normal, but ended up arriving five minutes later because of traffic.
The easiest way to look at this is simply to follow what our judges have said. You might remember the English Court of Appeal cases of Burnip, and Trengove and Gorry, which were successful cases involving severely disabled children who the Court of Appeal said were entitled, under human rights legislation, to occupy their own bedroom in a tenancy property. The Court of Appeal said that the argument that disability benefits could be used to supplement any shortfall in rent was wrong in law and principle because disability benefits are for subsistence.
In your letter to the Public Petitions Committee, you said that there are
What it tells you is that that is the number of eviction cases that are raised in Scotland. In fact, there are more notices of proceedings—I think that there are about 60,000. However, 14,000 is the figure of eviction cases that are raised in court. We need to bear it in mind that it is the great benefit of law centres, citizens advice bureaux and money advice agencies that we are very successful in preventing people from being evicted. The Scottish Government and various public bodies put a lot of money into the advice sector, and we are successful.
Last year, the Government and housing regulator figures showed that there were 1,600 evictions related to rent arrears, of which 950 were local authority tenants and 688 were housing association tenants. I know that it is said that eviction is the last resort—we all hope that it would be—but tomorrow’s court roll for Glasgow includes 104 eviction cases for rent arrears, so it is, rather than a last resort, a normal occurrence. We see people being taken to court day in, day out.
The figures do not tell exactly how many people have exited their tenancies before a decree was granted. In many cases, when eviction proceedings start people leave the property and may then stay with friends or find a property in the private rented sector. The sheriff courts may have given the exact figure for evictions, but that does not tell how many people have left because of the threat or process of eviction.
In Glasgow, 50 cases are probably going to court a month as a result of section 11 notifications. Eviction cases are very much a normal occurrence.
I have no doubt that the work of Mr Dailly’s organisation and others plays a huge role in ensuring that there are fewer evictions now than there were in the past. Mr Sharp said that it is hoped that eviction is the last resort. However, the matter is set out in law, and the changes that have been made to the Housing (Scotland) Action 2010 by the Scottish Government surely play a role here; we have strong protection against eviction in Scotland. Is it not much stronger here than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom?
I would not say that that is the case. The Scottish Government has done a lot of good things, including the introduction of pre-action requirements. However, there is a huge flaw and weakness in them, too, because they engage only before the notice of proceedings is served, which is at the start of a matter, way before people are taken to court. The problem is that, because of how pre-action requirements are drafted in law, many of the requirements on social landlords bite and engage only if the tenant responds. In real life, people have all sorts of crises going on, so when it comes to getting into rent arrears when they have problems with the kids or in their personal life or are losing their job, they often do not engage with their social landlord until someone is tapping on the door, at which time you are basically looking at court action.
Mr Dailly mentioned the forthcoming universal credit. Is not it the case that, once that is introduced, it will be much harder to extrapolate any reductions in housing benefit because that will be wrapped into a single payment? Will not that make it much harder for the proposal in your petition to work in practice?
Yes. I will deal with the universal credit, and will then pass to my colleague, Garry Burns.
Universal credit has still to be rolled out; it is being introduced in Inverness on 21 November, so we will see what happens then. However, as it stands, people who make a housing benefit claim get an award letter that is addressed to them and which tells them what they will get. That letter now tells claimants very plainly how much has been taken off their housing benefit as a result of the underoccupation reduction—the so-called bedroom tax—so the claim that people cannot work out the bedroom tax element of their housing arrears is simply not true. I have an award letter with me—the name of the person in question has been redacted—which clearly shows an underoccupation reduction of £8.35 a week. It is very simple to work out the bedroom tax element of arrears because it is in the letter of award.
The housing associations are working things out as well. When we get referrals, we get forms that set out the amount of bedroom tax people have to pay, how much they are in arrears and how much they owe each month.
I want to clarify a couple of things. According to your evidence, there have been 14,000 attempts to move eviction court actions in Scotland. Is that right?
That is the number of new actions that were raised last year; the figure was contained in a Shelter Scotland report. However, you also have to bear in mind the way in which eviction actions work in Scotland. Often, people pay only £3.75 towards their arrears, so those cases get sisted or put to sleep and can sit around in sheriff courts for 10 or 15 years. The 14,000 figure is for the number of new cases; there are also thousands of sisted or continued cases floating around.
The point of the proposed legislation would be to stop that number increasing because of the bedroom tax.
Absolutely. We have always taken the view that the proposal is not a long-term solution or panacea; the only long-term solution or panacea is to get rid of the bedroom tax, which is something that I think that all of us—or almost all of us—agree on. We are simply asking what we are going to do in the next one, two or three years, because the fact is that things are going to collapse in this country. The country has a housing crisis. We are on the side of social landlords and work incredibly closely with them—indeed, there are members of the law centre’s management committee in the audience who are actually chairs of housing associations—but we are saying that it makes no economic sense to evict someone because of the bedroom tax over the next one, two or three years.
Just to clarify, you are not proposing any blanket exemption.
No. If a tenant did not in general pay their rent, they would be subject to the full force of the law and ultimately eviction. As I think I said at the outset, in recognising that there is no easy solution to the situation apart from scrapping the bedroom tax, we have tried to think about what we need to do to keep everything afloat in the meantime and ensure that social landlords do not become insolvent and that tenants and their families do not go through the human misery of the threat of eviction. Those who remember the poindings and warrant sales situation that the Parliament did a lot to rectify back in 2001 will recall that it was not the warrant sales but the poindings that caused people grief. In 1999, there were 23,000 poindings and 415 warrant sales, but it was the threat of those things that terrified people. We are now seeing elderly people and young people who have never been in arrears before, and they are terrified of the bedroom tax.
We cannot pre-empt the evidence that we will hear from others shortly but one of the main arguments against the measure is that it will be difficult to distinguish between the arrears caused by other reasons and the arrears caused by the bedroom tax. How do you respond to that?
My colleague Garry Burns has already answered that, and we can give the committee the letters that we have mentioned. As we have said, universal credit is not coming to this country any time soon.
People who are on benefits are quite capable of making the calculation themselves. A lot of people are saying, “What if they don’t know how to work it out?”, but that is disrespectful to people who are on benefits. They can and will be able to work these things out. Their home matters to them, and if they get the underoccupation penalty, they know and understand exactly how much is being deducted. They can work it out for themselves; if they cannot, it is for agencies such as Govan Law Centre and Citizens Advice Scotland to support them.
What is the difference between local authorities pursuing a no-evictions policy and the proposed bill?
If you are asking us whether, if we have nothing else, the local authorities’ policy is a good thing, we would say that it absolutely is. Of course it is; it is progressive. You will remember that the first local authority in Scotland to have the policy was Dundee City Council, and the convener of that council at the time paid great tribute to Govan Law Centre for developing the policy.
Can I pose the question the other way round?
We are running out of time, so please make this your last question.
The Scottish Government opposes your proposal but supports local authorities’ no-evictions policy. I cannot work out the logic behind that.
It is difficult to work out the logic. We started this morning with the principle that there is a consensus in Scotland that, where people cannot downsize, they should not be evicted and made homeless solely because of the bedroom tax, as opposed to non-payment of their rent. I think that we all agree an eviction because of the bedroom tax would be shocking and wrong. The Scottish Government agrees with that. I think that it supports the principle that underpins the proposed bill. It has put £22 million into discretionary housing payments, which suggests that it does not want to see people being evicted because of the bedroom tax.
Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for coming in. I have two quick—I hope—questions. First, in Mr Dailly’s letter of 17 June 2013 to the assistant clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, he refers to “pro-tenant housing charities”. That phrase leapt off the page at me. Will you clarify what you meant? I presume that you are not implying that there are anti-tenant housing charities—or maybe you are implying that; I do not know. Some clarification would be really helpful.
I am certainly not aware of any anti-tenant charities. We were trying to convey that it is really important to hear charities that are not the usual suspects. If we are absolutely candid about it, there is a tendency in the Scottish Parliament for big organisations to be asked to give evidence. We understand why that is the case, but it is really important to hear the voices of other charities from time to time.
Mike Dailly is referencing three organisations in Glasgow city centre, which we would call day centres. They are used by homeless people and people in extreme poverty. Such organisations have views on housing and homelessness, but I have very seldom heard of their views being heard. It tends to be major charities that make statements on homelessness and housing, but the charities that I am talking about—Glasgow City Mission, the Lodging House Mission and the Marie Trust; I urge members to have a wee look at their websites—work face to face with people who are in the very worst poverty in Glasgow, and their views are very often excluded from discussions such as this one.
I seek clarification of a point that Mr Dailly made. If I understood correctly what he said about his suggested approach to the petition, the solution would be a short to medium-term one of one, two or three years, but what about what happens next? If a Tory-led Government is elected in the Westminster elections in 2015, there is nothing to suggest that it would seek to scrap the policy. A Tory-led Government introduced the policy, and it has not, sadly, indicated any U-turn—perhaps Mr Johnstone could clarify that for us. What would be your plan B? Obviously, the Scottish Government is clear about what it seeks: it seeks the powers for the Scottish Parliament to be able to scrap the bedroom tax in total. How do you see your proposal in those circumstances?
Such things are always very difficult. There is a debate at Westminster today on a call for the bedroom tax to be scrapped immediately, and there is a consensus. I think that the SNP and Labour are on the same page on that, although we do not know whether there will be any change from the Liberal Democrats.
That was helpful.
I kept talking, though.
I want to go back to the petition, because there are a couple of things on which I would like more explanation. The petition says that rent arrears would be
The petition and the proposed bill come at the issue of debt from a legally neutral position, in the sense that all that we are interested in is the idea that the bedroom tax bit can tip the balance and basically put people under. Most eviction actions in Scotland proceed by what is called a variable summons. A social landlord would raise an action seeking a decree for ejection as a crave and a payment decree. Somebody with £1,500 of arrears would be taken to court by the social landlord and the landlord would look for a decree to eject them and a decree for payment of £1,500. Whether they would get the £1,500 if they evicted them is another issue. None of that would change under the proposed bill. Say for example a tenant has had their case sisted in court and is paying arrears direct of £3.75 a week. They have been struggling to keep things on an even keel, but that payment has been fine and everybody has been happy with it—to be fair, social landlords will take tiny sums of money off people because they know that there is nothing else they can do about it. Then the bedroom tax comes along and takes £14 off the tenant in a week. Their £3.75 goes out the window and basically their arrears go up and up and up. Our big concern is that in such situations people are able to be evicted. If the proposed bill became law, the tenant would still be paying the £3.75 in arrears and everything would be fine, but the bedroom tax element of the arrears would not mean that they could be evicted. We think that we are on the same page as the Scottish Government on that in principle.
I am sorry to interrupt you, but I am aware that we are short of time. I get all that. At the end of the day the tenant still has a debt for arrears for the bedroom tax. What I am trying to get to is, who pursues that debt? That is really important.
You are absolutely right, and that will happen whether the proposal is implemented or not. Nothing is changing there. Who would ultimately have to try to get the money back? The social landlord would have to do it. If you are asking what is the best way to resolve the problem, the answer is obviously for the Scottish Government to meet the £52 million.
This is what I am finding it really difficult to get my head round. There is a legal argument going on as to whether under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 the Scottish Government could meet that debt. So, the tenant would then owe the Scottish Government money.
No. There are all sorts of different ways that it could be done. Housing law is devolved to this Parliament. If this Parliament wants to write off elements of arrears for particularly good social policy reasons, that is within its gift.
So you are talking about writing off the ordinary debt.
I am not talking about writing off the ordinary debt. What we are saying with this petition is, “We have a housing crisis in Scotland. If we all just sit back and wait for three years”—
Mike, I am sorry to interrupt but I get all that. We are on the same page when it comes to the bedroom tax. I am trying to get at the reality of how your proposals would affect a housing association and the other tenants within the housing association, for example. The regulator could also take the view that the housing association is not pursuing its debts.
Perhaps there is a better way for me to convey the point. A lot has been said about our proposal encouraging people not to pay their rent, but it could be argued that putting £22 million into DHP does that because people might think that the DHP will pay their rent. We are seeing people taking out payday loans to make up the shortfall—
I know. I see them as well. They come into my surgery every day. I am looking for straightforward answers about who pursues the ordinary debt that the person is left with, what is the position of the housing association, and how the regulator will feel about that.
Social landlords pursue debts all the time. When they evict someone, they have to pursue the decree that they got for the rent arrears. Ultimately, if the landlords get the decree, it is 20 years before it proscribes in law. It is happening all the time, and people will try and get out of it.
But they will still have an ordinary debt instead of a bedroom tax debt.
It is not really about an ordinary debt. In the eviction process, people will get with a variable summons a decree for ejection and a decree for payment. Tenants in Scotland always have an ordinary debt, if you like, but there is a difference for the landlord. The landlord can kick tenants out of the house because they need to rent the house to get a rental income and have a sustainable business model. However, if you look at the economics of the sustainable business model, you will see that it cannot possibly be sensible to evict someone in the short to medium term.
Has all that been run past the housing regulator and considered in terms of the regulation of and governance models for housing associations?
This is a matter of policy and the body that deals with policy in Scotland is the Scottish Parliament.
The governance of housing associations is also an issue.
The tenants should be considered as well. I have heard a lot about housing associations and local authorities but I have not heard anything about what tenants feel.
Well I have, Mr Burns.
We all have, convener.
I hear day and daily what tenants are feeling. Every one of us does.
So do I.
I think that we are on the same page with that one.
But if you ask a tenant if they would rather have a debt or a debt with the possibility of eviction, they would rather have the debt, and that is the point that this petition represents.
Like my colleagues around the table, I am being questioned day and daily about this issue. We are seeing the chaos that the policy that Westminster has imposed on us is causing.
The most recent research showed that overall debt has increased by a small number—about 1 per cent—in comparison with an increase of about 4 or 5 per cent in rent arrears. On the point about chasing up the debt later, that happens with eviction cases at present. So the worry about paying the debt later on applies now, but people can be evicted, and they will have the £1,500 debt when they find work and will need to start paying it back. All that we propose is to prevent people from having to go through the eviction process and become homeless. Having worked on homelessness for a wee while, I can assure you that the homelessness process is horrible. It is as nice as it can be and there are examples of it working well, but there are a lot of examples of it working poorly. The current situation will put extra pressure on homelessness services, but that would not happen if our policy was taken forward.
Further down the line, we could take a bold step and write off the debt. In England and Wales, poll tax arrears had to be written off. We did not do that in Scotland, which was a great mistake, because lots of people were pursued for very small amounts, such as water and sewerage charges of £200 or £300 that people could not get benefits for. The issue was resolved in England. We could have a discussion about that. To be fair, we take Kevin Stewart’s point that there is no magic wand here, apart from scrapping the bedroom tax. We are—almost—all agreed that that is what we should do but, until it happens, our sole concern is that, as I have said, in the short to medium term it makes no sense to evict people. All the problems that Mr Stewart talked about are valid ones to raise, but they are going to happen anyway.
Mr Dailly said where there is a will, there is a way. Under a later agenda item, we will talk about the council tax reduction; yet, just last week in the Parliament, we saw an attempt by certain members of the Labour Party to block regulations on that and to prevent that mitigation. Who is to say that there will not be attempts at the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to say that we do not actually have the powers to do what you propose and that we are impinging on Westminster’s responsibilities?
We thought long and hard when we came up with the proposal, so we did not just pluck it out of thin air. The matter is incredibly difficult, which is why we have focused purely on the ejection issue. Of course, that is regulated by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. That is why we have kept the proposal incredibly narrow. We are conscious of the points that you make and we want to do something that we think can help people and social landlords in Scotland. There is no question whatsoever that the proposal would not be within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Dailly also talked about social apartheid. I would perhaps not be quite so harsh, but in some regards it is what I would call the usual Tory divide-and-rule approach. We have the suggestion on dealing with the bedroom tax. Mr Dailly also said that he thinks it unlikely that universal credit will come in, but other housing benefit changes are already having effects on people such as tenants in the private rented sector who are under 35. What should we do about that situation?
Actually, the provision on under-35s in the private sector comes with a lot of caveats, including on single mothers, people with disabilities and people who have been homeless or who have previously been in local authority care. It is an issue, but it affects fewer people than are affected by the bedroom tax. The caveats that come with it do not make it a great policy, but they mitigate the effects. Also, people in the private sector can move a lot more freely than those in the social rented sector.
As someone who represents an area in which there is quite heavy reliance on the private sector, I do not think that the problem is as small as you might think it is.
I did not say that it is a small problem; I said that it is smaller than the bedroom tax.
We have overrun a bit, but it was important that we got into the detail of the issue so that we could consider it as fully as possible. I hope that members agree that we have done that and that we managed to avoid major speeches, although some members still tried to push it out a bit. I thank the witnesses for giving us their views, which we will consider in due course after we have taken more evidence.
I welcome our second panel of witnesses: Jim Hayton, policy manager for the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers; David Bookbinder, head of policy and public affairs at the Chartered Institute of Housing; David Ogilvie, policy manager at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations; and Councillor Harry McGuigan, spokesperson on community wellbeing for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Thank you, convener. As I have been asked to be brief, I will be very brief indeed.
Thank you, Mr Hayton.
Members will know that it sometimes takes me five minutes to say hello, but I will try to avoid that by sticking to my script.
I reassert that CIH Scotland deeply deplores the bedroom tax and, like many other people, wishes that it could be scrapped.
The SFHA is very grateful for the invitation to give evidence to the committee. We, too, say that the bedroom tax is deeply unfair and extremely incompetent. We are calling for it to be scrapped, and we have done so this morning in briefing members’ colleagues at Westminster to that effect on the Opposition day debate. We make that call consistently, day in and day out.
I thank all our witnesses. It took a bit longer than I thought that it would to hear all the statements, but it was important to get each organisation’s statement on the record so that we can look at exactly what has been said.
I agree that there is very little difference. CIH was not supportive of the minister imploring local authorities to adopt a so-called no-evictions approach, because we think that when that message is well publicised—it was very well publicised by a number of local authorities—and no matter how well intended it is, it inadvertently gives all the wrong messages. It sends a message that it does not really matter whether a person pays their rent. CIH is not of the view that the minister’s approach was correct; nor is the proposed bill a correct approach. We think that both approaches are very unfortunate, because they give the wrong message about rent payment.
May I suggest that that view gives a very poor perception of the people out there who are suffering from rent arrears? It suggests that there is somehow an audience of people out there who are looking for a way of excusing themselves from the responsibility of paying rent. As far as we are concerned, people do not like being in debt. They do not wait for North Lanarkshire Council to announce that it will take this particular protective measure so that they can say, “Although I’ll be in debt, I’ll continue to be in debt.” The petition is about eviction; it is not about the debt, which will still be there. It must be understood that the debt will still be there.
ALACHO members in councils felt pretty much the same way about the minister’s statement as they feel about the petition, which is that there are inherent dangers in both if they encourage tenants to think that paying rent is less than important. There was a lot of interest in the first no-evictions policy when it was announced. At first, it looked like a blanket no-evictions policy but, when it was scrutinised a bit more closely, it became apparent that it contained a lot of caveats. In particular, as David Bookbinder said, the essence of the policy was that tenants had to engage with their landlords. That remains the key message that we have to get out there just now: landlords of all hues must engage with their tenants.
Many of the concerns about the specific proposal in the petition were already drawn out in earlier questioning, not least by Ms Fabiani, who asked about what would happen with the debt and how it might be pursued. I was rather taken aback by the comment that tenants would rather have a debt than face eviction and have to wonder whether it was made on the basis of one person’s opinion or a survey that was carried out. To be brutally honest, I have to say that I have yet to hear of any tenants who want to have either.
Before I bring in other members, I want to go back to a comment made by Mr Hayton. When councillors gave evidence to us on the situation with the bedroom tax, the representative from Dundee City Council said that the no-eviction policy contained caveats. Can we get this clarified? Is the no-eviction policy an actual no-eviction policy or is it a “We’ll try our best not to evict you as long as you act reasonably with the local authority” policy?
Under the policy approved by COSLA members—in other words, Scotland’s 32 local authorities—and the decision taken by that democratic organisation, there will be a no-eviction policy as far as the bedroom tax is concerned. That is what we are asking for.
But Mr Hayton gave the impression that that is not how local authorities have perceived the policy.
I am speaking as an elected member on behalf of the councils in Scotland, whereas Jim Hayton is speaking from the point of view of the CIH, which is an officer-led organisation.
No, he is not.
I am sorry, but I think that we are mixing up two things. Councillor McGuigan has correctly referred to what COSLA is calling for, as agreed by the leaders, but your question, convener, was about the so-called no-eviction policies that have been around for some months now. In that respect, every policy from every individual local authority that we have seen makes it clear that the tenant will not be evicted as long as they are engaging with the landlord and doing everything they can to pay. The implication is that if the tenant is not engaging at all and is ignoring all efforts to contact them, eviction will not be ruled out.
But I want to get this clarified and reiterated. The Government says that it supports a no-eviction policy, but organisations such as the CIH as well as the academic who conducted research for this committee have expressed concern that saying that there is a no-eviction policy will itself lead to debt. Are you saying that that policy does not actually exist?
There is an incredibly strong correlation between those councils that declared—especially early on—a so-called no-eviction approach and the high level of arrears that they are now facing.
With regard to the views of local authorities and the decision that COSLA took, the correlation that is being suggested is not convincing at all. The only way to deal with the bedroom tax element is to do as the petition suggests.
We have already heard mentioned some of the evidence that the committee took on 26 March 2013, when we had a number of councillors in front of us. At that meeting, Councillor Jimmy Black of Dundee City Council stated—I am paraphrasing—that there had to be engagement with tenants throughout the process.
That was the point that I was making.
As a very green councillor a number of years ago, I spoke to a housing assistant to see whether it was possible to have blanket policies on certain issues. She said to me, “Dinna be daft—if you have a blanket policy, folk winna speak to you any more.” That is the key point that we are hearing about in evidence today.
The latter half of your question has made my first point disappear out of my head—sorry.
With the greatest respect, that is a speculative response on the issue of whether there are other subsets of people out there who say, “If they don’t have to pay that, we won’t have to pay for this.” I do not accept that people think that.
Could I—
Could you let the witness answer?
I am going to come to your point about whether the debt is pursuable. You also referred to the leader of my council. Jim McCabe gave an honest and open answer when he attended this committee away back in March when he stated that we were pursuing all aspects of the policy. We wanted to make sure that we were not in any way inviting people simply to say, “We’re not gonnae pay.” That was certainly the situation away back in March.
We know that it is a horrendous policy and one of the stupidest policies that has ever emanated from Westminster—and there have been many. However, you said that Mr Ogilvie was being speculative. I draw your attention back to what Councillor McCabe said on 26 March. He said that a policy of not evicting
No, I do not.
If you do not, what is the difference between what Councillor McCabe said and what Mr Ogilvie has just said?
As you said in your own words, Councillor McCabe said that “some people” might take advantage. The implication of David Ogilvie’s contribution—and I recognise that his contribution was well intentioned—is that there is a whole host of people out there who will say, “That is what we will do.” That is not the situation at all, and it is not what Jim McCabe said he expected. He recognised the reality at that meeting in March. As we see the heinous effect that this legislation is having, it is quite right for us to re-examine and review it; that is part and parcel of sensible politics, and it is in the best interests of the communities that we serve. That is what Jim McCabe did.
Most tenants undoubtedly want to pay their rent but, when push comes to shove, if someone who has fuel and food bills and Christmas to worry about senses that their landlord has a more lenient approach to rent, they might make it less of a priority under those competing pressures.
Mr Hayton?
Local government officers are paid employees of local government. Councillor McGuigan has outlined COSLA’s policy and, if councils adopt it, it is unequivocally the case that local government officers will get on and implement that. If it is a blanket policy of no evictions—I think that officers absolutely get the stress and suffering that such a policy might go some way to alleviate—they would get on and implement that. If officers were asked by the same politicians to conduct any kind of risk assessment of the implications of putting the policy in place, I think that they would talk about the increased risk of non-payment and the possible reduction in council revenues but, after that, it would absolutely be a matter for local elected members to decide whether to go ahead.
Can I come back to the point that I was trying to make? Do you find that engagement with individual tenants lessens if there is a blanket policy on certain issues?
The risk must be that that will happen. I have no empirical evidence in front of me to answer your question directly but, as David Ogilvie has pointed out, there must be a tendency for some people to decide not to engage on that basis, because there are potentially no consequences to that lack of engagement. That will not stop us trying to do it, of course. It will just make it a bit more difficult to achieve it.
Thank you.
I ask for your advice on some things that we heard earlier, for clarification. The first panel said that it is a nonsense to say that, when the universal credit comes in, it will further muddy the waters in relation to the identification of bedroom tax arrears. We heard that, when the universal credit arrives, the tenant will have to identify which arrears are due to the bedroom tax, and we were shown a sheet that showed how the figures are laid out.
Absolutely not. As you would expect, the SFHA is one of the stakeholders that are attending various DWP working groups, and we have asked for such an assurance, but none has been forthcoming. I was rather taken aback when Mr Burns pulled out the letter, because I have not heard any such suggestion.
Just to complement what David Ogilvie said, I think that the letter that a previous panel member referred to was a housing benefit letter under the current system. In that case, it may be that some local authorities can make separate identification. I wrote down what the panel member said earlier, which was that universal credit will involve “several different award letters” telling people what they will get. We do not know that. Everything that we understand about universal credit—the whole purpose of universal credit—is that it is a single claim, which will not break down every component into finer detail. Every understanding that the Chartered Institute of Housing for the UK has is that under universal credit, the level of information on the housing element will be nothing compared to what it is now under housing benefit.
It is quite extraordinary to suggest that we cannot get that information. If we have the will to get that information, we can get it; we can negotiate with the UK Government to ensure that we are able to access that information. That is the approach that we should adopt. We should ensure that we can get the information that we require in order to ensure that things are done properly and in the best interests of the welfare of the people whom we represent.
Let us not forget that one of the other things that we will lose when universal credit is introduced is the local contact with housing benefits management. I appreciate what Councillor McGuigan is saying; there is perhaps an axis that can be explored to get such an arrangement in place—we would back you if you could manage that—but I see no signs of it happening now. I have to deal with the situation that is in front of us, which is that we would be in the dark about housing costs.
Another thing that was said, which was probably aimed at David Ogilvie in particular, related to housing associations. Housing associations come in many forms; some are large, and some are small community-based operations with voluntary committee members. I am paraphrasing, although I wrote down the actual phrase, but it was said that we have to ensure that social landlords do not become insolvent, which I thought was a strange statement. I would like to hear from the representative of all those housing associations of different sizes how that ties in to the debt issue, the financial governance under which housing associations have to operate, the governance in relation to voluntary committee members who work in their own time for no reward and, of course, the Scottish Housing Regulator and COSLA. What is your take on how the petition would help to ensure that social landlords do not become insolvent?
I do not want to say. Okay—I am just going to say it. We need to bear it in mind that Mr Dailly currently sits on the board of the Scottish Housing Regulator. That is a bit of a head scratcher for me, because that august body has responsibility for the oversight, governance and regulation of housing associations with regard to rent arrears, debt management, risk profiling and so on. There is a dissonance between that reality and what the petition is putting forward. We have to find out what is going on there.
I have a final question for Mr McGuigan.
Make it just a quick one, because we really are starting to come up against the clock.
We have talked a lot about perceptions. I say to Councillor McGuigan that one of them is the perception that the Scottish Government has a lot of money with which it can mitigate all the problems, as we have seen in relation to the Scottish welfare fund and are seeing again now.
That is a big question and even Harry McGuigan could not answer that for you, Linda. However, I can say certainly that we should be working with the Scottish Government to find sensible and effective ways and means of mitigating the social pain that is being experienced in one of the most fragile subsets of our communities. We have a responsibility to do that.
We have tried to find resources.
Indeed; you are right; we are delighted with the £20 million, but it took negotiation to secure that. All I am saying to you is that the solution can be found by negotiating with ministers of whatever hue to find the best set of remedies that will mitigate the pain and anxiety that exist. I am certainly up for doing that, and I am sure that COSLA is, too.
To finish this point, the very idea of negotiating with the nonsense that we have had from the UK Government—
I said no speeches, Linda.
Okay.
I will pick up a point that Mr Bookbinder made in his opening statement about the difference between the Government’s and local authorities’ no-eviction policy and the proposed bill. We are talking about a proposal to put national policy—Scottish Government and local authority policy—into legislation. You suggested that the only difference is that the proposed bill would not place an emphasis on tenants engaging with landlords, but the petition specifically says that tenants who do not pay their rent and/or fail to engage or act reasonably with their landlord would be liable to eviction proceedings. In other words, it would not change their engagement with landlords one bit.
Tenants who, perhaps over years, never engage could never be subject to eviction for not paying the bedroom tax under the proposed bill. That is the difference. It is clear that the proposed bill would, in effect, reward tenants who do not engage at all in relation to payment of the bedroom tax whereas, under current local authority approaches, eviction is open to the local authority—and, indeed, to housing associations—as a sanction on tenants who do not engage at all.
It may be a sanction—I agree with that—but in what way would the proposed bill change the policies of all local authorities and housing associations on engaging with their tenants? In what way would the bill damage, reduce, minimise or lessen those policies?
At the moment, councils and housing associations are doing everything that they can to engage. However, if a tenant fails to engage over a long period, eviction is currently available as a last sanction. Under the proposed bill, there would be no such sanction.
I agree that there would be no such sanction, but I still do not understand. You said earlier that the difference between a council’s no-eviction policy and the proposed bill is that the bill would not place the emphasis on tenants engaging with landlords. However, they both do exactly the same thing: they both simply remove the sanction of eviction. Therefore, I do not see the difference between the two.
Council policies do not remove the eviction sanction; the eviction sanction is still there. The big difference between the two approaches is that there would be no eviction sanction under the proposed bill.
I am sorry, but if the Government and local authorities say that they have a policy of no evictions, what is the difference between that and the proposed bill?
I am struggling to understand why I cannot get the message across. The so-called no-eviction policies that were originally adopted by local authorities are policies of no eviction of people who engage, which means potential eviction if they do not engage. That is the difference.
Do you think that bedroom tax arrears are still a basis for eviction, despite the fact that the Government and councils have said that they are not?
I imagine that the number of evictions will be minimal, if there are any at all. However, if over two or three years a tenant persistently refuses to engage with a landlord on the bedroom tax and refuses to answer letters, the door or phone calls, the option of eviction is there.
What is the difference between that policy of eviction and the policy of eviction for anything else? All tenants have to engage on their debts and, if they do not, they will finally be evicted.
The bill would prevent that.
Yes, I know, but at the moment the Government and local authorities say that there is a no-evictions policy for rent arrears arising from the bedroom tax. You say that that means that they will not be able to engage, but there is no difference between the policy of engagement on the bedroom tax and the policy of engagement on any other debt. Is there any difference at all between the two no-evictions policies? There does not seem to be.
Yes there is. Under one policy, the sanction of eviction exists and, under the other, it does not—eviction would not be open to the landlord.
We are agreed that that sanction has—
We are really starting to move up against the clock, Mr Macintosh.
Okay. I have another question for Mr Bookbinder. He believes that the bill is designed to try to get £50 million out of the Government. I am not quite sure why he included that comment, but does he believe that it is wrong for the Government to pay £50 million to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax?
I am sorry—does who believe that?
The CIH.
We believe that a proportionate approach is needed. For example, as was alluded to earlier, tenants in the private rented sector who are under 35 have lost 40 to 50 per cent of their benefits within their current tenancy, but nobody seems to be talking about bailing out tenants in that situation. We commend the Scottish Government for making available the money that it has made available, which is a considerable sum. The danger is that it would be a disproportionate approach to go even further on the bedroom tax while going no distance at all for people in the private rented sector who have lost massive amounts of housing benefit.
For clarification, is the CIH saying that the Scottish Government should not find £50 million to mitigate the policy?
We are saying that there should be a proportionate approach that looks at all people who are affected by the housing benefit changes.
Mr Ogilvie and Mr Bookbinder have provided useful clarification on what information might be available about housing costs when the universal credit is rolled out. You are suggesting that Mr Burns, who was on the previous panel, was perhaps misinformed. Having given us that clarification, could you say how a lack of information once universal credit is in place would manifest itself in trying to take forward the petition’s policy objectives?
As I said, the fundamental issue that the SFHA has with the petition is that it would bind the hands of landlords and prevent them from taking a flexible approach to dealing with the rent arrears circumstances of individual tenants. All politicians are mindful of the old adage that we legislate in haste and repent at leisure. We do not want that situation to arise on the back of what is already a terrible crisis. I do not want anybody to leave this meeting thinking that the SFHA does not care about the tenants who are affected, because we care deeply.
I get that. The point is that implementation of the policy that Mr Dailly sets out in his petition would require a knowledge of the housing costs that would be a part of universal credit once it has been rolled out. As Mr Ogilvie pointed out earlier, it would be very hard to get that level of clarification. In that case, how effective would the policy be? How would it be implemented on a practical level?
I have taken soundings from housing managers over the past few months. Although the SHR report mentions a hypothetical level of bedroom tax arrears, it is presented as a snapshot figure at one point in time. However, the population that we are measuring is dynamic; the profile of those who are and are not being caught by the bedroom tax keeps changing. That is another issue.
Councillor McGuigan’s solution is that we should negotiate with the UK Government to ensure that we get that information, but we cannot even get UK Government ministers to come before the committee to provide it. The success of the policy would be predicated on securing such an agreement. Given Councillor McGuigan’s earlier caution against speculation, would not it be somewhat speculative to presume that we would get an agreement?
I am sorry—I missed the tail end of your question.
Would not it be speculative to presume that we would get an agreement from the UK Government to provide that information?
It would be worth working for in order to try to change the silly relationships that discourage people from talking at Government level. I cannot believe that it is so difficult to have UK ministers talking to Scottish ministers on such an important matter.
No one would dispute that we should keep working at it and get Government agreement. However, is it not a fact that it would be speculation to presume that we would get the UK Government to agree to provide the information on which the success of such a policy would be predicated?
At the beginning of this whole thing, when the plan for universal credit was introduced and people started talking about it, and when the bedroom tax was introduced, the UK Government was seeking to apply universal credit on those aged over 65—the working age cut-off thing. We got the UK Government to change its mind on that, but it was not just us—the opinion right across the UK was that that was unacceptable.
We invited you here to speak on behalf of COSLA.
Picking up on Councillor McGuigan’s last point, I would like this Parliament to have the power to scrap the iniquitous bedroom tax, so that we could do so tomorrow and get on with things. The fact that we do not have such powers imposes on people the misery to which he rightly referred. However, each person will have that choice to make next year.
I have Ken Gibb’s report in front of me, and I broadly agree with his recommendation of caution. You asked what evidence we have on the cost of implementing the policy. We do not have any empirical evidence, because we have not asked councils or registered social landlords to calculate the cost yet. Much of the cost would become obvious only if the policy in the petition subsequently became law and we had to implement it.
Could I make a quick comment on the term “blanket forgiveness”?
That was Professor Gibb’s phrase.
Yes, it is in the concluding paragraph of his report. The term “blanket forgiveness” does not include every single iota. One aspect—eviction as a result of the bedroom tax—is totally unacceptable, and we should be brave enough to say that.
That was Professor Gibb’s term.
I know that. If Professor Gibb takes eviction out of the catalogue of things that he includes in the term “blanket forgiveness”, that will not render everything else useless. Doing so simply indicates that we are making a more intense effort to support people better and enable them to have resources.
We have run out of time, but I will allow Jackie Baillie to ask a short question.
I will be incredibly quick. May I first crave members’ indulgence and invite the deputy convener and other members of the committee to consider the consultation on the proposed protection from eviction (bedroom tax) (Scotland) bill? It explores how arrears could be identified, about which much has been said today.
You are absolutely correct. We need a lump sum of £50 million if this horrendous tax is to continue. First and foremost, we need to get the tax abolished. If we do not do that, we must ensure that the resources are there to help people.
The support that is given to people who have been hit by the bedroom tax needs to be proportionate. The CIH regularly appears before committees of the Parliament to argue that more money should be spent on building new homes. If we put a disproportionate amount of money into welfare reform mitigation, money will potentially come out of the house-building budget. We must keep things proportionate across the different types of tenant who are hit by these very difficult welfare reforms.
On Jackie Baillie’s first question, my understanding, which might be wrong, is that the money is ring fenced for discretionary housing payments, and that councils are using it for that. On the creative use of surpluses—if we can call them that—for homelessness prevention services, members will not be surprised to hear that I am all in favour of that. Councils have been particularly good at preventing homelessness in the past few years, as is evidenced by the significant reduction in homelessness applications.
The SFHA, too, has been having such discussions in-house. We have taken quite a cautious approach because we are not convinced of the accuracy of the £50 million figure. We would want a far more robust evidential base before we could make a statement beyond where we are at. I understand that it was the Welfare Reform Committee’s third report of earlier this year that quoted the figure of £50 million as the one-off cost of the bedroom tax to the Scottish economy. I do not want to quibble about that too much, but the bedroom tax has been implemented since then, so what about the on-costs and administration costs? There is too much variability in that regard. We would want something far more robust before we could make a further statement. Obviously, any further mitigation that was available would be most welcome, because anything that helps tenants is most welcome.
I have a point just for clarity on ring fencing. As far as ring-fenced money is concerned, North Lanarkshire Council had already decided before the money became available that the 1.5-times factor would apply. We are pleased that councils were able to secure the £20 million from the Scottish Government. Some of the resources that come from that are being used in addition to the resources that we had already set aside, so in that sense the money is not ring fenced. We can take the balance between the moneys that come from the Scottish Government for DHP and the money that we had already put in and use it for the homelessness initiatives that have been referred to.
Thanks very much for clarifying that point. I thank the witnesses for their contribution this morning. We will look at the issue at our next meeting on 19 November and discuss whether we will undertake any work on it in future.