Chamber and committees

Our main item of business this morning is an evidence session on refugees and asylum seekers. The committee has been holding some stand-alone evidence sessions to explore the breadth of its remit. We will use the evidence heard during these meetings to begin to establish priorities for our work programme over the parliamentary session. Given that this topic is also of interest to the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, we invited members of that committee to join today’s meeting. In addition to Pam Duncan-Glancy, who is a member of both committees, I welcome to our meeting Pam Gosal MSP, who is joining us remotely.

I welcome our panel of witnesses, who are also joining us remotely: Andrew Morrison, chief officer, migration, population and diversity team, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Pat Togher, assistant chief officer, public health protection complex needs, Glasgow city health and social care partnership; Alistair Dinnie, refugee and migration programme manager, City of Edinburgh Council; Calum Maciver, director of communities, Western Isles Council; and Councillor Susan Aitken, who is leader of Glasgow City Council.

I have a few housekeeping points before we start. Please allow our broadcasting colleagues a few seconds to turn on your microphones before you start to speak. If you are joining us remotely and wish to come in on a question, you can indicate that by typing an R in the dialogue box in BlueJeans or simply by a show of the hand if that is not working. I will try to keep my eyes on everyone.

Witnesses, do not feel that you have to answer every question. There are quite a few of you today. It is okay if you do not have anything new to add to what has been said by others. You are also welcome to follow up in writing after the meeting on any points that you think need to be clarified or that have not been covered, or to supply further information on any points that have been raised. I invite members to direct their questions to particular witnesses because we have a lot to get through this morning.

Natalie Don, who is joining us remotely, will start with questions on theme 1.

I will bring Andrew Morrison in briefly to add any thoughts that he has. We are significantly over time, and I am conscious that I still have to get to Pam Gosal.

Natalie Don has one further question that she would like to ask on the back of that.

I will move on to theme 4 because we still have two themes to get through and our time is running short. Theme 4 is about the Nationality and Borders Bill.

We need somebody to start us off, so I will go to Susan Aitken, whose hand I can see.

That might need to be a question for Susan Aitken.

I do not know whether you want to come in on that, Councillor Aitken. I thought that Andrew Morrison wanted to come in, but that was for the previous point.

I think that Pat Togher wants to come in on that point.

Given that the £10 Christmas payment is a reserved benefit, does the minister agree that Jeremy Balfour might like to join me and others in calling for the full powers over social security to be devolved to this Parliament?

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am still a serving councillor in East Ayrshire Council. It is also important to advise the chamber at the outset that I was a member of the prevention review group that was convened by Crisis on behalf of the Scottish Government to explore homelessness prevention duties, I was a co-signatory to the ending homelessness together joint action plan, and I have been homeless twice.

I worked for many years in homelessness services, supporting individuals to access, navigate and come out the other end of what was often referred to as the sausage factory. I realised very early on that services were not talking to each other, as siloed approaches had built huge walls, which meant that individuals were often being failed at every turn.

Back in 2002, I tried in vain to argue that adverse childhood experiences, trauma, abuse, addiction, mental health issues, experiences of being in care and underlying and crushing poverty were all drivers of the high levels of homelessness that we were seeing. They were exacerbated by an ever-increasing drop in the number of socially rented houses and by the severity of the priority need category. Some days, it felt like I was going into battle—another day, another 22-year-old man self-medicating with street drugs. He would be care experienced and have multiple ACEs and severe and enduring mental health issues, and I would be advised to take a set of keys from the low-demand pile of long-term, shuttered void properties, as that was the best that he could hope for. As I tried to pick the least-worst option, I knew that this would be yet another tenancy that, no matter how hard he or I tried, would not be sustained.

I heralded the abolition of priority need, as that direction of travel meant that Scotland—despite what Willie Rennie may say—now has some of the world’s strongest homelessness legislation, in terms of giving individuals great legal protections when they are facing imminent homelessness. However, I knew that we needed to increase our housing stock and do much more work to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place.

The housing options approach that was adopted at that time meant that councils were already looking at ways to prevent homelessness by supporting individuals and families early on. However, we in councils were accused of gatekeeping—of preventing individuals from accessing their rights, as no homeless presentation was taken—rather than seen as doing the preventative work that was so desperately needed. For example, women fleeing domestic abuse should not be required to enter the homelessness system; managed moves or support to remain in their homes safely are the ideal solutions.

The ending homelessness together joint action plan is clear that we need to work upstream to prevent people from entering the homelessness system in the first place. The proposals that are being consulted on will do that by requiring public bodies to ask and to act regarding a person’s homelessness situation.

A big part of that needs to be about a sense of real choice and control. I knew that housing someone in an area that they did not know and that was far from their supports would increase the likelihood that the tenancy would not be sustained in the long term. Therefore, in the last part of my speech, I will focus on the prevention review group’s recommendation on maximal housing options.

Offering a range of housing options to those who are at risk of or experiencing homelessness gives them choice, control and flexibility in their housing journey. It gives them the same experience as other members of the community, but with additional protections to prevent the future risk of homelessness by ensuring that the chosen option is a suitable and settled one, even if it is in the private rented sector or, more unusually by Scottish norms, shared housing.

The proposed change to the law would not necessarily mean that there would be fewer allocations of social housing to homeless households. Rather, it would mean that a household should not be required to journey through the homelessness system, with potentially long stays in temporary accommodation, as the primary route to accessing social housing.

Despite the sterling efforts of the Scottish Government, local authorities and registered social landlords with regard to the ambitious affordable housing supply programme, there are undeniable pressures on a finite stock of social housing. The PRG proposes a system whereby applicants who would prefer a different kind of housing option are allowed that possibility, which could in theory free up social housing stock. Reducing the numbers going through the system will also free up social housing that is currently used for temporary accommodation and allow it to be used for more settled housing.

Sadly, I supported and cajoled people into permanent social houses, as I believed that it was their best and only option, and I did not listen to them. They knew that a private let near their mum’s or a flat share with a friend suited them best. We must afford people a choice.