Having and Keeping a Home
Item 2 is oral evidence from the Scottish Government in our having and keeping a home inquiry. I welcome our two witnesses and ask them to introduce themselves.
The Minister for Housing and Transport (Keith Brown)
I am the Minister for Housing and Transport.
Marion Gibbs (Scottish Government)
I am from the Scottish Government.
Thank you very much.
Committee members may have a number of questions for you but, to kick things off, I want to ask a question about the evidence that we were given by young people. A number of young people have problems in getting benefits. If they are on a particular type of benefit—the disability living allowance was mentioned to us—they are refused throughcare support. We understood from the evidence of the young people that throughcare support is very important to them, and it seems bizarre that they would lose that element of support. Vulnerable young people are losing additional support that could help them to stay in their accommodation, find work and carry on. I am particularly interested in your views on young people losing support.
There is another issue that I want to raise, although I am not 100 per cent sure that you will be able to answer my question. Last week, I visited Kibble Education and Care Centre in my area, which looks after a number of very troubled young people. In the discussions on Friday morning, I discovered that a young person in Kibble who has been in looked-after care for a considerable length of time is approaching his 16th birthday. According to the guidance and regulations, when he reaches the age of 16, he will no longer be considered to be looked after, so he will no longer be eligible for funding from his local authority. Kibble deals with local authorities across Scotland. However, I was also told that guidance says that, if a young person who reaches the age of 16 is vulnerable and needs extra support, they should remain in looked-after care until they are 18. As far as I am aware, that is not happening. I am interested in whether you can do anything to ensure that that happens. Why is that not happening?
Can I make general remarks before addressing your questions?
Certainly.
Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on such an important issue. I will outline the Scottish Government’s approach to preventing homelessness, particularly among young people. We have undertaken work to help to achieve the 2012 homelessness target, of which members will be aware, which is that all unintentionally homeless households should be entitled to settled accommodation. We have made progress on developing prevention and housing options approaches and we have undertaken work on the important issue of supported accommodation, which relates to the points that you just made.
Committee members might be familiar with the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s recent report on the 2012 commitment. That committee recognised, as most people do, that a cultural change has taken place in homelessness services in Scotland, which now have a much more effective and strong focus on prevention. That change in approach is beginning to show in improved statistics.
We are fortunate to have the latest information to hand for the committee, because—by sheer coincidence—the homelessness stats for 2011-12 were published today. They are extremely encouraging. We have recorded a 19 per cent reduction overall in the number of homelessness applications and a 15 per cent reduction in the number of assessments. Crucially, youth homelessness fell by 16 per cent in 2011-12. The trend in the relevant figures for England in the past year has been upwards, which is attributed to welfare reform and other factors, whereas the figures have dropped substantially in Scotland. The reports that statisticians have produced point to the prevention measures—the hubs—as being key to that good news.
Like everyone else, young people have benefited from the drop in homelessness. However, we are not complacent, because the proportion of young people in the overall figures has remained at about a third in recent years. As a result, the joint Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities 2012 steering group identified youth homelessness as a key issue at an early stage. The group recognised the importance of investment in and access to housing to address youth homelessness and agreed that a focus was needed on prevention, which I have mentioned.
The housing options approach and five local authority housing options hubs have been developed from the commitment to prevention. As members might be aware, the recent independent evaluation of those hubs was positive. That reinforces the reasons that have been given for the figures that were published today.
The housing options approach has brought particular benefits to young people through the use of mediation services and links to employability, for example. That is shown by the reduced homelessness figures in areas such as North Ayrshire, where the council uses mediation and has focused on prevention.
We are clear that supported accommodation should be available for young people across Scotland when they need it. That is why we set up a working group in 2010 to produce recommendations. We have now established an implementation group to take them to the next stage, and it will report in November.
Preventing homelessness and providing supported accommodation are not just housing issues, as your questions showed, convener. We are working hard to join up housing policy with policies such as those on getting our priorities right for every child, on care leavers, whom the convener mentioned, on young offenders and on youth employment, education and training.
I was at Edinburgh Cyrenians this morning, which does work on throughcare—the convener mentioned that. That organisation is focusing much more on the fact that accommodation is the first thing that is required. The chief executive told me that the focus in the past was on people getting jobs, but now Cyrenians has pushed the focus on to getting accommodation.
We recognise the importance of hearing young people’s voices and of hearing about their hopes and aspirations. That is why the supported accommodation implementation group is holding two regional service user involvement events to inform its work. The first event will take place in Aberdeen and the second one is due to take place in Glasgow on 19 July.
14:15
A great deal is being done, not least in the areas that you have highlighted. I am certainly looking forward to the committee’s report; after all, in the 10 or so years since 2003 when, as a local authority leader, I signed the commitment to homelessness, the focus has been on achieving the homelessness target. However, we now have to move beyond that and ensure that what we achieve this year is sustainable. We have a strong legislative framework for the young people who need it and a strong focus on prevention.
As we know, young people face challenges in the current economic environment, not least from the proposed welfare reforms. However, with the housing options hubs, we are already taking steps to mitigate what we believe will be the worst effects of those reforms. I recognise that, in what is an important transitional stage in anyone’s life, a period of homelessness can cause long-lasting damage.
We have much to be proud of in Scotland’s approach to homelessness. In fact, the chief executive of Edinburgh Cyrenians told me this morning that he is getting non-stop visits from overseas visitors who want to see what we have done and find out how we have managed to achieve as much as we have without particularly enhanced resources. The homelessness target, which enjoyed cross-party support, indicates the type of country that we are and aspire to be. We must be proud of our commitment to our young people and their future and our aim of preventing homelessness where possible. Where young people become homeless, we are providing them with an early opportunity to access housing and support and to rebuild their lives without incurring any lasting damage to their future. We want to continue with that work.
On the two questions that you raised, we need to ensure that the system has no gaps that people at a particular stage in their lives can fall through. As far as my remit is concerned, I believe that we must ensure that we have a supply of housing and provide people with the correct advice at the appropriate time. It will, of course, be for local authorities to resolve some of the issues that you highlighted, but we must work closely with them to ensure that people do not fall through those gaps.
Do you wish to add anything, Marion?
I think that those comments were fine. When I read the evidence, I came across the issue that the convener raised. However, when I spoke to some local authority people, they said that they were not aware of a particular issue with DLA and throughcare and I wonder whether another benefit has cropped up that has made things awkward. We have not come across that issue before now; indeed, our understanding was that throughcare carried on.
As the minister suggested, the situation at Kibble will depend on discussions with the local authority. Obviously, we do not want homelessness among young people to increase as a result of something elsewhere in the system.
I appreciate that there should be no gaps in the system. However, gaps exist and, although a lot of work been carried out to plug them, more still needs to be done. We cannot allow young people to keep falling through these gaps and failing just because the support is not available.
I do not disagree. However, although I realise that homelessness can be related to the provision of advice and benefits and although we must ensure that homelessness does not result from these kinds of situations, I have to point out that it is others who provide advice and benefits for people at that transitional age. Some of the groups that we support which work with young people—post-16, I should say, rather than pre-16—try to provide a wraparound service, which I think is the best approach. For example, I met a young man this morning who was dealing with a number of issues and that kind of wraparound and indeed follow-through service was helping his situation. In the past, getting someone a tenancy was seen as the end of the process but, as most of the people who work in this field now know, tenancies themselves create challenges, as people such as ex-offenders, veterans, those who have been in care and younger people suddenly take on a whole host of responsibilities that they previously did not have. The issues facing young people who are 16 or under are for others to deal with.
I now invite committee members to ask questions.
During the welfare reform debates that we have had in the chamber, I have raised the issue of the community care grant and the positive opportunity to do something with the social fund when it comes to Scotland. I have raised the point that it currently takes, or should take, seven weeks to get the grant processed, although sometimes, as we have heard in evidence, it can take 13 weeks. I have suggested to Alex Neil, Nicola Sturgeon and others that Scotland has the opportunity to ensure that the grant can be given on the same day that the young person gets the keys to their new tenancy. What is your opinion on that? Is it feasible? Could it be workable in the future?
I have not seen your correspondence with Alex Neil and Nicola Sturgeon, but I will certainly have a look at that. It is important that we try to ensure that everything is in place at the appropriate time.
Another example is that people can apply for and get accommodation but they do not have the deposit at that time, and they have to apply for it through a process that may take four or five weeks. I am thinking particularly of veterans and in some cases ex-offenders. We are trying to address the issue of people being prevented from getting properly housed because they have to wait five or six weeks for a deposit that they know they are going to get, from whatever source. Similarly, I can see the benefit in people getting the community care grant at the same time as the tenancy, but I would have to see your correspondence and look at the issue in more detail.
Again with regard to the community care grant, many organisations, such as Barnardo’s, have mentioned that they are quite concerned about the amount of money that the Scottish Government has put to one side to try to deal with the social fund. I think that it is £25 million, although I could be wrong on that. You mentioned in your opening comments that welfare reform is already hitting people in England and outlined what that means for the homelessness targets there. In what ways are you trying to mitigate the impact in Scotland, given that more vulnerable people might try to use the fund yet there seems to be a set budget for it? What will we do with the vulnerable people if the money runs out? What contingency plans are in place?
That is a big issue. I did not try to give the impression that welfare reform is affecting only those in England, because there is no question but that it is affecting people in Scotland, even to the extent of affecting landlords’ decisions to invest in housing stock. There is disquiet among landlords about the effect of the housing benefit reforms in particular, in two respects. One concerns the number of bedrooms, which you will know about, and the second relates to direct payments. People who might be living fairly chaotic lives will now receive their housing benefit direct, rather than having it paid to the landlord, and that may have consequences.
We are trying to mitigate the impact in several ways. First, we have undertaken a piece of work with the housing options hubs to look at what mitigation measures we can take. We will consider the effect first, and then look at what we need to do to mitigate that. Secondly, we have asked the five regional hubs to report back to us.
In particular, we have asked one prominent housing association to work with the Department for Work and Pensions to see what the impact will be. There is a joint project going on in Edinburgh just now with Dunedin Canmore, which is working with the DWP as it rolls out further aspects of the reforms to see what the effects are, so that we can quickly learn from that and try to apply those lessons elsewhere.
Obviously, the concern is that vulnerable people will be turned away. Are you saying that you are doing everything that you can?
It is not a question of us simply accepting the welfare reforms: we have opposed them and have tried our best to argue for a different way forward. Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Neil and I have written to the relevant minister to say what we think the worst effects of the welfare reforms would be. Some of those issues have not been resolved. There is still the potential for some changes in relation to supported accommodation, for example. We have opposed some of the decisions that have been taken rather than just accepting them, and we have looked at ways in which we can mitigate their effects.
It will take a bit of time to see exactly what the effects are, although we think that we know what some of them will be. I gave you some examples such as direct payments, putting young people together in accommodation and the configuration of the current housing stock around two-bedroom and three-bedroom properties, which makes things more difficult. We think that those are the pressure points, but, rather than just saying that that is what we expected, we are ensuring that mitigation work is going on around the country through the housing options hubs.
How will welfare reform impact on the 2012 commitment?
There is a fair degree of trepidation in that regard, not just because of the welfare reforms but because of the recession. People have been climbing that hill for the past nine years and they are about to get to the top, and suddenly they are hit with welfare reform and the recession, both of which produce substantial pressures. That is why the figures that have been published today are all the more remarkable.
When I got this job last year, there were enough people around me—not Marion Gibbs; I did not intend to look at her—saying that there was a real problem in trying to meet the 2012 commitment. A huge amount of work has been done before and since I got the job to make sure that we meet it. If we do so before the end of the year, it will be all the more remarkable because it will have been done in the teeth of a recession that has put pressure on families, and in the face of welfare reform. Despite those pressures, we have managed to effect a substantial reduction in homelessness—I mentioned the 16 per cent reduction in youth homelessness—at the same time as the figures are rising in England, which is attributed in large part to the effects of welfare reform. If that is happening in England and we are undergoing the same welfare reform, we must be doing something radically different to achieve those improved figures and continue to progress towards the 2012 target.
I have a supplementary on that. Do you accept that a young person who is allocated accommodation might require a community grant to get the essentials for that accommodation and that, if that grant takes several weeks to materialise, the tenancy could fail and the young person could be in a much riskier situation than they were prior to being allocated the accommodation?
An awful lot of work has been done by the people who are involved in this area to make sure that the keys and tenancy are not just handed over in that way. There are many different ways of doing that, such as making sure that the person who is taking on the tenancy has been given some financial education—an awareness of budgeting, and so on—that they might not have had before, which is vital to sustaining a tenancy. The community care grant is in Nicola Sturgeon’s area rather than mine, but I accept that, if the absence of the grant and what it can do for people means that they are less prepared to take on a tenancy, that is not a good thing. I can see your point, but we are trying to make sure that people are as prepared as possible from day one when they take on a tenancy.
I was interested in your earlier reference to North Ayrshire Council. The convener and I were very fortunate to be able to visit Quarriers in Saltcoats and meet some young people there. We were particularly struck by their candid accounts of what life had doled out to them, and we were impressed with the recognition of the role of intervention and subsequent mediation. It seemed to us that intervention could begin at school.
I realise that you have ministerial responsibility for housing and transport, but I am interested to know about the extent to which you are able to cross departments with your colleagues. There is an important issue here to do with peer education in schools. Some of those young people said to us that, had they understood what being homeless was like, they might have taken a different route. One young lady was honest enough to say that she had been so difficult and challenging at home that nothing would have affected her decision to leave, but I think that she was in the minority. The others were clear that the reality of homelessness was a far cry from their perception of independent living.
To what extent are you able to liaise with your colleagues in education and those who have responsibility for young people? There is work to be done at the educational level. It might be easy to say that it is up to the 32 local authorities to sort out, and I do not doubt their resolve and wish to sort it out, but the Government could play a useful role in giving a policy lead. I would like to hear your comments on that.
On the whole question of intervention with mediation, after we met the lady from North Ayrshire Council at Quarriers we thought that it was important for the council to come before the committee with evidence. We found the example in North Ayrshire inspiring and impressive. Mediation is essentially a council responsibility, but is there some sort of cross-departmental Government approach that could help?
The education side of things is not quite as difficult for me because of the job that I had before I got this one. Curriculum for excellence includes the requirement for young people to come out of school with an understanding of financial management. When the issue has been discussed previously, it has usually been in relation to young people not falling prey to credit cards or other punitive credit facilities and ensuring that they understand what they are getting into with credit. However, the issue is wider than that and is about being able to manage a budget. Much more work is being done on that. As it has been some time since I did that job, I cannot say whether the work is being done at the same pace and to the same extent in all 32 local authorities, but it is being done. Local authorities have the ability to do that, and it is happening—I know, because I have seen it in some places.
14:30
At the very least, there is a recognition that we must prepare young people. However, the issue is not just about young people, as some people who come out of the armed forces and prison do not have that ability. Among the organisations that the Scottish Government funds and the partners with whom we work outwith the local authority sector, there is a good appreciation that we have to ensure that individuals understand budgeting and the necessity of paying rent. Those organisations cannot retrospectively provide an education, but they ensure that people have that understanding. In organisations outwith local authorities, there is a good appreciation of what is required to ensure that people have the necessary budgeting skills to sustain a tenancy. That is happening for people who are coming through the education system now, and support is available for those who have been through the education system and perhaps did not get as much financial education as they should have.
Annabel Goldie’s example from North Ayrshire tends to describe the personalisation approach, in which the circumstances of the person drive the response. This morning, I heard about a young woman whose mother had died and who found it completely impossible to live with her father, but mediation was successful to the extent that they now inhabit the same place and get on as much as they have to. That was an example from Edinburgh Cyrenians, but many other groups, including Quarriers, realise that mediation has to be about the personal circumstances of the individual. Another good organisation is the Bethany Christian Trust, which provides services in Leith. In some ways, in the past few years, those third sector organisations have probably led the rest of us towards the personalisation element in services.
The points that Annabel Goldie raises are well understood in the sector. It is true that the issues sometimes fall into different responsibilities in the Government but, by and large, the connections are made when they need to be. The third sector organisations certainly make the connections.
So no Government proposals or new approaches are imminent or in the pipeline.
Sorry, but in relation to what?
I am interested in the Government’s proactivity or dynamism in the field. I do not dispute for a moment that a lot of good work has been done and is going on but, given that we have all those separate people—local authorities, individual local authority departments and areas of Government responsibility—I have a slight concern about how you, as a Government minister, encourage methods that have proved to be successful. Is there proactive activity?
Yes, we do that. When we provide grants to the third sector, we tend to support and work with the organisations. There are a number of forums, not least joint ones with COSLA, in which the third sector is involved. The sharing of best practice is pretty systemic. Those things are understood.
Marion Gibbs might want to say more on that.
A few things come to mind immediately. Annabel Goldie mentioned how helpful mediation has been for North Ayrshire Council, as it has been in all councils. The minister talked about our housing options hubs, in which the local authorities and their partners are brought together so that they can share practice and understanding. They are all keen on mediation. It is one of the early ideas that has been put forward, as it is a quick win in many places and is really sensible and supportive stuff. In the hub for Lothian and Borders, because mediation training is fairly expensive, the local authorities that are involved—I think that there are five—got members of their staff to join together to undertake specialised training so that they could go back to the local authorities and promote that work, with a particular focus on preventing homelessness. That is a helpful way in which the hubs are enabling the sharing of understanding about the practical things that can be done on homelessness.
The other thing that comes to mind is our supported accommodation and implementation group, in which we have a number of Scottish Government departments as well as the voluntary sector, local authorities, COSLA and the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers. The group tries to disseminate different ways of thinking about homelessness. Mediation is not all about supported accommodation—how the whole picture is established is quite important, and the group picks up all of what we would call cross-cutting issues and the ways in which we can best learn.
We thought that the housing options hubs were a good model for other forms of activity in other subject areas. An independent evaluation was commissioned on that, which reported in March. It asked how we make such partnerships work, looked at how we can share good practice, and stripped out the housing and homelessness angle and just had the hubs as a method of working. The minister referred to the statistics this morning, but the picture is bigger than just the statistics. Where we see success coming through on the ground is a crucial indicator. It is about a package of different things that all come together.
My final question—
Stuart McMillan wants to ask a supplementary, first.
My question is on the education element again. The minister mentioned the financial element of the curriculum for excellence. Prior to its introduction, had any external work been undertaken on how other countries provide that type of facility within the education system, so that we could introduce a system that is better than what exists elsewhere?
Also, is there any possibility that the finance element of curriculum for excellence could be extended to include homelessness?
I mentioned curriculum for excellence specifically in relation to financial education and ensuring that young people are ready for what might hit them when they leave school. When curriculum for excellence was developed, quite a lot of research was done into provision in other countries. What happened then—it still happens to some extent, but it is some time since I left the education brief—was that private sector organisations provided specific courses, which tended to be towards the end of a student’s school career. The Royal Bank of Scotland was heavily involved—I am sure that the computers all worked then—in providing advice and courses to young people who were about to enter the workforce. It was not systematic enough, and people could fall through the cracks. What we are seeing now is a bit more fundamental; we have to start a bit earlier. It is important that every child gets that financial education through curriculum for excellence.
What was your second point?
It was about inclusion of a homelessness element. I know that you are no longer an education minister, but could you make representations to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning for that to be considered?
Yes. I think that there is such work going on at the moment.
The convener mentioned the impact of knowing what homelessness entails. I am not saying that homelessness ever sounds like an attractive option, but it could be an option that young people are much more concerned to avoid. I will find out exactly what is being done, and I will pass a note to the cabinet secretary on the issue that you have raised.
When you are passing a note to the cabinet secretary, could you ask him whether young people at school are taught how to cook, these days?
I will ask him, although I know that the answer is yes. I have been to enough schools in my time to know that young people are being taught how to cook. In most schools that I have visited, the food was very tasty.
It must be a vast improvement on my day, when the food neither looked appetising nor tasted good.
One thing that has vastly improved since your day and my day is the facilities. There are some fantastic facilities throughout the country for learning how to cook. I take the point about sustaining a tenancy, and people being able to look after themselves in that way.
Absolutely. Our impression is that many of the young people who end up homeless are coping with a variety of rather chaotic circumstances in their life, and some of them do not have a clue how to cook, and tend to buy pre-made, expensive meals, which does nothing for their budget.
I mentioned the Bethany Trust. Through the trust, before people move in to their own tenancy, they are placed in shared accommodation, with people from the trust also present. As part of the preparation for the tenancy, each person takes their turn at preparing the food—including vegetables and fruit—and cooking. That practice is reflected among many—but probably not all—other providers.
We have heard distressing tales about young people being referred, in emergencies, to mainstream hostels—which are usually adult environments—because they were the only available option. Will the Scottish Government ensure that there is an adequate provision of supported accommodation throughout the country, and that there are appropriate support mechanisms in place? I think we all agree that a young person’s ending up in a mainstream hostel is not terribly good news.
No, it is not—but it is also true to say that temporary accommodation is sometimes the best solution for young people and the general population. It is not always because that is all that is available; for various reasons—not as a permanent solution, obviously—it is sometimes the best solution and one that the people want. The ideal is to have supported accommodation where it is required, so work on that is on-going. We have considered the matter and are now looking at implementation of supported accommodation, which should get us to the position whereby it is available to all those who need it.
I return to Marion Gibbs’s point about the hubs because it touches on a few other subjects that have been raised. The idea is that the various partners will consider the individual needs of a young person who is looking for supported accommodation, and will work with each other—registered social landlords and others—to ensure that they get the right solution. Sometimes that solution is temporary accommodation.
Last year, when the hubs had been operating for about six or seven months, I went to a catch-up seminar on how they are working out. Today has reminded me that one of the chief executives whom I met there said that the housing situation and how people deal with homeless applicants has been transformed. He felt—the chap has been dealing with homelessness for 25 years—that the situation had, in the past, been very much a box-ticking exercise to show that a person had been dealt with, rather than its necessarily being about finding the accommodation that the person needed. The process has been stood on its head and now it really is about finding the right solution for each individual. He had also spoken to a person who provides front-line services in Glasgow who had said to him that her job had been pretty unsatisfying previously, but has been transformed.
To complete the circle, the hubs seminar that I attended was almost like a cheerleading rally, such was the enthusiasm that was shown by people who have been working in a tough job for a long time, and who have seen a major change in how the work is done. It is great, and important, that the people who are delivering the service feel that it has improved. The obvious test is that we ensure that the people who are receiving the service also feel that it has improved, but we are on the right lines in that.
Our inquiry is called “Having and keeping a home”, which presupposes that there are homes to have. You have talked about the configuration of the existing supply. On future supply—you have talked about investment from the private sector—as matters stand, we have families with children of both genders in two-bedroom houses although they should, ideally, be in three-bedroom houses.
With the house building that is taking place, what cognisance is taken of the growing demand for single-room accommodation?
We have a programme—on which we made a manifesto commitment—to make available 30,000 affordable homes for rent by the end of the parliamentary session. That is a tough commitment to meet, given our resources—as you know, the capital budget has been cut by a third. Within that 30,000, 20,000 of the homes should be for social rent, and 5,000 should be council houses, so we have a major council-house building programme for the first time in a generation.
Last year, when I got this job, I was told that we needed to find around £630 million to deliver the programme. We have found that money, albeit that we were initially £10 million short. However, the cost has increased to around £710 million.
14:45
I mention those figures to show that we are trying to sweat every pound in order to maximise the number of available houses. The monies were initially disbursed through the innovation and investment fund, which was a one-year deal that fell between the spending review periods. We are now in a three-year period and the disbursal of the monies is dealt with by local authorities through their strategic housing investment plans. Those plans must take cognisance of future demand for houses. I do not deny that there might be substantially more demand.
Also, if houses are being built, lots of people are being employed, paying taxes, and receiving wages rather than being paid benefits. That is also true of transport. Both are very labour-intensive things to invest in. There is no question but that we would like to do far more than we are, but we believe that what we have put in place will help us to achieve our manifesto commitment.
I will also mention future proofing, which is not something that John Finnie specifically raised. We are looking towards future trends in housing. In most of the housing developments in which the Scottish Government has been involved, I have seen downstairs en suite bathrooms, level shower rooms and ramps being incorporated, which means that people will not have to move accommodation in their later life. There is a lot of recognition of future needs, but we would like to do more.
Has any adjustment taken place or any advice been issued to local authorities or housing associations regarding the impending housing benefit situation, in which we will see, in effect, attacks on people who are in single occupancy of two-bedroom houses? On the numbers level, there appears to be an attraction to having three-bedroom houses as family houses. There are competing demands. Is that reflected in any adjustment to engagement with local authorities?
It is a kind of iterative process whereby we are in relatively constant discussion about our monies and contributions with local authorities and RSLs, who have a responsibility to put together the strategic housing investment plan. There has also been substantial discussion about what they think will be the likely effect of the welfare reforms. As members will probably know, many councils have had their eye on the issue.
For example, a person who is getting older and lives in a three-bedroom house, in which they had lived with their family, might not want to move to a one-bedroom house as they may have people stay with them regularly. They might prefer to move to a two-bedroom house, which was prohibited by allocations policies in the council that I was involved in. My impression is that many councils are now being much more flexible and thereby relieving the pressure on three-bedroom properties.
We are also discussing with councils the need for one-bedroom houses. Through the national housing trust, we see that in the markets for those types of properties, demand is not being met as we would like. There is no doubt that it is difficult for young people to get the finance to buy their own houses, which is a real problem. However, the Scottish Government is involved in initiatives such as mortgage guarantees to make sure that there is adequate supply for young people who want that type of accommodation.
I declare that I am a director of the Highland Homeless Trust. I am going to ask about the level of engagement between the hubs and the third sector. Siobhan McMahon mentioned the community care grant. In my locality, a third sector organisation fills a breach there and assists with provision of furnishings, although I have no doubt that we will get the money in due course. Can you assure us that there is maximum engagement with the third sector?
That is certainly the intention. Marion Gibbs has been working very closely with the hubs. It is fair to say that things are different in different areas. In staffing a new initiative, it is not unreasonable to expect that some people will take to things more quickly than others. The important thing is that those others learn from the best.
It is important that the third sector is involved. We have been working with local authorities and other partners—RSLs, mainly, but also the voluntary sector. Each hub engages with the voluntary sector in a different way. Some voluntary sector organisations provide a bit in admin or back-up support. As well as sitting at the table, they can make comments, which has been quite helpful. It is valuable to get the view of the third sector.
The Scottish Government funds a number of national co-ordinators who are based in third sector organisations. The committee will be particularly interested in our furniture reuse co-ordinator, who is involved in furnishing new tenancies. The national co-ordinators encourage growth in such areas. Our service-user involvement co-ordinator plays a critical role, and we also have an employability co-ordinator. Although they are funded by the Scottish Government, they are based in third sector organisations, which means that we can get the benefit of the energy and encouragement of that sector, which also gives us a slightly different view on things.
It is quite right to point out that the hubs are all developing slightly differently, depending on the local circumstances and context, but they all have an eye on the potential that exists for development with the voluntary sector, and we try to encourage that and make connections whenever possible.
Could you share more information about the co-ordinators with the committee in a letter?
Certainly.
That answers a wee bit the question that I wanted to ask about the hubs, but I have another question about them. Last week, we heard evidence that painted an extremely positive picture, but which, from our experience with councils, seemed almost too good to be true. How will you measure the success of the hubs? I understand that there are not hubs everywhere. How will you promote the hubs? Are we right in assuming that housing associations will be partners in the hubs? How do the hubs link with community partnerships?
Marion Gibbs will be able to deal with some of those questions. How do we measure the hubs’ success? As Marion said, we cannot go solely on the figures, but they are quite important. The figures that were produced three months ago were astoundingly good, so people started to ask questions. Moray Council and Aberdeen City Council, in particular, had extremely good figures. On my request, officials went to look at the three top-performing authorities to get underneath the figures. We have since found out nothing that causes us to doubt them.
Shelter expressed some concern about the fact that there had been such a dramatic improvement. In such circumstances, it is right to go and check on what has happened, so we did that. Fairly dramatic improvements were evident three months ago and today’s figures are equally dramatic, not just because they represent such an improvement, but because they do so at a time when the situation in England, which is going through the same welfare reforms that we are going through, has gone in the opposite direction. That has been attributed—by the statisticians, and not by the policy makers—to the hubs. If the committee gets the chance to see the full report, it will see that one of the headlines in it is that the improvements are attributed to the hubs. That is one measure of their success, and we will continue to use that measure right the way through this crucial year.
Although we must ensure that the hubs continue to develop and evolve post-2012, we should not rush past what is happening now. If we can, as we hope to, achieve the 2012 target, that will be a huge achievement on the part of local authorities and others across the country, and we should recognise the effort that has gone into that. For natural reasons, the measurement of the hubs’ success this year will be closely aligned with the figures on our efforts to get everyone through the gate to achieve the target.
Beyond that, we must continue to improve the services and to ensure that the hubs learn from each other. I mentioned the seminars that the hubs hold. At the seminar that I was at, people from the different hubs around the country were involved in a very lively discussion. They are obviously learning from each other. How can we continue to measure their success? One suggestion that I have heard is that, rather than wait for people who have issues that might result in their presenting as homeless to come to them, they should go out into the community to find people before they present as homeless.
Those are the ways in which we will judge the success of the hubs. This year, we will look closely at the figures.
I will add a bit to what the minister said. In measuring the success of the hubs, we are also trying to capture all the important activity on prevention. Our statisticians are trying to build a model of that. Although the statistics show that the number of homelessness presentations is going down, an awful lot of prevention activity is going on that is helping many more people. We need to put together information on that. Each local authority gives us such information, but we do not have a national picture, so we want to focus on that.
The focus up to now has been on getting closer to and meeting the target, but we want to move on, post 2012, to prevention work. That is related to the point about some, but not all, housing associations being formally involved in some, but not all, hubs and their activities. However, there is a role for all housing associations in looking at the tenants and families who rent their stock and assessing where they can take early action, as the minister said, to prevent homelessness. They can get involved, for example, in tenants’ financial budgeting or with mediation services when there are family breakdowns. Housing associations can do a range of things and have been doing so for a long time.
As I said, some housing associations are formally part of hubs—for example, Glasgow Housing Association is an active member in Glasgow—but we can grow that aspect and get people to understand what is involved. We have a different dialogue with housing associations now; it is not just about asking them how many homeless households they have housed, but is more about asking what we can all do together on prevention.
You said that not everyone is involved, but 31 of the 32 local authorities are members of hubs. There is a lot of access in that regard, which is important. The hubs operate quite differently, but the vast majority of local authorities have successfully stayed involved.
You also mentioned community partnerships, which differ depending on where they are in Scotland, but we are doing a lot of work around the health and homelessness standards. We are involved in quite a lot of activity around that because it sits with the health agenda and not just the homelessness agenda. However, we need to continue work on that, because people become homeless because of mental health issues, for example, so we want to develop our approach to that.
My final question is about housing people who are homeless in the area that I represent, which is the Highlands and Islands. The homelessness problem can be different in rural areas. In my experience, people who are assigned a house in a community because they are homeless are often not from that community, which can cause huge problems—they can be resented by the community. How do the hubs deal with that problem? Two extremely good books have been written about priorities for housing need, about what has happened in terms of cultural changes and so on, and about how much that is taken into consideration when dealing with the homelessness problem. I suspect that urban areas also have similar problems, but it is one of the biggest issues that we deal with in small communities.
The hubs try to prevent homelessness by finding the right housing solution for people, which is sometimes done through one of the hub partners finding them accommodation. However, that is not always the case. It is surprising the extent to which we do not have to find people accommodation if proper support and advice are given. However, that tends to be determined by the housing association’s or the council’s allocation policy. They have rightly tended to concentrate on need rather than on always accommodating people in the place where they want to be. The allegation is often made that people from outwith an area have an advantage over people from the area, but it is important that the allocation is made on the basis of need.
Local connections are important and people will gain points if they have local connections. We have said that veterans should not have to prove a local connection because it is difficult for them to do that for obvious reasons, and there is a different category for people who are coming out of custody. Such decisions tend to be taken according to the allocation policies of the housing association or the council.
15:00
I am not suggesting for a minute that such people should not get a house, but not everybody sees the result as being fair and people can continue to be homeless because they do not stay. It seems to me that the community that a young person goes into is just as important as their learning how to cook and how to maintain a house. There are homeless people whose stay in certain areas becomes short term, so we must put that right rather than question their right to the house. I absolutely accept that those who are in greatest need should get houses.
I acknowledge the constraints under which councils and housing associations operate because of the stock that they have. They will often try to ensure, if possible, that a young person goes to a place where other young people already are, and similar approaches are taken for other categories of applicants. They have an eye on that, but are often constrained by the stock that is available to them. Some also operate choice-based allocation systems whereby they must also have regard to individuals’ choices.
I take Jean Urquhart’s point; if it is possible for councils and housing associations to do that, it is right that they should. It is important not to get into a social engineering role, but in ensuring that a tenancy is sustainable it is perfectly legitimate for them to take such action. Many authorities do, but constraints sometimes do not allow them to do it as much as they want.
It is an allocation issue, in a sense. We have a code of guidance on homelessness that goes alongside the legislation, which talks about trying to get sustainable solutions. It is not just about putting people into accommodation; it is about looking at their social networks, their family connections and all of that. In rural areas, that can be a huge challenge because of the geography, which may mean that the issue of what accommodation is available comes into play.
We have just finished a consultation on the new duty around housing support, which means that every homeless household will be assessed to see whether they have a need for housing support. It is then up to the local authority to ensure that that support is provided. That might help with issues around new tenancies and sustaining them and the tensions that can grow around that. For people who are accessing housing support, there will be an angle in there as well, which will help in trying to iron out some of the problems. As you know, people sometimes have to be moved away from their home area because of other people in the area. The onus is therefore changed to making it about trying to settle people in and make the tenancy sustainable for them.
Three committee members have brief supplementary questions on hubs, but before I invite Dennis Robertson to ask the first I would like clarification of something that Marion Gibbs said about the hubs. Did I pick you up correctly—are 31 of the 32 local authorities members of hubs? If so, which local authority is not? I was under the impression that they were all part of the hubs.
Stirling Council started off being a member of a hub but decided that it did not want to continue in that role. We have had conversations with the council about that. It is pursuing the housing options approach to prevention, and its figure for assessing homeless applicants as being in priority need is 100 per cent, which has been one of our indicators. It is not as though Stirling Council is not doing any work on that; it just did not feel that it would gain much from going down the hub route. Our door is always open if the council wants to talk to us about that.
Does Stirling Council involve itself in joint partnership working? Does it access services and support from the local authorities that are in the hub that it would have been in?
That is what we try to encourage. In the seminar that the minister referred to—we hope to run another similar one—there was a bit about trying to get that happening. At the moment the inter-hub activity—the sharing of practice and the development of that relationship and that trust—is more developed. We hold the national seminars to showcase activity across the piece so that people working in the area can understand what is happening in other hubs.
I attend quite a lot of the individual hub meetings so I can provide that bridge—I can say that another hub is doing something particularly good in the private rented sector and it might be worth doing that. We also have a series of activities that are a smaller-scale version of the national seminars—we call them the lead seminars. Representatives of the hubs come together and the mornings are set aside for sharing good practice. We held one earlier this month. People get an opportunity to discuss what is happening and what they can promote in their own areas. We recognise the value of the partnership working within the hubs. We want to capture that and extend it into the rest of Scotland so that best practice is shared.
The majority of young people who are homeless do not choose to be. There are usually mitigating circumstances as to why they become homeless. In the past, the stereotypical approach has generally been that it was the young person’s fault. However, on the majority of occasions it has probably not been that young person’s fault.
How confident are you that young people know where to go when they become homeless? Also, how confident are you that they will have a positive experience when they get there?
To take the second point first, I do not want to rely too heavily on the figures, because it is a question of each individual’s experience. However, the figures indicate that we are tending to have more and more positive outcomes—although as I said earlier, young people still comprise that same third of what is admittedly a reducing number of people. Overall, we are tending to get a positive outcome.
On your point about—
Sorry to interrupt, minister, but a positive outcome is different from a positive experience. When someone knocks on that first door and enters it, what is the experience like? Are people still pointing fingers or do they accept that the young person requires help and welcome them with open arms so that the experience is positive? I accept that the outcome tends to be positive and I welcome that, but is the experience positive?
The only way to get a definitive answer on that is to ask as many people as possible who have been through that experience what it has been like. Certainly the people I have spoken to have said that it has been a positive experience—I was speaking to two young people today about it and I have spoken to others in other parts of the country. We may see people because they are satisfied with the process—perhaps if somebody is dissatisfied with the process we do not hear much more from them.
The people who provide advice services and staff the hub services believe that they are doing a far better job than they were previously, which is a positive indication. I cannot give a definitive answer, but certainly the circumstantial evidence seems pretty positive.
On the point about whether we are making people aware of where the different services are, it is hard for the Government to ensure that that happens. A multitude of agencies are involved and we do not want to control them to that extent. We look to the fact that if people present with that need, they are known to the agencies—the agencies involved should be signposting to each other when that is the right thing to do.
The worry would be if somebody just did not know where to go and did not present. In that circumstance, they would not get a solution and the likelihood is that they would be rough sleepers or people in a difficult situation. However, that is not my impression. Most people who want assistance are able to get that service and they seem to be able to identify where to go. They might go to the wrong place in the first instance, but they are quickly sent to the right place.
That is fine—thanks.
Please excuse my ignorance, minister, but with regard to your comments on the success of the hubs and the various figures I was wondering whether there had been any changes in the criteria, the definitions or how the numbers were calculated.
No, there has been no change to the definition. Such a material change might affect the outcome and the only way you can have consistent figures is to use the same definition.
Have you been able to compare this year’s figures for the hubs with previous years’ figures or is this the first year that the hubs have been in operation?
This is the first full year for the hubs. As a result, we have not been able to compare figures for previous years; however, the definition of homelessness has not changed in that time.
Surely the very term “homelessness” is negative and denotes a negative experience. Should we not, as I suggested in a previous evidence session, try to make a more positive switch by calling these people “home-seekers”?
I listened to those comments on the radio and my view is that the term describes the situation. In any case, when we discussed this issue before we came into the room, Marion Gibbs mentioned certain constraints on the use of the term “homelessness”. Perhaps she will say something about that.
The legislation contains a particular definition for homelessness, which is used to trigger the rights-based element as well as for comparison purposes as time moves on.
However, your main point is more about language and the stigma attached to the term “homeless”. Interestingly, in our housing options work, we found that local authorities often rebrand their homelessness services as housing options services. If the term “homelessness” is used, a person might be self-selecting; however, if the term “housing options” is used, they might take a more positive approach, use such services earlier and, instead of thinking that everything has broken down, be able to have a discussion about what they are able to do. As we know, the closer you are to the point of crisis, the fewer options you have, because you do not have any more time.
Although we will keep the current definition of homelessness in statute and the really important rights-based safety net associated with it, the language is changing slightly to reflect a more positive experience and—I hope—to allow us to find different outcomes, solutions or options, which will include the homelessness application, if that is required. It is almost as if we are changing the terms of the debate in order to engage with people earlier rather than at the point of crisis.
Forgive me, minister, but I had meant to ask you another question earlier. We are envisaging a situation in which young people in care move out and perhaps go into supported accommodation in a Quarriers-type set-up or get a tenancy. However, might adult fosterers not be able to play a role for some young people? Has the Government done any work on that?
What do you mean by “adult fosterers”? Do you mean fostering children past the age of 16?
Yes. I am talking about giving a young person a home with responsible adults who are happy to support them. However, the young person would also have the in-between option of supported accommodation, which, although provided conscientiously, is not completely suited to everyone—and, certainly, that young person would not be able to contemplate taking on a sole tenancy.
I know that some young people are in accommodation with adults present in a supportive role—I was going to say “with adults supervising”, but I am not sure that that is the right term. However, I cannot say that I am aware of the kind of scheme that you have mentioned. Are you, Marion?
Not quite. This is not really my area, but colleagues who work in the field have told me that certain young people who are going through various looked-after options look for a supportive landlord or landlady-type arrangement. However, we are talking about a placement in a home, rather than some arm’s-length thing. I guess that we might be coming back to your earlier point about the way in which things kick in at the age of 16.
15:15
That is something that the Government might want to pursue in relation to the hubs in order to see whether there is any merit in that option.
We try to deal with it through mediation. Rather than dealing with the issue through the hubs, we would have to develop a different approach with social work. I will consider the issue with colleagues. There might be obvious reasons that have not occurred to me about why it should not be done, but we will certainly examine the issue and get back to you with what we are able to find out.
Training and employment are areas of concern for someone who is homeless. Earlier, we touched on the situation of someone who has got out of homelessness by securing a tenancy, and the issue of how that is funded. We have seen the figures for youth unemployment, which is a challenging area for the Government and the whole country. Has the Government undertaken any work to try to link in more with people who are homeless and improve their opportunities and their future in terms of training and employment?
Work is being done by the Government and, perhaps more relevantly, by the organisations that I mentioned before. Today, I heard about two cases in which young people had had accommodation provided and had found work—in one case, voluntary work—that led on to part-time work with the charity that had helped them to find accommodation. Having that accommodation had a stabilising effect. In one case, the young person had managed to accumulate substantial arrears but was unaware of the various benefits that would help him to address those arrears. Third sector organisations got involved and appeared in court on the young person’s behalf. Eventually, virtually all the arrears had been paid back and, after their home environment had stabilised, the young person went on successfully to enter employment. Such work is going on across the country.
As is the case in relation to the housing stock issue that was raised earlier, there are limitations. The general employment situation is one of the big constraints that we have. The Government has made a commitment to give people the opportunity to train, stay in education or take up an apprenticeship—for people between the ages of 16 and 19 there is a guarantee in that regard—but the idea of jobs being provided is different. The job situation has its own difficulties. Through Angela Constance’s portfolio, the Government is investing a substantial amount of money—around £9 million—in that area, including funding for the continuation of community jobs and social enterprises that provide employment opportunities for young people. I will not say that it is not an issue, but the biggest constraint at the moment is the availability of jobs.
Everyone recognises that unemployment can scar someone for life, just as homelessness can. Sustaining a home without a job can be as difficult as sustaining a job without a home. People recognise the link between the two.
I thank the minister and Marion Gibbs for coming along to give evidence to the committee.
15:19
Meeting suspended.
15:23
On resuming—