Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 22 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000

Official Report 194KB pdf

---

Housing Bill

I welcome witnesses from the Scottish Churches social inclusion network. Thank you for the written evidence that you have provided. We do not have a bill in front of us, although we have seen the consultation document. In preparation for the bill, we are exploring different perspectives on housing and we are interested in hearing the Churches' views. I welcome John Flett, Alastair Cameron and Graham Lumb.

I work with the Church of Scotland board of social responsibility, which is the social work department of the Church. We provide hostels for homeless people in Glasgow and Edinburgh and supported accommodation for homeless people in Inverness. That is the context in which we give evidence.

One of our concerns about the legislation relates to the proposal to extend the right to buy, which we believe will further reduce the availability of affordable housing stock. Better-quality housing in the more desirable areas is likely to be the first to be sold. As a result, the housing that remains available to homeless people will be of poorer quality and is more likely to be located in peripheral housing estates, which experience problems relating to poverty, drugs and alcohol. We work with vulnerable people, many of whom experience addiction problems. If the quality of the housing in which they are likely to be placed is reduced, it is more likely that they will return to the lifestyle that we have helped them to leave behind. They are therefore more likely to become homeless again.

I am the Scotland secretary of the Salvation Army. Each day we have more than 500 places available for homeless people in 11 centres throughout Scotland. We also have three drop-in centres, which are mostly used by homeless people—about 800 people a week use that service.

We are concerned that the bill should provide for support for those who are vulnerable and homeless, particularly those who are being resettled. The Churches are concerned with the teaching of care.

Today, however, we are discussing an extreme example—inclusion is an extreme word. We want any notion of intentional or unintentional homelessness to be removed from the bill. That is a brave step, but we all know that the prodigal son could easily have been labelled "intentionally homeless". What he needed and got was a fast track back to restoration. We are concerned with ways in which we can remove obstacles and help people who come to their senses to be restored through a difficult transition that involves a great leap of faith. There should be adequate financial support to provide resettlement workers who would help to break the cycle of homelessness that our people at the front line face every day. The big problem is that we do not have the resources to give the support that is required. There are a number of ways in which the bill could provide for that.

I am the co-ordinator of the Scottish Churches Housing Agency. We do not run services for homeless people; we bring together 11 Christian denominations and work nationally to express the Churches' concerns about homelessness and poor housing—as we are doing today—and locally to encourage the development of responses to homelessness by Church people.

We have given a broad-brush response to the Scottish Executive's consultation. It was never intended that we should be living with such an appalling level of homelessness in Scotland. It has come about as an unintended consequence of other policies, such as care in the community and right to buy, and the shift from subsidising bricks and mortar in housing to subsidising individuals.

Thank God for the fact that the homeless persons legislation has saved from misery many individuals and families who have become homeless. There has been a threefold increase in homelessness presentations since the early 1980s. We believe that there must be a radically different policy and legislative framework for homelessness if we are to tackle the problems and keep the numbers low.

We expressed disappointment with the Scottish Executive's proposals because we had high expectations of what could be achieved. The Executive set a target for the eradication of rough sleeping. However, rough sleeping is only the tip of the homelessness iceberg and does not happen in isolation from the other manifestations of homelessness. We need overall objectives and targets for reducing the record number of homelessness presentations and, crucially, we need to have agreed means of achieving those targets. Introducing a right to a house would be the clearest way to assert that homeless people are included in the social justice agenda. That involves joint work between local authorities, registered social landlords, voluntary organisations and others.

We make no apology for our impatience in wanting a more radical approach to tackling homelessness. When we are talking at the level of high policy, it is easy to forget that homelessness is about individuals and their families. The people who will become homeless in the coming months cannot afford to wait for a further round of legislation, which is what the task force on homelessness seems to be proposing. It is possible to ensure that the forthcoming legislation includes a more rigorous set of proposals. The members of this committee are in a position to make that difference.

I would like to know how the Scottish Churches Housing Agency, which represents 11 different denominations, went about preparing its response. Was it agreed by all the organisations? How was any dissent dealt with? I would like to know to what extent the position has been agreed across disparate organisations.

We are a small organisation in terms of our staff infrastructure. After I drafted the response, it was discussed by our board, which has representatives from each of the 11 denominations. We then sent an initial draft to our friends and supporters, of whom there are about 1,100 in Scotland. They represent various denominations across the country and had the opportunity to influence the response. We held a public consultation meeting in Falkirk in September and distributed the response to those who would be preparing their denominations' own responses, such as John Flett and Graham Lumb. We were pleased that most, if not all, of the responses from the Churches have endorsed the comments in our report as well as making their own points.

On which areas was consensus most easily arrived at and on which was there most disagreement and debate?

There was a clear consensus on the right to buy for housing associations. We are concerned about the supply of affordable rented housing. It is no coincidence that, as that supply diminished, the number of homeless people tripled, although there might not be a direct causal link.

There was more debate about proposals to abolish intentionality. People fear that, if the screening process is removed, the bill will become a chancers charter. However, we think that the concept of intentionality can be abolished without opening the floodgates to people who are trying it on. The operation of the homelessness legislation is a process of rationing a scarce resource: affordable rented housing. We want a shift in the mentality of the Government and those administering the system to ensure that there is a roof over the head of every Scot.

You obviously have strong views on that. You talked about the scope of the bill. It has been brought to our attention that there might be only partial legislation on homelessness at this stage and that there might be a secondary tranche of legislation later.

However, quite a few of the housing proposals are based on the homelessness task force report. The proposals have been fairly comprehensive and have had wide support across parties and organisations. Are you saying that you are critical of the task force's work, which seems to be one area where, so far, people have been pleased that progress is being made? You seem to be more critical of that than our other witnesses have been.

I would say that we are critical, but supportive. I am certainly impatient. I understand that discussions are going on in the task force about the possibility of abolishing the intentionality rule. My feeling is that, if that is possible, it is possible now, rather than in two or three years' time, when the next round of legislation will go through. It will be another 18 months before this legislation is on the statute book and takes effect.

We do not know—that is the million dollar question.

I am concerned that it might be another four or five years before those more radical approaches are taken. If the Executive is serious about reducing homelessness over a shorter period, it has to do more than it proposes to do in the consultation paper.

It seems that the bill might concentrate more on the social rented sector than on other tenures and that it might be limited in what it does in the private sector. Do you have any views on that?

As a minimum, we proposed the establishment of rent deposit guarantee schemes in all local authority areas. In our practical work of advising local groups on what they can do to help homeless people, we have produced starter packs to help people to set up tenancies and we have suggested rent deposit schemes. We have been involved in setting up a rent deposit scheme—the jubilee key scheme—with a Churches group in Hamilton. The aim is give people access to private rented accommodation who would otherwise be excluded.

Why would you need legislation for that? The Executive has considered introducing a rent deposit pilot in rural areas. It is not necessarily legislation but finances that are needed to do that. The co-operation of local authorities is also required.

There needs to be legislation to encourage those local authorities that are not moving forward on that front.

There are other ways to encourage local authorities, not least financially. We are talking about legislation. Rent deposit schemes are something that you can call for, but you do not necessarily need legislation.

If there were legislation, the schemes would be implemented. They are not being implemented everywhere at the moment.

A right to housing is a bold statement in the context of some of the other responses that we have considered, but it is an interesting one, which we would like to explore in some detail.

I thank the witnesses for the briefing papers and for their opening statements this morning. You welcomed some of the Executive's proposals for dealing with homelessness, but were critical of others, although I will not pursue that.

In your response to the Executive's proposals for the bill, you suggest a right to housing, rather than the right to register on a housing list. You talk about the situation in France. Can you give us any evidence that such a right has been successful in reducing homelessness in France?

I cannot. This relates to what I said about creating a different approach to homeless people. Rather than keeping affordable rented housing from people who might need it—as happens under the current rationing-based system—we need to create a dynamic in the housing associations, led by a Government that is committed to inclusion. We must say that, if we can provide health services and education for all Scots, we ought to be able to provide a home for all Scots. The right to wait on a list is a pretty niggardly right. We had hoped that, in the new atmosphere in Scotland, with the explicit commitment to inclusion and social justice, the right to a home would be seen as the way forward, although a lot of work would be involved in framing legislation to support that right.

It is easy to say that people have a right to a home and to put that into the legislation, but if that is merely words, it may not do anything to tackle the problem of homelessness. We do not have evidence that homelessness in France has been reduced since the right was introduced in 1989. Why do you believe that such a right would be the best way forward?

I agree that words alone will not make a difference to homeless people, but we need to create a framework within which local authorities know what they are working towards. At the moment, all local authorities know is that they are trying to keep the numbers down. Of course, the measure needs to be backed up with investment. Investment in social rented housing has declined over the years. In our view, that should be reversed.

If the right were introduced in Scotland, do you think that it would help to tackle the scourge of homelessness?

Yes.

What would that right mean for the homeless person who turns up at a local authority or at John Flett's door, looking for assistance?

It would create a presumption in their favour.

John Flett has talked about doing away with the concepts of priority need and intentionality. Given that we have a finite resource—the demand far outweighs the supply—how would you establish who was in most need of housing?

People will be excluded. They end up on the streets, back in the cycle from which they are trying to escape. Over the years, there has been evidence that people who have intentionally gone adrift have found their way back. All we are saying is that we should be aware that there could be obstacles and that we may have to help people who want to get back. However, we should also look for ways in which to identify the right accommodation and the right support for individuals.

I recently discovered something surprising in our drop-in centre in Edinburgh. I thought that the centre was for the homeless on the streets of Edinburgh—as it primarily is—but when I spoke to some of the people there, I discovered that they had been homeless and had been rehoused, but were in need of support. Those people were struggling and were almost on the brink of being back on the street again. They come back to the centre because they have come from a loyal, caring community on the streets and have been rehoused in a hostile community, out of town and out of reach. It is difficult for them to afford the bus fare into town. They need much more support. That is the difficulty. People keep reaching this stage and they drop back into homelessness because they are not receiving enough support.

One of your key recommendations is to get rid of the concept of intentionality in relation to homelessness. How do you suggest that those who work in public sector housing deal with those people who know how to work the system? How should they deal with a person who gives up accommodation and moves into a condemned caravan in order to get into the system? That is why the rule was introduced in the first place. How do we balance the needs of those who are currently housed, but inadequately so, against the needs of those who may be going through the cycle that you describe?

I am not saying that the checks and balances should be removed. I am saying that we should have a long-term objective of being totally inclusive. We recognise that there are difficulties. We are saying that, currently, objectives are limited. There are elements of the process that can be improved, to ensure that people do not have to jump through certain hoops.

We share your aspirations. However, the issue that we must consider is whether the proposed legislation is the appropriate tool.

I appreciate the need for priority to be given to vulnerable adults in the circumstances that you describe. How do we deal with a couple who have applied to the local authority for housing under the homelessness legislation, but who have an income that would enable them to rent privately or even purchase a home? If we got rid of intentionality and priority, how would we deal with such a case? Anybody can apply under the homelessness legislation; it is the factors of intention and priority that allow local authorities to make decisions about who is in the most need. We need some help on that question.

I do not think that I can help. I do not have details of the day-to-day work of the local authorities in that area. We recognise that there are difficulties. The Churches are concerned that there should be an intention to address the aim that everyone should have appropriate shelter.

I want to go back to the cycle of homelessness. You say that people come off the streets, where there is a fairly friendly and loyal environment, and eventually move into accommodation in a peripheral scheme, where they experience hostility from other residents and lack support. What form would appropriate support take?

We need funding for an adequate number of resettlement officers to work alongside rehoused people and identify their support needs. Our biggest difficulty is to put enough people in our centres to help break the cycle. Where we have put in the resources, the support works. It is a difficult process. When local authorities prepare their housing plans, as well as taking into account the needs of the disabled and others, they should include the needs arising from homelessness, so that appropriate plans are made for the future.

We understand that that is the intention. The current thinking is that there will be a strategy on homelessness, rather than a responsibility to tackle homelessness. That is an issue that we will explore further.

Homeless people are individuals and forms of support must be tailored to meet their needs. It is important to have a repertoire of support. Cathie Craigie asked about intentionality and priority. Much of our disenchantment with the present system arises from the fairly dubious practices of some local authorities in the interpretation of intentionality. Some authorities use the fact that someone is in rent arrears to blame them for becoming homeless; they put up barriers to those people entering resettlement processes. We take a different perspective from that proposed by Cathie Craigie. There are people who try to work the system. We are not trying to remove all barriers but, at the moment, the tests do not operate effectively.

We want to cover other matters, but we must be clear on why you want to abolish the concept of intentionality. That is a strong position.

I understand the point about someone in rent arrears being treated as intentionally homeless, but how do we deal with a couple who have an adequate income, but choose not to pay their rent? How can you say that they should be given a higher priority or treated the same as someone who has lost their home through absolutely no fault of their own? Perhaps the person in rent arrears has chosen to spend their money on the finer things in life. It worries me that such a person might not have considered the importance of having a roof over their head. I am concerned that people who can afford to find some other form of housing might be doing a really deserving person out of a house.

I think that housing is one of the finest things in life. We are not suggesting that we abolish the law of diligence. There are still processes through which debts can legitimately be recovered. Those do not need to be bound up with the supply of housing. The local authority can go to the court to seek restraint on the person's bank account, as my mortgage company could with me if I did not pay my mortgage.

I understand that, but you are saying that if someone has rent arrears they should be deemed to be in priority need, even if their circumstances are such that they could afford to pay the arrears.

I am saying that there should not be concepts of priority. It is invidious that there is homelessness that is given priority and homelessness that is not, without proper assessment. It is a rough-and-ready screening test. We want local authorities to have more options at their disposal and to assess the individual circumstances rather than to apply crude tests.

I share your aspiration to abolish the concept of intentionality and priority need. I am aware that the argument against that is that it might be a chancers charter, which you have recognised. Do you suggest that, in place of that legalistic approach to the homeless, we leave it to the housing management system and the discretion of homelessness officers or housing officers as long as the homeless themselves have a legal right to independent appeal against a decision that is taken to refuse them access to housing? Would that cover the problem of the chancers charter, so that it would not be upheld in a court of law that chancers could not pay their rent just because they did not want to? In genuine cases, people would have a right of appeal against poor decisions.

What has perhaps not come over in our submission is that we believe that many of the measures in "Better Homes for Scotland's Communities" are of value. I do not want that to be misunderstood. The objective that the task force mentioned of raising the standards of all local authorities to those of the best is laudable. It is better to create that as a baseline from which to move forward.

The proposals on the obligations about housing planning for local authorities and the inclusion of a homelessness strategy within that are very much to be commended. There has not been enough thinking at local authority level on how we deal with our homelessness problem. There has been too much firefighting and not enough strategic thinking.

I would like to bring in John McAllion to ask questions about tenants agreements and other issues. As this is such a critical aspect of your response, it would be helpful if you could give us more information on intentionality and how you think that it would operate. That would be especially useful in relation to how you would deal with people with rent arrears and other matters where you think that decisions would be at the discretion of the housing management system. It would be helpful for us to understand the practice. There is general agreement in principle, but we are concerned about the practice.

Would you like us to write to you?

Yes. If you are happy to do so, you could write to follow up on the information that you have provided.

John McAllion will now ask questions about other issues.

Before I do so, do you have evidence that the French right to housing under law does not reduce homelessness either?

Not at all.

That was just to set the record straight. This committee might want to research that further.

There are so many factors in homelessness that it is hard to pin down one factor.

I will take you back to the consensus that you spoke about across the Churches in opposition to the extension of the right to buy, which will probably be contained in the housing bill. You said that you think that it will reduce the availability of affordable rented housing in Scotland. It will lead to the better stock being sold off first and to the ghettoisation of the remaining housing stock that is available to homeless people. Do you want to add anything about the likely impact of the extension of the right to buy?

I reiterate what I said at the beginning about our experience as a provider of services to homeless people in our hostel in Edinburgh, Cunningham House. The hosteI is specifically geared towards assisting people to move back into housing. It is our experience that if the housing stock is reduced, it becomes problematic as there are fewer houses available to move people into. It is also our experience that we can often move people on, but not into the most appropriate setting for vulnerable people.

We have experience of people who, because of the stock that is left available, have moved on to housing that is less than appropriate for their needs. Without adequate support and in an environment that is less than supportive to them, they have given up their tenancies and ended up back on the streets and subsequently back into our hostel. Our experience is that it is problematic to house people from the housing stock that is available. Our anxiety is that further reducing that stock will exacerbate the existing difficulties.

One of the possible ways of dealing with the problem that you have highlighted is that the pressured areas should be exempt from the right to buy. You indicated that a pressured area should be any area where there is an excessive demand for housing over supply. Who should make the decisions about pressured areas, and on what basis? Should local authorities decide or should the Scottish Executive decide in terms of the overall situation?

The initiative should come from local authorities.

So it should be left to the local authority to decide what areas are pressured.

There are indications that the Executive would prefer that designation to apply to only rural areas. Do you think that it should also apply to urban areas?

Yes.

There is a rural dimension to the right to buy. Housing supply is a bigger issue in relation to homelessness in rural areas than it is in urban Scotland. Glasgow is the most extreme example. It has the biggest homelessness problem and the largest number of empty houses. It is not a simple question of housing supply in that setting; in rural areas it is much more likely to be a housing supply issue. Rural areas therefore export much of their homelessness to towns and cities.

I believe that the opportunity should be there for towns and cities to be defined as pressured areas. I would like local authorities to have the initiative, perhaps with some system of approval by the Executive. We have not discussed that in detail.

The extension of the right to buy will only apply to registered social landlords. Are you saying that local authorities should be able to tell social landlords that they are not allowed to sell their houses because this is a pressured area and the homeless need access to the housing, or should it be left to the registered social landlord to apply to the council?

The pressure on the registered social landlord from its own tenants would make it difficult for it to be the arbiter. We are seeking a system of housing planning at the local authority level in which local authorities take the lead and others are involved in the process.

The Executive predicts—and I suppose that this is what it would prefer—that the social rented sector will account for only 20 per cent of Scotland's housing stock by 2020, the reduction coming mainly through the right to buy. Is that a desirable objective? What impact will it have on housing choice?

It is not a desirable objective. Wendy Alexander has stated that 80 per cent of Scots aspire to owning their own home; however, everyone can aspire to owning something without it necessarily being socially desirable—a Ferrari, for example. The increasing residualisation of rented housing would be damaging for social cohesion because it would lead to ghettos of housing where people live in poverty. It has always struck me as odd that, whereas we put a big emphasis on getting home ownership in areas such as Wester Hailes and Craigmillar in Edinburgh, there is no equivalent pressure to get rented housing into areas such as Barnton or Corstorphine.

That would be a lovely idea. Does the situation that you have described not send out the message that owner-occupation is good and the rented sector is bad?

That would be a damaging message.

On the single social tenancy, you state that the creation of two new grounds on which a landlord can end a tenancy will damage the tenants' position. What do you mean by that assertion, and what evidence do you have to support it?

We do not have evidence; it is a hypothesis. The grounds that have been given seem to us to be unnecessary because there are already ways of dealing with the situations that it has been suggested might arise. We do not think that making it easier to evict people is making a contribution to eradicating homelessness, which is our main concern.

Why do you think that the Executive wants to include—

I do not know.

I was hoping for some elucidation, because I do not know either.

On the short single tenancy, is it appropriate that there is no limit to the number of times that the proposed short single tenancy can be renewed by a landlord?

We have not considered that area in detail.

How do you see the Church of Scotland, as a landlord, using short single tenancies? Would you feel comfortable about it? Would you regularly renew a single short tenancy as opposed to giving a more permanent tenancy agreement?

To be honest, we have not yet explored this issue in depth. We understand that short single tenancy would not apply directly to hostels. In principle, however, we would prefer to be able to offer longer-term tenancies rather than a continuation of short-term tenancies.

I am conscious of the time. I would like to thank the witnesses for coming. You have given us some very interesting and provocative proposals. Before the bill comes along, evidence such as yours gives us the opportunity to get a rounded view and to consider some core principles. The right to have a house is about as fundamental a principle as you can get. If you could write to us with further information on intentionality, we would be pleased to receive it.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—