Housing (Scotland) Bill
I welcome Peter Barry from the Scottish Refugee Council to give evidence on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Peter Barry will speak for five or 10 minutes, after which members will ask questions. We received the submission only this morning—I understand that you had problems with your computer system.
Peter Barry (Scottish Refugee Council):
Although the committee has only just received the submission, the report was written some time ago. It was forwarded but was, apparently, mislaid. I have brought an additional summary of our views, which may inform the discussion. The document that was submitted in advance to the committee was rather a long narrative—I would be unable to speak to it within five minutes.
The Scottish Refugee Council warmly welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We have considerable concerns about provision—across the panorama of social inclusion issues—for refugees who are granted and begin their citizenship in Scotland. It is a high-profile, high-pressure area of work, given the level and the nature of the programme of dispersal from the south-east of England—especially Dover and London—to Scotland. Scotland and Glasgow—in particular—are major players in the dispersal programme. The programme creates a major challenge for Scotland's housing providers and—through its resource and service implications—creates challenges across a range of social inclusion issues, such as social work, education, community care, policing, racism and so on.
Many of the principles in the Housing (Scotland) Bill are warmly welcomed in so far as they extend the rights of individuals who are homeless or threatened with homelessness to gain access to the full range of available housing and to get clear advice on the nature of housing options. My comments will be concerned with exploring whether those measures are sensibly made available to refugees, to other minorities and to people who speak limited or no English.
On refugee needs, our concern is about the process that applies to asylum seekers—who have few citizenship rights in Scotland—and to refugees, who have the full rights of any other citizen. We are anxious that the bill should take into account the full range of the refugee experience: the trauma and mental health problems that are often evident; the critical issue of language and interpreting; poverty, isolation and displacement; and the need to develop refugee communities. Those issues are a challenge to settlement and would affect the Housing (Scotland) Bill. For example, following a positive decision on a person's application, there is a time scale of only 14 days during which that person must access housing and social welfare support before they are evicted from national asylum support service accommodation. The major challenge for advice agencies, individuals and providers is to ensure that people do not fall through the safety net.
Historically, refugees have received limited information about their rights—especially their housing rights—and their choices at that key point in their settlement. That has been compounded by the fact that, at that point, many refugees' command of English is still fairly limited. The Scottish Refugee Council is anxious to ensure that measures are put in place to ensure that refugees have the opportunity to apply for all appropriate housing stock from different providers. I understand that the Housing (Scotland) Bill proposes new rights for people to register on their preferred housing list—that is welcome.
That right must clearly and effectively be made available to refugees and their families, to promote the development of what might be described as choice-led clusters. A cluster is a key concept in the refugee world. It describes the need to facilitate refugee and ethnic minority communities in their attempts to live in communities and to develop community identities and strengths and—through those—a voice. It is also important that the measure leads to fair distribution of desirable housing stock.
The proposal to extend the right to buy might create additional burdens for refugees who are, at the point of their application, bereft of any such right. Legislation should also ensure that the duty on local authorities to provide proper advice to applicants is extended to refugees at the point of their transition from asylum seeker to citizenship, but in a manner that is useful for refugees and other people who speak limited English.
The committee may have already seen the report, "I Didn't Come Here For Fun", which was published by Save the Children in Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council. That report reveals a harrowing level of racist abuse and attacks on refugee and asylum seeker children since their arrival in Scotland. It throws new light on the view that Scotland always extends a warm welcome. That is of concern not only to the Scottish Refugee Council, but to legislators.
The link between racist violence and the increase in the numbers of refugees suggests that the bill should include mechanisms to promote the personal safety and security of refugees as they strive to become integrated. Although I could not comment on the detail of such mechanisms, they could perhaps link provision to anti-social behaviour orders and a means of reporting attacks to third parties. Although it may be a little early to do so, the Scottish Parliament could consider commissioning research that would identify the full implications for housing and social inclusion of the dispersal of refugees in Scotland. We do not know how many people will settle in Scotland—we do not yet know how many people will come to Scotland. We do not know about their family groups or their history. From start to finish of the dispersal exercise, management information is extremely poor. It will be unfortunate if we miss the opportunity to properly oversee dispersal in Scotland. Information and research will be critical to that process.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill should also make provision for especially vulnerable groups. There is an argument that all refugees can be defined as vulnerable because of their circumstances and because they are new to this country. However, there are particular indicators of vulnerability, including physical health and community care needs, large families, single parents and single women. For women, physical abuse, rape and other forms of torture may lie behind their claims for asylum and women from different societies that have different social mores might struggle to articulate their rights in this country.
In summary, there is concern about the potential numbers of refugees. Many thousands of people may settle in Scotland in the coming years and, given the size of the existing ethnic minority population, that will have a major impact on services and on the views of indigenous communities. A number of reports and a MORI poll show that there is massive misunderstanding about numbers and the extent and type of issues that surround refugees and ethnic minority communities in Britain, including Scotland. We need a strategic response—measures in the Housing (Scotland) Bill will be part of that response.
The Home Office's proposals on integration in its recent strategy document—I do not know whether the Scottish Executive has had the opportunity of scrutinising the document—mentioned housing issues only once, in reference to a proposed rent deposit scheme that is due to be in place by July 2001. Welcome as that proposal is, it only skims the surface of the range of housing issues that must be considered to facilitate dignified and safe settlement of refugees in Scotland.
Thank you.
It is known that many thousands of asylum seekers will come to Scotland. Do you see any evidence that local authorities are beginning to make provision for that level of demand, not only in relation to their housing stock, but in relation to their other services? "I Didn't Come Here For Fun" clearly shows the scale of the difficulties and recommends some very good strategic measures in a joint approach to address the issues. Given that, are authorities responding and recognising that dramatic changes will have to be made to how services are provided and information is made available to accommodate the needs of the asylum seekers who will come to Scotland?
My response to that question is mixed. Following the publication of that report, we were contacted by a number of council departments in Glasgow. The council's culture and leisure services department, for example, has introduced an excellent initiative for holiday programmes for refugee children. In terms of statutory functions, a number of other welcome measures are in place. However, I sense that given the pace of dispersal and that there is a fairly uncertain planning environment—I would not apologise for local authorities, but I acknowledge that planning has been a challenge for them—there may be a gap between the delivery of services to asylum seekers and settlement provisions. That is not an issue that is exclusive to local authorities—there has not been much thinking ahead about settlement. I am not confident that enough discussion has taken place—not only within local authorities, but in the voluntary sector and in the Scottish Executive and the Home Office—on statutory responsibilities for housing, social work, education and health. That should now take a primary place in discussion on refugees and asylum seekers.
There is little evidence that provision is in place in Scotland in local authorities other than Glasgow's, but there is little need for it because, at this point, it does not seem that there will be significant movement to anywhere other than Glasgow, certainly within the next financial year. That might change but, at present, we are concentrating on Glasgow, which has a very difficult job.
Glasgow City Council is contracted to provide 2,500 units of housing, but it does not know when the units will be filled. As the committee no doubt knows, the council agreed that the pace of dispersal would be increased from last Thursday, 14 December. That means that one bus a night leaves England for Glasgow with approximately 43 individuals on it. Over 10 weeks that will amount to around 4,300 individuals. I am concerned that the increased pace of dispersal will mean that service providing departments will be caught unawares.
Is that not more the case because the increase in dispersal has started in the run up to Christmas and new year, when so many service providers will have staff on holiday and fewer people will be available to help?
Yes. Although information is limited, I understand that although the increased dispersal programme will stop between Christmas and new year, it will operate until Christmas and will begin again immediately after new year. There are major concerns about our ability to provide even the most basic services and about significant resource implications and service gaps in the context of the increased numbers. Unlike the usual process whereby asylum seekers arrive in Scotland, which tends to be dominated by single men, the dispersal programme is dominated by families who have children, which creates a range of other problems for local authorities and other service providers.
You mentioned clusters. Over many years, reports have shown that even with the best will in the world, and with well-intentioned policies, ghettos have been created because institutionalised prejudice has allowed refugees to be put into poorer housing. Even if there is goodwill and an enhanced level of inter-agency support, do you believe that local authorities are aware of the problems that will face them when 4,300 people arrive and must be accommodated? Is there a danger of not learning from history and of recreating problems that will impact on the services and on the refugees?
Yes, there is that danger. The Audit Commission report, "Another Country", which was published in June this year, set out three key factors that should be in place to ensure healthy dispersal. There should be an adequate supply of good quality housing, adequate support services and there should be existing ethnic minority communities into which people can integrate. In Scotland we do not have extensive ethnic minority communities that reflect the nationality of people who are being dispersed. High quality housing is a key principle of healthy dispersal and the Housing (Scotland) Bill offers opportunities to move away from the historical ghettoisation of refugee clusters towards an opportunity for refugees to seek out and select more attractive housing in areas that they see as safer. The proposed principles are fine and success will lie in the wording of the bill and local authority policies, in the leadership that is given by the Scottish Executive and in the work of the voluntary sector. The wording of the regulations that will back up the bill must define clearly the areas into which refugees and asylum seekers should not be put. Poverty, problems with education, poor health and racial violence and racial crime tend to go along with housing ghettos. There is a risk, but I believe that the planned measures will move local authorities away from that approach.
Without asking you to say that everything seems to be in place—
Everything is not in place—absolutely not.
That is basically what I am asking. There is evidence from the past of ghettoisation that resulted from bringing in large numbers of people and trying to integrate them into an existing population. Is there a danger that that could be repeated?
There is a significant danger of that. I was talking about the principles. The ideas are good, but the practical application of those ideas has yet to unfold and I am very concerned about the very point that Michael McMahon makes.
How do you feel about integration within the local authorities and inter-agency working? Is that happening?
The function to co-ordinate inter-local authority work is the responsibility of the Scottish consortium, and it appears that a number of local authorities are not as informed as they could be. I cannot speculate on the reasons for that, but I think that there are gaps in the information that is available. That is creating some tensions for local authorities.
You said that a great deal of importance will be attached to the wording of the bill and the regulations. What would you like to see in them? How should they be framed to achieve the desired objectives?
Traditionally, in the drafting of regulations, exceptionally vulnerable groups are defined in the schedules. I hope that the schedules to the regulations clearly set down the responsibilities for refugees that local authorities should discharge.
A critical issue is the requirement to communicate and to provide interpreting services. The provision of interpreting services in Glasgow and in Scotland is entirely inadequate and does not meet the current need. There is already a problem, based on dispersal thus far, in communicating local authorities' responsibilities on refugees' rights to the people for whom they provide services. That conflict requires a resolution, through the allocation of resources, through planning and intensive recruitment. That should be stated explicitly.
The first of the two key issues that I focused on in my brief opening remarks concerns the need to provide access to a range of housing types on an equitable basis. To do that, a range of issues must be taken into account. If people have disabilities, their disabilities must be taken into account; if people do not have English as a first language, that must be a consideration; if large families, travellers' families or refugees are involved, it must be explicitly stated to local authorities what they require to put in place. I may not be able to comment on that in this forum—and there may not be time—but I would welcome the opportunity to add written comment to the drafting of any regulations on how to ensure that refugees' needs will be met regarding those provisions and access to a wide range of housing stock.
The second key issue concerns the statutory function of providing housing advice to prevent people who are threatened with homelessness becoming homeless. The regulations should state clearly local authorities' duties to provide advice not only to people with different languages, but to people with different cultural backgrounds, taking into account their cultural concerns, extended families and community care needs.
Another issue concerns people in Scotland who have been victims of racial crimes having been given refugee status. There is at that point no doubt about their credibility—they are refugees who are fleeing persecution, torture, victimisation and violence. Experiencing violence in Scotland adds insult to serious injury for them, and it is the responsibility of us all—under the leadership and guidance of the Scottish Executive—to ensure that legislation weeds that out and gives people the opportunity to live in safe and secure environments.
You mentioned the transition period between being an asylum seeker and becoming a refugee and said that two weeks are allowed, in which people must find alternative accommodation and work out the benefits system. The potential for homelessness in that two-week period must be enormous. Although the bill contains proposals to deal with that, I assume that you feel that they are wholly inadequate to provide a safeguard and that the two-week time limit is almost totally unrealistic.
I genuinely welcome the principles of extending rights and options, but I am concerned that the bill does not provide the details—as bills do not. The Executive has an opportunity to provide that detail.
The 14-day window is a huge challenge. The role of the Scottish Refugee Council has changed and been enhanced, and we now co-ordinate and lead services for social welfare, ensuring that the gap in service provision during that window is filled. However, to be honest, we do not have the capacity to provide those services directly.
The figures for the recently increased dispersal, which was announced just before it began on 14 December, suggest that between 2,500 and 4,300 individuals could be involved. Taking the upper figure, current statistics suggest that 63 per cent of those 4,300 applicants would be granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, which would entitle them to social security benefits and other aid. That suggests that, in three months, 2,700 people require advice in that short transition period. I cannot anticipate how that need would be met, and I am concerned about that.
In a recent meeting, Barbara Roche said that 10 per cent of applicants will be successful. I am sure that, as a Home Office minister, she is in a position to comment, but I am not aware that that view is based on statistics. If that percentage is accurate, perhaps 400 individuals will have the opportunity to apply for benefits and housing in that two-week period. That is a more manageable figure, although still challenging. Even the lowest figure—and, with respect, I do not think that it is based on statistical evidence—would create a challenge for providers. The Scottish consortium plays a critical role not only in the development of planning, but in implementing and overseeing the delivery of services—as does the Scottish Refugee Council—to ensure that the need for human resources and advice systems is met.
Are you being provided with increased resources to meet that increased need?
The resource implications are not clear. I have recently taken up the post of manager in the Scottish Refugee Council and I am reviewing our funding procedures. Historically, funding has been allocated piecemeal, in a fairly reactive way, by trusts and other bodies, although our core funding is provided by the Home Office. Some movement is taking place on settlement programmes, but I do not think that it is enough. I would need to return to the Executive or this committee to comment in more detail on whether the funding will meet the need.
You mentioned that housing should be suited to different groups—for example, if someone has a disability, they should be matched up to houses that are suitable for them. Some of the groups that have given evidence to the committee have said that a national network that could identify houses across every sector would be useful. Such a network would give people the same rights to different types of housing in different parts of the country. Would you regard a national network for housing for refugees as useful?
That might be premature. If dispersal led to the development of refugee communities in more local authorities, that would be a valid proposal. However, at the moment services will be concentrated in Glasgow and, to a lesser extent, in Edinburgh. Housing providers in the voluntary sector should ensure that their policies explicitly meet the needs of refugees as I have described them. Each agency should take a best-value approach. It is a valuable starting point that the provision of services should be designed to meet the needs of the applicants.
People with disabilities will be scattered throughout Scotland, but refugees will be concentrated in urban areas, so an additional responsibility goes with contracting to NASS, which is to ensure that long-term planning provides directly for the needs of those individuals.
Have you had an opportunity to study the bill?
Not in detail.
It has been published only this morning, so none of the committee has had the chance to study it either. When we have studied it, we might want to invite you back, if we have more questions on your submission and what we see in the bill. I hope that that would be all right.
You said that the lack of interpreting services is a critical factor. Does that arise because of a lack of resources to employ interpreters or because no one has the relevant skills to be employed as an interpreter?
Not many bilingual and multilingual speakers can address the kinds of languages that are coming to Scotland. We have moved away from the traditional second or third languages, such as Urdu, Punjabi, Chinese and Mandarin. We are now dealing with Farsi, languages from Afghanistan, Arabic dialects and Albanian, and there are not enough individuals who can take on that work. Therefore, I suggest that a national recruitment drive—not confined to Scotland and including London—should be undertaken to try to attract people to that work.
There may be resource implications for services, but service managers have been caught short in a way that they should not have been. Language was clearly going to be an issue from the outset and it is our responsibility to ensure that we plan around the pillars of dispersal. Interpreting services were not prepared. I am not suggesting that the managers of those interpreting services are at fault; I am suggesting that there should have been a management function to plan for the interpreting needs, which has been missing.
Is there any mechanism for recruiting potential interpreters from the people who are coming here as refugees?
No, because asylum seekers are not entitled to work. If they were granted refugee status, they could work. The issue would be their abilities: they need to be bilingually proficient in oral and written English. I managed the Kosovan programme in Scotland, for which we recruited a high number of bilingual workers, 98 per cent of whom came from London. One worker came from Scotland, but almost all our bilingual staff were from London. Despite the myriad talents and the commitment they showed, many of those workers had very poor written English. They were well educated in their own language, had very good oral skills and were talented workers, but their written English was poor. That is a problem for professional interpreting. The recruitment process is difficult. I would not want to appear glib, but it has always been difficult.
Is it not a barrier to expect people to produce good written English, although they might be good interpreters? Should we not be trying to work round that, instead of leaving it as a barrier to recruitment?
Yes. I am straying into unfamiliar territory. As a matter of principle, interpreting should be governed by a capacity to speak and write bilingually. That would enable people to read information and translate it properly. You are right, though—the majority of the day-to-day delivery of interpreting services concerns oral interpreting and basic communication.
My question may have only a tenuous connection to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but it follows on from what is being said about communication. Given that many families moving to Scotland rely on the younger generations to pick up the language and to interpret in the home, do you have any evidence that the educational needs of families are taken into account when housing allocations are made? Do local authorities match the needs of refugee families to the ability of a local education institution to accommodate those families' need to develop communication skills?
Glasgow City Council has developed some excellent bilingual units to assist in the integration into educational life in Scotland of people who do not have English as their first language. The service is aimed at children and there are a number of different units that provide it. The council has also implemented measures to ensure that the people from those units are active partners in the council's asylum support team. Some of the practices are absolutely superb and their work is very effective.
There are a number of issues about where children are located. There is major concern about children acting as interpreters. It is a fact that children have historically fulfilled that role, even in the ethnic groups that have been here for longer. Pakistani children from the Indian subcontinent have provided that service to their families for many years; that is a practical reality. My concern is that when it comes to refugee issues, using a child as an interpreter can lead us into dangerous territory. We know of cases in which children have interpreted for their parents in meetings with a solicitor at which a range of issues can arise that are entirely inappropriate even for older children. There are also grave concerns about children interpreting in a medical setting, which also happens.
Using children as interpreters is also a direct challenge to the normal family dynamic, because it creates a different balance of power in the family, which is not healthy for the family's integration into Scottish society. Having said that, we recognise that it is going on; it is a reality. You asked whether education departments provide for children to perform that role. Absolutely not. The education department would not, as I would not, endorse or support that, but we recognise it as a reality.
I was not asking whether education departments endorse the use of children as interpreters. I know that young children can pick up new languages more easily than older people can.
Absolutely.
Do local authorities take that into consideration when allocating houses? Do they try to find out whether a school is capable of accommodating the need to improve basic communication levels?
I am not aware of any measures that relate the allocation of housing to the educational needs of children, their capacity to communicate or whether they could cope in a non-bilingual school in the area.
Thank you, Peter, for coming to the committee today. Once members have had an opportunity to study the bill in greater detail, we may ask you to come back or members may contact you directly.
Thank you. I would welcome that.