Plenary, 01 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 1, 2000

Official Report 617KB pdf

---

Rough Sleeping

The next item of business is the main debate on motion S1M-921, in the name of Wendy Alexander, on tackling rough sleeping in Glasgow and across Scotland, and amendments to that motion. I ask members who are not staying for the debate to leave quickly and quietly.

It is fitting that we are having a debate about rough sleepers and their needs while the Parliament is meeting in Glasgow, where Scottish homelessness is at its most acute. Today I want to update Parliament on how we are expanding the rough sleepers initiative to address the toughest challenges that face us as we meet our challenging pledge to end by 2003 the need for anyone to sleep rough in Scotland.

We made that pledge last September. In October, we increased funding by 40 per cent from £26 million to £36 million. In November, we identified the scale of the problem: 8,000 to 11,000 Scots sleep rough at least one night. One in three have alcohol problems; one in three have a drug problem; one in four have a physical health difficulty; and one in five have a mental health problem.

In January, the homelessness figures fell by 9 per cent on the previous quarter, with a 5 per cent fall in families in temporary accommodation. That was only the start. In February, we tackled the problems in rural Scotland with 30 new projects outside the central belt, encouraged prevention through 10 rent deposit schemes, and addressed the problem of homelessness following a spell in prison by funding 11 prison outreach projects.

In March, we committed to a homelessness strategy for each local authority, to improve the rights of all homeless people. Today we turn to some of the toughest outstanding problems. We have to get the solutions right in our largest cities—Glasgow and Edinburgh—and address the health and other complex needs of rough sleepers more effectively. In human terms, tackling rough sleeping is not just about putting a roof over people's heads, but about how successful we are in helping them to address mental health issues, alcoholism and substance abuse.

This morning, I visited the "Link Up" project in Bell Street, which is run by Turning Point, an organisation that runs excellent drug outreach projects, as many in the chamber will know. It also runs a residential centre in Bell Street. None of the young people to whom I talked about their needs talked about the need for more hostels. They talked about their needs in terms of access to residential rehabilitation or detox facilities. They felt that they needed those things to make a new start. It is their experience that hostels can be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. That is what we are acting on today.

However, there are places in Scotland where more emergency places are needed. In Edinburgh, there has been on-going concern about the lack of accommodation that is available for rough sleepers. Today, we are announcing £1 million of capital funding to build a new reception centre. It will provide 20 places that homeless people themselves say are really needed. It will be a tolerant regime, taking in couples, people with dogs and those who have been excluded from other hostels. While it is being built, we will support new temporary facilities, and 28 extra direct access accommodation places for rough sleepers in Edinburgh will be ready and open within two months.

The completion of the Edinburgh wet house facility by the end of June will double the number of places available for homeless men with alcohol problems. Overall, the rough sleepers initiative will be funding 35 extra hostel places in Edinburgh this year and all current rough sleepers initiative projects in Edinburgh will continue to be funded.

In Glasgow, we delayed allocating funds until we could consider the conclusions of the Glasgow review team. We set up the team in November to deal with the particularly difficult problems in Glasgow. I am extremely grateful to the review team for its hard work. Representatives of the voluntary sector, Shelter, the Big Issue in Scotland, the council's housing and social work departments and the health board have met regularly since December. Today, we respond to their interim conclusions.

We asked the Glasgow review team to examine hostel accommodation. Glasgow's hostels are too large, with up to 200 people living together in unsuitable accommodation. The Glasgow review team is developing a rolling programme of hostel closures, starting with the worst, and resettling people in supported accommodation. It has also identified an immediate need for support for homeless people where they most need it: in the existing hostels. Today's package begins the process of planned hostel closure and of putting support teams into the hostels, with £3 million more set aside for the recommendations that the Glasgow review team will make later this year.

Today, £5 million is being allocated to support continuation funding for all Glasgow's current rough sleepers initiative projects. In addition, we will create 250 supported furnished flats for people moving on from the hostels to independent accommodation. We are supporting the development of a Glasgow-wide rent deposit scheme. We recognise the need for people to have better access to financial services and we are therefore funding the development of a savings and loans scheme for people in hostels who are at present excluded. We are also funding the provision of an advice service for serving prisoners in Barlinnie prison that will prevent them from becoming homeless on release and lessen the possibility of their reoffending.

The £8 million for Glasgow and the £5 million for Edinburgh completes our allocation of the £13 million remaining in the rough sleepers initiative fund. In addition, I am pleased to announce that the Executive has decided to prioritise rough sleeping and homelessness for additional funding by allocating an additional £12 million—a rise of 33 per cent in the budget for tackling rough sleeping and an 85 per cent increase since the Executive came to power.

I welcome what the minister has said, but would like to point out that—contrary to her press release—there is not a £25 million boost for rough sleepers, but a £12 million boost. Where did that £12 million come from? Was it diverted from the Scottish Homes budget? We want to help rough sleepers, but taking money out of a budget that is meant to provide housing for families who are the hidden homeless will have a negative impact on homelessness. Can she reassure us that the money did not come from Scottish Homes?

I can offer Fiona Hyslop the reassurance that she seeks. The additional funding for the rough sleepers initiative that we are announcing today will be met from underspends that are carried forward from the previous financial year. The Minister for Finance will issue a more detailed statement. Those funds are drawn from prudent financial management across the whole of the Executive's budget, not in any way from the existing housing budget.

It is of deep concern that the Government's management in the past year has meant that it has not allocated finances that could have helped housing, health or education. The announcement of the other £13 million is a delayed announcement from February. There must be concern that certain services were not delivered last year because of the underspending. People needed the money six months or a year ago. What we are getting from the Executive is delay and dither.

It is simply not true that anybody in Glasgow who has been involved in the rough sleepers initiative was screaming for this money six months ago. We set up a Glasgow review team after people who are close to the ground in that city said that a new approach was needed. It was at their request that we did not make allocations in February, but gave that team the opportunity to decide the right way forward. It has now done so. We have just received its report, and we are allocating the money for Glasgow and Edinburgh. There has been an 85 per cent increase in the rough sleepers initiative budget since the Executive took office.

I shall now set out in broad terms how we are using the additional £12 million that has been allocated. In recognition of the severity of the problems in Glasgow, we want to speed up the process of taking the outdated Victorian hostels out of commission. We are therefore proposing to provide an additional £2 million to progress the work of the Glasgow review team this financial year, bringing the Glasgow total allocation to £10 million. That additional funding will accelerate the process of closing the most unsuitable hostels and will allow those in existing hostels who have a drug problem, for whom mainstream hostel accommodation is unsuitable, to move to more appropriate facilities.

I am glad that we are returning to the issue of helping rough sleepers instead of scoring petty political points.

The Glasgow Drug Crisis Centre carries out excellent work, but has far too few beds. What can the minister do to help that? Does she foresee the possibility of a scheme similar to that of Simpson House for Barlinnie, to give through-care to prisoners who have problems with drugs?

I shall allow the minister extra time because of the interventions.

Thank you. I shall be brief and shall answer directly.

As part of that allocation, we are providing £26,000 for the resettlement project at Barlinnie. I can also confirm that we are providing £709,000 for Turning Point, to allow it to replicate the outstanding facility that exists at Bell Street on a larger scale. That will allow short-term emergency accommodation for 12 people and also longer rehabilitation facilities for a further six people.

That brings me to one of the other problems that we need to solve, which are peculiar to Glasgow. Half the women who are taking advantage of the rough sleepers initiative in Glasgow are involved in prostitution, and there are clear links between injecting drug misuse and street prostitution in this city. The routes out of prostitution social inclusion partnership, which is based in Glasgow, has identified that there is a problem, and we recognise the link that the Base 75 research has identified. I am therefore asking the Glasgow review team to consider how that problem can be tackled.

Health issues figure prominently in the problems that are faced by people who are sleeping rough. Often the housing situation in which they find themselves makes their health problems worse. Last November, I announced that the health department was engaged in tackling that, and I am delighted to announce that my colleague Susan Deacon has earmarked £4 million for services for rough sleepers and those who are at risk of rough sleeping. That will come from national health service resources and will be delivered through the health trusts, but local rough sleepers initiative partnerships will be involved in its use.

The lion's share of that money—£2 million—will be allocated to Glasgow to address some of the key priorities there, to provide more support for those who are in crisis and who have complex needs. A further £1 million will go to Lothian Health for a package of projects that will put front-line staff resource where it is most needed and so that it can continue to upgrade services. The rest of the money will be allocated to other areas where the need is greatest.

Will the member give way?

No, I am sorry—I have taken a number of interventions.

That additional funding will extend partnership working at local level. The single-agency approach will fail; we need to work across service boundaries. Seamless services through joined-up working are a top Executive priority. The additional money will help us to put the philosophy into action.

The next tough problem—and one that we have in our sights for the first time—is temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The use of inappropriate bed-and-breakfast accommodation is unacceptable in housing terms, in health terms, and in terms of the security and stability of families. It is expensive and wasteful. I intend to make available much of the additional £6 million this year for local authorities to put in place a range of projects that will provide more appropriate accommodation for homeless households—projects that will be especially focused on reducing the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to consider how that money might best be allocated across local authorities.

This Parliament should be in no doubt about the Executive's determination to meet by the end of this first session of Parliament our aim of ensuring that no one in Scotland has to sleep rough. Before today, we had allocated £23 million to rough sleepers initiative projects. Today, we are allocating £13 million to Glasgow and Edinburgh and we are announcing £12 million more. We are therefore providing a total boost of £25 million. We are committing health resources, we are getting the strategy right for Glasgow, and we are resourcing the implementation of projects and the funding of on-going commitments. We are getting to the heart of the problem and delivering effective solutions. We look across the chamber for support in doing so.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the commitment of the Scottish Executive to achieving its aim that no one in Scotland should have to sleep rough by the end of this session of the Parliament; recognises the allocation of funds through the Rough Sleepers Initiative to projects which address the complex needs of rough sleepers including health needs, and notes the progress of the high level review team in carrying out a strategic review of current measures to tackle the problems of street homelessness in Glasgow and across Scotland.

I have pleasure in speaking to and moving the amendment in my name.

In preparing my remarks, I had cause to double-check some previous announcements by the Minister for Communities—not because of any lack of trust, but because I have found that it sometimes pays to check. On the first day of the first meeting of the Parliament in Glasgow, the minister announced her first £12 million of new money. We then found out that the money was not quite new. Today, at the last meeting of the Parliament in Glasgow, the minister returns to the chamber with another new £12 million. Or is it new? She has said that it comes from underspend, and the fact that there was underspend last year means that there are services that could have been delivered sooner but have not been.

I understand that the minister had her handbag stolen. I was very sorry to hear that, but she obviously found a purse. However, the question is: whose purse is it? Is it Susan Deacon's? Does it contain money from the education budget? Where is the money coming from?

Will the member give way?

No. I want to move on.

Remember November? There was an announcement of a new extra £20 million, but that money had been announced by the minister the previous month, and her predecessor, Calum Macdonald, had also announced that money some months previously.

Today, we had the announcement of a £25 million "boost". We hear that £12 million is new, but it is not really new because it is last year's money. The £13 million is a postponed announcement. A question has to be asked: if we are talking about slippage expenditure, where will the continuing revenue costs come from?

I do not raise those matters simply to score points with the Minister for Communities; I raise them to demonstrate that, if the SNP in opposition is occasionally called cynical in its attitude towards Government announcements, it is because we have due cause. We must question and scrutinise to separate the spin from the fiction. We must challenge the Government when it says that no one need sleep rough. That is indeed something to be aspired to, but I am concerned that, under the wording of the Executive's proposals, if enough hostel places are provided, but people are still sleeping rough, that might count as a success. I sincerely hope that that is not the case.

We must also challenge the moves to make the policy on rough sleeping the complete homelessness policy. The tackling of the inappropriate use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is welcome, but this is not necessarily about rough sleeping. Rough sleeping is the most acute form of homelessness, but we have to remember hidden homelessness.

There is a difference between spin and fiction. When we are dealing with issues such as homelessness and rough sleeping and are asked to put aside party political differences, it becomes all the more important that we have a true picture.

Is Fiona Hyslop really suggesting that it is spin to continue every rough sleepers initiative project in Glasgow, and to provide an additional 250 flats, a rent deposit scheme, a credit union and a resettlement scheme for discharged prisoners from Barlinnie? Is that spin?

It is to be commended that we are raising the profile. That is not the issue. We welcomed the rough sleepers initiative announcement in February; we welcomed the homelessness task force report. Our responsibility is to make sure that the Executive is using public finances in the best way.

Our amendment tries to be reasonably constructive. We have removed the word "welcomes" and inserted "notes" in the opening sentence because we believe that we should welcome achievement, not ambition. We note that the commitment has been moved back from an original deadline of 2002 because there has been no satisfactory explanation from the Executive as to why it has moved away from that deadline. I understand that it wants more time for Glasgow, but that does not apply elsewhere. We inserted the section on challenge funding because we believe, in common with many members, that it damages the ability to deliver the resources where they are most needed. We inserted the section on funding because we believe that the overall levels of funding for public and social housing in Scotland are dangerously low. We make those points not to undermine what the Executive is doing, but to raise valid issues.

Bearing in mind what the minister said about the delay, I want to refer to the situation in Edinburgh, where the challenge funding element has caused difficulties. The city council has been involved in a lengthy bidding process to tackle its rough sleeping problems. In February this year, I wrote to Jackie Baillie to express serious concerns about reports that I had received from homelessness workers, that there were now fewer hostel places in Edinburgh than there were when the rough sleepers initiative was introduced and that hostel closures were causing extreme concern. I received a sympathetic reply from her, stating that she was aware of the problem and was working towards resolving the difficulties.

Four months on, that saga continues. I now understand that Leith House is to be refurbished and will come on stream, but I raised the issue of Leith House in the housing debate in January. My concern about the delay is that the bids from the council for that service and other complex needs services were made in November and January, and were identified two years ago. If we want the homelessness policy and rough sleepers initiative money to respond to need, those services should have been provided already. I hope that the Executive will remove the challenge funding element from funding of services for rough sleepers.

I was told in February that the problem with the new hostel was planning permission. That was not the case—the problem was funding. The City of Edinburgh Council has been unable to acquire premises and to apply for planning permission because it did not have the funding that was needed. It got it today and that is great—but it did not have it until today. I am pleased that the complex needs bid for Edinburgh has now been accepted, but it falls £100,000 short of the original bid, which will mean difficult decisions. It should be done by need, not by challenge funding.

We all want to end rough sleeping and we want a cross-party consensus on that aim. However, that consensus must be based on robust analysis and on an honest appraisal of what works and what does not. The visible homeless problem of rough sleeping must be put in the context of hidden homelessness and general housing policy. We support the Conservative amendment and what the Executive is doing, but through our amendment we want to send a clear message to the Executive that it is heading in the right direction but is a long way from achieving the objective of an end to rough sleeping.

I am particularly pleased to see Glasgow's problems recognised and money released to address them, but I hope that the motivation is to address the very real problems in Glasgow and not to bail out a minister in trouble.

I move amendment S1M-921.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to "recognises" and insert:

"notes the commitment of the Scottish Executive to achieving its aim that no-one should have to sleep rough by the end of this session of the Parliament; notes that this commitment has been moved back from an original deadline of 2002, and believes that the challenge funding nature of the Rough Sleepers Initiative aligned with a general fall in housing resources is hindering the ability of the Executive to meet its target of ending rough sleeping; however recognises".

We could be forgiven for having a feeling of déjà vu today, because this is the third time that this subject has been debated since the Parliament was established.

I am pleased to record that I feel that genuine progress is now being made towards dealing with what is obviously a tragic and visible problem, open for all of us to see in the streets of both Glasgow and Edinburgh. There has also been an acceptance on the part of the Executive that the issue is perhaps more complex than was at first thought.

I have no wish to enter into an exercise in semantics, but it is noteworthy that the Minister for Communities does not say in her motion that "no one will sleep rough". She says that

"no one in Scotland should have to sleep rough".

There is a difference. No one now should be sleeping rough; no one has, really, the need to sleep rough. After the Conservative Government introduced the rough sleepers initiative some years ago, the facility was always there for someone to have a bed.

Labour has continued with the Conservative party policy and, I acknowledge, has built upon it to some extent. What it has built upon, however, is to a large extent what my colleagues and I have been saying in the chamber in the two previous debates. The Executive is now, to a considerable extent, accepting some of the issues that we raised.

Would Bill Aitken care to remind members how much money the Conservative Government put into addressing the issue of rough sleeping?

That is a question about which I would require prior notice—but it was a lot.

But less than one fifth of where we find ourselves now.

With regard to the much-recycled figure of £35 million, announced last year, I had the figure as £36 million. Perhaps the minister was being uncharacteristically modest. There was still some uncertainty about the figure: I notice that she said at one point that it was on a basis of three-year funding. Prior to that, she said that it was on a basis of five-year funding. In her summing-up, perhaps Jackie Baillie could clarify what the current thinking is with regard to that sum.

It is significant that, despite all the task forces, high-level teams, review groups and focus groups appointed by the Executive to deal with the problem, some three years after the caring, sharing Labour Government came to power, homelessness has soared to 45,000 plus, which is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

By the minister's own statistics, provided today, homelessness, at its most extreme level—rough sleeping—is measured at 8,000 to 11,000, a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Obviously, some progress has to be made.

Does Bill Aitken agree that the number of applications—45,000—does not reflect the number of homeless people? Does he further agree that the homelessness task force is seriously considering the matter and has produced a report to resolve the issue of homelessness in Scotland?

I would accept that that is the situation. However, on a like-for-like basis, there has been a significant increase from 1996 to 1999. I have the figures here, and I shall give them to the deputy minister afterwards. However, let us move on—we have to move on with the issue and we have to recognise where we are going.

I particularly welcome the 250 supported accommodation places in Glasgow. That is an opportunity to break the vicious circle. The profile of a rough sleeper is that they usually leave prison or some other institution, for example, a mental institution; they go to a hostel; they go from the hostel to the streets; and they frequently return to jail or hospital.

I hope that Jackie Baillie will address this: I am anxious to hear about the measure of support and the manner in which it will be offered to those individuals. We all accept that people who are rough sleepers have a different lifestyle from practically all of us. They are, in many cases, confused. They have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. We know that, and the support therefore has to be fairly intensive. If we can break the vicious circle and can get them to sustain a tenancy, albeit in the short term—and bearing it in mind that about 70 per cent of them have been evicted from a private dwelling house or a hostel—we will make genuine, tangible and visible progress.

Rough sleeping is a problem, and dealing with a rough sleeper as an individual is a problem. That is not only because of the addiction problems, with which I have dealt already, but because many rough sleepers are, frankly, unpleasant people with whom to deal. However, they are human beings, and all of us must make that commitment to try to help them.

I am pleased that all that has been said today has been constructive. I am gratified that the minister has taken on board the suggestions that we have made repeatedly since the matter was debated in Parliament.

Wendy Alexander is the only person I know who makes an announcement about expenditure and then makes a virtue out of announcing again how that expenditure is to be spent—a quite remarkable approach. Nevertheless, setting aside the inevitable spin that the minister puts on every announcement, what has been said today is welcome. At last, we will make some progress.

However, I make one suggestion, which I hope will be taken on board. To realise where we are at, we must know where we have come from. Let us get accurate numbers and measure in 12 months' time, and every year, exactly how many people we have succeeded in taking off—and keeping off—the streets. That will be the measure of the Administration's success or failure.

I move amendment S1M-921.2, to insert at end:

"and also recognises that concrete proposals are now essential to ensure that the commitments of the Executive are achieved, that these proposals must include provision for support to rough sleepers to enable them to obtain, and in turn to maintain, short and medium term tenancies with a view to enabling them to return to mainstream housing in the shortest possible time, and that such support should ensure that the needs of homeless people with drug, alcohol or mental health problems are met."

I welcome unreservedly the minister's statement on the difficult issue of rough sleepers and homelessness. I also welcome a number of the comments made by Fiona Hyslop and Bill Aitken. The debate has been characterised by the members who have a contribution to make to it—those who know about the problems of rough sleeping and homelessness, either directly from previous experience, from their experience as members of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee or otherwise. It is also worth welcoming this, our third debate on the matter.

A difficulty in previous years has been the fact that housing policy has not been high up the political agenda, and it is high time that it was. Political pundits and spin-doctors tell us that health, education and crime are the top features that move the public, and which influence their voting intentions. However, surely the right to a home is basic in itself, as well as being a basic step in tackling those other issues.

One of the Parliament's most poignant and necessary commitments is that of ridding Scotland of the scourge of homelessness and, in particular, of eliminating the need for anyone to sleep rough by 2003, a pledge that the minister reiterated today. That pledge is backed by a high level of ministerial drive and commitment and by the united backing of the whole chamber, despite party rhetoric. Liberal Democrats welcome, unreservedly, the achievements to date, the minister's announcement and, more particularly, the sentiment behind the minister's announcement.

I want to add one or two caveats to the Parliament's approach. First, the target is moving—as fast we get young people off the street, with a support package in place, a new lot require help. People fall out with their families, come out of jails—an issue mentioned earlier—reach a crisis in their drug addiction or are victims of abuse. Initiatives such as the rough sleepers initiative are crucial but, inevitably, they deal with only one part of the sharp end of the problem. I fear that the door is revolving faster than projects are being established to deal with the problems.

My second caveat is linked to the inevitable issue of resources. It is no use putting in place resources to deal with the symptoms if there are insufficient resources to deal with the causes and to ensure that there is adequate early intervention to reduce the effect of the causes.

Drug addiction is a major issue among rough sleepers, but the formula for distribution of Government support for social work services seems to me to be seriously flawed. At lunchtime today, Margaret Curran, Pauline McNeill and I, among others, attended a briefing by the social work department in Glasgow. I found some of the figures that emerged quite interesting. Glasgow is recognised as having a particularly bad problem with rough sleepers, and it also has 40 per cent of drug dealing, 40 per cent of emergency drug admissions to hospital and nearly half of Scotland's problematic drug users. However, neither the formula nor the indicators for grant allocation recognise those factors properly. There is no recognition of the sheer scale of the complexity of the problem in Glasgow. That is compounded by changes to the indicators, which meant that, for example, Glasgow lost £18.6 million for elderly and disabled care last year.

What has that got to do with rough sleepers? The point is that it affects the social work allocation. Social work resources in Glasgow are seriously straitened and are being hammered just at the point where they are most needed because of the increase in the homelessness problem.

The evaluation report of the homelessness task force identified the useful but unsurprising facts that about one third of rough sleepers have alcohol problems, one third have drug problems and 21 per cent have mental health problems. Wendy Alexander dealt with that in her speech in November on this issue. As the minister also pointed out, most rough sleepers in Glasgow have been banned from hostels—about three quarters of them have been evicted from previous accommodation, and most have a failed tenancy behind them. In that context, the homelessness task force's initial report and the framework of rights that is to be put in place are important. This is about both the strategy and the duties on local authorities, and the individual rights that—I say with some modesty—I am trying to address in my Family Homes and Homelessness (Scotland) Bill.

The minister talked about bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As Bill Aitken has said in other contexts, there is a sense of déjà vu—we have been here before, have we not? There has already been an attempt to reduce spending on bed-and-breakfast accommodation and to redirect it elsewhere, but we are now having to deal with the issue again.

Fiona Hyslop made a valid point, which should not be sneered at, about whether the £12 million is a one-off payment or whether it will be repeated in future years. That raises the long-standing issue of three-year funding for voluntary sector organisations, which we need to address properly.

The debate is not about the scourge of homelessness. It is not about local authority practice or Scottish Executive pledges. It is about individuals—men and women, more often than not sons and daughters of people whom we know and who are our neighbours. Often they are people with mental and physical health problems, difficult personal backgrounds and specific learning difficulties. How we treat our fellow citizens is a mark of the humanity of this Parliament and, if I may say so, its success or otherwise. This is an important issue that we must get right. We are making progress, and we must try to continue in that vein.

We now move to the open part of the debate. Speeches are limited to four minutes, plus interventions.

I am sure that no one in the Parliament will dispute the fact that the Scottish Executive's aim of eradicating rough sleeping by the end of this parliamentary session is thoroughly commendable. It will be difficult, but being in government is not about setting easy targets. It is important that we set the toughest possible criteria against which to judge ourselves as an Administration. This initiative is a fine example of that.

Scotland has a problem of homelessness. The city in which we are meeting today has the biggest problem of all. Every night, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in hostel beds in the greater Glasgow area, not to mention the countless others sleeping on this city's streets. In my constituency of Rutherglen, as in many others, there are people sleeping in alleyways, up closes and in disused factories. That is why it is so important for the Executive to tackle homelessness.

The problem in Glasgow is not just Glasgow's problem: it is Scotland's problem. The rough sleepers initiative team in the area estimates that, in the past month alone, between 30 and 50 homeless people left the South Lanarkshire area to sleep rough on Glasgow's streets. It is vital that the Executive works to ensure that rough sleeping is eradicated from modern Scotland.

So far the progress has been good. The rough sleepers initiative is working, and working well. In South Lanarkshire, the rough sleepers initiative team has dealt with more than 200 homeless people in the past two years and has managed to secure long-term accommodation for 80 per cent of those people. That would not have been possible without the initiative.

The rough sleepers initiative accounts for £36 million for the years 1997 to 2002. I believe strongly that simply throwing money at a problem without an adequate, joined-up, cohesive action plan to back it up is not enough. However, to provide a solution to any problem, the finance has to be put in place; I am glad that we are debating that today.

There is a clear need to ensure that an holistic approach is taken towards eradicating rough sleeping in Scotland. It is essential that the Executive works with local authorities, housing associations and voluntary groups to help Scotland's homeless to get off the streets and into warm beds. While that work is taking place, it is important that we remember the many voluntary organisations, such as the YMCA and others, that provide food, blankets and other vital necessities to those in our society who have no choice but to sleep rough.

In that joined-up working, there should also be a concerted effort to combine the work of drugs and alcohol groups with homeless organisations. Not everyone who is homeless, be they sleeping rough in the streets or in temporary accommodation, is a drug or alcohol addict, but there is a clear and unmistakable link between addiction and homelessness. The rough sleepers initiative officer in my constituency estimates that 90 per cent of young homeless people in the area are drug users. Many of them were not drug users when they became homeless, but they succumbed to temptation once they were out on the streets. That has to be tackled.

Given Janis Hughes's remarks that young people often are homeless first and become addicts second, will she join me in asking that, when the Deputy Minister for Communities sums up, we hear for the first time something about the work that will be targeted on the young homeless? I am thinking in terms of research to find out the hidden numbers of young homeless who are sleeping on their pals' floors, which is what leads them down the road to addiction problems.

Fiona McLeod reiterated some of what I said. We are talking about a big problem. People are not always addicts if they are homeless, but they sometimes become addicts when they go down that road. I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Communities will address that problem when she sums up. The problem of the young homeless is a specific issue that must be addressed, and I am confident that we will hear something from the minister today.

It is important that society does not stigmatise those who are homeless or who are drug users. I am not saying that we should set them up as role models for our children, but we must give every assistance to enable people to escape the vicious circle of deprivation, drug use and homelessness.

The Executive is to be commended on its approach to solving this problem in Scotland. We should not castigate it for setting high standards. Rather, it should be praised for aiming to do the best that it can. Tackling homelessness is a responsibility that every one of us in this chamber shares. Whether we represent rural communities or urban ones, we must work together to tackle the problem.

I am sure that it is the intention of everyone in the chamber to make sure that the rough sleepers initiative works and that the money is targeted where it is needed most, but it will take more than hostel places to achieve the target of ensuring that no one sleeps rough by 2003.

Most people know about my role in Shelter in bringing a rough sleepers initiative to Scotland, but I am concerned by the announcement of £6 million to tackle the problem of families who have to live in bed and breakfasts. I say to the minister with respect that that is nothing to do with rough sleeping; it is to do with homelessness. We need to separate in our minds what we are talking about: homelessness is not rough sleeping and rough sleeping is not homelessness. However, the target date of 2003 is a realistic one and it can be met.

I am concerned, and concern has been expressed to me, about the interim research to which the minister referred. That research showed that between 8,000 and 11,000 people are sleeping rough in Scotland. The concern is that those figures are on the high side. I hope that they will not be used as a baseline against which to measure the success of the rough sleepers initiative in the future. It is fundamental that we deal with figures, but it is more important that we deal with people and that we do not get into games with statistics.

The RSI is only part of a homelessness strategy; it gives immediate help to those who are most at risk—the folk who are sleeping on the streets because they have nowhere else to go. We need to ensure that people do not end up on the streets in the first place and that, after they come off the streets, we put in place not just permanent accommodation, but the necessary support to help them to put their lives back together.

I will specifically discuss permanent accommodation, because we will ultimately tackle homelessness only by investing money in housing—there is no other way. The pity is that the Executive is cutting money for housing. Wendy Alexander has cut £85 million since she became Minister for Communities a year ago.

That is not true. By the end of this parliamentary session, Labour will have increased the total resources available for housing by 40 per cent above the baseline that we inherited from the Conservatives.

In March 1999, Donald Dewar published "Serving Scotland's Needs", which was in effect Labour's manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections. It showed that Labour intended to spend £1,764 million on the five major housing budgets from 1999-2000 to 2000-01. A year later and a year since Wendy Alexander became the housing minister, the Executive published "Investing in You"—a misnomer if ever there was one. Those same five housing budgets show planned expenditure of £1,679 million.

Let me continue. I want to make this point; I promise that I will let Jackie Baillie in.

Those five housing budgets show planned expenditure of £1,679 million—that is a cut of £85 million. The minister, who tries to get away with recycling previously announced money as new money, is the same minister who has agreed to cut housing budgets by £85 million. Where has the money gone? Into a black hole? Who knows? Perhaps the minister does—will she tell us?

It is a matter of fact that, for 2000-01, planned expenditure on housing will be £579 million; for 2001-02 that rises to £597 million. I challenge Tricia Marwick to name one project that has been cut.

In the planned spending on the five major housing budgets from 1999-2000 to 2000-01, there is a cut of £85 million from "Serving Scotland's Needs" to "Investing in You". Wendy Alexander said that the Labour party was responsible only for what had happened since it came to power. This is a minister who wants to be judged on her successes. If Wendy Alexander is as successful in the next three years as she has been in the past year, we will have lost £340 million from housing since she came to power. That is not just careless—careless is losing a handbag—but wilful when families are living in damp-infested houses and people are sleeping on our streets.

I welcome the £6 million that is going to local authorities to reduce their reliance on bed-and-breakfast provision for the homeless. That kind of accommodation is especially hard for mothers with young children, who often have to thole spending much of their day out on the streets because they are turned out of the bed and breakfast at 10 o'clock every morning and not allowed back until the evening. Those families are often victims of domestic violence who have not found refuge space. Perhaps some of the £6 million might go towards local authority refuge spaces.

I welcome and support the motion on the rough sleepers initiative. I believe that the Executive has the right approach in identifying the needs of Glasgow in particular. I also welcome its proven commitment to rural areas.

Rough sleeping in the open is not a major problem in the Highlands and Islands. Severe forms of homelessness tend to manifest themselves through people roughing it in bothies or camping in dilapidated caravans. However, during the winter, we have between 20 and 30 rough sleepers in Inverness. The considerable sum of money released by the Executive—Highland Council's bid was more than met in full—will help to fund a partnership of voluntary organisations, Church organisations, housing associations and local government agencies, which will ensure a winter night shelter for the rough sleepers, a year-round day centre and supported accommodation in newly converted flats for follow-on housing. The money will also cover a major initiative in Lochaber, where there has been an intractable homeless problem for several years.

The problem of homelessness in rural areas must be addressed by building or renovating affordable housing for rent. I welcome the Executive's approach. After meetings with housing providers from the Highlands and Islands, a pilot study on the best way of ensuring that there is affordable social housing in remote rural areas was established. I welcome the Executive's commitment to that initiative, which I hope will have a marked effect on rural housing provision.

It is essential that we take an holistic approach to the issue of rough sleepers. Homelessness is in effect the end result of a process. It is essential that we concentrate on prevention as well as cure. Domestic violence, alcoholism, lack of financial resources and mental health problems are some of the factors that can lead to people leaving their home, although sometimes they do not regard it as much of a home.

I stress the role that alcohol abuse, often allied to mental health problems, plays. I urge the Executive to give priority to tackling alcohol abuse by supporting the organisations that deal with it. We all recognise that alcoholism is a major contributory factor to homelessness. Much work is being done to try to help people. Alcohol problems are widespread in Scotland, but drug abuse sometimes seems to have a higher profile. I do not want to give the impression that tackling drug abuse is not important but, although alcohol abuse is less talked about and less recognised as an important issue, it is a far more significant factor.

Will Maureen Macmillan join me in asking the minister to speak to her colleague, the Minister for Health and Community Care, about the possibility of a consultation paper on alcohol misuse? It should not be like the one in England, as of course we want ours to be distinctive, but we need one soon, because alcohol misuse is too often overshadowed by drug misuse.

I could not agree more. For example, in Inverness, Beechwood House, which is run by the Church of Scotland and has a four-bed designated place of care for people with alcohol problems, had a total of 1,206 admissions in the year before last. The problem of alcohol abuse must be tackled as a top priority.

There are no easy solutions to the problem of homelessness. It must be a priority to provide help to those who become homeless, but it must also be a priority to try wherever possible to prevent the downward spiral into rough sleeping. That means addressing issues such as alcohol abuse before they take over people's lives. Alcohol abuse is a serious issue in the Highlands and elsewhere and is at the root of many social problems.

We need to be absolutely clear about what Wendy Alexander is saying today. The press release talks about a £25 million package but, as Fiona Hyslop has pointed out, the amount that is involved is not £25 million. I am glad that the minister has admitted that. Will she further admit that the moneys that she has announced for Glasgow today could have been used six months ago? Why is that money being announced only today? This may sound cynical, but it seems rather strange that the minister makes the announcement on the final day on which the Parliament is in Glasgow. Will she say why the money was announced today and not six months ago?

I think that this is about the fifth time that I have had to say this, as I do not appear to be communicating: when we made the announcements in February, we said that the Glasgow review team had asked for more time to consider what the priority projects were. It is simply not true to say that people knew what that money would be used for. Yesterday, Sandra White could not have said that there would be a new "Link Up" project or new support for Barlinnie. She could not have said how much would go toward the provision of health care in every hostel or that there would be a credit union. How can she say that the announcement was old when she could not have named any of those things yesterday? We had to wait for the Glasgow review team because it invited us to do so.

If I was a minister, I probably could have announced it yesterday—her press release was obviously put out yesterday but was not to be released until today. That does not wash.

The SNP—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member has suggested that a press release was issued yesterday. Perhaps she could say which press release.

Could you clarify that point, Ms White?

I did not say that it was released yesterday.

Yes, she did.

If I was a minister, I would know exactly what was going to be announced today. Margaret Curran can read the transcript—I am glad that I am getting her riled, as it is good to get some reaction.

Please move on now.

As I was going to say, the SNP welcomes any initiative, but we want an honest announcement, not a recycled, rehashed announcement, as the minister normally gives us.

I said "normally".

Will the member give way?

No, I do not want another intervention, thank you very much. I want the minister to look at some facts.

The minister will have time when she sums up.

In Glasgow, there are more than 13,000 homeless people, 78 per cent of whom have been victims of crime. I accept what the minister says about hostels, which are not always the best place to put people, particularly the most vulnerable.

In his speech, Robert Brown highlighted the fact that people have many differing problems. That is why I welcome, and think that everyone should welcome, the initiative launched today by Strathclyde police to examine different ways in which to handle rough sleepers.

Although I welcome the Executive's initiative, I have some concerns, which I hope the minister will answer when she sums up. In particular, I am concerned about the 250,000 furnished flats. It is great to get people out of hostel accommodation into their own homes, but it has been proven that if the Executive goes ahead with the housing stock transfer there will not be enough houses for people who are on the waiting list.

The member said that it was proven. Where?

It is proven in certain records that I have. I will get them out and the member can have a look.

Excuse me, let me answer. If the member looks at the literature on the housing stock transfer, she will see that it says that there are not enough houses. Once the housing stock transfer goes ahead, houses will be demolished. There will not be enough—

Will the member give way?

The member can look at the leaflet. I will send her one. May I carry on?

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes, Kenny.

On 22 September 1998, the HACAS document, which was the first document about the stock transfer, announced that the target for housing under the stock transfer in Glasgow was 74,420 units. Currently, 94,000 houses are occupied by tenants, 4,000 of which will be sold or demolished before stock transfer, leaving 16,000 tenants homeless.

Thank you, Kenny. The difference is that we in the SNP can add and subtract. All Labour can do is spin. [Interruption.] May I carry on?

You may carry on for about a minute.

Must she?

That was rather—

If the member cannot take it, she should not give it.

May I make a point of order?

Just come to the point.

I will try to come to the point. The problem is further exacerbated, as local government social work departments and agencies, which provide the specialist back-up, find themselves under increasing pressure because this Executive is cutting local authority spending. I ask the minister to address that point when she sums up. The Scottish Executive must recognise that the problems of rough sleepers can be solved only if the agencies that provide the support are properly funded and resourced.

I will concentrate my remarks on how rough sleepers are affected by drug abuse and alcohol misuse. Janis Hughes quite rightly said that not all rough sleepers have alcohol or drug problems. However, a huge majority of them do.

There has been a consultation paper on alcohol misuse in England. I agree with the Deputy First Minister that we do not have to follow England by doing something or doing it in the same way, but it is important to develop a strategy to cope with alcohol misuse. The Scottish Advisory Committee on Alcohol Misuse was charged with advising on a Scottish alcohol strategy. In a reply to my colleague, Robert Brown, at the end of last year, the Minister for Health and Community Care said that she expected to be able to make an announcement on the committee's recommendations in the new year. I hope that we will get that announcement soon, and before next new year. I know that she is under immense pressure, but alcohol misuse is a central issue.

I totally agree with Maureen Macmillan that alcohol misuse is too often overshadowed by drug misuse. That issue is close to my heart; it is a subject in which I take a great deal of interest. It is important to realise that, although there are, in my view, well over 30,000 addicts in Scotland—12,500 to 15,500 of whom are in this city—alcohol is an even more extensive problem, which is overshadowed by an understandable concern about the way in which drug problems have increased in the past 20 or 30 years.

The minister referred to the Glasgow Drug Crisis Centre, which I visited a few weeks ago with the convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, Margaret Curran. We were hugely impressed—I think that I can speak for her, too—by the work of Turning Point. However, it is a crisis centre—a detox centre. The problem lies in getting people into treatment—giving them help so that they do not leave and relapse—whether stabilising their condition through methadone maintenance or through residential treatment or day care treatment. We need far more treatment facilities.

Given its scale, drug addiction in Glasgow is like a raging inferno on which we are turning only one hose—the crisis centre. I do not mean to diminish the work that the centre does, but it can only scratch the surface of the problem—we need to do more.

The Executive must rebalance the policy on drug misuse away from enforcement towards treatment and prevention. If we can find £10.5 million for a Drugs Enforcement Agency just like that, surely we can find a similar amount of money for treatment and prevention. That is what we should focus on. As the national treatment outcome study showed, £1 spent on treatment saves £3 on enforcement. That is the key point.

In the past 18 months I have visited Saughton prison, Craiginches and Cornton Vale. Unfortunately, I have not been to Barlinnie, although I hope to go shortly.

Hear, hear.

Of course, Mr Aitken has already been there, but they let him out. Barlinnie was obviously much more lenient with him than I would be.

The problem in the prison system is that people who are trying to get off drugs go into drug-free zones. They get off drugs by going cold turkey—which is all to their credit—but, without sufficient counselling and support, they come out of prison and relapse. That does not make economic sense. It costs some £27,000 a year to keep someone in prison, only for them to relapse, reoffend and go back into prison. It would be much more sensible to have drugs courts. I hope that we will get those eventually, although we cannot make them effective until we have treatment centres to which the courts can send people. We need through-care, as Simpson House has shown, although it is on too small a scale. I hope that the minister will take that point on board.

I am disappointed that the SNP has discredited itself and demeaned the Parliament by not coming up with any ideas. I know that the SNP does not understand underspend because it makes so many spending commitments—£3.3 billion since September, not £1 of which would go towards helping rough sleepers. If there were rough sleepers in the gallery today, they would think that that party did not care about them at all, because it has not come up with one idea to help them or £1 to spend on them. Like the minister, I care about rough sleepers, but the SNP apparently does not.

I have two areas of concern that I would like to discuss today. First, I am concerned about the problems faced by people suffering from depression and mental illness. Secondly, I am concerned about the difficulties faced by young people leaving care. Those two groups form a significant proportion of the people who are currently homeless in Scotland.

From personal experience, I would say that people suffering from depression go through a revolving door process. I tried to help someone and found that there was no way in which to get the psychologist, the doctor and the housing department together to have a conversation about the best way of accommodating that person. I accompanied him to the housing department, where we were locked in a little booth, with the door shut behind us. For someone suffering from any kind of depression or mental illness, that is an extremely constrained and unpleasant situation to be in. There was a shelf in front of us, with the back of a computer facing us. An apologetic, helpful and pleasant housing officer came in and told us that the person whom I was trying to help would get one offer of accommodation; if he refused that offer and one further offer, officially he would be homeless again. That is what I meant by the revolving door; people are offered accommodation twice, then they are out. There must be a more sensitive way of helping people with a mental illness or depression through housing departments. The regulations need to be changed.

Perhaps the problem of young people in care has been addressed in committee, and the Executive may have given it some thought, but it occurs to me that finance for care for those young people could be continued after the age of 16 to provide suitable accommodation until the age of 20 or until the young person gets a secure job and secures their own accommodation. Again, we should go down the road of prevention rather than cure, and solve the specific problem that is faced by young people in care before it occurs.

You have one minute left.

I am prepared to stop now. I have made the two points that I wanted to make.

Thank you. We are back on time.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's important debate.

Over the past two decades, the sight of homeless people sleeping rough has become depressingly common; that is why ensuring that no one has to sleep rough on Scotland's streets by 2003 is a truly ambitious target. I, for one, am pleased that we are facing up to the real challenges that are facing our country and that the Scottish Executive is determined to confront and deal with some of the root causes of rough sleeping. I am pleased, too, that our ambition is reflected in the level of resources that the Executive has committed to tackle the problem. I welcome, in particular, today's announcement of additional money. That is not spin, as has been claimed by some, but real money to help to solve real problems faced by real people.

Increased spending on its own is not enough. We must ensure that the extra spending makes a real difference to the many people who have a miserable existence on our streets. We must ensure that we have meaningful partnerships between all relevant agencies and that those agencies share a common understanding of both the problem and the goal. Such partnerships must exist at all levels—between national and local government, between health boards and the voluntary sector and, most important, between service providers and service users.

Health boards have a vital part to play in the fight to eradicate rough sleeping. In many ways, rough sleeping is a health problem as much as a housing problem. Rough sleepers often have a complex and diverse array of social and psychiatric problems. Of the 200-plus clients dealt with so far by North Lanarkshire Council under the auspices of the rough sleepers initiative, 31 per cent of those who answered questions relating to health had mental health problems. Providing proper and sustained support in a community setting for someone who is suffering from a mental illness is infinitely preferable to attempting to deal with the same problems in the context of a cycle of rough sleeping and broken tenancies. We must ensure that local community care plans, mental health strategies, and rough sleeping and homelessness strategies are complementary and demonstrate clarity of purpose. In so doing, we should aim to ensure that, where possible, people are prevented from falling into a cycle of rough sleeping.

I welcome the recent focus on prevention, and where better to start a prevention programme than with our young people? Too many of those young people, especially those who are leaving supported accommodation and residential care, end up living rough on our streets. The Scottish Council for Single Homeless notes that, in 1997-98, at least 10 per cent of homeless applications to most local authorities were from single people under the age of 18. It is vital that we focus our efforts on supporting vulnerable and often damaged young people.

Once again, early intervention can help to prevent the decline into rough sleeping and I am pleased that North Lanarkshire Council has recently been awarded £120,000 for a pilot project that is designed to deal with rough sleeping. The rough sleepers initiative is beginning to make a difference throughout Scotland. North Lanarkshire has benefited from almost £1.4 million to create direct access accommodation, outreach workers, a resettlement team and support for vulnerable young people.

However, we must build on those measures. In a decent, modern Scotland, we cannot accept the sight of people having to sleep in doorways. We must neither turn our backs on the plight of people living rough nor give up on some of our most vulnerable young people. We owe that to the many people we pass each day. I believe that we have made a start on which we can build.

I welcome the minister's announcement of extra money and I hope that some of it will be used for voluntary organisations that help people to sustain tenancies and prevent them from becoming rough sleepers at all.

It seems that I am coming at this issue from somewhat the same angle as Robin Harper. Many of the rough sleepers of tomorrow are currently undergoing the disastrous experience of trying to sustain a tenancy, or do not have a tenancy at all because they do not think that they can manage. However, some very good organisations throughout the country can help those people. For example, this morning I visited a group of organisations that Malcolm Chisholm and I have supported for some years in the Pilton area. Those organisations give a lot of support to people suffering from stress while they sustain tenancies. They provide everything from starter packs, cooking lessons and help with decoration to the more important human support that people need to sustain tenancies and thus have the self-esteem to find employment, live a life and make a go of having a tenancy.

I want to draw attention to three particular groups, two of which have been mentioned, which unfortunately provide an exceptional number of rough sleepers. First, many ex-military personnel who come out of the structured life of the military forces find life on civvy street very difficult. Although there are organisations that try to help those people both when they are in the Army and when they leave it, more help and co-operation must be given to them.

Secondly, people who have been in council care are expected to sustain a tenancy when they are 16 or 17. I shudder to think of the mess that I would have made of being given the key to an empty council flat in a large block at that age and told to get on with it. It is idiotic to expect youngsters whose only experience of home life is either a disorganised family or council care to make a success of that. Much more help should be given to them.

Keith Raffan referred to my third group—people who have come out of jail. I have been assured by a lady who does much to help prisoners with voluntary activities that the rules specifically discourage people just out of jail from accepting a job, because they lose benefits and so on. We need to review the rules and sort out those matters better. Employment—not just housing—has much to do with rough sleeping.

I have no great advice to give on rough sleepers, because my own experience has humbled me. When I had slightly more free evenings, I was part of the Edinburgh churches soup-and-blanket circuit and found my chat very inadequate when dealing with rough sleepers. Once, when two of them were having a somewhat drunken territorial brawl—they were both trying to sleep under a staircase in Edinburgh University—I was cowering back, seeing headlines in the local press such as "Councillor in drunken brawl with rough sleepers". However, the two ladies with me resolutely marched forward and said, "Come, come—none of that." The men stopped instantly. Therefore, my solution is that we should have some resolute ladies to sort out the rough sleepers. [Laughter.]

Rough sleeping is an ever-present problem that is all too obvious in our cities. It is a problem that we all have a duty to resolve but it is also a problem that it would be impossible to eradicate completely. That is why the Executive's pledge to end the need for rough sleeping rather than end rough sleeping is correct.

The level of rough sleeping is difficult to assess, but it seems that it is growing, even under a supposedly caring and socially inclusive Labour Government. In November, the Executive's research project on rough sleeping reported that many more people are sleeping rough than was previously estimated. As we heard today, it appears that there may be as many as 8,000 to 11,000 people sleeping rough in Scotland in the course of the year.

Research has also highlighted an acute homelessness problem in Glasgow, which highlights some of the difficulties that we face in resolving the problem of rough sleeping and that the Executive will face in delivering its pledge to end it—a pledge whose target has been moved back from 2002 to 2003. The difficulty is that, usually, there should be no need for people to sleep rough. The problem arises because of the difficult nature of the clients and the revolving-door syndrome mentioned by Mr Harper in the services put in place by councils.

The Executive's research shows that many people need more than just a roof over their head. They also need support with health and addiction problems as they are helped into accommodation. Without that, they can find themselves back on the streets again. However, rather than take direct action on Glasgow's problems at once, the minister announced yet another high-level team. Even so, I am pleased that progress is being made. We applaud that.

The problem is greater than simply the number of people sleeping rough. The number of homeless people was reduced between 1994 and 1997, showing that Conservative policies were working to help those most in need. In 1998-99, the latest year for which full figures are available, the number of people registered as homeless rose to a record high of 45,000. That is an 11 per cent increase since Labour came to power, and the figure is still rising.

The Labour party, in opposition, continually criticised the Conservative Government on the issue, but its figures show that it has presided over a massive increase in the number of homeless people in Scotland. It was the Conservative Government—in the form of Michael Forsyth, if I may mention the name—who introduced the rough sleepers initiative and I am pleased that it is being continued. I am also happy that resources were increased last September, but as the minister is so fond of reannouncing the same money—we calculate it to be £36 million, although she says that it is £35 million—and confusing the time scales, no one is sure whether the money is to be spent over three years or five, as originally stated. Perhaps the minister could clarify that.

A key aim must be to put more money into medium-term supported accommodation to end the vicious cycle of homelessness. Labour was short-sighted when it used the rough sleepers initiative to sweep people off the streets and into an increasing number of hostels. That is not a sustainable, long-term solution, as the Glasgow research illustrates. That mistake has been acknowledged, and we welcome the fact that the problem is being addressed. Without medium-term support, many homeless people find themselves unable to cope in mainstream housing and return to the streets or hostels. That causes them to suffer further problems and might cause other problems in the housing estates in which the council sometimes places them without support.

It is imperative that funding is used to prepare people for tenancies, as we called for a year ago in our Scottish Parliament election manifesto. Shelter also agrees that that is the only way forward and that a change of policy towards supporting people and helping them to keep their accommodation should be backed up with research on the outcomes of the rough sleepers initiative spending.

We appear to have a growing problem of homelessness and rough sleeping in Scotland. Ministers seem to be addressing the problem. We support the use of the rough sleepers initiative and are pleased that funds have been identified to provide better medium and long-term support. If the promised action is taken in the way that the Scottish Conservatives suggested a year ago, there will be a long-term improvement in the lives of rough sleepers throughout Scotland, which is to be welcomed.

On behalf of the SNP, I thank the Executive for facilitating this debate. I would like to highlight the contributions of Robert Brown, who emphasised the effect on local authorities of the rough sleepers initiative, Maureen Macmillan, who introduced the issue of alcoholism, and Bill Aitken. Unfortunately, during this debate the lines have been blurred where they should not be. Homelessness is not rough sleeping. We should not confuse the two.

The aims of the rough sleepers initiative are laudable and have the full support of the SNP. It is unacceptable that anyone in this country should suffer nights in the open, but it is equally unacceptable for a hostel place to be considered a home. Hostel beds are a safety net for those whom the system has failed: people leaving long-term care or prison, as Donald Gorrie indicated, and people leaving the military services. They are also a safety net for many 16 and 17-year-olds who, being ineligible for benefit, find the tensions and financial pressures of living in their parental homes intolerable, and for those for whom a change of home is essential to ensure that their children escape violence.

It has been said previously in this chamber and elsewhere that homelessness is not about bricks and mortar. If someone is sleeping with their children on a friend's floor, or borrowing a settee, it certainly is about bricks and mortar and having a home of their own. Many statistics on homelessness have been thrown up this afternoon, and it would be pointless to go over them again. However, we should consider the Executive's commitment to end homelessness—not rough sleeping, but homelessness.

To reduce the number of people who are homeless, we must invest in housing. That may involve many different types of housing: halfway houses for those who are leaving custody, supported accommodation for those who are leaving social care and sheltered housing for the vulnerable and infirm. It is not just a matter of bricks and mortar, but without bricks and mortar how can we provide the support services that are required to ensure dignity and security for all in our society?

I return to a point that was made earlier in the debate. When he was the housing minister at the Scottish Office, Calum Macdonald made a commitment before the Scottish election. He said that Scottish Homes would have £877 million to spend. He also made a commitment that we would have two new housing budgets: the new housing partnership and energy efficiency, which became the warm deal. For those initiatives, he committed £348 million. Both those commitments would begin to tackle elements of homelessness, and both were published in a well-known document called "Serving Scotland's Needs".

What happened to those commitments when Wendy Alexander took control of the budget? According to the Executive's document "Investing in You", the commitment was £828 million for Scottish Homes and £312 million for the NHP and the warm deal. I am not very good at mental arithmetic, but I recognise that £877 million plus £348 million adds up to considerably more than £828 million plus £312 million; indeed, it comes to some £85 million less.

That brings us to the nub of our argument. Despite the rhetoric, the Executive is not willing to commit sufficient funds to meet the target that it has set itself and this Parliament. An end to rough sleeping has always been a commitment that requires political will backed by sufficient funding. It is our contention that, although this Parliament has the political will and the commitment, the Executive, by its actions, is undermining the collective desire of this Parliament and the people of this country to end the shame and disgrace of people sleeping in our streets, squatting on floors and suffering abusive relationships because they have nowhere else to go.

Does Mr Quinan agree that rough sleeping and homelessness would not be at record levels if the Scottish Labour party and Conservatives, in successive Administrations, had not conspired to reduce capital investment in Scottish council housing by £723 million cumulatively over the past four years?

I would have to agree with everything that Mr Gibson has to say.

The message from the SNP is fairly straightforward: restore the £85 million, and recognise that bricks and mortar are the only sound foundation on which to build a comprehensive strategy to eliminate rough sleeping, to eradicate homelessness and to provide the decent, affordable homes that our citizens rightly demand. I support the amendment.

It is a tragedy, and an indictment of our society, that too many people have experienced sleeping rough, without the possibility of finding accommodation. The reasons for that can be varied, and they are often complex, but that will not deter this Executive from tackling the problems head on—problems that are associated not just with bricks and mortar, but with alcohol and drug addiction or with being caught up in prostitution. Those problems are exacerbated by isolation, loneliness and increasing exclusion. This debate has recognised the problems of rough sleeping, especially in our two major cities, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Recent research tells us that here in Glasgow, of people living in hostels, 42 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds and 45 per cent of 25 to 34-year-olds have slept rough on at least one night in the previous 12 months. Tackling rough sleeping must be, and is, a top priority for this Government. We have set ourselves a tough target, and rightly so. We aim to ensure that no one has to sleep rough by the end of this Parliament. That is precisely why we are focusing our resources on addressing the problems of this most socially excluded group.

We are ensuring that all those who are involved with the homeless target their resources in a co-ordinated way to ensure that those resources are used to best effect. In Glasgow, those measures are being enhanced by the work of the Glasgow review team, which is developing, in partnership, a strategy for tackling street homelessness in the city. The review team is tackling, head on, the problems of the present provision of hostel accommodation in Glasgow.

Too many people are living in poor hostel accommodation, with no one addressing their support needs. They are at risk and they are receiving very little help and encouragement to move out of those hostels into independent accommodation. We will put that right. We need to help those who can to move out of the hostels, and we need to provide more intensive support, in more appropriate accommodation, for those whose needs are more complex.

We need to do more than just tackle the problems of accommodation. We recognise the importance of involving the health service, the social services, the police and the prison services in order to make a difference. We need to break the cycle that often exists: rooflessness leading to criminality, leading to prison, leading back to rooflessness. We have the opportunities to intervene, and we need to ensure that those interventions are effective.

We have taken all our partners with us in the fight against rough sleeping. We have involved local authorities, the voluntary organisations, the health boards—[Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much background buzz from private conversations.

Thank you. I just try to talk over it.

In the effort to tackle rough sleeping, we have involved everybody. We are all committed to the delivery of sound and truly cross-cutting conclusions.

I would like to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I was amused by Bill Aitken. Yes, the Conservatives started the rough sleepers initiative. Yes, they put in £4 million in 1997-98. Contrast that figure with the £20 million—five times more—put in by this Executive in 2000-01.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

Bill Aitken also raised the issue of tenancy support. The need for such intensive support will be a key part of the review team's next phase of work.

The SNP contribution was again disappointing. There is a depressing degree of consistency about it. The SNP wanted to talk about figures, so let us do that. There was £26 million in the RSI budget when we took over—there is now £48 million, an 85 per cent increase. The SNP is silent on what it would do. The long list of what we are doing includes £708,000 to "Link Up", run by Turning Point, to tackle drugs, equipping 250 furnished flats, developing a homeless action team and rent deposit schemes.

Where is the £85 million?

The rhetoric has come from Mr Quinan's benches; the action has come from ours.

Will the minister give way?

I find myself increasingly agreeing with Keith Raffan, which I am sure is detrimental to his career. The SNP—[Interruption.]

Order. The minister is not giving way.

Thank you. The SNP has demeaned and discredited itself today. It has no answers, no solutions—only sniping. The difference between the nats and the partnership Government is that we believe in delivering. We believe in dealing with the problem and not constantly sniping.

Robert Brown asked about the £12 million new money. It is in-year and the projects are predominantly capital based—£4 million of that money comes from mainstream health resources and we hope to extend that in future. Robin Harper and Donald Gorrie made absolutely correct points about focusing on prevention. We recognise the cost in human terms of someone becoming homeless or sleeping rough. I promise that we will focus attention on that.

Today we have demonstrated our commitment and that of all our partners to thoroughly tackling the problem. In October we announced an increase of 40 per cent in the RSI budget; today we allocated £13 million of that money to Edinburgh and Glasgow to get to the heart of the problem, to tackle rough sleeping.

Will the minister give way?

There was plenty of opportunity during the debate.

Order. The minister is not giving way.

Today we also announced an extra £12 million. From the start of the rough sleepers initiative that is 85 per cent more. It is new cash to tackle the health problems of rough sleepers; new cash to replace Glasgow's unsuitable hostels; new cash to end the problem of unsuitable, temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation, particularly for families. It means more resources going where they are needed, and going now. Let no one be in any doubt that the Executive's commitment to ending the need for anyone to sleep rough in Scotland is absolute.