Anchor Housing Association
Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this debate and thank those organisations, particularly Age UK, that since the schedule was announced have sent me a good deal of relevant background information.
At a time when figures show that those aged 65 and over in our country number 10 million and that the figure is set to grow to well over 16 million by 2035, the consensus seems to be that long-term care in this country is in crisis and has been for some time. We see continuing concern about Southern Cross and more generally about how we get funding right for a group with considerable needs and to whom we owe an obvious duty of care. The Government recognised that when they committed a further £7.2 billion to the delivery of social care in the four years to 2014-15. I know that the Government intend to release a White Paper next spring and have before them, among other evidence, the recommendations of the Dilnot commission, the Law Commission and the Health Select Committee regarding failings in the Care Quality Commission. However, following a recent experience in my own constituency, I would like to add one more small set of recommendations, to place alongside those weighty reports, as the Government wrestle with this extremely difficult set of issues.
After boundary changes before the 2010 general election, I inherited an area of Dewsbury where Anchor housing association has run a sheltered housing complex for more than 30 years. Barnfield houses 51 elderly—in some cases, very elderly—people, the vast majority of whom express themselves as happy to be there and say that they want to stay in what they have been led to regard as their home for life. Throughout the past three years, for instance, occupancy rates have been over 96%, which seems to underline how popular a place it is. Several of those 51 residents have lived in the complex for the whole 31 years of its existence.
At a week’s notice, however, in the middle of August, residents were called together and told that Anchor was reviewing the future of the complex in view of the projected capital expenditure needed to bring facilities up to modern standards. The truth is that Anchor wishes to wash its hands of the establishment and, by definition, of my 51 constituents. Two options were outlined: first, closure and, secondly, the transferral of ownership to another social landlord. Although the latter was very much its preferred course of action, residents were left in no doubt that if efforts along those lines failed, they would have to be found alternative accommodation. I was not at the meeting, but I am reliably informed that many residents started to weep at this news. Resident Mike Neville described the meeting addressed by Anchor’s Andrew Railton, the charity’s head of operational transitions—whatever that means—as
“without warmth, concern or compassion. A shocking way to do things. Anchor’s slogan is ‘happy living for years ahead’. This is meaningless marketing language to the people of Barnfield”.
I have since met the residents of Barnfield three times. They remain shocked and angry, especially as Anchor gave itself until November—three whole months —to tell them of their fate. However, having overcome the initial shock, residents have not taken things lying down. The estimable Mike Neville approached my office and, with Chris Allinson and Sandra and Ken Garfield, has liaised with us throughout. Residents presented a statement to Anchor outlining their wish to remain in situ and, with varying degrees of success, have attempted to contact members of the Anchor board and senior management. They have been supported throughout by local clergy—in particular, Rev. Tom Hiney, Rev. Ann Pollard and Rev. Lisa Senior. Residents have also continued to benefit from the support of the live-in warden, Jan Crabtree, and her husband. As an Anchor employee, Jan has been placed in an invidious position as a result of a decision in which she had no part. Residents have told me how much they continue to value her care and attention.
When I finally met the chief executive of Anchor, Jane Ashcroft, she was happy to apologise for any distress caused to my constituents, but felt that the meeting—which she had not attended any more than I had—had been properly conducted by her colleague and could give no assurance that residents would not have to move out if a buyer for the complex could not be found. At my request, she later provided me with financial figures and supporting documentation that convinced me even more that Anchor’s decision to leave Barnfield had nothing to do with its stated reasons for review. The complex has high occupancy levels and appears to be self-sustaining financially.
We must ask, therefore, why a charity and the largest social landlord in the country should treat its residents—including some who suffer from mental health problems—in such a fashion, putting their well-being and perhaps even their life chances at risk. Why are the very people whom the charity claims to be serving the very last people to be considered? Indeed, many questions need answering, some of which were put in a hard-hitting article by our campaigning local newspaper, The Dewsbury Reporter, not least of which was: where has the money paid in rents and service charges over 31 years gone? That is especially important because as recently as May this year, couples such as Mr and Mrs Thorne were being admitted to the complex. As a couple in their 80s, they then had to spend more than £4,000 of their savings to have the property rewired and brought up to liveable standards.
Anchor refused to answer any of those questions, but did produce a statement pointing to its responsibilities as a charity—responsibilities, it would seem, to everybody except my constituents, the very people whom Anchor is supposed to be in business to serve. However, in using the word “business” we are perhaps beginning to get to the nub of the problem. I have no doubt that Anchor has taken a strategic decision in the interests of its business to pull out of establishments such as Barnfield. We may never know when that was decided or by whom, but it was certainly before the matter was broached with Barnfield residents on 9 August.
The decision also appears to have been taken without the benefit of any consultation, and not just with residents but with our local authority, Kirklees, with which Anchor is supposed to work in partnership on such matters. The strategy may make perfect sense for the charity as a whole—although some openness about its real objective would have allowed us to know that—but what is unacceptable is to achieve that goal at the cost of enormous worry and uncertainty to that group of vulnerable elderly people. In the absence of being consulted or considered, they are owed much more than a rather easily produced apology; they are owed an explanation.
Based on this experience, which I have no reason to believe is unique, may I put it to the Minister that charities and third sector organisation should be judged by the results of their actions, just as the management of Southern Cross should be? They appear to need every bit as much regulation and oversight as those that are engaged in this sector primarily to make money. It would appear that, if they are not careful, charities and not-for-profit companies can become just as divorced from the people they are supposed to serve as the most rapacious money-making outfit, and, in this regard, I think size matters.
In my view, organisations such as Anchor have long since reached the tipping point beyond which their prime considerations, while perhaps understandable by their own lights, have less and less connection with the needs and wishes of their own residents. They exist for the good of the charity as a large and complex organisation with a turnover of millions of pounds per annum, and not necessarily for the good of those to whom they provide services.
I want to ask the Government to consider capping the size of social landlords, preferably at about half the size of Anchor as it is constituted.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mike Wood
I will not, at this moment.
Will the Government also place a responsibility on the reformed Care Quality Commission to work especially closely with providers that, through longevity and acquisition, have long since lost sight of whom they operate to serve? Will the Minister also ensure that social landlords make their strategic plans public, so that they are open to scrutiny and can be tested by the CQC, the Charity Commissioners, local authorities and, most importantly, residents and prospective residents and their families?
In essence, we need elderly people to be treated with respect. My constituent Lawrence Tomlinson, the owner of Ideal Care Homes, has shown that first-rate facilities can be provided in the care home sector while ensuring a good return for the owners of those homes. I saw that for myself when I visited Lydgate Lodge in my constituency only last week. But, as with the other elements in our care of the elderly, provision is very patchy. As recommended by Dilnot, we must get rid of the postcode lottery and establish a national framework for eligibility, as favoured by the Law Commission.
Lastly, I believe that we should examine seriously the case for a Cabinet Minister for older people—ironically, as advocated by Anchor in its Grey Pride campaign. The care system is in crisis as the size of our elderly populace grows, yet I must point out, without being too unkind, that the responsibility for improving the situation is spread haphazardly over several Government Departments. It is unclear whose job it is in Government to defend the interests of elderly citizens, just as it was unclear who was responsible for looking after the good of the residents of Barnfield in the vast charity that was supposedly helping to care for them.
The Minister is not yet the Minister for the elderly—[Interruption.] He appears to be making a bid for the job, and I would certainly support such an appointment. I hope that he will be able to give me at least an initial view on these few practical suggestions for improvements in the care for our elderly citizens that we all want to see.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) on securing a debate that is important both for general policy and for the specific concerns of his constituents. I also congratulate him on the careful and thoughtful way in which he presented his case. By responding on both those points, I shall endeavour to do the best justice I can to it in the time available.
I would like to start with the more specific issue of the position of Anchor. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, Anchor is a large provider—one of the leading providers of housing for older people. It has met those people’s needs for some 40 years, delivering a variety of products. As has been said, it is a registered charity, which makes it independent and non-profit-making. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is responsible for making its own business decisions, so the scope for Government intervention is generally constrained by the law relating to charities. Equally, however, Anchor must adhere to Charity Commission guidelines and, as a private registered provider, to the guidance of the social housing regulator—the Tenant Services Authority.
As I understand it, and as the hon. Gentleman fairly set out, Anchor has come to a view about its involvement with Barnfield for the future and has set out options for the residents. Its preferred option is to find another provider to take this development on. Let us hope that that is the solution; it would be for the best, enabling Barnfield residents to remain in their homes. It is worth noting that Anchor will need to apply to the regulator for consent to do so. That will not remove the uncertainty that I appreciate is playing on the minds of the residents. If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I had a similar case with a much smaller charity in my own constituency before the general election. It had been going on for some time. I understand people’s feelings, because I met the constituents involved in that case.
Anchor is required to obtain the regulator’s consent before disposing of the property. It is up to the regulator to decide to grant consent, and it is normal policy to withhold consent for the disposal of property unless that disposal is to another social housing provider or to the tenants. There are some safeguards; one cannot prejudge any particular case.
In view of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, it is worth observing that the regulator also requires providers to engage in meaningful consultation with the relevant local authority and with tenants before seeking consent for a disposal. Housing associations registered with the regulator are also required to consult tenants if it is proposed to change their landlord or make a significant change in the management arrangements. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents might wish to consider that in the context of contact with the TSA.
There is also a regulatory requirement to have in place a procedure for dealing with formal complaints. If, having completed that process, residents remain unhappy, they have the right to raise a complaint with the housing ombudsman. It then becomes a matter for the ombudsman to deal with. Areas of maladministration that fall under the ombudsman’s remit include, for example, failure of a body to apply its own procedures, failure to comply with legal obligations or codes of practice, unreasonable behaviour, or having treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner. That might be relevant; I, of course, have to be independent.
That is the position, so it is worth reflecting on the fact that steps have to be gone through before a disposal can be taken. I understand that Anchor is contacting residents at regular intervals, and I hope that is the case. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is closer to the ground there than I am.
The broader point is well made, given that we all get older. Whether I would be better qualified to be a Minister for elderly people by virtue of my greater experience in comparison with other hon. Members might have been the cause of some merriment. I believe we all want to maintain our independence and to keep our own home. I have an 87-year-old mother, and I know exactly what her view is.
Tracey Crouch
I recently initiated an Adjournment debate on older people in Westminster Hall, during which I drew attention to the acute pressure on housing for our older generation. Given that that pressure will become a great deal worse, will the Minister consider the constructive suggestion that some flexibility should be applied to the new homes bonus? That might well give developers an incentive to ensure that older people are catered for specifically in the future.
Robert Neill
That is an interesting idea, and this is not the first occasion on which I have heard it raised by my hon. Friend and by people in the sector. I will convey it, along with a number of other suggestions, to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who will consider what is the most appropriate action.
The complexity of the system often makes choices difficult, but the Government are helping by supporting the provision of information and advice. In May I announced funding of £1.5 million for FirstStop, which offers expert advice to older people, their families and their carers on housing and associated care and money issues. It is a national service, delivered in partnership with specialist providers and local partners. One of the coalition’s aims is to give people access to better information. “The Coalition: our programme for government” includes the commitment to
“help elderly people live at home for longer”,
which may involve their staying in the family home but may also mean a move to more suitable accommodation.
We must ensure that there is enough suitable accommodation, and to that end we have embarked on a number of policy reforms. We expect to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes between 2011 and 2015—an increase on our original estimate of 150,000, including 80,000 under the affordable homes programme. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), we have also introduced the new homes bonus, which is a much more transparent incentive. We want to ensure that local authorities have sufficient flexibility by “un-ring-fencing” funds in response to local needs.
We have announced that we will raise right-to-buy discounts to make buying more attractive to tenants who want to stay put. However, we are determined not just to fulfil residents’ aspirations for home ownership, but to ensure that every home bought under the right to buy will fund a new affordable home, over and above our existing plans. That, along with a number of other matters, will be included in the housing strategy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take a particular interest in the way in which it deals with the sector that he has raised tonight.
We know that we must encourage the provision of a wide range of accommodation to suit the changing needs and circumstances of older people. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of thoughtful suggestions. As I have said, there are examples of good practice among charities of varying sizes, but we must nevertheless be alert to risk, and I think that the Charity Commission and other regulatory bodies provide the appropriate means of dealing with that. We want results that will ultimately benefit those receiving the provision.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that capping size is not necessarily the answer. What is important is ensuring that charities are responsive. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has expressed a desire to encourage greater transparency in the social housing provider sector as a whole, and I hope that that will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s specific points.
Question put and agreed to.