[page 8]
In Scotland over 60% of all housing is publicly owned. In England it is less than half. The stock of privately rented housing here is so small as to be non-existent for most families in need. This means that families are very much at the mercy of the local authorities, the New Town Development Corporations and the S.S.H.A. And all of these bodies are substantially excluded from the Rent Acts, thus reducing protection from viction still further.
At present the literally homeless (i.e. on thestreets) must turn to the Regional authority-Scoial Work to fulfil their accommodation needs. Not only does Social Work not have a statutory duty toward any but families completely without a roof over their heads (in fact the duty in law is only for the children at risk), but within Strathclyde for example, there are virtually as many different policies towards the homeless as there are area offices. These range from keeping families together, to taking children into Care, (this is frequently used as a deterrent to requests for help), to insisting that housing problems are not their responsibility, In practice this latter policy means sendin families in circles around bureaucratic machinery, and would be a fine principle only if accompanied by an all-out campaign by social workers to make Housing responsible. This is not to say that Social Work Departments operate from malice: in many areas they are forced by understaffing and lack of facilities and finance to adopt deterrent attitudes, or simply take children
offered is decent Bed and Breakfat, at worst, stigmatising/ed hostels, Homeless Family units, or B & Bs that make parents) and children walk the streets all day.
Because some Housing departments are far too eager to evict tenants in difficulties (notably Edinburgh and Glasgow: elsewhere figures are extremely encouraging), Social Work departments have been left picking up the pieces and the tab. The amount paid out in Strathclyde last year was considerably more than the rent owed by the families. Those not helped by Social Work - those who abscond ("moonlight flits") or just don't want that sort of help - must go to friends or relatives, where they add to Scotland's appalling overcrowding statistics: four times the rate of England and Wales for both. public and owner-occupied houses.
Liberal M.P. Stephen Ross's Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill is shortly to start the standing committee stage of its passage through parliament. Its acceptance by the government is one of the conditions imposed by the Liberals in the current "pact" Basically, it is trying to take the responsibility for accommodating the homeless away from the Social Work Acts and place it within the Housing Acts and thus into the hands of Housing departments - where it belongs.
The arguments for this duty, and the need to back it up with statute and not by useless and frankly unfair government circular (some local authorities implement, some do not), are many. The opposition to the Bill
and against Scotland's inclusion are based mainly on reaction, unsubstantiated "facts" and myths.
The first is that local authorities will be unable to evict non-paying or misbehaving tenants, and therefore rent arrears or "anti-social" behaviour will increase. It has long been the argument of numerous organisations, not to mention the government's own Morris Committee, that eviction for any reason should literally be a last resort. Arrears can be dealt with in any number of ways without depriving a tenant and his family of their house: intensive social work social work and budgetary involvement, wage arrestment and other standard debt procedures. And maybe then at least 20% of tenants threatened with eviction who are not claiming their rightful state benefits will be helped in future, with back benefit due credited against arrears. In Edinburgh recently a Shelter report showed that something near a half of the tenants due to be evicted were not getting all their rent and rates rebates, and/or family income supplement. The adoption of a thorough and humane approach to tenants' financial problems would be a major spin-off from the Bill.
As for the "anti-social" tenants so often kicked about by politicians, again local authorities would retain the ultimate sanction of eviction, but they could no longer turn their backs on those they put onto the streets.
[page 9]
What about the cost of implementation? If the Charities' recommendations get through, Housing departments will have, where possible, to provide permanent accommodation, at tolerable standard, or provide it as soon as possible. There is no doubt that this will cost money, apart from in cities like Glasgow which have a growing surplus of housing stock. Once again, though, weighing the cost of emergency social work help, and the effect of homelessness on children, against the outlay required to provide adequate housing, the balance tips in favour of the homeless - in social, even where not in financial terms.
And the single homeless? The Charities recommend that Authorities take responsibility for single people who are vulnerable for any reason. A homeless person on his or her own is no less homeless for being single, and too often Housing managements have sadly underprovided for this substantial group.
The Homeless Persons Bill is not just about the 2,000-plus families evicted or the 3,000-plus who abscond from Scotland's public housing.
If the priority groups already being discussed, and in addition the amendments from English and Scottish Charities, are enacted, the following groups will be included.
Those homeless or threatened with homelessness (private or public), anyone needing to move because of violence or the threat of violence from a member of the household (the Charities are trying to extend this to threats outwith the houshold. e.g. battered wives, people being vandalised or threatened by neighbours or others, etc.), people vulnerable due to old age, handicap, or pregnancy (from the time it is medically confirmed, which is a departure from previous eleventh hour rehousing practice, the single homeless (charities amendment); and anyone who is homeless will be housed with all those people normally expected to reside with him.
Thir Bill it passed would certainly be a major step on the way to realising the aspirations and long term campaigns of
numerous bodies. After years of anomalies in England, where this responsibility was taken on voluntarily and therefore unevenly by local authorities, statute seems the only way really to begin the fight for decent, permanent housing for all those who need it; in itself the Bill doesn't alleviate homelessness except — if implemented properly the most blatant and immediate kind.
There are still hazards and pitfalls on the parliamentary road, for instance over when the Bill if enacted will commence, and over enforcement procedures. As the Bill stands, without amendment it would be extremely difficult to force a Scottish authority to act, and any appeal against a decision would be far too complex and lengthy for an ordinary person to undertake. Both Tory and Labour M.P.'s have put in amendments, the majority of which would weaken or emasculate the Bill.
The homeless have no direct voice. Only the very brief time left in the life of this Bill will tell whether groups and individuals acting on their behalf have been successful in achieving this step toward better conditions, and better control over public authorities ability to act as they please with their present and prospective tenants.