« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background
15. The Scottish Executive's policy for housing has been set out in Homes for Scotland's People; a key aspect of this policy is the target to abolish the distinction between those in priority and non-priority need by 2012. The 2003 Act created the 2012 target by allowing for the abolition of the priority need test. The effect of abolition will be that local authorities will have a duty to provide permanent accommodation to all people assessed as being unintentionally homeless. The 2012 target therefore involves increasing homeless people's rights to housing. The aim is to remove bureaucratic distinctions between different 'categories' of homeless people and to acknowledge that all homeless people require sustainable accommodation.
16. The 2012 target is therefore an important driver for increasing the supply and quality of housing in Scotland. The achievement of the target depends on the capacity of local authorities and partners to meet it - which in turn relies on an adequate supply of quality housing in order to meet immediate needs of homeless people and to ensure sustainable resettlement. Housing supply and quality is also important in preventing homelessness and ensuring that people have a range of housing options to explore, as well as the protection of the homelessness legislation. The consultation paper states that the 2012 target cannot be seen in isolation from wider work to ensure that there is an adequate supply of quality housing across Scotland and cannot be met if supply and quality issues are not addressed.
The report
17. This report presents the findings to emerge from a consultation exercise conducted by the Scottish Executive on the Ministerial Statement on the abolition of priority need required by section 3 of the Homelessness (Scotland) Act 2003. The aim of the consultation is to inform the Ministerial Statement and to ensure that this is as comprehensive as possible in setting benchmarks and providing an effective planning tool for the future.
18. The written consultation paper was published on 18th August 2005. The paper sought views on the content of the Ministerial Statement which is to be made by the end of this year. The statement will cover the current situation and future action needed to meet the target that, by 2012, all people who are unintentionally homeless will be entitled to a permanent home. In addition to the written consultation exercise, the Scottish Executive also hosted three seminars with elected members in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow. Malcolm Chisholm ( MSP) Minister for Communities attended the seminar in Edinburgh, and Johan Lamont ( MSP) Deputy Minister for Communities attended the seminars in Aberdeen and Glasgow. Notes of the proceedings were taken and have been combined with analysis of the written responses. In addition to the written consultation exercise and regional seminars, there has also been consideration of the issues by the Homelessness Monitoring Group and its 2012 planning subgroup; a Parliamentary debate on homelessness; and various individual meetings between Executive officials and stakeholders.
The Consultation Process
19. The consultation pack was distributed to 332 organisations and individuals, including representatives from the voluntary sector, NGOs, the NHS, statutory equality bodies, and central and local government on 18th August 2005 and was also published on the Scottish Executive's web site. The intended audience of the consultation included all those with responsibility for strategic planning, delivery of and input to Homelessness Strategies in each local authority area, and local partners working with them.
20. The closing date for receipt of written responses was Friday 14th October 2005. Of the 50 responses received to the consultation, 3 were from an individuals. The majority of responses came from Local Government (30), with the voluntary sector (13) and NHS (6) contributing all but one of the remaining responses. Appendix 3 of this report lists the organisations responding. While there was a relatively low response rate, the specialised nature of the consultation meant that a wide response was unlikely.
21. Respondents were asked to complete a respondent information form containing contact details and information on confidentiality. Not all respondents included this form. Direct quotes or references to responses have only been used where the respondent indicated they would be happy for their response to be made public.
22. The Consultation Paper laid out the background to Scottish Executive Policy on Housing & Homelessness and explained the 2012 target. It then discussed the main issues for consultation under three separate sections: evidence base; coverage of the statement; and monitoring and interim objectives. Each section concluded with specific questions on which views were sought. 13 specific questions were raised in all. The questions were designed both to identify specific actions and sources of information and to gauge levels of support for various proposals. There were very few yes or no answers given, most responses included a discussion of reasons or related factors even where a yes or no response would have been possible.
23. The majority of responses followed the question format given in the consultation paper, some grouping answers by section rather than answering each individually. A minority of responses did not follow the question format but gave free text answers emphasising what they saw as the key issues. In addition to answering the specific questions, some respondents also made general comments on the abolition of priority need, and/ or included detailed information regarding the local situation in their area. Where general comments were made these have been considered and reported below. Local level information has been identified and noted as a resource for the Scottish Executive to inform further work. Despite following the question format, respondent answers did not always relate exactly to the questions addressed, for instance responses to question 1, which requested identification of additional sources of information tended to overlap heavily with those to question 2, which asked respondents to identify the main gaps in the evidence base. For these reasons, the analysis presented also combines answers to different questions where appropriate.
OVERVIEW
24. Where respondents did make a general comment on the intention to abolish priority need, they were generally supportive and in favour of the legislation. Statements of agreement with the intention of the legislation, however, were often combined with concerns over the ability of local authorities to meet the targets in practice. Key issues include increasing pressure, lack of affordable social housing, difficulties with using the private rented sector, and wider lack of resources including for support work.
Support for abolition of priority need
25. Twenty-two of the respondents specifically noted their support for the legislative proposals or the commitment to abolish priority need. Sixteen of these responses qualified their supportive statements with concerns over the ability of local authorities or other housing providers to meet the target in practice, and/ or raised the need for additional investment in social housing and for other financial assistance in order to meet the target. Typical comments were:
We welcome this opportunity to comment on the important proposals to work towards the abolition of the priority need provisions, which have been instrumental in excluding many homeless people from finding routes towards the housing they need. We emphasise that without the provision of sufficient affordable housing, particularly for rent, the new regime for tackling homelessness will be unworkable. There is a real danger that by providing solutions for homeless people, housing lists will become redundant as a route to social housing. ( APN 23)
SFHA welcomes the provisions of the Homelessness Act and supports, in principle, the abolition of priority need by 2012. SFHA believes that the legislation contained within the Homelessness Etc (Scotland) Act 2003 provides the framework for a 21 st century Scotland to respond to homelessness in a humane and civilised manner. The abolition of priority need will be a key marker in progress to implementation of real change in homeless provision. However SFHA believes that there are serious issues to be addressed before this policy aim can be implemented, and which the ministerial statement should address.( APN 41)
26. In total 12 Local Authorities responded saying that they had serious concerns about the 2012 target, or evidence to show that they will not be able to meet it. One response included "an urgent plea to Ministers for assistance to relieve the current crisis before expanding responsibilities" ( APN 21). In addition to these 12 responses, one council commented that it "strongly believes that Supporting People Grant issues reduce the likelihood of achieving the abolition of priority need by 2012" ( APN 6), and another that "the removal of priority need could well place impossible pressure upon making balanced judgements in allocations and giving "wider preference" to a wider needs base" ( APN 43). There was also a concern that the abolition of priority need could have a negative impact on those with the greatest need as these households would have to wait longer for permanent accommodation than at present.
27. At the regional seminars some more critical comments were made about the legislation. There were views that the definition of homelessness was too all encompassing with the result that 'homelessness is the only game in town', that the Scottish Executive would 'baulk at the cost' of implementation, that ending the use of intentionality tests would remove deterrents, that the legislation would force families to make their children leave home to obtain housing, and that there were legislative conflicts with anti-social behaviour legislation and legislation around sex offenders. There was a specific request for legislation on council tax to be amended to allow Moray council to buy up MOD properties.
Resources
28. It was a widely held view amongst respondents that the target was not achievable without significant resourcing in the form of additional affordable housing, temporary accommodation provision and financial resources (often for support work):
An increased right to housing can only be met by an increase in the supply of good quality affordable housing. ( APN 38)
29. Several requests were made for the Ministerial Statement to acknowledge the pressures facing Local Authorities, and the difficulties some would face in meeting the 2012 target.
30. There were also requests for the Ministerial Statement to clearly set out what funding and additional resources would be made available in order to ensure that the target would be met, for example:
The Ministerial Statement is a critical step towards the 2012 target date, and we hope that the Minister takes the opportunity to make an unequivocal commitment that adequate resourcing will be made available to ensure successful implementation of the core element of the 2003 Homelessness (Scotland) Act. ( APN 42)
31. Various resource issues were also raised at the regional seminars. A specific request was made for funding for a hostel in Lewis. At a more general level, there were views that funding needed to be clearer and longer-term (this was echoed in written responses to question 7 of the consultation paper), that Councils should be directly allocated money and not 'forced' to go down the stock transfer route, and that there is a need for an accurate assessment of housing need to inform the Spending Review.
Local factors
32. There were requests for the Minister to recognise the unique concerns facing different types of authority and different geographical areas, for example island authorities, rural areas, areas with particular issues regarding housing stock including those with a 'mismatch' of properties to needs, or having undergone large scale stock transfers, and issues for those authorities providing higher levels of service that may potentially result from a suspension of local connection.
33. Several responses contained detailed information on the local situation as evidence for the concerns raised and to highlight particular issues for the area concerned. The following summaries illustrate some particular issues in four local authority areas.
34. In Glasgow, the availability of social housing is not seen as the key challenge. Rather this is seen to lie in changing the homelessness culture and legacy of the large-scale hostels. A central element in this task is identified as the assumption that homeless people will be permanently without work. The employment problems of those becoming homeless in what remains a difficult labour market - Glasgow has the lowest employment rate in Scotland - are also identified as in need of attention.
35. Given this, the need for adequate access to employment and training services suited to homeless people's needs is seen as necessary to achieve the level of permanent resettlement required to achieve the 2012 target. In this context, the response requests that the Ministerial Statement should address this policy area and set out a commitment to develop, through further research and project development, a costed programme identifying the scale and type of employment and training provision needed to achieve both the 2012 target and the hostel reprovisioning programme. ( APN 14)
36. In the Highlands, a very high demand for affordable housing is reported alongside limited affordable housing supply. The response reports that there are no 'hard to let' areas, and therefore no capacity to meet increasing need through existing social rented stock. The response reports that work is being undertaken with housing associations and Communities Scotland to deliver an innovative programme of affordable housing whilst tackling the significant development constraints faced in the Highlands.
37. The view of Highland Council was that the information submitted through its pro-forma return presents an essentially misleading picture of the situation in the Highlands, as it cannot reflect the significant divergence between different areas within the Council boundaries.
38. The impacts of housing a homeless applicant wherever a vacancy arises are seen to be exacerbated by the geographical size of the area. For example, a household housed in the Caithness Area with family or other support networks in Inverness would spend significant time in travelling to reach these support networks. The response notes that many vulnerable people will have no access to private transport and use of public transport will add travel time and often require an overnight stay. Costs of travel are also considered to be expensive.
39. In addition to these issues, Highland Council believes that the abolition of priority need will have a greater impact in the Highlands than in other areas due to the comparatively high proportion of households currently assessed as non-priority. ( APN 45)
40. In Stirling, the use of temporary accommodation and the average length of stay is reported to be continuing to increase, while social rented housing stock is decreasing rapidly. Stirling's response reports high house prices, pressure on affordable housing from the University community, the selling of over 50% of council houses through right to buy sales and the removal of almost 500 units of unpopular housing through regeneration projects. It further states that the loss of housing stock is not being met by the 150 new houses, that with current funding, will be developed in these areas.
41. The current position is therefore that there is a shortage of social rented properties available to let. There is currently no identified funding beyond 2008 for the regeneration of these areas and there is therefore no prospect at present of housing supply increasing. ( APN 31)
42. In Orkney, the Council expresses concern that winter lets give an impression of a greater number of lets than is actually the case. Their response reports that some people living in winter lets present as homeless when the property reverts to a holiday home over the summer period. ( APN 27)
43. During the regional seminars, there were also requests to acknowledge the particular difficulties facing different local authorities. Members for Dumfries and Galloway reported that they predicted that 700 extra households would require accommodation by 2018, and members for Aberdeen requested significant assistance to address issues of overcrowding, hidden homelessness and mismatch within areas of supply and demand.
Specific issues
44. In addition to comments made on the intention of the legislation and the ability of councils to meet this, some respondents included covering letters or preamble sections to their responses raising or emphasising various issues. Topics covered within these general sections were:
- The need for resources and investment in social housing, temporary accommodation, support services (including related health and addiction services),
- The impact of increasing lets to homeless households on other housing need,
- Issues regarding the suitability and appropriateness of existing accommodation, both temporary and permanent, for various sections of those in housing need, including BME communities and disabled people,
- The use (or under-use) of Section 5 referrals,
- The impact of Right to Buy,
- The need for resources to support direct action and prevention measures, and the development of work in this area,
- The need to ensure consistency with, and to offer guidance on, other legislative proposals which could conflict with the homelessness legislation (anti-social behaviour, registration of private social landlords, housing benefit regulations),
- The need to encourage joint working and clarify the roles and responsibilities of other agencies and services with regards to homelessness,
- Further guidance and clarity was also requested with regards to Single Shared Assessment process and methodology for assessing housing need.
45. Some topics received frequent comment in these general sections, and these topics are expanded on below:
'Balancing need'
46. Several of the responses stressed the importance of considering homelessness need and provision together with wider housing provision and emphasised the difficulties they saw for local authorities in balancing their different priorities in these areas. There was a commonly held concern that meeting the obligations under the 2012 target would be to the detriment of applicants on the general waiting list, and also a concern that a homeless application may become the only realistic route to social housing. These concerns were also raised during the regional seminars. There were also reports that officials and members were facing threats of abuse over allocations issues. Some believed that the only way to get a house would be to present as homeless, and there was a view that single people would be 'forced down the homeless route'. There was a view that whilst the legislative position may be that local authorities have an element of flexibility in terms of their allocations systems, "the reality is that inevitably the percentage of lets to homeless people is increasing" ( APN 6). One respondent commented:
In considering housing supply, the ministerial statement should provide a commitment that preparation for abolishing priority need will include evidence that housing providers will still be able to address, through allocation from housing lists, other streams of housing need other than homelessness and provide a commitment that it is not desirable or sustainable that homeless presentation becomes the principal or main means of accessing social housing. ( APN 41)
47. There was also a view that the likely impact of the change to priority need was significantly underestimated in the Background section of the consultation paper, paragraph 25. Specifically, the possible impact on vulnerable people currently housed through the waiting list, caused by a predicted rationing of housing stock as increased demand is not met by similar increases in supply, was emphasised. At one regional seminar, the member for Fife commented that 93% of people on their waiting list are on benefits.
48. There was also a view that discussions of 'balanced communities' and the possible impacts on waiting lists of meeting the target may mask prejudicial attitudes towards homeless people. The need to understand homeless people as having come from within communities was raised to question why it was felt that increasing numbers of homeless households in a given area would lead to an unbalanced community.
49. There was a general consensus, both in written responses and also expressed at regional seminars, on the need to have better information about the likely impact of 2012 on general waiting lists, both from those who wished to emphasise the pressure likely to result, and from those who wished to stem what they saw as a tendency to extrapolate from anecdotal evidence. A view was expressed at the regional seminars that the homelessness agenda is 'perceived' to be at other expense and that a clearer understanding was needed of how and why that perception has arisen. An analysis of waiting list applications and allocations was seen as potentially useful in this context, including an identification of the extent and nature of need of applicants on the general waiting list.
Supporting people
50. Recurring comments were also made in relation to Supporting People funding, with much concern expressed over decreases in funding in a context where many respondents were predicting increases in the level of support needs of homeless households as priority need categories are expanded. While previous funding through Supporting People was welcomed and seen to result in improved services to homeless applicants, concern was expressed about the ability to create any new services due to reductions in the grant and the consequent need to ration services, with the result that services may focus on crisis provision only. This, in turn, was seen to have detrimental impacts on prevention and sustainability work. These views echoed comments made at the regional seminars. In addition, members called for more support to address issues of anti-social behaviour, analysis of the impact of cuts to Supporting People funding, a view of the allocation formula and for ring fencing of budgets to focus on prevention work. There was also a view that 'labour intensive' projects to should be allowed to continue, as these are the types of projects which are needed for the most vulnerable in our society.
Right to Buy
51. There was also a view that the impact of the policy of Right to Buy had negatively affected Councils' abilities to meet demand for housing as a result of reductions in the social housing stock available. At the regional seminars, there was concern that Local Authorities were losing more properties through Right to Buy each year than they were building; for example, Aberdeenshire reported that they were losing 300 properties through Right to Buy and only building 200. The member for Moray present felt that this was a particular issue for rural areas and that Right to Buy should be linked to any outstanding debt on properties. Requests were made at the seminars for a consideration of the impact of the policy and fur further restrictions on it. There were also requests in written responses for a re-consideration of the policy generally, and specifically of the possible extension of Right to Buy in 2012:
Loss of housing stock through Right to Buy is of major concern to the Council. An application for Pressured Area Status is currently being developed for submission to the Scottish Executive. More fundamentally, the Council considers that the current arrangements for Right to Buy should be reconsidered in the Minister's report on this subject in 2006. ( APN 6)
Given the current inabilities of our members to address housing needs in their areas as a result of scarcity, and that the abolition of priority need is likely to result in different additional streams of applicants in housing need owed an offer of permanent accommodation through homeless presentation, reducing the available supply of social housing by providing the Right to Buy to housing association tenants in 2012 seems a conflicting policy aim. We welcome the draft ministerial statement's reference to the report on Right to Buy due in 2006 in considering the preparedness of local authorities to abolish priority need. ( APN 41)
Tenancy options
52. Several respondents raised concerns about restrictions on how Local Authorities could discharge their duties to homeless applicants. Some were concerned that a focus on permanent housing may not result in the most suitable housing outcomes for all, and felt a variety of housing tenures suited to individual needs, including the use of long-term supported accommodation and shared housing, would be highly important. Others raised the difficulty of obtaining secure tenancies in the private sector and recommended either allowing the use of Short Assured Tenancies in some circumstances, or findings ways to increase security in this sector:
The absolute duty to provide permanent accommodation does not allow for other arguably more appropriate and better outcomes for people who are homeless. There is a real danger that the focus to responding to homelessness will be to provide a Scottish Secure Tenancy rather than on providing long term sustainable solutions that meet the individual needs and aspirations of homeless people. Sustainable solutions to homelessness at an individual level do not all necessarily involve a tenancy in a council or a housing association property. Consideration should be given to creating a legislative framework that gives homeless people a clear entitlement to a home but also allows for a range of different options to be offered. ( APN 39).
Joint working
53. Several respondents thought there was a need to improve joint working around homelessness, both for service providers and within the Executive and other bodies. Requests were made for the Minister to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different bodies and sectors and to encourage a corporate approach to homelessness. One respondent specifically requested that the Ministerial Statement would acknowledge that:
There are a range of partners with a role to play in the effective delivery of the 2012 target, and that partnership working is the key to success ( APN 42)
Cultural change
54. For one respondent, "one of the biggest challenges resulting from the abolition of priority need will be the cultural change from gatekeepers to enablers for local authority homeless sections. This change will need to be supported by training which will have to be adequately resourced" ( APN 38).
« Previous | Contents | Next »