A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation fired yet another warning signal about the scale of the problem Scotland will face as it attempts to tackle poverty over the next decade.
The report demanded policy responses from a range of sectors as it revealed one in seven working-age adults and children could still be below the poverty line by the mid-2020s.
So, what are the policy responses which could improve the wellbeing of the more disadvantage communities and bring about positive change? In my view, housing policy and reform of the housing benefit system are part of the solution.
As we face the possibility of independence or the promise of more devolved powers to Holyrood and, in light of the fact housing and housing benefit reform are gaining wider traction across the political spectrum, it is timely to consider the options.
Nine months ago Shelter Scotland launched an independent Commission on Housing and Wellbeing, which I chair. During that time we have considered the many ways in which housing and housing policy impact on the wellbeing of Scots. Rather than follow a narrow housing policy agenda, our considerations have taken us to matters such as welfare, tax, the labour market, health and social care and the environment.
Housing policy makes a significant impact on the wellbeing of Scots. It is no surprise that those on the lowest incomes are disproportionately affected by the shortage and quality of housing. That's why I welcomed the focus on housing benefit reform in the report published by the Scottish Government's Expert Working Group on Welfare.
Changes to housing benefit have to be introduced carefully and must be evidence-based to avoid creating more problems than they hope to solve. We need look no further than the changes made to housing benefit by the UK Government to see the folly of rushing through changes. Research shows that those changes to benefits targeted at the private rented sector (PRS) to control costs have failed to lead to lower rents, as originally hoped.
Housing benefit cannot be ignored. With an annual expenditure of £1.8 billion in Scotland on personal housing subsidies in the rented sector, it dwarfs the direct expenditure by the Scottish Government on housing. In Scotland, 65% of tenants in the social rented sector receive housing benefit, compared with 32% of private sector renters. But the increase in expenditure on housing benefit has come largely from the increased reliance and take up of tenancies in the expanding PRS.
This increased take-up has, to a large extent, come from working people in low-income jobs and, consequently, the PRS is much more dependent on housing benefit. Rental income supplemented by housing benefit enables landlords to repay long-term loans to lenders and helps low-income tenants pay their rents.
The report by the Scottish Government's Expert Working Group on Welfare made very helpful suggestions in relation to housing benefit in Scotland. In particular, its suggestion that it might be possible, to some degree, to move money from personal subsidies to financial support for more house building, deserves detailed consideration. So, too, does the suggestion for a new form of tenancy regime in the PRS.
Its recommendation to increase the provision of social housing as a way of preventing public money flooding into PRS accommodation is equally sensible. But there are longer term issues that need consideration: the extent to which benefit is reduced as income increases can act as a strong work disincentive (although there are many other factors at play); the fact households of similar circumstances in identical properties are treated differently as a result of tenure differences; and the fact housing benefit only helps low-income households in the rented sector are just a few of the issues. Irrespective of the constitutional future, housing policy should be centre stage and any programme of reform should make housing benefit a priority.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article