Social Justice Committee, 20 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 20, 2002

Official Report 222KB pdf

---

Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (Homelessness)

Item 3 concerns the Scottish Executive's consultation on the use of interim accommodation for unintentionally homeless applicants in priority need. I am sure that the committee remembers that, at our meeting on 23 January, we agreed that we would consider today our response to the consultation. A response date of 5 April has been set and the committee's views have already been sought. We have received nothing in writing. I give the opportunity for a brief discussion on the drive of our approach. I emphasise that the discussion should be brief, as we have had time to think about the matter.

It seems to me that the consultation paper does not put enough stress on measuring and identifying the success of the arrangements that are put in place. We want to try to get rid of the revolving-door syndrome, as well as to ensure that support is targeted and given where it will make a difference and not given where it will make no difference. The tone of the paper is a little negative. For example, the second-last bullet point of paragraph 7 says:

"interim accommodation should not be used where support needs can reasonably be met in permanent accommodation."

That is the wrong way round, to my taste. Is enough emphasis laid on the success or otherwise of support for homeless people? Should some mention be made of the need to keep records of outcomes so that they can be measured effectively? Measuring the success of support would be possible, although it would be a bit trickier to measure than some matters.

I take Robert Brown's point. The second point of paragraph 9 of the consultation paper, which sets out the proposed content of the subordinate legislation, states:

"interim accommodation must be accompanied by a clear programme of support; with an end date in place or a clear timetable for review."

When we discussed the homelessness task force's final report, we noted that something like 27 per cent of people who find themselves homeless chap on the door again. Some measure of the success of support is needed. If it is appropriate, perhaps we could add something to paragraph 9 to deal with Robert Brown's point. That paragraph is a proposal for subordinate legislation, so we would probably have to take advice on the wording.

We could flag up to the Executive that we think that it is important to include something about monitoring. However, I would work on the assumption that such matters would be monitored. The Executive would not put such arrangements in place if it did not monitor whether they were working. Nevertheless, given the lack of success in the past and the level of repeat applications for support, it would be reasonable to emphasise monitoring.

What you have said is certainly the case. It is clear from the homelessness task force's report that monitoring will be a key aspect of the arrangements. Ultimately, we all want homelessness to be eliminated, or at least minimised. We could almost take it as read that the Executive will monitor the effectiveness of support. I am not being complacent, but the Executive has sufficient safeguards on that issue. Monitoring and continued assessment are not only fundamental but can be taken as read from the discussions that we have had with the Executive on the issue. We do not need to add anything specific to the proposals.

Perhaps our response should reflect our discussion and seek reassurances that the Executive's commitment to monitoring would extend to the provisions concerned.

A belt-and-braces approach would do no harm, although it is not strictly necessary.

We know from the figures that there is a high level of repeat presentation of homeless applicants. We have a less clear view of what works, and does not work, in preventing that. Support for young care leavers and people who leave institutions is obviously relevant to that, but it is important to get the flavour of how we should approach support—whether we should concentrate on the more difficult cases or on those in which a little help could avoid repeat presentation and thereby reduce the numbers—and how we monitor it.

The paper that we received from Shelter prior to the debate on the homelessness task force's report detailed such matters. The measures that Shelter suggested have reduced repeat homelessness to around 5 per cent. Shelter suggested a number of measures in response to the homelessness task force's report that, if implemented, would be successful. Those measures have been taken on board.

I suggest that I draw up a response to the Executive on behalf of the committee in the usual way. If that response seems to be at variance with what members have suggested, we can revisit it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.