³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I will go back to the numbers, which are relatively small. The latest figures that we have, for 2021-22, show that Edinburgh made 10 referrals and that Glasgow made 20. I am not minimising the issue, but we need to see it in the context of the overall number of applications.

I am obviously aware that there are pressures in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I have engaged very directly with the housing conveners of both cities, and we need to see the solutions as part of the wider housing system. Those systems are not the same in Glasgow and Edinburgh—they face different challenges. I have said to both housing conveners—I reiterated it in a letter that I issued yesterday—that I am keen to work with both of them and with those other local authorities that have, for example, the highest number of people in temporary accommodation to look at the solutions that they can bring forward, because they know their areas better than I do, and at how we can support them with those solutions. They can be ambitious in doing that, and I have offered to look favourably on solutions that can be brought forward with evidence of how they will impact the situation by resolving and reducing the number of people in temporary accommodation and by helping to reduce homelessness in both cities generally.

The monitoring framework will be important in monitoring any impact of the change on Glasgow, Edinburgh or anywhere else, and we will continue to engage with local authorities on that. However, I cannot stress enough how open I have been to their coming forward with solutions that they think can make a difference, and I look forward to engaging with them further on that.

At the time, we will look at what interventions have already been made and what further interventions a local authority believes are necessary. However, I go back to the wider discussion. We have already been up front with Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council that they should tell us what they think they need to do to tackle temporary accommodation issues. We can then have a conversation about how that is supported.

We would want local authorities that are in the situation that you describe to make full use of the allocations that they have already received. For example, the City of Edinburgh Council has not yet fully used its allocation for the affordable housing supply programme, and we want it to get on with that. I know that it has a few things in the pipeline, but we need the full allocation to be used before any further resources are used. However, I have said that, if the City of Edinburgh Council—or any other local authority with particular pressures on temporary accommodation—tells us what it thinks are the key things that it needs to do and that it can fund certain of them itself but that it needs a bit of assistance with others, I will look favourably on providing that if there is evidence that it will make a difference. Those are the conversations that we are having.

Scotland has some of the strongest rights in the world for people who are experiencing homelessness. However, because local connection powers are discretionary at the moment, there is a risk of inconsistent practice across the country, which can result in households in one area receiving a different service from that which households in another would receive. Ending the referral powers will result in a more consistent service for homeless households across Scotland.

When people make a homelessness application to another local authority, they have good reasons for doing that. As I said in my opening statement, they might want to be closer to family or to a job opportunity, or they might want to use services that are not available in their current area. They might want to make a fresh start because they do not feel safe in their present home. We have listened to people’s experiences and have built on what we have heard.

Changing the rules on local connection has been a long-standing commitment—it is not something that has come to light recently—and the change has been informed by experts in the homelessness sector. As I said in my opening statement, the bones of this go back as far as 2002, when the issue was first raised. We have delayed, but we feel that now is the right time to move forward.

The City of Edinburgh Council will have those figures, which will change depending on the availability of accommodation at the time. Not everybody who requires accommodation in Edinburgh goes into temporary accommodation—it depends on their circumstances and the availability of properties to meet their needs. For example, families quite often end up in temporary accommodation because there is no suitable home available to meet their needs. It is about matching the needs of the person with the accommodation that is available.

I stress that Edinburgh made 10 referrals in 2021-22, so the figures are small. Having said that, I am not going to underestimate the challenge that Edinburgh has with temporary accommodation. Looked at through that lens, local connection is not really the issue for Edinburgh; the challenge is the availability of stock and the numbers of people who therefore go into temporary accommodation because they cannot be matched with a home that meets their needs. We need to resolve that problem, and I cannot stress enough that we need to think outside the box.

An opportunity that has come out of the quite imaginative thinking that is going on around the Ukraine programme is looking at whether there are more innovative solutions—such as modular build, which was raised in the chamber during the Ukraine statement—and whether there are sites available for more rapid development of housing that might have a more general application beyond the Ukraine programme.

We need to come up with imaginative solutions. The offer is there to councils in Edinburgh and other areas that have a particular problem with housing availability and temporary accommodation to come forward with ideas, which we will help to make happen. We must look at Edinburgh’s whole housing system instead of the local connection aspect, which is not really the issue for anyone here. The issue is more that we need to get the housing system in Edinburgh into balance.

The suspension is within the 32 local authorities in Scotland, so it still leaves the power in relation to someone from a local authority outwith Scotland.

It applies within the 32 local authorities.

Yes. We monitor breaches very closely. I am obviously concerned about any breaches, so we monitor unsuitable accommodation order breaches. That will be part of the package of information that we will look at.

Going back to one of my previous answers, we need to address the housing system as a whole. We can address some of the issues around temporary accommodation and we can tackle the unsuitable accommodation orders.

Some local authorities are doing imaginative things. For example, at a recent housing event that I attended, one local authority representative spoke about how they are getting far more upstream in identifying households that could potentially end up homeless and in temporary accommodation by looking at, for example, people getting into council tax arrears as well as rent arrears. By getting further upstream and helping families with their debts and arrears earlier, the local authority’s homelessness figures and the number of people in temporary accommodation came down. It is about tackling the issue of those presenting as homeless and continuing to expand housing provision and look at innovative ways of tackling temporary accommodation, but it is also about prevention.

I am keen to consider further how we might help families before they end up in the homelessness system. That is about drilling down into the experiences of folk who have ended up in temporary accommodation. What is their story? How did they get there? What happened and what were the opportunities for intervention?

The prevention duties that we are bringing forward will be important in that respect as well. It is about looking at all the opportunities to intervene and seeing it as everybody’s business to ask the questions about whether folk are getting into debt or arrears, whether homelessness is a potential consequence of that and how we can prevent it far earlier.

It has been a constructive discussion, and a lot of important points have been made. I will come back to the committee at some point with an update on how the order is working in practice, if that would be helpful.

Thank you for the invitation to today’s meeting.

The proposed change to local connection referrals between local authorities in Scotland was recommended in 2002 by the homelessness task force and was picked up again in 2018 by the homelessness and rough sleeping action group.

In brief, local connection has been recognised for two decades as a barrier to accessing homelessness services in Scotland, and we are now removing it. We made changes in late 2019 so that investigating local connection became a discretionary power, rather than a legal duty, for local authorities. That means that, at the moment, households can still be asked to demonstrate their local connection to the area when they present as homeless to a local authority.

Most homeless households want to live in an area where they are already settled within a community. However, for some households, application of the local connection test is a barrier to securing a settled home. Choice is important, and homeless households should be as freely able to move to a new area as anyone else is. They might do so in order to access support, take advantage of employment opportunities or simply make a fresh start.

The number of households presenting as homeless with no local connection to the local authority is low—it is currently around 5 per cent of all households assessed as being homeless or threatened with homelessness. When no local connection is established, local authorities have the power to refer the homeless household back to an area where they do have a local connection. However, local authorities seldom use that referral power, which suggests that they are already operating in a person-centred way, following the legislative change in 2019.

Our 2019 consultation showed that there is broad support for the change in local connection among homelessness stakeholders, local authorities and our lived experience group, the change team. However, we know that some local authorities have raised concerns about the timing of this legislation, as they are already under pressure to deliver their homelessness duties. Big cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh are seen as being attractive places to live, with a wide range of support services and employment opportunities. Our island communities are also concerned that even a small increase in homeless households could have a significant impact on support services such as health and social care services.

A robust monitoring and evaluation framework has been developed with stakeholders, and, through regular engagement with local authorities and services, we can capture trends as they emerge. That will provide the evidence base for mitigations, should any disproportionate adverse effect on local authorities be identified.

As members know from my previous correspondence with the committee, we have delayed this Scottish statutory instrument a number of times in order to support local authorities. However, we are determined to improve access to housing and support for homeless households, so we are moving forward with the changes now.

Finally, safety, stability and support are all affected by where people live, and I see the ending of local connection referrals in Scotland as an important step in removing the barriers experienced by homeless households, ensuring that those households receive a consistent service and offering them opportunities that are available to other Scottish households.

Yes, we need homes in the right place and of the right size and quality, but we must also deliver more homes. All that is a balancing act. Local authorities and RSLs are delivering high-quality homes, which is important. It is also important that there is good insulation and that we have energy-efficient homes. Does that mean that there will be fewer homes? There is a balance between delivering at scale and delivering quality.

For example, we are looking at modern methods of construction, such as off-site construction—or however you want to describe that—as potential ways of getting as much out of not only the £3.6 billion investment but the additional investment that that brings and that the sector raises.

We are talking to the sector and local authorities about innovative ways to build, including builds that can be done all year round, which would lead to economies of scale. We are also looking at the number of house types. Do we need 50 different types of two, three or four-bedroom properties, or can RSLs and local authorities come together to hone in on a smaller number of house types that can go through planning more quickly?

All of those things are important, as is looking at operating more as consortia in the delivery of homes. Homes England has done that quite successfully. We should be looking at ways of driving efficiency in the system without compromising on quality.

We need to look at all those things, to make sure that every pound that we invest in the affordable housing supply programme is going as far as it can to deliver as many good-quality energy-efficient homes as possible, in the right places.