Homelessness Task Force
We come to the debate on motion S1M-2838, in the name of Iain Gray, on the final report of the homelessness task force, with two amendments to that motion.
I am pleased to open this debate on the report of the homelessness task force. I should begin by thanking the task force for its work and acknowledging the leadership of that work through most of its life by my predecessor, Jackie Baillie. Its final report is a blueprint for the prevention of homelessness in Scotland.
Those who complain that the task force has taken two and a half years to complete the work simply fail to acknowledge the complexity of the task, the quality and scale of the work done, the progress made in the meantime and the audacity of the objective that the task force has pursued.
Nowadays, we all understand that homelessness is a complex issue. The provision of accommodation is not, of itself, enough. Many homeless people, particularly those who sleep rough, face a multitude of other problems. Many have poor health or are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Others have been victims of violence or domestic abuse.
For all homeless people, whatever has led them to homelessness, the resettlement process can be very difficult, especially for those with no prior experience of managing a home or maintaining a tenancy. Homelessness is a housing problem, but not only a housing problem. People at risk of losing their home require intensive support if the crisis of homelessness is to be averted. Those who have experienced homelessness need intensive support if resettlement is to be sustainable and permanent.
That is why we chose to mobilise the widest range of experience and expertise available to us: Shelter Scotland, The Big Issue, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, the national health service—a broad base covering all aspects of the problem. The quality of the task force's work is already reflected in statute, with the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 including its interim recommendations.
Local authorities are therefore already obliged to carry out assessments of homelessness in their area and produce homelessness strategies. They must also produce wider local housing strategies, and plan for the economic, efficient and effective provision of housing and related services. Those two things must be interlinked and a wide range of agencies must be brought together in their production. We now have Communities Scotland acting as the regulator of homelessness services. Regulation provides a means of dealing with inconsistent and poor practice. It ensures that the legislation and guidance are followed.
Having set that framework, the task force has, in its final report, made 59 specific recommendations. We accept them all. Some of the recommendations are directed towards other Government departments: the Scottish Prison Service; the education department; the Ministry of Defence; and the Department for Work and Pensions. The benefits system has a vital part to play in helping people avoid and resolve homelessness. We will work with the DWP and Westminster ministers to ensure that that part is played to the full. We want to ensure that homeless people are not disadvantaged, particularly in their efforts to develop their skills and move into work.
I appreciate what the minister is saying about working with the Westminster Government, but he will appreciate that the recommendations are specific about the ability to reform the benefits system to help with the problem. Is the Executive willing to argue for the devolved power necessary for us to deal with benefits in Scotland? That is the position of the task force.
I think that the task force would like a review of particular aspects of the benefits system. It talks about benefits for 16 to 24-year-olds, and particularly about the way in which housing benefit operates when people move back into work. I am prepared to argue for changes that allow some of those things to work better; indeed, I have already done so. As I said in response to a question last week, I have already ensured that, latterly, the DWP was part of the task force recommendations.
Overall, the implementation of the task force report will give homeless people rights that they have never enjoyed before and will change the way in which homelessness is perceived and dealt with in Scotland. Most significantly, within 10 years, all homeless people will be entitled to permanent accommodation, except where that right has been suspended for a specific reason. There will no longer be a distinction of priority need—homelessness itself will be enough to confer a right to a permanent home. There are those who criticise the time scale, but it is simply realistic. That pragmatic focus has been a marker of the task force's work. Its aim was real and realistic changes to address homelessness.
Along with the change to priority need, homeless people will be able to apply to any local authority in Scotland without having to establish a local connection. There is no evidence to show that that will lead to a deluge of homeless people in certain areas. In Edinburgh, where such fears were whipped up by Tory councillors, the local authority seldom uses the local connection measure as it is.
A new regime for responding to intentionally homeless families will also be established. Accommodation must always be provided within a framework that supports the intentionally homeless household to maintain that accommodation, to address the issues that led to their homelessness and to move on to more secure accommodation.
Those measures require legislation. I can confirm today that we will introduce a homelessness bill later this year. The legislative programme is crowded, but that is a clear signal of our determination to implement the recommendations.
I want to ask about the extension of priority need, which is dealt with in the report. The minister will be aware that there are existing powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to enable that to be done by statutory instrument. Will he undertake to introduce such a statutory instrument in advance of more general legislation in the later part of the programme?
The intention of the task force was that we should address those issues together in a homelessness bill, which will provide the stronger statutory force that the task force wanted. Nevertheless, the task force's work is not entirely done, and its successor, the monitoring group, will work with us to develop the homelessness bill. There will be an opportunity to discuss with the monitoring group whether a statutory instrument is required, and the task force has said that expanding priority need is the first step.
Responding to homelessness is not all about legislation. Providing the right kind of accommodation is important. For example, the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families is unacceptable and must be eliminated. Large-scale hostels for homeless people must also be a thing of the past. We need to widen access to housing for homeless people by requiring all local authorities to provide a rent deposit or guarantee scheme by 2004. Furnished tenancies and lead tenancies must also be considered.
Support packages must be in place for homeless people, and health care needs must be fully met. Homeless people must be given every opportunity to participate in education and employment and to rebuild supportive social networks. We take all those things for granted for ourselves and our families. It should not be any different for those who experience homelessness, if for no other reason than that any one of us or our families could face homelessness. Homelessness can result from illness, family breakdown or job loss, which can happen to anyone.
A major focus of the report and of our future approach is the prevention of homelessness. In particular, we stress that local authorities should be proactive and should intervene early to avoid the crisis of homelessness. Corporate policies in local authorities on anti-social behaviour, rent arrears or eviction should not lead to avoidable homelessness. The change in culture goes further than a greater emphasis on prevention. We must recognise, and have services that recognise, that homeless people deserve to be treated with respect. Their views should be listened to and acted on. As I said at question time last week, there is an attitude problem that must be addressed.
We will act quickly to implement the recommendations of the task force. I am not convinced of the need for further action plans. The recommendations themselves point the way. Work on the forthcoming legislation is already under way, and we will establish a monitoring group to drive and oversee progress.
We have already allocated £11 million over the next two years to start the delivery of the recommendations. We should remember that that money is in addition to the £40 million allocated to the rough sleepers initiative, with a further £11 million over the next two years. Our commitment to end the need to sleep rough by next year still stands, and £27 million has been allocated over this and the next two years to fund the implementation of the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.
We have allocated £14.5 million to decommission Glasgow hostels and £6 million to provide alternative accommodation for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Only this morning, Richard Simpson announced the allocation of £250,000 of seized criminal assets to fund drug services for Glasgow's homeless people. We are providing new resources, but we must also focus on more effective use of existing resources.
Looking at the amendments to the motion, I fear that at least some of this afternoon's debate will focus on the recital and deconstruction of statistics. I confess that my heart sinks somewhat. However, statistics are important and we do not have statistics that are good and up to date enough. The last detailed analysis that we have of the issue is over a year old and predates the measures and resources that are already in place, to which I have referred. The task force commissioned research on the statistics and found that homeless applications hide a significant pattern of repeat applications.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not think that I have enough time.
That is why the task force made so many recommendations to improve the outcomes of homeless applications.
We are already improving the collection of data, but we will also look to other sources, such as the Scottish household survey, for better information on hidden homelessness and on those who do not apply at all as they expect a negative response. If we succeed in pursuing the issue, homeless applications might even increase. So be it. The work is about real solutions for real people, rather than statistics. The wider our evidence base, the more effective our solutions will be.
Some people are not counted in the statistics to which the amendments refer. We want to get those people into the system. There are new measures and resources that are not yet reflected in the numbers. We are already adding to measures and resources to provide solutions for those people.
Much is being done and the task force report provides the blueprint for what we must do now. I sincerely hope that all parties welcome that and add their determination to our determination to make the report's recommendations a reality.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Executive's commitment to preventing and alleviating homelessness in Scotland and endorses the Executive's pledge to implement the wide-ranging recommendations contained in the final report of the Homelessness Task Force, Helping Homeless People: An Action Plan for Prevention and Effective Response.
Kenneth Gibson has seven minutes.
I welcome the debate on the homelessness task force and its final report. My one concern—which is shared by many members and organisations that deal with homelessness at the coalface—is the length of time that has been allocated to the debate, given that the report has been much anticipated and was two and a half years in the making. A full Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning would have allowed more members to contribute and allowed the minister to detail further his plans on the recommendations. My colleagues will attempt to deal in greater detail with what I am unable to discuss, given the comprehensiveness of the report.
First, I pay tribute to those who have contributed to a thorough report, the recommendations of which the SNP is happy to endorse. The Conservatives may disagree, but we think that the debate is not about which recommendations are or are not acceptable, but about how and when they are implemented. I have no doubt that the Social Justice Committee will wish to provide detailed scrutiny.
Shelter raised a number of issues with members that they will be familiar with through their briefing. Some of those are mentioned in my amendment—for example,
"a commitment from the Scottish Executive to produce an action plan for implementation of the 59 recommendations within six months"
and, significantly, full resourcing of the recommendations, with the comprehensive spending review this summer taking the report into account.
It is obvious that, as some recommendations relate to reserved matters, the Executive must rely on the good will of colleagues down south. I ask the minister whether we would be able to address the issue of homelessness more effectively if at least benefits were a devolved matter, as Mr Sheridan asked. Surely that would aid the Executive in providing a holistic, joined-up approach—to which the minister referred—across all areas of social justice.
Mel Young, the director of the The Big Issue in Scotland, wrote in issue 364:
"It would be much better if benefits were devolved to Scotland as part of an integrated anti-poverty strategy".
In addition, Shelter suggested that an annual report on homelessness to the Parliament by the minister responsible would sustain the momentum behind the task force report. That seems eminently sensible. Perhaps the minister, in summing up, will advise members on the monitoring group's membership and how often it will meet.
I am aware that the Executive intends to bring forward a homelessness bill—indeed, the minister confirmed that today. I urge him to ensure that no slippage in the timetable takes place, given the tight time scale for a bill as the next election approaches. The minister referred to the great amount of parliamentary business in the autumn.
Of course, it is important to acknowledge that the Labour Government is in its fifth year and homelessness is at a record level. The minister suggested, somewhat defensively, that perhaps we should not trust the statistics. I accept his comments on that and commend his comments about making data more robust. However, we must work with the information that we have. According to the report, homelessness applications rose from 40,989 in 1996-97 to 46,023 in 2000-01, the last year for which figures are available. Some areas have done well, but other areas have not done so well. We have seen a 33 per cent increase in homelessness applications in Fife, a 40 per cent increase in Inverclyde and a shocking 65 per cent increase in West Lothian.
I wonder about the extent of the reliance that Kenny Gibson places on the figures, bearing in mind the minister's earlier comments. It seems that there is a hidden homelessness underneath the statistics. One must be cautious about taking the statistics at face value, albeit that they are helpful as far as they go.
Yes. As I tried to say before I cited those figures, I acknowledge what the minister said about statistics. I welcome the minister's intention to make the data more robust. Nevertheless, the data that we have show a trend and it is important that we consider the trends. I have no doubt that, if the trends were in another direction, the Executive would be making hay from them.
It is shameful that homelessness has not been accorded a higher priority by the Executive. It is a scandal that council housing investment has plummeted by more than £1 billion in the past five years; that grants to the private sector have fallen by two thirds; that housing capital set-aside has drained money from local authorities; and that housing association grant has fallen.
Does the member agree that it is deeply disappointing that, according to the levels of spending for council housing across local authorities, more was spent during the previous Tory Governments than has been spent over the past five years of a Labour Government at Westminster and the past three years of a Labour Government in Edinburgh?
I fully accept the point that the member makes. In 1990-91, at current prices, the Thatcher Government allowed borrowing of £176 million in Glasgow for capital investment, which is some £100 million more than is being allowed at present.
New housing partnership moneys have often remained unspent and council rents have soared by some 131 per cent above inflation in Glasgow over the past 16 years. It is obvious that those actions have had an adverse cumulative effect on housing supply and affordability. That is why it is important not only that the recommendations of the homelessness task force are accepted, but that they are fully resourced and that the cost should not fall on local government.
On 31 January, I secured a debate on the issue of young runaways. The authors of "Missing Out—Young Runaways in Scotland", the report that informed the debate, estimated that some 6,000 to 7,000 children under 16 run away in Scotland every year for the first time. Around a thousand of them do so because they are forced to leave home. For those vulnerable youngsters, who are at risk from sexual predators, possible physical assault, cold and hunger, the only refuge in the United Kingdom is in London.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 ensured that all applicants who are over 16 have a right to be registered. However, the decision of the previous Conservative Government to remove benefit entitlement from 16 and 17-year-olds has impacted on the number of young homeless. Despite the fact that it opposed the legislation when it was introduced, London Labour has done nothing to rescind it, although the number of homeless people under the age of 18 has risen by 20 per cent since Labour came to power. The cost of such a policy would be approximately £10 million a year, according to a House of Commons parliamentary answer to a question that was asked by John Swinney two years ago. Surely that cost is less, in economic and human terms, than the cost of maintaining the status quo.
As a result of the current situation, many young people find themselves homeless and in despair unnecessarily. As the homelessness task force's report makes clear, the younger a person is when they first become homeless, the more difficult it is for them to avoid remaining so. Although the issue of benefits is covered and 16 to 24-year-olds are mentioned in the report, 16 and 17-year-olds specifically are not mentioned. Last week I asked the minister a question on the matter and his response was that, if the report
"does not comment on the issue that he raises, that is perhaps because the experts feel that it is not the issue that has the greatest impact on homelessness."—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; c 9835.]
That is fair enough. However, on 9 November, Lyndsay McIntosh, Mike Watson and I addressed a conference that was held by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless at which not only was unanimous support expressed by the 120-strong audience for the repeal of the law that excludes 16 to 17-year-olds from benefits, but similar support was expressed for such a move by both Lyndsay and Mike. Given the fact that there is cross-party support for such action, it is obvious that an independent Scotland would not only repeal that harmful policy, but work to ensure that such policies were never again imposed on an unwilling nation.
Could you wind up please, Mr Gibson?
We do not believe for a minute that the appalling situation whereby Scotland has proportionately 50 per cent more homelessness than the rest of the UK would occur in an independent, self-confident, prosperous, socially just and outward-looking Scotland.
Does anyone seriously believe that decisions affecting homelessness in Denmark should be taken in Berlin, that decisions affecting homelessness in Switzerland should be taken in Paris or that decisions affecting homelessness in Finland should be taken in Moscow? Of course not. None of those prosperous European nations with per capita incomes far in excess of that of the UK would accept being told that their nation was too small, too poor a—
Mr Gibson, you are still developing new points. You are considerably over time, and I would appreciate it if you would close and move your amendment.
I will close, Presiding Officer.
It is time for the north British parties to stop undermining Scottish self-belief and to accept that this Parliament needs powers that are taken for granted even on the Isle of Man and Jersey to deal with Scotland's concerns in the same confident way as our European neighbours. It is time for independence.
I move amendment S1M-2838.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"notes the final report of the Homelessness Task Force, Helping Homeless People: An Action Plan for Prevention and Effective Response; regrets that, five years after the election of New Labour, homelessness in Scotland is higher than when they took office; seeks a commitment from the Scottish Executive to produce an action plan for implementation of the 59 recommendations within six months; believes that, for homelessness to be eradicated, the recommendations in the report must be fully resourced, and acknowledges than an independent Scotland, with full control over the benefits system, would be much better placed to tackle homelessness than an Executive dependent on the decisions and goodwill of Westminster."
I, too, welcome the debate. The Scottish Executive's record on homelessness is abysmal. There have been a record number of applications to local authorities, a rise in the number of people in bed-and-breakfasts and other temporary accommodation and a lengthening of the average time that people stay there. That is the legacy of the Labour Government since 1997 and of the Labour-Lib Dem Government since 1999.
I am rather disappointed that the Executive's response has come from a task force that has a lifetime of more than two and a half years and that has involved three Government ministers. I recall the first of those ministers, the then Minister for Communities, Wendy Alexander, telling us that the task force approach was not an excuse for inaction. As there is no excuse, the Executive must take the blame. Now, we have a short debate on the 59 recommendations that the minister has already accepted.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I cannot take any interventions, as this speech lasts five minutes. That hardly makes for open debate in the Parliament. I have only five minutes to discuss the 59 recommendations. Although there are many that I can support, I do not have time to address those. I must stick to my concerns and the overall philosophy.
I am particularly concerned about the proposal to phase out the category of priority need that has been covered. Even the minister's own research paper states that that
"enables scarce resources to be targeted on those in greatest need".
The minister must tell us how he will continue to fulfil that basic requirement and where the resources will come from for dealing with the problem of sharing those scarce resources more widely. He says that he will allow more single young people access to social housing. Where is that housing coming from? Why is he, through state intervention, further breaking down family ties in favour of those who may not yet have the skills or funds to live alone? In the past, there were fewer homeless and more people stayed with the natural support of their families, until they were ready and able to move out. The breakdown of families and civic society will only be accelerated by the minister's measure, which will mean that more of taxpayers' money will go into inefficient, disinterested support services later.
The minister wants to remove the local connection requirements. I urge caution, particularly for cities such as Edinburgh, which the minister mentioned, but also for other areas, which might experience a huge influx of the homeless, overwhelming their already scarce social housing. The answer is not parliamentary review but genuine devolution. The Executive should not prescribe, but rather let councils decide whether they accept outside applications.
Because of the shortage of time, I will leave Bill Aitken to deal with our concept of sin bins for persistently anti-social tenants, although I must say that the task force's plans to remove the category of intentionally homeless could go some way towards achieving the same end. That will depend on how the proposal is implemented, however. It must not become an excuse simply to let the feckless few who will not pay the rent and who behave in an anti-social way permanently to terrorise our social housing neighbourhoods.
If it does become such an excuse, that will have two results. The Executive will get the rough end of the fury of the decent tenants and the rising tide of rent arrears and bad behaviour will continue, as those who attempt it will know that there are no sanctions to prevent such behaviour. The only solution lies in a new category of specialist housing association to provide high levels of support in conjunction with the criminal justice service, to tackle the problem in a way that prevents damage to decent tenants and to the neighbourhoods that they live in.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry. I will not take an intervention.
In that respect, it is a great shame that the task force contained four representatives of homelessness pressure groups, but only one from the future social landlords, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. Even worse, no one at all represented Scottish tenants. That is a glaring omission, given that those people live in the communities whose homelessness problems ministers want to solve. For ministers to provide community solutions, it is necessary for them to take those communities into account and take them with them.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry.
The other group that is needed is Scotland's councillors. What is the answer from ministers? The obvious solution would be to give councils powers to address their own local problems and some funding to assist with that. As usual, the Executive's plans to put more control on council funding centralises decision making in many areas and makes councils comply through guidance and duties to follow the Executive's priorities rather than their own. So much for local democracy—or, dare I say it, for local solutions to local problems.
Will the member give way?
I will not take an intervention.
A new civic society must be the natural precursor to social justice. Instead, the task force has recommended—and the Executive has agreed—that the state should further monopolise compassion. By doing so, we ignore the vital role played by Scotland's charities, faith communities, and local and national voluntary organisations. Often individual action most assists individual neighbours and their communities and resettles those who experience homelessness. The role of the family needs to be extended again, rather than broken down further. The more the state steps in, the less ordinary people feel responsible for their fellow man and the less they feel the need to care even for their relations. "It is all right," they think, "the Government says it will look after us. It's all the Government's fault. The Government must do something."
It is now time to draw back the involvement of the state and to restore the role of personal responsibility and opportunity in our society. We should encourage charities and faith-based groups to innovate, to help solve the problems of homelessness and of our sink housing estates. We need to restore some values in our society. We need a new approach to homelessness that takes people with us and creates the civic society that prevents homelessness through the family cohesion and voluntary effort that builds genuine caring communities.
This comprehensive report offers a way forward and we will work with the Executive and others to address the scourge of homelessness.
I move amendment S1M-2838.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"notes the publication of the final report of the Homelessness Task Force, Helping Homeless People: An Action Plan for Prevention and Effective Response, two and a half years after its inception; condemns the fact that homelessness applications to local authorities have reached record levels during that period, under the Scottish Executive, and remain close to that level; notes with concern the Executive's decision to accept the task force's recommendations in full without prior debate, particularly the proposals to phase out the category of priority need and to remove the local connection requirements, and calls on the Executive to take a less prescriptive approach and allow local authorities the flexibility they require in order to address the individual needs of homeless people in their areas."
Few things are more central to our ability as a society to nurture opportunity, build communities and ensure basic human rights than having a home of our own. Conversely, few things are more destructive of the life chances of our citizens, the physical and mental well-being of families and the key dynamic of hope for the future than homelessness.
The homelessness task force has produced a superb report. It is radical, far-reaching and highly relevant to housing and homelessness in Scotland today. The report and the research paper that underpins it are shot through with important insights into the many complexities of this most tragic of human disasters. I am bound to say that it was with a sense of extreme depression that I listened to Keith Harding outlining his views on the report. I have considerable doubts that he has read it—what he said certainly did not seem to suggest that he had.
I want to draw members' attention to the stress that the report places on the interests of children. I take some little credit for that, because during consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill the Executive took on board amendments that I lodged requiring the interests of children and young people to be included in homelessness strategies and other policies. I pointed out that children are often the forgotten and innocent victims of homelessness—they lose friends, schools and the security of home and they often experience damage to their mental health and well-being.
To be honest, I was doubtful whether the inclusion of young people's interests in the rather dry and legalistic terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 would make much difference. However, I am bound to say that the power of words and duties in helping to determine the direction of the Executive's policies on this matter has been vindicated. The interests of children come through strongly as a risk factor in the University of Stirling report, as a trigger to homelessness and to young people leaving the parental home, and as a key area for support mechanisms, advice and intervention. Children should be first in the queue for widening priority need.
I share Kenneth Gibson's regret that the debate is so short. I hope that at some point the Social Justice Committee will be able to do more justice to the report.
The second insight that I would like to mention is the value of relationships and emotional support. In a sense we already know that, but it is often forgotten. Ann Rosengard's research paper "Routes out of Homelessness" notes in detail the value of relationships and emotional support when dealing with children. In particular, it points to the valuable work that is done in refuges by specialist children's workers. However, there is also a general issue, which is linked to the importance of providing meaningful occupational opportunities that can build confidence and provide people with social networks. It stands to reason that long-term solutions to homelessness—and it is sustainable long-term solutions that interest us—are not helped if people are isolated and depressed and lose their contacts. That is why I intervened on Kenny Gibson to raise the issue of statistics and to highlight the need for us to look to the long term. I am sure that Kenny Gibson will agree with that, as a number of qualifications are attached to the statistics.
Tackling homelessness is not just a matter of providing a house. The strategy must consider the care and support that are needed and must involve rebuilding social networks and job opportunities. We must get rid of the revolving-door syndrome. For example, the Heriot-Watt University report suggested that 27 per cent were repeat applications.
I caution that work is not the panacea for every homeless person. Homelessness occurs for many reasons, but some of the most intractable cases involve people with complex addiction problems and mental health difficulties. They might not be, and might never be, ready for work. Meaningful occupational opportunities are needed, whether part-time, full-time, project based or mainstream, for people with restricted life skills and social skills. Those opportunities should be related to the homeless person's needs. As the report points out, we need to know more about that area. A strength of the report is that it points out clearly areas in which further research is required. The area of employment and occupation is one of the most crucial of those.
Rent guarantee and deposit schemes must be supported. They cannot exist in isolation but must involve individual mentoring support for homemaking and budgeting skills if they are to work. I hope that the minister will take on board that point and ensure that schemes are effectively achieved and resourced.
Our priority must be to ensure that people do not become homeless in the first place. Well-meaning attempts to help often founder in red tape and bureaucratic inertia. Those making the relevant decisions must have powers to access urgent support of any kind.
I do not have time to deal with targeted action on care leavers, prisoners and those leaving the armed forces, but that is the right direction to go in. It would be helpful to have a detailed assessment by area of the available resources, such as supported projects and support personnel, to set against the assessed needs. I know that that must be done locally, but it would be helpful to have national information. We should not go too fast, but we should ensure that we match the resources to our current objectives. The homelessness task force's report sets out the challenge and raises our sights about what can be done. Increased funding over time will be needed, but abolishing homelessness is one of the Parliament's great crusades. It is up to us to ensure that that succeeds. I support the motion.
I think that I will be able to get everybody in, if we have speeches of four minutes.
I begin by congratulating the members of the homelessness task force on delivering a comprehensive and well-considered report. The task force's broad membership ensured that it could pull on a wealth of knowledge and experience when considering the homelessness problem. Debate on the report in the chamber is important, but our priority should be implementing the report's recommendations.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 implemented many of the initial recommendations of the task force. The 2001 act strengthened the rights of those who are homeless and ensured that registered social landlords—RSLs—played their part in addressing homelessness.
Anyone who followed the intricacies of the 2001 act's passage through Parliament will know that measures to alleviate homelessness are at the heart of the act. They will know that the Social Justice Committee took seriously the concerns of organisations such as Shelter about the possible damaging impact that stock transfer could have on local authorities' ability to fulfil their statutory homelessness obligations. If amendment 93, which was lodged by the SNP, had been successful, RSLs would have been prevented from taking homelessness applications. If that is what independence means, I say no thanks to it and so do the homeless people of Scotland.
I welcome particularly the report's emphasis on homelessness prevention. The report rightly states that the objective should be to avoid the crisis of homelessness whenever possible. The report identifies local homelessness strategies as playing a key role in establishing procedures and mechanisms for the early identification of those who face housing difficulties. The provision of information, advice and support services must be co-ordinated within local authority departments and, where appropriate, between local authorities and the national health service. That is particularly important when new tenants come out of long-stay hospitals.
The report rightly concludes that evictions should be a last resort. However, it is unfair to suggest, as some have, that local authorities and RSLs currently evict indiscriminately. Local authorities and registered social landlords have a duty to their tenants to ensure that those who are responsible for anti-social behaviour or repeated and deliberate non-payment of rent are held to account.
Does Karen Whitefield agree that we still do not have the right approach to anti-social behaviour and that, as well as introducing legislation to deal with homelessness, we need to introduce legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour?
As the member will recall, during the progress of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we had many discussions in the Social Justice Committee about that subject. I am pleased that the forthcoming criminal justice bill will introduce recommendations that came from the Social Justice Committee on interim anti-social behaviour orders.
It is important that, where rent arrears have occurred as a result of failings in the housing benefit system or for other bureaucratic reasons, landlords properly take that into account.
I will conclude with a few words about the Tories. I am sorry that Keith Harding has left the chamber because, in a recent press statement, he voiced rather hollow concerns about the increase in the number of homelessness applications since the Labour Government came to power. His concern on that subject has as much credibility as Homer Simpson's might have on etiquette. Between 1981 and 1991—a period about which those sitting to my far right seem to have developed a special kind of amnesia—the number of households presenting as homeless to local authorities in Scotland rocketed from just under 15,000 to 40,000. Through the Tories systematic underfunding and undermining of local authorities throughout Scotland and through their belief that unemployment was a price worth paying, the Tories almost single-handedly created the modern homelessness problem.
In contrast, the Scottish Executive is committed to working in partnership with local authorities, the voluntary sector and the national health service to ensure that effective action is taken to tackle homelessness where it exists and prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. The Executive is committed to providing the resources that are needed to tackle homelessness and prevent rough sleeping. The Executive is allocating £27 million over three years to implement the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001; £11 million to support the recommendations of the task force; and £42 million to support the rough sleepers initiative, with an additional £11 million over the next two years.
The Executive is willing to put its money where its mouth is and it is willing to address the problem of homelessness in Scotland.
I would be grateful if members could say "in conclusion" reasonably near the end of their speeches rather than in the middle. I must ask members to keep strictly to four minutes from now on.
I was intrigued by some of Karen Whitefield's remarks. I agree that the Tories significantly exacerbated the homelessness situation in Scotland during their time. However, the evidence does not show that there has been any improvement in the past five years. In fact, the situation has got considerably worse.
I was also intrigued by Keith Harding's proposals for dealing with some of the more difficult members of our society. The picture that he painted in my mind was of some sort of concentration camp patrolled by armed guards, but I am sure that the Conservatives would not dream of making any such suggestion.
I welcome the homelessness task force report and wish to commend the task force for its diligent work during the past two and a half years and for the imaginative and innovative approach that it has taken to the growing problem of homelessness in Scotland.
However, one of the report's major weaknesses is that it does not address the supply of affordable housing. It is all very well to have a strategy and a series of recommendations or action plans, but if we do not have an appropriate supply of affordable housing, we will not eradicate the problem, however much we change our priorities. We do not have the right balance of the right kinds of houses available in the right places in Scotland. The Executive will have to tackle its responsibility to deliver an increased supply of affordable housing to rent.
The report also fails to address one of the underlying problems—anti-social behaviour. I am pleased that legislation on dealing with such behaviour may be introduced in the near future. The debate that took place on that during consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill meant that the topic was batted around. It seems to have been batted off to criminal justice, although it is substantially a housing problem. I hope that the Minister for Social Justice will have a significant input into the legislation.
Does Brian Adam think that local authorities should adopt North Lanarkshire Council's policy? That council has set up a dedicated task force to address anti-social behaviour and to ensure that ASBOs are obtained much sooner. That task force recently won the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities innovation award.
I commend any advance in the area, but that policy is not being followed widely in Scotland. It is clear that the Executive feels that legislation is necessary. I am asking only that there be a significant input from the housing angle and not just the criminal justice angle.
I will focus the rest of my remarks on the support that the task force suggests for a wide variety of people. We must support those who are likely to become homeless in the near future or who are already homeless. The reasons for homelessness are changing. Our approach to providing services must be flexible enough to reflect those changes.
How do we deliver that laudable aim and the welcome, fresh approach that addresses all the needs of those who are vulnerable, not just the need for a roof over their heads? We had a wide range of suggestions from Robert Brown, which I am more than happy to endorse. It is important that the major changes that the homelessness task force proposes should not lie on a shelf somewhere in Victoria Quay, in our local housing departments or with RSLs. A change in culture is required. That will demand a bit more commitment from the minister and his officials. I refer not only to Communities Scotland's role as regulator, but to a proactive approach to encourage changes in the approach that housing providers take—both new RSLs and council housing departments. I look forward to the minister assuring me that the full resources of his department and associated agencies will be available to train and support those who will deliver at the sharp end.
As members know, the causes of homelessness are myriad. We also know that homelessness is not simply a case of bricks and mortar, but can often be a result of family or relationship breakdown, domestic abuse or drug or alcohol problems. That list is clearly not exhaustive, which serves only to underline the complexity of the task ahead.
The housing dimension of homelessness is important—I will return to it later—but it can only ever be part of the answer. Unless we address the underlying causes of homelessness, we will not begin to achieve lasting solutions. The report addresses the need to improve homelessness services and to make people's experience of those services much less traumatic, but it also addresses prevention. We know the cost of homelessness, not just the cost to society in helping the homeless to pick up the pieces, but the real human cost to those affected. The real prize for the Parliament is to prevent homelessness in the first place.
The report must be set in the context of tackling poverty and inequality. As inequality in our society increased under the Tories, so did homelessness. Part of the solution must therefore lie in addressing fundamental inequalities, bridging the gap for our least well-off and achieving social justice for all.
As the minister said, the report builds on the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. If members cast their minds back, they will remember the significant role that the homelessness task force had in shaping the initial provisions on homelessness and delivering the best-ever package of rights for homeless people in Scotland. I welcome the further recommendations for legislative change, although legislative change alone is not enough. I welcome the abolition of priority need, which will be phased out over the next 10 years, and the abolition of intentionality and local connection. However, all those provisions are about managing the system; they are not about addressing the needs of homeless people.
To realise that ambition, we need to tackle housing supply and quality. If we look at our most marginalised communities around Scotland, we see houses that lie empty, that are run down and that are not fit for purpose. It is interesting to note that, broadly speaking, some of the areas that have the highest levels of homelessness also have the highest levels of void property. We need to understand why that is so. Further consideration of housing supply and quality must be a key part of future housing policy.
I welcome Iain Gray's announcement of £11 million, which is a good start towards implementing the task force's ambitious and radical recommendations. We need continued political will to ensure that all the recommendations are achieved and that nothing drops off the agenda. We know that the problems that we face will not be resolved overnight, but I know that in Iain Gray we have a minister who will provide the necessary leadership to ensure that we do not lose focus.
I add my personal thanks to the members of the task force for their time, energy and commitment. I was privileged to be part of a unique process in which homeless people themselves contributed to shaping the solutions. There is nothing like direct experience of the problems to help understand what the solutions should be. Homeless people were not only listened to, but heard.
At the office of The Big Issue in Scotland, one young man said to me, "I don't want much. I want to work and I want a home." Do not let that young man down.
Iain Gray talked about the work of the task force and mentioned that the final section of the report was made available in February this year. However, the rest of the report concerns the years that lie ahead and will not be completely implemented until 2012.
The report's terms of reference reminded me of similar terms that were used 25 years ago, when my party became the administration on Glasgow District Council. At that time, I had several meetings with Geoff Shaw, who was an acknowledged expert on social work and homelessness, and who was recognised as such by all political parties and by various members of the community.
Geoff Shaw explained at great length the complexities of homelessness. As the report of the homelessness task force does, he mentioned problems relating to alcohol, mental health, family break-up, destitution and eviction. There was a group of people who were completely unemployable and there was a smaller number who had been in the regular armed forces but could not cope with civilian life. However, the big difference between then and now is in the explosion in the number of people who take drugs, which were not so prevalent 25 years ago.
Geoff Shaw made another interesting point. He estimated that at that time there were some 3,000 homeless people in Glasgow, of whom 10 per cent were those who—rightly or wrongly—were nicknamed the roofless ones. Those people refused to live inside any form of building or premises. If one walked past Glasgow Central station late on any cold night, one would find them huddled around outside parts of the station, where they could get some heat and warmth. However, they would not enter a building. I think that that must still apply today.
In those days, I worked in Glasgow's St Enoch Square. I still remember a tragic sight, which has imprinted itself on my mind. One cold, wet, winter Friday night, a woman who looked filthy and was definitely under the influence of alcohol was roaming about trying to sell her body for sixpence. The sight was like something from the third world. Ever since, that image has haunted me when I think of somebody in that condition.
Paragraph 13 of the report rightly lays out the ultimate aims, but paragraph 14 is perhaps over-simplistic. It worries me that if we are to put certain of these people into mainstream housing, we will need to be selective. Putting the wrong people in could make life hell on earth for the neighbours. That must be borne in mind.
The most recent figures are once again spiralling upwards and have reached an all-time high of 46,000 homeless families. Labour and the Liberals constantly trumpet their social justice credentials, and I am sure that they are sincere when they do so, but the fact is that the situation is getting worse.
In Edinburgh, there are beggars in Princes Street. If I were an Edinburgh councillor—some members have been Edinburgh councillors—I would try to introduce a byelaw to ban begging in Princes Street.
The member has one minute.
In view of the shortage of time, I will cut out part of my speech.
We have to remember that 65 per cent of homeless people have a failed tenancy; 70 per cent of another group were found to have been evicted at least once from their hostel or other accommodation. Even Wendy Alexander stated that the system was
"failing to accommodate people or give adequate support or protection in hostels."
Karen Whitefield criticised the Tories, but I have to say that, in May 2000, John Reid, who is described as a future Deputy Prime Minister of a Labour Government, talked about
"a new civic society based on opportunities and responsibilities … It recognises that government cannot solve every problem, cure every ill. It understands that the state does not have a monopoly on compassion; that social needs can be met by institutions, organisations, and associations, autonomous of—and other than—central government."
In May 2000 John Reid was advocating, almost word for word, Tory policy. On that note I will resume my seat.
As Kenny Gibson and Robert Brown said, it would have been better if the debate had been longer. However, we have to remind ourselves that, if we were at Westminster, the debate would not have taken place. It is excellent that the Scottish Parliament is debating the subject, no matter how short the debate is.
The report of the homelessness task force has been welcomed broadly by every party, and especially by the SNP. A wide range of groups that work to resolve the problems of homelessness have welcomed the report. The task force's report is timely, as action to resolve the homelessness problem is urgently required. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, research shows that homelessness remains a serious problem in our society. Homelessness has risen by 40 per cent since new Labour came to power.
We have to ensure that the recommendations of the report are backed up by the necessary action from the Executive. The resources that are required must be provided to eliminate the scourge of homelessness from our society. The report was described by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless as
"firing the starting pistol to make inroads into homelessness in Scotland".
I welcome that comment. However, as Brian Adam said, the report will have failed if it sits on a shelf gathering dust. I am sure that the Executive will take on board that the recommendations must be turned into action. The minister may shake her head, but for too long, we have seen reports gather dust.
Sandra White was a member of the Social Justice Committee when I appeared before the committee and confirmed that the interim recommendations of the homelessness task force were to be implemented in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We can hardly be accused of letting the report lie on a shelf gathering dust.
The Executive acted on the interim report, but we must not allow the report to lie on the shelf doing nothing. On many occasions, reports have been published, task forces have been established and yet no recommendations have been produced. I ask the minister to take note of that. Action speaks louder than words.
The Executive has pledged to eliminate homelessness by 2012. The SNP believes that homelessness must be eliminated long before that. Although the report gives a date of 2012, I hope that action will be taken to eliminate homelessness before then. I welcome the Executive's pledge, but I hope that the Executive will accept the genuine concerns of the SNP and many agencies that although 2012 is an acceptable date to have in a report, for the sake of homeless people homelessness must be acted on before that date.
I want to concentrate on priority needs. Other members, including the minister and Jackie Baillie, mentioned that matter, as have many campaigners in the housing field. I welcome the assessment that people's needs should be re-examined. Anyone who is homeless has a priority need. Slippage must not be allowed.
The Chartered Institute of Housing also welcomed the extension and the eventual phasing out of priority need. The institute said that the funds that were allocated by the Executive would not cover the longer-term need to increase the provision of decent, affordable homes. The money that has been provided is welcome, but it is not sufficient to implement the report and to end homelessness. The Executive should put its money where its mouth is. We need action as soon as possible to eradicate homelessness once and for all. It should be eradicated sooner rather than later.
Like other members, I am pleased to take part in the debate. The approach that the Scottish Executive adopted in 1999, which was led by Jackie Baillie, was the right one. It was correct to set up the homelessness task force and to take time to examine the causes and nature of homelessness. It was right that the task force included people with proven track records of dealing with homelessness and its causes and people with experience of homelessness. Those people, who for many years have been committed to finding solutions, were given the opportunity to put to good use their skills and expertise in the field. I acknowledge the effort and time that they put into producing the recommendations.
The recommendations of the task force's first report formed the basis of the homelessness sections of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. That act changed legislation; it defined the rights of homeless people and placed duties on local authorities to develop homelessness strategies.
I am sure that all local authorities are working to develop a strategy as required, but I am pleased that North Lanarkshire Council is well on its way to developing its strategy. The council knows that homeless people have complex and varied needs and that the range of needs of homeless people—or of those who are threatened with homelessness—cannot be dealt with purely as a housing issue. Members have spoken about the mental health issues, alcohol abuse and family problems that can affect the homeless.
To tackle those problems, North Lanarkshire Council is developing a multi-agency approach that will address not only people's accommodation needs, but also their wider needs such as the care and support that they require. The approach will involve people who find themselves homeless or who are threatened with homelessness. Local authorities throughout Scotland must develop that type of approach.
Members should know that although legislation is important, it does not in itself solve the problem. Fortunately, for most people who are affected by homelessness, it is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. However, as was mentioned earlier, 27 per cent of people who present themselves as homeless do so more than once. It is not enough to provide only a secure roof over such people's heads.
North Lanarkshire Council is considering how to tackle the problem and I am sure that councils throughout Scotland are using the funding that the Scottish Executive has provided to advance their provision and to modernise their approach to dealing with homelessness.
In many parts of Scotland, the supply of available houses in the rented and owner-occupied sectors exceeds demand. The Executive must ensure that its targets for new building are met and that the programmes for modernising houses that are unfit for human habitation are carried out. The supply of affordable rented housing is an important aspect of achieving the targets in the task force's recommendations.
For too many years, homelessness was not tackled and was not on the political agenda. What some Conservative members have said beggars belief. I am pleased that the Executive recognises that homelessness must be tackled. I believe that, working in partnership at all levels of government and with representatives of the voluntary sector, we have an opportunity to tackle homelessness and the reasons for it. We have a time frame for action.
Shelter Scotland, which has campaigned long and hard for an end to homelessness, is said to be excited by the ambitious plans in the task force's report. I share that excitement and look forward to the Executive and the Parliament working together. We must work with our partners and use our energy to eradicate homelessness for good.
I welcome the document. I agree with Shelter that one homeless person is one too many and that the problem must be addressed, however great it is.
The document is comprehensive and detailed. I address recommendations 32 to 57 under the heading
"Action to deliver an effective response to homelessness".
The extract is sound, imaginative and thoughtful; it acknowledges the needs of homeless people and touches upon all the organisations—statutory and voluntary—that are committed to ridding the nation of homelessness. The variety of the recommendations is an acknowledgement that there are no quick fixes, as Iain Gray said earlier, that the roots of homelessness are complex and that curing it confronts everyone involved—home provider and homeless citizen—with major challenges.
Scrutiny shows that the 25 points contain references to duties or services that should be provided by local authorities: the creation of joined-up agencies; crisis response systems; advocacy services; a range of temporary and supported accommodation; support packages; barrier-free housing; dovetailing with domestic abuse strategies; liaison with general practitioner registration of the homeless; and the provision of practical means of enabling people who are affected by homelessness to build or rebuild social networks. If I were still a councillor, I would be reeling from that list and would be asking how my council was to pay to implement those recommendations. Some of the solution is about liaison and changes in philosophy. However, the majority of the headings will demand human, administrative and therefore some financial investment.
A similar list of suggestions falls upon national health service trusts, with a similar division into changes of ethos and cost-creating recommendations. Jobcentres are tasked with helping homeless people to access jobs and developing initiatives for that with employers; drawing in public sector employers, and linking with pilot transitional employment programmes.
It seems to me that there are financial implications to those recommendations. The Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland states:
"The HTF report also stressed the crucial role of support services in the prevention of homelessness. This will require further resources than those already committed by the Executive."
That is reinforced by its comment that
"The Executive's pledge to end homelessness will only be met if the Homelessness Task Force's recommendations are backed by sufficient resources to allow complete implementation."
In short, I welcome the intent and the determination to be as effective as possible in tackling homelessness. Not one of us here today would quarrel with the principles. However, practically, it seems to me that the resources are insufficient. Naturally, I support the Scottish National Party's amendment and its assertion that independence for Scotland will release the wealth of Scotland for the benefit of all the people of Scotland.
We move to winding-up speeches. We are absolutely on schedule, therefore closing speakers should adhere to the times allocated to them.
I make a procedural point. Perhaps other people are better organised than I am, but I suspect that if we had to sit an exam on the contents of the two excellent documents, we would almost all fail dismally. The debate takes place too soon after the production of the documents. I know that ministers have to report to Parliament, but I would have thought that we could have a formal laying of the document before Parliament and then have a full debate perhaps two weeks later.
However, considering the time constraints, the debate has been of a remarkably high quality and that might be because the report is of a particularly high quality. It includes less pseudo-philosophical garbage than any report I have read for a long time. It is therefore very good.
I will concentrate on two aspects of the report. One is the early identification of people who might become homeless because of problems with employment, benefits, disputes with neighbours, drink, or drugs. The report deals with that issue quite well, but we must make a serious effort to get on to those matters as early as possible.
I am interested in alcohol abuse and I know that there is far too slow a response to people who are beginning to get involved in alcohol abuse, especially young people. We should concentrate on prevention as well as cure.
I will also talk about personal support. There is much about that in the research document but I have not noticed much about it in the report. There is quite a bit about systems, the official structure and trying to teach people officially but, in addition to that, we need to give personal support, especially to young people.
I shudder to think what sort of mess I would have made of running my own flat at the age of 16. I would have been a disaster. Youngsters come out of supported accommodation and young unmarried men come out of the Army—where they have always been looked after, because the Army feeds and houses them—are given a key and are told to get on with it. Mention has been made of furniture recycling, which is important. There is an excellent scheme in Edinburgh called Fresh Start, which gives people a lot of useful small articles for the home. If we could get the right sort of volunteers we could have a system of honorary aunties to help people.
I know that tomorrow is international women's day, but Donald Gorrie is suggesting that all young men are absolutely hopeless and that we need women, in the shape of aunties, to look after them. That is not my experience of young men.
It is my experience of young men, so we will just have to differ.
We could have a voluntary system. Obviously, sometimes it would not work, but if there was good chemistry between a volunteer and, for example, a rather clueless young woman with a family, or a young man who has no domestic skills, great progress could be made. That system could exist in addition to the official system, because people warm to people who are not officials. That issue could be explored further and developed with the voluntary sector.
Once again we have a document before us, this time not adorned by the benign and cherubic visage of Jackie Baillie, but by the somewhat more sinister and vulpine features of Iain Gray. Once again, we are absolutely no further forward. It seems that we debate homelessness year in and year out, but make little progress.
Like Sandra White, Bill Aitken was on the Social Justice Committee. Has he forgotten the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, with which we made such substantial progress?
No, I was just about to deal with that act and my substantial contribution to it.
Homelessness is complex. Robert Brown and Donald Gorrie were correct to say that we should be seeking to prevent homelessness, but I think that they would also agree that sometimes it is not easy to do that, because the reasons for homelessness are varied and complex. It is easy to sort out the short-term disaster of a fire, for example. It may also be easy to sort out in the longer term the problems of a broken relationship, but dealing with people who eventually find themselves on the streets is more complex.
Two weeks ago tonight, I went out with the Glasgow Simon Community and saw a lot of the street homeless. It was a fairly depressing prospect, but even so, I was left with the feeling that there are certain things that we could be doing—but they are not contained in the 59 recommendations in the homelessness task force report. Why, for example, are we not considering—and Margaret Curran will confirm that I raised this some time ago—communal assisted tenancies? They would not work in every case, but in some cases they might. They are worth consideration.
I am left with the inescapable conclusion that homelessness is not being properly handled. There is much of import in the homelessness task force's report. We should have been allowed to debate it, and debate it at greater length, rather than just agree with its recommendations, because some of them are wrong. If we are going to take away the aspect of local connection, we will end up in a disastrous situation.
We must recognise that a proportion of avoidable evictions relates to people who have been evicted for anti-social behaviour. We must do something about that, and answer questions more seriously. Even local authorities such as the City of Edinburgh Council are aware of that. Councillor Sheila Gilmore, in a paper that went to the council's executive, stated:
"We call on the Scottish Executive to address this failure, and to give councils proper support to deal effectively with Anti-Social Behaviour".
In my sin-bin approach, I suggested not kicking people out on the street, but giving them one last chance and preventing them from creating mayhem with their neighbours.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I am in my last minute. I would like to give way.
Jackie Baillie and Karen Whitefield fell back on the usual Pavlovian explanations for why homelessness is rising and talked about the contribution of 18 years of Conservative Government.
Will the member give way?
I would love to, but I am in my last minute.
It is up to the member.
I cannot give way.
Jackie Baillie was right to say that inequality contributes to homelessness, but if homelessness is increasing under a Labour Administration, inequality must also be increasing. Perhaps Jackie Baillie will take that point on board. We are unhappy with how the matter has been addressed. The purpose of the Conservatives' amendment is to show that. The report should be debated more thoroughly and at greater length.
I am happy to begin summing up the debate by reflecting on the broad welcome that Parliament has given the final report of the homelessness task force. I welcome the minister's announcement of a homelessness bill by the end of the year.
This substantial piece of work provides a blueprint for ending the shame of homelessness that plagues Scotland. In passing, I say that the Conservatives have lost the plot. I heard some language from them that I last heard a long time ago. I was ashamed to hear Keith Harding seem to suggest that all homeless people are criminal or anti-social. That is not my experience of homeless people and I do not think that that is the experience of most people in the chamber.
Will the member give way?
No. I will finish my point. An implementation plan and the appropriate finance are urgently required to ensure that the report's recommendations become a reality.
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on a fine speech on a subject about which she cares deeply. He is not here at the moment, but Angus MacKay sat through most of the debate. Now that he is a back bencher, I say as one ex-Shelter worker to another ex-Shelter worker that I look forward to hearing his contributions on homelessness.
The report contains many recommendations to change legislation to expand the definition of those who are in priority need. That comes as little surprise, as there are clear gaps in provision that have, in my experience, long required urgent action. Those amendments—particularly to include 16 and 17-year-olds, vulnerable people and people who are experiencing domestic abuse—were proposed by me when the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 was discussed. The then housing minister rejected them because the Executive's
"strong preference is not to make ad hoc amendments to the current categories, but to wait for the considered opinion of the task force."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 4 April 2001; c 1995.]
Although I welcome today's announcement, I cannot help but reflect that the categories for priority need could already have been extended for at least a year.
I hope that the minister will take on board the recommendations of the report, because its thrust is not a new philosophy. Solving and preventing homelessness is not, and has never been, simply a housing matter. As the report says:
"Part of the answer … lies in reducing the social and economic divide between those who are prosperous and those who are disadvantaged."
The report makes a series of recommendations on benefit policy. I will highlight some of them, particularly those that relate to young people. Although benefits are beyond the Parliament's competence, the issues are critical to tackling homelessness. The report is the result of considerable effort to tailor a Scottish solution to the Scottish homelessness problem and our work must not be undermined by a Whitehall department's one-size-fits-all attitude to benefits.
I urge the Executive to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions is fully aware of Scotland's needs. It is vital that the Executive demands that DWP policies are dovetailed to meet Scotland's needs and priorities, rather than an arbitrary London-based assessment of the situation.
I want to move on quickly to something that has concerned me for a long time—tied housing. The minister knows of my concern about the lack of legal provision for people who live in tied housing. In rural areas in particular, evictions from tied housing cause part of the homelessness problem. I hope that ministers will consider the forthcoming legislation very carefully to see whether there is any way in which we can extend protection to people who live in tied housing but who can be evicted for various reasons, some of which are not very important. I urge the minister to consider that point, because that protection is essential.
Considerable work has gone into the task force's report. It is clear that most of us in the Parliament want to end homelessness. The Executive must demonstrate that it can match the will of the Parliament. I can give a commitment from the SNP that the homelessness legislation that will be introduced at the end of the year should find a fair wind from us.
This has been a very interesting debate and the commitment that the Parliament has shown to the subject has done it credit. I take the point that was made about the need for further debate: Iain Gray and I will always be happy to debate the issue, which is of great significance to our portfolio.
I have to comment on Donald Gorrie's contribution. I think that Donald could benefit from spending some time with Johann Lamont, to help him to understand the feminist principle that young men should look after themselves and not require young women to bail them out all the time.
That is marriage.
No, that is not marriage. That is part of the supportive work that we try to deliver on homelessness.
I was intrigued by Tricia Marwick's experience of young men. I am sure that, with great interest, we will hear more about that on another day.
The task force's report has highlighted the full range and nature of the problems of homelessness in Scotland—from homelessness that we do not see, with families sharing houses, and friends sleeping on floors—to the most obvious and extreme examples of people sleeping rough, about which we heard a lot during the debate. We are determined not only to prevent and tackle those problems, but to do so in a way that is practical, sustainable and deliverable.
We made sure that the right people were involved in the review—and we took exception to a number of things in Keith Harding's contribution, because, if he had cared to, he would have found that a number of the people to whom he said we should talk were, in fact, members of the task force.
It was necessary to ensure that the solutions that were identified would work, and continue to work in the long term. Given the complexity of homelessness and the demanding remit set for the task force, we accurately predicted that the task force would require at least two years to complete its review. We are not remotely apologetic about the time scales. It is proper to do this work and to give it the time necessary.
In fact, Shelter's view at the outset was that the full review would need to comprise a rolling programme of legislation and policy changes through to the second session of the Scottish Parliament.
Through the task force, we have undertaken extensive research and we have listened to and consulted with practitioners, experts, representative groups and people who have experienced homelessness. We now have a deeper understanding of the problems of homelessness and the most comprehensive set of recommendations ever on how to address them.
The task force's report is helping us to develop the blueprint for preventing and tackling homelessness in Scotland over the next decade. To continue the assault on homelessness, we have pledged to implement all of the task force's latest recommendations—encompassing further legislative change on eligibility criteria, a new focus on prevention, wider access to housing, and more effective responses for people experiencing homelessness.
Having worked as a homeless persons' officer and, indeed, for Women's Aid, I have been a long-term advocate of the removal of the priority need category, so I am pleased to see that the report recommends that.
However, I am particularly concerned about women who are not in priority need and who are fleeing domestic abuse. Paragraph 26 of the task force's report says:
"Women suffering, or in fear of, violence may be vulnerable even if they have no children."
Will the minister highlight that vulnerability to local authorities to ensure that they do not simply dismiss such women as not being in priority need and therefore fail to assist them?
Before the minister responds, I would like to make a point to members. I know that it is difficult to communicate with people in the seat behind. However, doing so means that members present their backsides to the member who is speaking and to the chair. It is a little discourteous and I ask them to refrain from doing so.
I am happy to assure Elaine Smith that we will raise the issue that she mentioned with local authorities. In fact, women who flee domestic violence will be one of the first categories for which we will remove top priority need.
We are backing the task force's report with substantial new money. For example, we will provide an extra £11 million over the next two financial years to begin to implement the report's recommendations; £3 million will be available in 2002-03 and a further £8 million will follow the year after. In his speech, Iain Gray outlined the Executive's substantial financial commitment. We are not backing off from the need to deliver those resources. However, we also expect a better use of existing resources to give people who are at risk of experiencing homelessness a better deal. Local authorities and others must make better use of existing funding streams. Much of the task force's report is concerned not so much with making a stretched public sector do more, but with carrying out service provision better and differently and linking more effectively with others, particularly with other parts of the public and voluntary sectors. That means strengthening current provision, changing current practices and achieving integrated action. As a result, resources should be channelled to vulnerable people who need them most when they will have the biggest impact.
Will the member give way?
Very briefly. I am rapidly running out of time.
The minister is obviously not in favour of devolving the benefits system to Scotland. However, will she tell us how Scotland would be adversely affected if that happened?
Furthermore, although the minister would undoubtedly agree that Jackie Baillie delivered an excellent speech, did it not remind her of the song on the album "Hats" by The Blue Nile, which contains the lines:
"I know it's over
But I can't let go"?
That comment was gratuitous and inappropriate.
I was about to discuss the benefits system. Anyone familiar with the task force's work will know that the DWP was represented on the task force and that benefit issues were a serious priority. I am delighted to say that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already welcomed the final report as being authoritative and timely, and has undertaken to consider all of its recommendations on benefits in the coming months.
I think that Kenny Gibson wants us to debate independence. Anyone who was present for Mr Gibson's speech will have seen that he was under instructions from the leadership to ensure that independence was mentioned. However, he clearly just tacked it on at the end, which indicates that he saw the point as being as irrelevant to tackling the problems of homeless people as we do.
For us, delivery is critical. Although its recommendations are rightly ambitious, the task force has focused on the achievable, not the theoretical. The recommendations build pragmatically on the framework set by the task force's initial report and the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, and have been the subject of consultation with a wide variety of people. In his speech, Kenny Gibson also asked about the monitoring group. We have been discussing that with the task force and the group's membership will be made available.
In the brief time that I have left, I want to return to Keith Harding's comments. For people who were not in the chamber, I should point out that Mr Harding took no interventions during his speech. I am not remotely surprised that he did not do so, because it would have given us the chance to correct a few facts. He also made some bizarre comments about the need for central direction and about charities.
That said, I strongly recommend that all MSPs read the text of Keith Harding's speech. What we heard was unadulterated Thatcherism and a return to right-wing ideology—[Members: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear that the Tory benches support unadulterated Thatcherism. Did Murray Tosh cheer there as well? I am not sure. In the chamber, they often like to go incognito and pretend that they are committed to social justice when—as we saw very clearly—social justice is not on their agenda. They said that state intervention to help homeless people undermines family networks and charities. I tell Keith Harding and the Tories that responses to and action on homelessness are not acts of charity; they are acts of a Government's social responsibility. Mr Harding gave no cognisance to the women who have to leave their families in order to protect themselves from violence or to the young people who have experienced abuse and neglect at the hands of their families. Where are those people to go if the Government does not intervene to help them?
Homelessness is the most extreme form of social exclusion. Jackie Baillie, in her excellent contribution, called for the political will to address the needs of the homeless. The Executive has that political will, both in the big policy issues and in the detail. That is what the report is about and that is what we will move forward on.