Homelessness (Abolition of Priority Need Test)
The next item of business is a statement by Malcolm Chisholm on the abolition of priority need. As the minister will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interventions.
I am pleased to announce that today the Executive is publishing the statement on the abolition of the priority need test that is required by section 3 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003. It sets out the action that has been, is being and will be taken to achieve the abolition of priority need by 31 December 2012 and sets interim objectives.
The statement has been prepared following intensive consultation and information gathering throughout the year and builds on the comprehensive agenda for preventing and tackling homelessness in Scotland that was set by the homelessness task force and endorsed by this Parliament in 2002. Details of responses to the consultation and a technical appendix setting out the information received from local authorities are also being published today.
The consultation indicated that there is still a consensus about the programme of work that the task force proposed. There are concerns about implementation and delivery, but there is agreement that the direction of travel is right and that unfair distinctions between homeless households should be removed.
The statement that we are publishing today sets out key actions in relation to the supply of appropriate and affordable housing; the prevention of homelessness; housing support and wider forms of support; legislative change and guidance; and monitoring and support arrangements. It also sets out the key interim objective, which is for local authorities to reduce the proportion of homeless households that they assess as non-priority by 50 per cent by 2009. That is an administrative target rather than a legislative target. Its purpose is twofold—it aims to ensure that we maintain a steady pace towards the 2012 target, but it will also help to identify particular problems in local areas so that they can be addressed. We remain committed to moving forward at an appropriate pace. The target will allow more definite monitoring of progress and it will allow the issues to be more clearly identified, understood and addressed.
The statement makes it clear that the supply of appropriate and affordable housing is the key. We are already making a significant investment in affordable housing, and provision will increase from well over 6,000 units this year to more than 7,000 units next year and an estimated 8,000 units in 2007-08. That represents a major expansion in our investment in affordable homes and it will assist those who are most in need. We will maintain our commitment to the provision of affordable housing, not least by ensuring that the implications of the 2012 target are reflected in future planning and resourcing of housing supply.
Developing an accurate picture of housing need, both nationally and locally, is crucial to our plans. We fully appreciate that the picture of supply and demand in Scotland is both complex and ever-changing. That is why we have commissioned work to provide an update of Professor Bramley's housing need and affordability model. When that is complete in the spring, it will provide up-to-date estimates and a five-year forward projection of the need for affordable housing at both local authority and housing market area levels. The impact of the 2012 target will be a key component of that modelling work.
At the same time, we are working with local authorities to ensure that local assessments of housing need are carried out on a more consistent basis and take account of the local impact of the 2012 target. That will improve our ability to plan to meet needs throughout the country. In future, the strategic housing investment framework will guide the allocation of the affordable housing investment programme. As the framework is finalised and priorities for the coming years are considered, we will take careful account of the affordable housing that will be required for us to meet the 2012 target.
Careful planning of our investment in housing supply is only part of the picture. We have also embarked on a comprehensive programme of action to address Scotland's wider housing needs. For example, our plans to modernise the planning system, which were introduced to Parliament yesterday, are part of our longer-term ambitions to speed up the planning process and to improve the supply of land for housing. We also want to ensure that homeless households are able to access accommodation from registered social landlords and the private sector. Our statement sets out our expectations and the actions that we will take in that regard.
During the consultation, concern was expressed about the allocations policy for social housing. Our view is that there must be room to meet the needs of people who are classed as homeless as well as of other people who are on waiting lists for social housing. We will continue discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that the legislative framework and the associated guidance allow sufficient flexibility for an appropriate balance to be struck.
At the moment, the national averages for lets to homeless people are 28 per cent in the local authority sector and 14 per cent in the RSL sector. Therefore, it is important to keep the issue in proportion. However, the heart of the matter is not the way in which we categorise or classify people but the need to treat them as individuals with their own individual needs and problems. That is the mark of a compassionate society.
We need to act early to prevent housing crises, which are traumatic for the households concerned and which place more difficult demands on accommodation and support providers. A great deal of activity is taking place throughout Scotland to prevent homelessness, but more needs to be done. It is notable that Glasgow City Council is the only local authority that currently predicts that prevention activity will have a major impact on homelessness applications in the next few years. Other authorities need to consider whether they can do more. The statement focuses on the need for local authorities to adopt and implement a housing options approach and to work with other services to put in place specific arrangements for groups that are known to be at a high risk of homelessness. We will create an innovation fund to support new approaches to preventing homelessness and work with the homelessness monitoring group to develop and disseminate practice guidance to ensure that successful approaches are shared.
As I have emphasised, our approach recognises the importance of providing support alongside accommodation, where necessary. The statement sets out our on-going work to inform and develop the implementation of the supporting people programme; to implement and monitor the health and homelessness standards; to review the role of social work; to develop the employability framework; and to strengthen and promote social networks. Much progress has been made since the task force reported in 2002, but we need to keep the momentum going.
Concern has been expressed about the particular support needs of some homeless households, especially those very few who have been involved in antisocial behaviour. We are keen to emphasise that individuals must be aware of their responsibilities towards others as well as their rights. When implemented, the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 will allow arrangements to be made for non-tenancy accommodation, which is known as bottom-line accommodation and which can be used for people who have been evicted for antisocial behaviour or who are subject to an antisocial behaviour order. When those provisions are brought into force, we will address in guidance how and when local authorities can be said to have discharged their duty to an intentionally homeless household. Of course, we will consult fully on that. Given that we need to explore the solutions in more detail, we will not commence the sections of the 2003 act that relate to intentionally homeless households until 2007 at the earliest. Next year, we will make progress on changes to the local connection rules and, as I mentioned, we will proceed with the abolition of priority need via the setting of an administrative target.
Alongside the production of guidance on prevention and allocations, we will review the operation of referrals to RSLs under section 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We will provide further guidance on preventing and addressing homelessness among households from black and minority ethnic communities; on meeting the best interests of children; and on what constitutes a reasonable offer of accommodation. We will work closely with the homelessness monitoring group and its sub-groups to produce that guidance and in monitoring progress more generally. The statement sets out the key indicators against which we will monitor. The homelessness monitoring group will report on progress annually. We will fund two new posts to offer support to local authorities in addressing issues that relate to the 2012 target. We recognise the key role that local authorities have in delivering the target and how challenging that will be in some areas. Therefore, we will offer all possible support. It is crucial that we ensure that we make best use of the available evidence. We must proceed on the basis of robust evidence. We have noted in preparing the statement that many commonly held perceptions about the size and scale of the issues are not borne out by the evidence.
I emphasise that the statement that we are publishing today marks the beginning, not the end, of a process. In 2003, the Parliament enacted what has been described as the most enlightened legislation in Europe to address the needs of homeless people. We were entirely right to take that step. The measures will not be easy to deliver, but we need to have in place a system that treats people as human beings, rather than labels them as being in a certain category, deserving or otherwise. In that way, we will be able to build on the real progress that we have made since devolution and build a truly compassionate Scotland in which everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential.
The minister will take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement.
It is a pity that the statement on priority need, which is required by the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, is being delivered at the 11th hour and in a form that makes it well-nigh impossible for Opposition members to study its detail in the available timeframe.
Like Shelter Scotland, we welcome the Executive's continuing commitment to abolish priority need by 2012. However, it was highlighted in 2003 that the key to abolishing priority need is providing the necessary resources for affordable housing. Therefore, will the minister confirm that the resources that local authorities need will be made available? Is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities satisfied with the amount that is on offer? Will he advise what impact the loss of £310 million from the Treasury following the Edinburgh stock transfer ballot will have on the City of Edinburgh Council's ability to meet the target? Will he confirm that representations will be made to the Treasury to free up that money to meet the housing needs of the people of Edinburgh?
The minister talked about the importance of support in preventing homelessness, in particular the supporting people fund. Will he explain why the supporting people fund has been cut from £408 million this year to £384 million in 2007-08? Does he recognise that the cuts in that service are already impacting on vulnerable people? What does he intend to do about that?
Finally, the minister said that today is the beginning of a process. Like many members, I thought that the process of abolishing priority need by 2012 began with the passing of the 2003 act. Why does he think that today is the beginning of the process? Why has he not done anything until now?
On that final point, Tricia Marwick has wilfully misrepresented what I said. We were required to make a statement, which represents the beginning of a process. We must modify the statement in the course of the next seven years. That was clearly the context in which I made my remarks. Tricia Marwick knows full well about our massive agenda around homelessness since 2001 and the great progress that has been made in many respects. Much of what we are doing involves looking forward.
I turn to Tricia Marwick's other questions and point her towards the first page of the statement's foreword, which states:
"we recognise that appropriate resource provision will be required in order to ensure progress towards the target".
Page 10 of the statement explicitly states:
"The next Spending Review will therefore take account of the available evidence on housing need, including the impact of the 2012 target on demand for and supply of accommodation."
It is clear that the overall resources for the next spending review period must be dealt with then. However, as I said, there are already rising trends in the amount of money that is going into new social rented housing and, therefore, the number of new builds each year.
Tricia Marwick mentioned Edinburgh. I deeply regret the ballot result in Edinburgh last week. As I have said on several occasions since then, we will provide support for Edinburgh in every way that we can, but we can in no way produce as good a package as there would have been if the vote had been in favour of community ownership. It is all very well for Tricia Marwick and other political parties to posture on the issue, but the debt will be written off only under community ownership.
Tricia Marwick also asked about the supporting people fund. Since 2001, the budget in question has multiplied by eight. Of course, I have managed difficulties in the past year, but there is a great deal more money in the supporting people fund than there was when the homelessness legislation was passed, for example. In addition, the new formula that was introduced last year gives significant weighting to homelessness in distributing the budget.
I thank the minister for the advance statement, of which I managed to read 11 pages. I did not receive it enough in advance to allow me to read the 29 pages of additional material, but I will read them after the debate.
If, on average, there are 7,000 new builds a year, it will take more than four years to meet the needs of the 30,000 people who are currently classified as priority homeless, let alone deal with future needs and the welcome abolition of priority need. Will the minister re-examine not only his targets for new builds but the resources that are required to meet the new targets?
Secondly, this week I visited Caley House in Inverness, which helps and supports people who have been through drug and alcohol addictions. It has a two-year programme to support people. At the end of it, people will get a tenancy if they are lucky, but in general they will not receive any support. If they are unlucky—which is more likely—they will be isolated in a bed and breakfast. I have a constructive suggestion for the minister. Will he consider using the innovation fund, which, as he said, is for preventing homelessness, and perhaps Professor Bramley's housing needs and affordability model to consider those people, as I understand that their demands make up a significant proportion of repeat homelessness demands?
The very name innovation fund indicates that we are keen to examine new methods of providing housing support. I am happy to consider the case of the group to which Mary Scanlon referred. I have certainly emphasised the importance of support. Although the homelessness agenda is, crucially, about supply, it is about a great deal more. The issues of support and prevention have already come through strongly this afternoon.
Within the current spending review period, we are building up to 8,000 new units a year. That figure will be the baseline for any future work. As I indicated and as Mary Scanlon knows, Professor Bramley is updating his local housing need and affordability model for the Executive. I cannot emphasise too much how important that work is, because it will provide up-to-date estimates and five-year forward projections of affordable housing need at both local authority and housing market area level. His research brief contains a specific requirement to consider the impact of the 2012 target. That will be a key piece of research, feeding into the spending review process.
Does the statement mean anything for people who are stuck this Christmas on waiting lists for affordable rented housing in areas such as East Lothian? I am sure that the minister will recall the concerns that members from all parties and all parts of Scotland expressed in a debate in the chamber on 28 September about the shortage of affordable rented housing. What can we do for authorities and housing associations that serve areas in which there is an inadequate supply of affordable rented housing for priority-need people, never mind people who are perceived to have less urgent needs but whose needs are still very urgent? I put it to the minister that 2012 is a long way away and that we need practical steps to provide for them as soon as possible.
Annex A to the statement indicates that currently 31 per cent of lets in East Lothian go to homeless people. In my statement, I made it absolutely clear that we will continue to insist as part of the policy that a significant proportion of lets go to people who are not homeless. That is fundamental to the policy. I know that there are concerns, which I understand. There are variations across Scotland but, as I said in my statement, the current position is that 28 per cent of local authority lets and 14 per cent of RSL lets go to homeless people. There is no intention of delivering our policy just by having an overwhelming number of allocations to homeless people.
There are problems relating to the implementation of the guidance, which is why an important part of the statement concerns working with COSLA to revisit and, in many cases, to clarify the guidance, because it is being interpreted differently in different parts of Scotland. I assure John Home Robertson that such revisiting of the guidance will get rid of any general unfairness in the implementation of the policy throughout Scotland.
In the light of my comments on the interpretation of guidance and on the wider issues of housing supply, I hope that John Home Robertson is reassured both that we are serious about making progress towards meeting the target and that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a balance between the rights of homeless people and the rights of people who want to move and are currently in council or RSL housing.
What the minister says about the importance of support is welcome, but I hope that he will examine the realities behind the rhetoric. Often organisations that provide support for homeless people or people who might become homeless suffer under our system of funding them for three years and then dropping them over a cliff. Because no one else will provide funding thereafter, much good work goes to waste. The way in which some councils interpret best value does not take any account of the human aspect of support. I refer to the provision of meals on wheels in a way that involves actually talking to the people who receive the service as well as day centres that provide important human contact.
Will the minister try to persuade people to interpret best value in a humane manner and ensure that there is continuing funding for projects that have been shown to work in helping homeless people?
Donald Gorrie's first point has much wider reference than to the topic of today's statement. We have taken action to insist that three-year funding is the norm in the voluntary sector through the strategic review of funding. It is difficult to get beyond that entirely because all our spending is determined by three-year periods. However, within that context, we are trying to provide more security in the funding that we offer.
On Donald Gorrie's second point, quality of service is an intrinsic part of best value and has been from the beginning.
As from now, let us have shorter questions and answers to allow as many members in as possible.
Is the minister aware of recent research commissioned by Shelter Scotland that shows not only that the Executive's target for 2012 has overwhelming support among the public, but that more than two thirds of people believe that the issue has a high or top priority? Will the minister go into the spending review with a determination to impress on his colleagues, including the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, who is in the chamber, the overwhelming support for and credit that will be due to the Executive if it increases dramatically the resources available for the abolition of priority need?
I was pleased to see the Shelter Scotland report today. Notwithstanding people's concerns about the implementation of the policy, we in Scotland—and in the Parliament in particular—should be proud that we have taken the lead on homelessness.
When I have spoken about our policy in other countries, for example at a recent European conference in Brussels, I have found that it is recognised and admired in many other countries. I am pleased that, according to the Shelter research, the public are behind the policy. That should reinforce the determination that I have expressed today that we will implement the policy.
I welcome the minister's statement. His comments about allocations policy are welcome, especially his recognition that there must be a balance between the needs of homeless applicants and the needs of those who are already housed but inappropriately.
If we want to ensure that all applications are treated equally, local authorities must be able to use their discretion in allocations without fear that they will be scored badly by Communities Scotland as part of the single regulatory framework. Will the minister assure me that that will be a key matter in discussions among the Executive, COSLA and Communities Scotland?
We are committed to that and it is included in today's statement. The first page of the statement says that we will
"issue revised guidance around the allocation of social lets to ensure there is sufficient local flexibility to retain balanced and sustainable communities".
Flexibility is crucial, as is balance. In that context, we mean the balance between people who are homeless and people who are on the waiting list for other reasons. I am very mindful of what Karen Whitefield says.
The purpose of the revised guidance will be to clarify where there is doubt and, if necessary, to revisit the substance of the guidance. I am sure that Communities Scotland follows the guidance as it is currently written; if ambiguities exist, we need to and will clarify them.
I take on board what the minister has said about the difficulties of priority need housing. In light of the fact that there are currently 16,000 homeless children in Scotland and that, by 2012, 63 per cent of homeless households will include children, how will the minister afford to pay for additional, affordable, social rented houses? What services will he cut to pay for them or will they be built by a public-private partnership, thereby building up a debt for the future?
Such funding questions will be resolved in the spending review. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt consideration of that by making particular funding announcements today. We acknowledge the scale of the challenge that we face, but we must keep things in perspective. Indeed, some of the figures that I have already highlighted do just that.
I point out that, in the current spending review period, we have already shown our commitment on this issue by increasing the number of new social rented homes that we have been building each year. I did not have time in my statement to enumerate all our other housing policies that promote housing supply. The cover of the document shows a jigsaw, which refers not only to the jigsaw of prevention, support and supply in addressing homelessness but to the jigsaw of general housing policy, which is made up of a series of policies that serve to increase supply and improve housing quality. We have a good foundation for our work, but we will take account of Professor Bramley's new research in our thinking on the next spending review.
I am glad that Professor Bramley will carry out further research into housing supply. Will it take account of where people want to live in housing market areas by covering difficult-to-let properties and potential demolitions?
I was pleased to hear the minister's comments on the innovation fund and his assurance that we would build on successful approaches. Certain cross-cutting and innovative measures have already been taken on homelessness and its causes; for example, the minister has visited the youth-based accommodation, employment and support services—or ACCESS—project in north Lanarkshire. Concerns have been expressed that such projects could be closed because interim new futures funding has run out and that innovative approaches might well be lost if services are mainstreamed. Will efforts be made to ensure that existing successful approaches remain as they are?
This summer, I visited and admired the work of the ACCESS project. However, I cannot give a detailed answer to Linda Fabiani's question because I am still looking into written correspondence that I have received on the matter. I can certainly write to Linda Fabiani when I have finished doing that.
I am not entirely sure that I entirely got the gist of the member's first question. We must tackle the problem of difficult-to-let properties either by modernising them and improving their quality or by deciding, in some cases, that demolition is the best solution. Different local authorities are considering the question—obviously, we know what the answer is in Glasgow. One of the tragedies of last week's ballot in Edinburgh is that moves to demolish and rebuild many houses, many of which are in my constituency, are now under threat because we cannot access the scale of funding that would have been allowed under community ownership.
I thank the minister for his statement. We need an accurate picture if we are to plan for the future, and I welcome the fact that local housing authorities will now provide and update such a picture in their strategic housing plans.
I also welcome the announcement that Professor Bramley is to be commissioned to carry out updated research. Will the research include a full review of the trend for people to apply for rented housing at a much earlier age and of the many more single households that now exist? We need such information if we want to reflect changes in society and plan for the future.
I welcome the Scottish Executive's investment in housing.
Question, please.
Will the minister encourage local authorities to use new measures that the Scottish Executive introduced some time ago such as prudential borrowing, which would allow them to raise money and work in partnership with the private sector?
We expect local authorities to use prudential borrowing if they are able to do so. In fact, as someone who cited the example of Midlothian Council in a recent debate made clear, many are doing so. However, the option is difficult for other authorities such as the City of Edinburgh Council that have high rents and levels of debt. An important development in housing is the ability to access higher levels of private finance, particularly through the RSL sector. We expect that approach to continue; indeed, it is made easier by community ownership. Accessing private funding through a housing association in that way is not the privatisation that the critics of community ownership have represented it—falsely—as being.
On Cathie Craigie's final point, I agree that Professor Bramley will have to consider the demand as well as the supply side.
I have covered all the points that Cathie Craigie highlighted.
Finally, I call Murray Tosh.
The minister knows that I applaud his decision to update the Bramley research on housing need at the council and housing market area level. My question is on the local assessments of housing need, to which he referred in his statement. Will the assessments dig down to settlement level? Will they address the mismatch between available housing supply and the demand for affordable housing? Mr McCabe has remained inscrutable throughout these proceedings, but does the Executive intend over the next spending review period to allocate resources not only to match the findings of Bramley at council and housing market area level, as the minister said, but to match the levels of demand that are identified in local authorities' local housing strategies?
Obviously, quite a lot of detailed analysis underlies the points that Murray Tosh makes, whether at housing market area, local authority or settlement level. We will take account of all those levels on receipt of Professor Bramley's report. Of course, the spending review deliberations will also take account of them. There is no intention to paint a false picture of demand. We must know what the demand for housing is, after which we can respond in the most imaginative way possible and with access to all possible funds.
Given that this is my last word on the subject today, I ask people to recognise the enormously ambitious housing agenda that we have in Scotland. People should be proud that the commitment that we have made on homelessness is beyond not only that in the rest of the United Kingdom but that in the rest of Europe. It must be seen as being coupled to the Scottish housing quality standard target, which we have undertaken to realise only three years on from 2012, in 2015. We have set an exciting and challenging agenda. Clearly, we must access and make best use of all the funds that we can—the latter point leads into the efficient government agenda and all those other aspects.
Given that the first question was on community ownership in Edinburgh, I will repeat what I said. If we do not make use of community ownership, we cannot unlock all the available resources. Community ownership unlocks far more resources than the Scottish Parliament can access from its revenues alone. What happened in Edinburgh last week was an absolute tragedy. If we are to achieve the abolition of priority need in 2012, and the Scottish housing quality standard in 2015, we must pursue community ownership along with all our other policies
That concludes questions to Mr Chisholm. Some of the questions that members put were so long that they had the effect of excluding colleagues from the same party.