Homelessness Reduction Bill (First sitting)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That, if proceedings on the Homelessness Reduction Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee meets on Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 9.30 am.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second week in a row, Mr Chope; I suspect that it will not be the last time. The motion will ensure that we have time for a full and constructive debate on the details of the Bill. I hope that everyone agrees that getting the Bill right in Committee is important, so that we can return it to the House in as complete a fashion as possible and it can complete its passage, particularly given that it has all-party support. I hope that the motion will have the full support of the Committee and that we can progress with a like mind.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your fair and clear chairmanship, Mr Chope. We always know where we stand when you are in the Chair, for good or ill. I have no reason to oppose the motion; the Opposition welcome the opportunity for open-ended debate on this important Bill.

My only observation is that the order of consideration is somewhat unorthodox. We are to start with clause 2, so the substantive clause 1 will come later, and probably not in the first sitting. I make no formal objection to that, but—I hope that the Government and the Bill’s promoter hear this—if there are to be substantive amendments, it would be as well for those of us who may also table amendments if they could be made available sooner rather than later; otherwise we are going to get ourselves into a bit of mess, which will not help proceedings to be as clear and efficient as possible.

Not having seen any Government amendments yet, I make no criticism of them; I will wait until I see them. It would be helpful if the Minister or the promoter could indicate when they are likely to be tabled, because we will clearly either be wasting our time or getting our wires crossed if we try to amend something that is no longer going to be in the Bill.

[The Chair]

There are two separate motions. It will be more convenient to decide upon the first motion first, although the hon. Gentleman has just referred to some of the contents of the second motion.

Question put and agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I beg to move,

That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clause 2, Clause 3, Clause 8, Clause 9, Clauses 4 to 7, Clauses 10 to 13, Clause 1, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.

Over the past few weeks, I and others have met stakeholders, in particular the Minister and his officials, to consider the Bill as presented on Second Reading. We will discuss potential amendments to some of the clauses, to make sure that their meaning is clarified, any errors are corrected and their effect is improved. One of the problems associated with this type of Bill is the consequences of changing the system. We do not want it to impact on that. My proposed order of consideration will allow sufficient time to complete the process. We are clear that we want to proceed on an all-party basis, working closely together in a collegiate fashion, so that amendments, especially Government amendments, are tabled in plenty of time and everyone has a chance to read and understand them, and, if Members want to propose further changes, we can do so.

One rationale for the order of consideration is that there has been substantial lobbying on clause 1 in particular. I propose that we debate that clause at the end, because that will allow us to ensure that any proposed amendments to it are drawn up in a suitable fashion, through parliamentary counsel, and circulated to Members. By the time we come to debate the clause, everyone on the Committee will have had a chance to see and understand the provisions and obtain any background information that they need.

That is the reason for a slightly strange order of consideration. One reason that clauses 4 to 7 are included later is that it was envisaged—although this may turn out not to be the case—that there might be consequential amendments to clause 4 in particular, as a result of amending clause 1. I understand from our discussions last night that that may not necessarily be the case.

The order of consideration gives us a sensible route for discussing the clauses. My understanding is that some of the earlier clauses are less likely to be controversial or require amendments, but we want to go through them in detail as well. I hope that, in that spirit, we can discuss the Bill in the order suggested. If colleagues are concerned and want to change it, I will understand, but I believe that it is a logical way of dealing with the Bill, because it is complicated and any changes will have consequences.

[Andy Slaughter]

I have nothing to add other than this: I understand that there is no formal programme motion for a private Member’s Bill, but given the tactics that the hon. Gentleman has set out, I wonder when he envisages the first sitting taking place. It looks like there will be an interesting debate on clause 1 or what replaces it, but when will we get to that point? This is a bit like “Hamlet” without the prince: we are talking around the subject before we actually get to it. When will the new position on clause 1 be set out and when are we likely to debate it? Clearly, that is a matter for the Committee, but it would be useful to know what is in the minds of the Government and the promoter.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend has made. It would be useful to have some idea of timing so that we can plan ahead and prepare. I also welcome what the hon. Member for Harrow East, who is in charge of the Bill, has said about the intention to proceed on an all-party basis and to try to secure agreement, because that is how we have worked on the issue. Even before the Bill was a gleam in the hon. Gentleman’s eye, the Communities and Local Government Committee discussed the issue and its members worked together on trying to improve the service that homeless people receive.

I welcome the fact that we will take another look at clause 1. On Second Reading, I raised concerns about the loopholes that it might provide for those authorities that are perhaps less enthusiastic than us about trying to improve the service. Some of the caveats may give them wiggle room not to deliver the sort of service intended. It is important that we get the clause right, that we make it watertight and that we do not allow wiggle room for authorities that do not want to comply, so it is very important that we have time to consider it.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention on the ingenuity of local authorities to meet the needs of local residents. It is good news that the fund is available, and I would encourage every local authority to bid for it and to start thinking about creative ways to help people threatened with homelessness. We want to prevent those individuals from becoming homeless in the first place. Local authorities can now get their thinking caps on, get creative and bid for that fund. I understand that up to 20 local authorities might be successful in this bidding round. I hope that it is oversubscribed, so that the Minister will have to find extra money to support that initiative in the run-up to the Bill hopefully becoming law, with every local authority in the country having to provide that service.

The advice given will be different depending on the needs of the individual, the family or the sets of individuals who are applying. The idea is that the advisory service should be designed to meet the needs of particularly at-risk groups, such as care leavers or victims of domestic abuse—those are two examples, but there are many reasons why people become homeless. It is not easy to categorise those areas, so the key is that the advisory service should be individualised. It should not be a basic service where someone turns up and has a look at a computer; it should be individual and with people who have been trained with this in mind.

The most important point about the clause is that those threatened with homelessness will get effective information right across the country. It will help every household threatened with homelessness or, worse still, those who become homeless. They will get the information they need. I believe that this has been supported throughout. There is a cross-party consensus, so I hope that everyone in the Committee will see the benefit of the clause and that we can then go forward.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, for the first substantive sitting of this Committee. I echo what the Bill’s promoter said: as far as possible, there will be a consensual and hopefully constructive atmosphere throughout our proceedings, because the substance of the Bill is supported by those on both Front Benches. We have already seen two indications of that. First, I am grateful for the change in the sittings motion, which is mainly for the convenience of Opposition Members so that they can come here direct from Berlin, filled with European bonhomie, in order to engage in our proceedings. Secondly, no amendments have been tabled to this clause. However, it is an important clause and I would like to make one or two comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

No, I do not. All the right points have been made in relation to how we can either not provide a service or provide lip service. If we want to provide a good quality advice service—in other words, trained staff who know what they are doing and who can spend time with often vulnerable people—it will require a substantial increase in resources. That is obviously only part of the equation, and I accept that other duties in the Bill will be more onerous. There will, however, be additional demands on those small authorities that might not have anybody, or only one person, who does that as part of their job. I will not go into the detail now, but I put the Minister on notice that, at some point in Committee, we hope to hear clearly from the Government what resources will be made available, in cash and percentage terms; how those resources will be delivered; and how prescriptive they will be. Will there be a specific advice budget?

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Happy St Andrew’s day to the Committee and to you, Mr Chope. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Scottish experience? We abolished priority needs in homelessness, but we had a 10-year run-up before doing so. Does he agree that, given the steps in the Bill to make advice available to everybody, the resources and planning need to be considered carefully?

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I have no doubt that the Committee will hear a substantial amount about the Scottish experience. I do not know whether anyone here is qualified to talk about the Welsh experience, which also underlies much of the Bill.

It is almost a truism to say that, if we are to address this issue, we cannot address it piecemeal. We have to consider not only how services are resourced, but the potential outcomes so that we can see, I hope, a seamless link from prevention through to advice and resolution. If there are lessons to be learned from Scotland, the hon. Lady will not be slow in recommending them.

[Will Quince]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I still fail to understand his exact point. My understanding is that local authorities already have this duty—it is a function that they should be performing. In my experience—I will not follow his advice in making partisan attacks on my Liberal Democrat and Labour-run local authority—the advice currently being given is, in many cases, poor and inaccurate. That is an issue not of funding, but of giving good quality advice.

[Andy Slaughter]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to be factual, at least according to my own experience, and my experience is not uncharacteristic. I saw nods from members on both sides of the Committee when I described what Members have to deal with as a consequence of local authorities not dealing with issues and of advice simply not being available.

It is an issue that local authorities have not been doing what they should have been doing, but the reason for that is that they do not want to resource the service. Therefore, they either resource the advice inadequately through insufficient training, or they deliberately do not resource it in order to avoid incurring the additional expenses that result from accepting people as homeless, giving them proper advice and providing a solution to their housing problems. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has to be a change in mindset, but we cannot just wish for that and think it will happen.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a postcode lottery in terms of the service that people get? If someone is homeless in one area, they might get a completely different service from that available in another. We need more than a change in mindset; we need a change in the legislation, which is perhaps why we are all here today.

[Andy Slaughter]

Yes, there are different attitudes in different areas. Some of it may be policy-driven, but some may be resource-driven or demand-driven in the way that authorities respond. Well motivated though the Bill is, I am not sure that simply enacting it will resolve that issue. It will take not just funding, but careful policing, both by Government and the homelessness charities, which will no doubt monitor the Bill’s implementation —just as they monitor the current problems—to ensure that local authorities live up to their duties.

I do not want to talk for too long, so let me exemplify what I mean by the difficulties arising from the clause. What it proposes is materially different from the existing situation, because the clause is far more specific and onerous in its description of the categories of people who should be given advice and what type of advice should be given. Let me mention a point from each side of the argument, namely what Shelter and the Association of Housing Advice Services told us in their briefings. I am grateful, as I am sure are other hon. Members, for all the briefings we have had. Although local authorities and charities have different views, I do not think that any of the bodies involved disagree on the need to improve how these issues are dealt with, and the fact that the concerns being raised by local authorities are legitimate. Had I known of Shelter’s concerns earlier, I may well have tabled an amendment to that effect.

Shelter is concerned that although groups were rightly specified relatively recently in legislation—under the previous Labour Government—as being a particular concern, such as persons leaving prison, persons leaving hospital, victims of domestic abuse and care leavers, we should not forget the categories of priority homeless: pregnant women, children and older people. I raise this with the Minister because the Government may consider amendments in the other place as well, and it would be sensible to consider whether the list, which is obviously not closed, should include those categories as well.

Let me mention what AHAS said: is specifying the needs of groups with complex or specific problems—perhaps people with mental health problems or those leaving custody—placing a particularly onerous burden on local authorities? In other words, instead of being asked to provide general advice on how to deal with homelessness and what is available in the area, will they be asked to cater for the needs of people in those circumstances, which would better be dealt with by specialist agencies? AHAS raised the possibility of a legal challenge, which might say, “Yes, a perfectly adequate degree of advice was provided for somebody who doesn’t have those needs, but the local authority should have gone further. It should have spent more time, more money and been more concerned about dealing with these people because of their specific needs.” I would be interested to know whether, on those two points, the Government share the concerns that I and local authorities have.

I make one final, general point. I have not attempted to deal with this; it is beyond my drafting skills. There is something slightly odd about the Bill: it applies to England and Wales, but most of the duties it imposes are on housing authorities in England. There are areas of legislation that are now different in Wales—for example, NHS legislation or the Children Act 2004. That might mean that, say, care leavers who have been in the care of Welsh authorities will now come under the purview of English housing authorities, but will still be owed a duty in that way. I ask the Minister and the Bill’s promoter to go away and look at whether we have covered those angles in their entirety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is a pleasure to respond to clause 2 on the second day of our consideration. It is obvious from this first debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has chosen well because Members on both sides of the Committee are not only capable and knowledgeable but have spoken with immense passion and power. It is obvious that the members of this Committee care about the enactment of the Bill.

The Government welcome the duty to provide homelessness advisory services and hope it will go a long way in helping to provide access to the same high standard of information and support for everyone. It does not help to prevent homelessness if local authorities provide minimal and out-of-date information but, technically, they could still be acting within the law. The measure is a key first step to addressing that. Having said that, some local housing authorities provide relevant and up-to-date information and, in some cases, tailored advice, and they need to be commended.

The clause will help to ensure that all local housing authorities step up to the standard of the best by providing detailed advice and information to all households in their area while empowering people to seek support before their housing concerns turn into a housing crisis. We hope local housing authorities provide more personalised advice that meets the needs of households that are likely to be at risk of homelessness, and advice that targets the vulnerable groups identified in the clause.

Earlier, I mentioned some prevention trailblazers. The best local authorities include Newcastle, where staff work to gather information to identify people at risk of becoming homeless so they can target their advice and support far earlier so that people do not end up in a housing crisis. That is the spirit in which the clause sets out further obligations for local authorities, and what we expect to happen.

To ensure that the measures work in practice, we will work with local housing authorities, homelessness support organisations and others to review and update the guidance on how local housing authorities should comply with the new duty. In doing so, we will look to Wales, which has a similar duty enshrined in legislation in section 60 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, and to other good practice such as that which I mentioned in England.

As I mention Wales, may I respond, in order to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, to the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the extent of the legislation regarding England and Wales? I reassure him that we have discussed the Bill with Welsh Government lawyers and are satisfied that the approach taken in the Bill correctly addresses the devolution points he raised. I have some responses to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in a few other areas.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the issue of funding for the Bill. I reiterate that we are absolutely committed to funding the costs of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned, we are still working with local authorities and the LGA to identify the costs of the Bill. Given how the Bill has been brought to the House, the timescales have been tight, particularly for the Select Committee’s scrutiny process and the tabling of amendments.

We are now dealing with changes to clause 1 to deal with challenges raised by a particular stakeholder group, so we are still finalising the costs. We expect to be able to come to the Committee shortly with the final details of those costs. I can reassure people that when we come back with that final detail, we will be taking into account the costs as a result of clause 2.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister has said that he will come back to the Committee, so I am assuming that we will have something in time for next week’s sitting or the one on 14 December.

[Mr Jones]

As I have said, I will bring those costs to the Committee as soon as is practicable, but the hon. Gentleman is not making an unreasonable point. I hope to be able to satisfy his request. It is important that the Committee should have the chance to see what the costs are.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about AHAS and the information duty. AHAS raised an issue about councils going beyond the provision of just homelessness issues. I want to be absolutely clear that the measure is about a duty to provide advice and information relating to homelessness only; it is not about local authorities going beyond that. Local authorities can signpost to other services, but we expect them to work with local partners to help address wider issues, and that is what the best authorities are already doing.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood raised a point about the Bill, and the clause in particular, being about changing culture at the local level, and I very much agree. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester about reinvigorating the role of housing officers so that they can get back to a position where they genuinely feel they are helping people—as he rightly pointed out, that is why most housing officers took up their roles in the first place. We have seen a similar change in culture in Wales, which bodes well for the Bill. We will make absolutely clear that the revised guidance on what constitutes good advice will accompany the Bill once it makes its passage through the House and into law.

I will conclude by saying that the Government are extremely pleased to support clause 2. We think it will bring about a real shift in culture and enable people who hitherto have not received good advice and assistance to receive the support that they absolutely need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I intend to speak only very briefly. I have great sympathy with the point being made in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. We have all seen these situations, certainly in constituencies around London. My constituency is 50 or so miles outside London and my constituents regularly come to me for assistance because the council is putting them into temporary accommodation in Ipswich. Although it is only 20 miles away, that is a long way for people who do not drive: they are 20 miles away from their school, their place of work, their support network or their family. We know the considerable burden that places on those who are in very vulnerable situations and are going through a crisis.

However, I have some concerns about the enforceability of what the hon. Gentleman proposes, partly because the requirement already exists in article 2 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012. In my view, the solution is not duplication of existing secondary legislation, but the Government ensuring that that legislation is given more teeth and enforceability. As well-meaning as the amendment is, my fear is that it will not achieve anything, because the existing legislation already ensures that local authorities have to take into consideration the suitability of accommodation for the applicant and issues such as schools, caring requirements and work arrangements. Subject to the Minister’s approval, the obvious answer is for the Government to take the hon. Gentleman’s concerns away and look at how to ensure that the existing legislation, which already requires local authorities to do what he asks, is given teeth and enforceability.

[Andy Slaughter]

Before I speak to the amendments in my name, may I briefly express my support for the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East? I am surprised that Government Members are not prepared to support it; I ask the Bill’s promoter to encourage his colleagues to do so. Although the hon. Member for Colchester is absolutely right that there is case law and guidance on locality, it is fair to say that it is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The consequence is a lot of unnecessary litigation, where advice and lawyers are available to assist with it, and a lot of work. My office spends a huge amount of time on this issue, trying to persuade local authorities not to move people out of the area or to bring them back after they have been moved, when it has proved impossible for the family to continue to live as they did before.

I had a case in my surgery this week in which a family with three children were living in temporary accommodation that was so poor, with damp and disrepair, that the local authority needed to move them somewhere else. There is nowhere available in the borough at the moment, so it is seeking to move them outside London. All the kids are in local schools. My view was that the family had been in temporary accommodation for 10 years in a variety of places, so surely the solution was to find them permanent accommodation. That just showed that I am not completely in touch with everything that goes on, because my senior caseworker said that it is not exceptional now for people to spend 10 years in temporary accommodation. That gives a little insight into the real problems that occur, particularly in London boroughs but elsewhere too. That point needs to be emphasised, so I strongly support what my hon. Friend said.

Let me deal briefly with the amendments standing in my name. I entirely accept that I am placing those additional burdens on local authorities that I warned against about an hour ago. That is why I am particularly keen to hear the Minister come forward with his bag of cash at the earliest opportunity. Nevertheless, if we are to legislate for the long term, we need to make clear what we expect housing authorities to do.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am delighted by the smile on his face as he presents his amendments. Does he not see that, as drafted, the obligation on local authorities is so wide that they would have to look across multiple different authorities in order to fulfil it? I think he notes that by his smile. Is this not just placing unreasonable burdens on our local authorities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I will turn the point around and say that the objective of the Bill is either to pay lip service to a problem or it is designed to tackle a problem. When individuals in housing need, owed duties by the state, present themselves, they will receive advice and assistance. That point was made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in relation to the list in clause 2. That is not an exhaustive list, though it could be quite onerous. We will later consider, under clause 10, the way that other public authorities should assist local authorities in discharging their duty, and that is the other side of the equation. I will not say anything more on that because I am conscious of the time. I will simply say that if we are going to look at the different approach that local authorities need to take, we should be as comprehensive as possible.

If I may be allowed two sentences, I think they will evolve neatly into talking on clause stand part. I am conscious that, as we will probably find in every clause, there are caveats from homelessness charities that the proposed legislation does not go far enough and caveats from local authorities that it places undue burdens. The AHAS does not see the need for a plan that it believes would be extremely onerous in the bureaucracy, the drawing up, the modifying and the review of that. Shelter would say that there is no statutory right to a review on the plan and that that itself should be reviewed. I think we have probably got it about right. There is a need for a plan. I do not accept what local authorities say on that point. I am conscious of the example that the LGA gave in relation to this. It used the example of Stoke-on-Trent Council, which believes that the administrative costs around prevention work will require four more homelessness officers at about £35,000 a year each, just in relation to dealing with those issues.

I will stop there, Mr Chope, by urging support for the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. We are, a little bit, creating a wish list and talking in a vacuum until the Minister makes clear what resources he intends to provide.

[Helen Hayes]

I wish to speak briefly in support of amendment 1, which arises directly from evidence we heard in the Communities and Local Government Committee, as the Chairman of that Committee has already said. It also speaks directly to the experiences of my constituents and some of the most devastating cases in my time as a Member of this House and, before that, as a local councillor.

As Members well know, homelessness is one of the most devastating circumstances that can befall someone in the UK today. In such challenging circumstances, people will often hang on to every little bit of stability that they can, in particular for their children. Which of us would not do that? My local authorities do everything possible to place people in borough when they have to provide families with temporary accommodation. When they place people outside the borough, they do everything they can to find accommodation in neighbouring boroughs, so people do not have to travel long distances.

The first of two cases that I particularly recall involved a family placed in temporary accommodation in Edmonton who were travelling with their children to primary school in Dulwich every day. That is a very long distance, by any stretch of the imagination. The train would have been the quickest way to make the journey, but they could not afford that, because they were a family facing homelessness. They had to leave their temporary accommodation in Edmonton at 5.30 every morning to travel with their children to my constituency for school, because they were part of a stable school community and knew that their children were receiving good support there.

More recently, a family living in temporary accommodation —a hostel in Dulwich—were travelling every day to Leytonstone with their daughter to attend primary school. Similarly, because they were a family in destitution and without any money, mum was sitting on a park bench in Leytonstone for the duration of the school day before collecting her daughter and travelling back to Dulwich. Such circumstances are devastating.

The other sets of circumstances covered by the amendment are, straightforwardly, invest-to-save provisions. I can recall countless constituents who have come to my surgeries to tell me that the local authority is suggesting that they move to accommodation further away, but they are fearful of what that would mean in terms of loss of support from their family and community networks. Furthermore, most often, they are constituents with mental health difficulties. As we know, and it seemed self-evident when I was talking to them, if they were forced to move from their support networks, their families and the people they rely on to maintain some stability in their lives, there would be additional costs. Not only would those individuals be much more likely to be forced into a crisis, but there would be additional costs to the NHS and to social services arising from people being moved away from their informal networks of support.

The final set of circumstances covered by the amendment involves people who are in employment. We all applaud anyone facing homelessness who manages to sustain their employment. That is a difficult enough thing to achieve in the best of circumstances, but if as a consequence of homelessness people are forced to move a long distance from their employment, so that they could not afford the travel costs or time, the burden would become unsustainable. That, too, would be a false economy. The state should be doing everything to ensure that, where possible, employment can be sustained.

For those reasons, I hope that the promoter and the Government will accept the amendment, because the matters that it covers are so important that they should be on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I always welcome the Select Committee’s work, and if councils do not respond in the way that we ask them to respond—that is, by adhering to the 2012 order, the importance of which is reiterated in the Bill —it perhaps would be sensible for the Select Committee to look at the issue again.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Sheffield South East said on Second Reading about recognising the importance of speaking to people from the very beginning about addressing their housing needs. We are talking about the important first step in creating the culture that we all want. We need a more co-operative and effective relationship between local housing authorities and those they try to help. That is why clause 3 is really important. However, I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East would like.

Amendments 3 and 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith would require local housing authorities to consider a further requirement when assessing the applicant’s case. There would be a requirement to consider,

“what other support the applicant is or may be entitled to from any public authority under any other enactment”.

The amendments would create a very broad duty. Local housing authorities would need to investigate the legal duties of multiple authorities to identify whether such a duty were owed. There could be a scenario, for example, where a local housing authority would have to undertake a mental health assessment to establish whether a person is owed duties in respect of any mental health issues that they may have.

Owing to their wide-ranging nature and the general requirements that the amendments would bring to local housing authorities, the proposed changes would place an unacceptable burden on those authorities. As I mentioned previously, local housing authorities already have to take into consideration a wide range of factors, including the significance of any disruption that would be caused by the location of the accommodation to the employment, caring responsibilities or education of the person or members of the person’s household; and the proximity and accessibility of the accommodation to medical facilities and other support.

Successful prevention, as the best local authorities already know, takes a broad view in assessing needs. Many of the things we are looking at here will be dealt with in the personal housing plan, which is covered in the substantive clause.

[Andy Slaughter]

To look at this the other way, does the Minister not think that it could be helpful to local authorities in identifying other organisations or other resources that should be brought into play? What was good on clause 2 in relation to specifying people with particular needs may also be good on clause 3.

[Mr Jones]

There are many ways in which the Bill broadens the support that people will get. As the hon. Gentleman knows, later in the Bill there is a duty to refer. Organisations will therefore have to notify local authority housing teams of people in certain circumstances as they pass through the NHS system in hospital A&Es and so on. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East is proposing a broad provision. As I said, it is difficult in terms of its workability. The challenge would be massive for local authorities, which would almost have to become experts in massive areas of work that they are simply not in a position to be experts on.

However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that local authorities can work in a better and more collegiate fashion across public services and other organisations that can help people who are homeless or becoming homeless. In many ways, the Bill will seek to achieve that. I therefore do not think it is necessary at this point to support the amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members for the amendments they have tabled and for the debate we have had. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East that we are not talking about mere guidance; local authorities will be ordered to take into account matters of education and employment, and the other aspects he mentioned. We wish to proceed in this Committee by consensus and discussion. If we can agree on that, it is going to help considerably.

Clause 3 will require local housing authorities to carry out an assessment for all cases in which an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The housing authority will have to look at the circumstances that caused the person to become homeless, or that threatened them with homelessness, which will be specific to that person, and it will have to look at the person’s housing and support needs.

Following the assessment, the authority must work with the applicant to agree what steps need to be taken by the applicant to secure and retain suitable accommodation, and what steps need to be taken by the authority to help them. The steps must be notified to the applicant in writing, in the form of an agreed plan, which will mean that applicants will be clear on what steps they, as well as the local authority, need to take to get accommodation.

There may be circumstances in which agreement cannot be reached. If that is the case, the local authority must record the reasons why and provide the applicant with a written copy of them that also contains the steps that the authority will take and those that it thinks it would be reasonable for the applicant to take.

The clause has been included in the Bill because local housing authorities are not currently required to assess the circumstances that have caused an applicant to become homeless or to be threatened with homelessness. That can lead to vital information about the applicant’s circumstances being missed, which in turn causes them extra difficulties. By asking applicants for more information about what happened to make them homeless or led to their being threatened with homelessness, a potential solution should be identified.

A more personalised approach will definitely help local housing authorities to get it right first time and prevent people from becoming homeless. The tailored approach will help the applicant and the housing authority to understand the actions that have to be taken and the responsibilities on both sides. The clear intention is to help both the housing authority and households to become more effective in preventing and alleviating homelessness, thereby diverting more households from the crisis point.

I have sympathy with the desire of the hon. Members for Westminster North and for Sheffield South East to ensure that the consideration of specific issues relating to education, employment, health and other matters is spelled out. Only this past weekend, a constituent’s case was related to me. The husband is undergoing knee surgery at a local hospital, the three children are in local Harrow schools, and both the mother and father of the children are employed locally. Harrow Council has offered them a place in Wolverhampton, so it is clear that the existing order is not being enforced correctly. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to making sure that local authorities understand and implement their duties. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Local connection of a care leaver

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Chope. It is good to see you in the Chair again.

The clause is uncontroversial and we support it. The objective of the clause, as we see it, is to give greater flexibility in the case of care leavers, particularly when there is a conflict between different authorities or different tiers of authorities within the same area. I gently point out to the Minister that that is exactly the point I tried to make with amendment 4, which he rejected. It may be that, in looking at the Bill again, he would like to see those provisions not only for care leavers but more generally, and for local authorities to consider what their duties are towards people presenting as homeless.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I will briefly pick up on one theme in relation to clause 8, which I support wholeheartedly. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is relatively uncontroversial, but it is worth teasing out a little.

Of course, care leavers are at particular risk of homelessness. I think of foster carers. There are many excellent foster carers across all of our constituencies. Foster carers and families that I can think of in Dorset, in particular, look after children from beyond the boundaries of Dorset, and the clause will help them and local authorities to avoid any confusion as to whether there is a local connection for those care leavers. That relates to foster carers in particular, but there are other examples. I believe that the clause is uncontroversial and should go through unamended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

We have had a useful brief debate on the clause. We should remember that the existing position for care leavers to prove a local connection is that they must be currently or previously normally resident in the area, be employed there, have a family association or have special circumstances. Care leavers are often unable to prove such a position, which makes it very difficult for them to get assistance when they need it on leaving care. Young people leaving care are extremely vulnerable and need assistance with housing.

My intention is to clarify the position so that it is straightforward for a local authority to house care leavers in their area if they wish to do so, and so that any district can accommodate care leavers if they are in the care of the county. The local connection will therefore be enhanced and provide a facility, as the Minister described. My intention is to make it much easier for care leavers to prove a local connection and therefore to gain assistance from the local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Reviews

[Andy Slaughter]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 9, page 15, line 32, leave out paragraph (ba)(i).

This amendment would enable the different review stages to be amalgamated and processes streamlined.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 10, in clause 9, page 15, line 42, leave out paragraph (bc)(i).

This amendment would enable the different review stages to be amalgamated and processes streamlined.

[Andy Slaughter]

The clause and amendments go to the heart of the dilemma that we talked about last week on clause 2. Almost everyone on the Committee supports the intentions of the Bill and the extension of the duties to local authorities, but that poses a substantial question about the additional burden and cost placed on local authorities. We continue to wait with bated breath for the Minister’s pronouncements on finance that we were promised for the Committee stage.

My amendments are probing—I do not intend to press them to a vote—because at the end of the day having a review provision in the Bill is right. I am sure Committee members have read the briefings we have had from London Councils and the LGA. London Councils estimates at least four additional stages for which a review might be requested. The very helpful explanatory notes to the Bill give eight examples of circumstances in which a decision may be reviewed.

Review decisions have become something of an art in local authorities. Highly experienced housing officers seem to spend their entire lives constantly writing reviews of homelessness decisions. In many cases, the decisions were thorough and proper—they have to be, one reason being that they are subject to review by the county court. Additional resources and staff are likely to be needed by local authorities not only internally, but because of a lot more proceedings in the extremely overstretched county courts, which already have substantial waiting lists for hearings.

There are two examples in the briefings. The group of east London authorities estimates that review processes will cost an additional £4 million a year. Swindon Borough Council estimates that it will need to employ two to three officers in addition to the existing seven employed in its homelessness section. These are substantial resources for individual authorities, but spread across the country they would be a huge additional burden.

I hope to keep my comments uncharacteristically short on the amendments because the Government have an opportunity to show that they have thought about the consequences of the Bill. The debate on Second Reading showed that we have largely discussed and agreed the principles of the Bill and the additional duties.

We want to know how the Bill will work. This is a good example of where the Government can show that they have already thought about it. When I talk to my local authority and others, particularly in London where pressures are highest, there is huge concern they will be overwhelmed when the Bill is enacted. In many cases, having cut their budgets by about 50%, they simply do not have the resources to deal with the provisions.

[Ms Buck]

I rise briefly to echo the points made by my hon. Friend on the review process. This is potentially life-changing. A review is important because it could be the difference between an individual and a family having a prospect of security in their housing conditions or being left to fend for themselves despite their vulnerability. It is essential that local authorities ensure that there is a proper review process at every stage. I support the principles of the Bill in ensuring that, with the additional duties and expectations it introduces, there is capacity for review at every stage of the process. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is critical that that process is properly supported and resourced.

I would like to know from the Minister what estimates his Department has made of the additional number of reviews that are expected in different local authorities. We know that the burden of responsibility will fall particularly heavily on London local authorities and those on the front line. What expectations does the Minister have of the additional costs? If those costs are not fully funded by local authorities, one disturbing consequence will be that the review process will be delayed.

I am sure I am not alone as an MP in frequently dealing with very distressed constituents who come to me saying that they have come to the end of the review process only for the local authority to ask for additional time, leaving them in emergency accommodation in very unhappy circumstances and often huge psychological distress. It is very important that we do not allow that to happen.

Finally, as my hon. Friend said, the Bill has to be seen in the context of an unprecedented squeeze specifically on funding for housing services in local authorities. Shelter has estimated that housing services—not the provision of housing; just the administration of housing services in local government—have fallen by 8% in the past year alone and by almost a quarter since 2010. That is a bigger single reduction than in any other area of local authority services. We all support the Bill, but it is absolutely incumbent on the Minister and Department to recognise that point, ensure that the resource implications are spelled out and understood by the Committee, and make a commitment to full funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

As my hon. Friend says, the clear intention behind the Bill is to have a comprehensive strategy on dealing with homelessness and to reduce homelessness.

The aim is that no one ever becomes homeless. If they get help, advice and prevention measures from the local authority, they will not reach that terrible position. However, we know there are problems in local authorities at the moment and that many are not delivering what they are supposed to deliver. This group of amendments would remove the right of review, which is vital for vulnerable people. I trust that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, having heard the debate and the commitment from the Minister, will withdraw his amendment.

[Andy Slaughter]

As I said, I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote. I hear what the Minister says, and I look forward to his proposals, but warm words are not good enough on this, wherever they come from.

I am the first to criticise local authorities when they fail in their duties, but I do not believe that most local authorities do so wilfully or because of a lack of concern. I do not believe that concern or compassion is any less among local councillors than among members of this Committee. The reason they are failing in their duties now is often inadequate resources. The reason they effectively ration their support for homeless people—which I am not defending, but this is a fact—is that they are rationing many of their services. It is irresponsible, in my view, for us to pass legislation that puts duties on other people without ensuring that those duties can be fulfilled. That is the point I will repeat as appropriate throughout our discussions on the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Power to prescribe information—

‘The Secretary of State may in regulations prescribe the contents of a document which summarises the rights of a person under sections 202 or 204 of the 1996 Act and which must be given to an applicant by the local authority when the authority notifies the applicant of any matter under this Part.’

This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to produce a standard form, advising applicants of their rights at each stage of review and appeal. This would remove an administrative burden on local authorities and would also ensure that information is provided in a simple and accessible manner.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will be brief because I think that we have dealt with the clause stand part debate. We all agree that if we are to give new duties to local authorities there has to be a power of review. New clause 3 is intended to be genuinely helpful, and I live in hope that, one day before I die, the Government will accept a clause that I table. It may be this one—who knows?

I say that because—this is not by any means unique to the Bill—housing legislation is littered with notices. An example would be, under clause 4, proposed new section 195(8), which says:

“A notice under this section must be given in writing”

and so on. Rarely, but sometimes—it seems to be idiosyncratic—notices are to be in a prescribed form, and it is helpful to have notices in a prescribed form. I think of section 21 notices, which are perhaps one of the most widely used, or section 8 notices. To have a prescribed form is helpful to both the party issuing it and the party receiving it. That, in my submission, would make a small but significant contribution to alleviating the burden on local authorities, because things would be done in a clearer, more consistent and thorough manner, which would be clearer for the person on whom the notice is being served. That is the simple point, and I look forward to the Minister’s accepting the new clause.

[Mr Jones]

I will speak first to clause stand part. The Government welcome the measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East proposes. We believe that it will encourage local authorities to deliver their new required services to the highest possible standard, ensuring that vulnerable people who require help because of homelessness get the support that they need. As my hon. Friend explained during the discussion on the amendments, this measure means that an applicant can request a review of the decisions made by the local housing authority when delivering its homelessness support services under the new duties in the Bill.

Elsewhere in the Bill, new prevention and relief duties for local housing authorities have been brought in to better support vulnerable people who are either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The clause ensures that applicants can request that a review be carried out of the decisions taken by the local housing authority when undertaking those new duties. The measure does not amend the review process; it just extends which decisions are covered. We hope that this measure will encourage local housing authorities to deliver their new services effectively and to the highest standard. If they do not, there is a clear and transparent recourse process that applicants can follow.

New clause 3 would give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe a document summarising an applicant’s right to request a review for all relevant decisions taken by a local housing authority when discharging its homelessness duties and an applicant’s right to appeal to the county court on a point of law arising from any decision on the review. The authority would be required to supply a copy to applicants each time it is notified of anything relating to those rights and duties.

Although I understand that the new clause is intended to be helpful, local housing authorities are already required by law to inform applicants of their right to request a review of decisions and the guidance recommends that the procedure should be explained fully. In cases when the applicant has difficulty understanding their rights or the implications of any decision, it is also recommended that authorities arrange face to face support to understand the full picture. A prescribed document such as a standard letter or form would work against that flexibility and could result in an applicant failing to understand or exercise their rights.

In addition to this requirement under the existing legislation, clause 2 of the Bill, which is on the

“Duty to provide advisory services”,

states that each local housing authority in England must provide, among other things:

“information and advice on…the rights of persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, and the duties of the authority, under this Part”.

We will make it absolutely clear in guidance that this should include information on an applicant’s right to review.

We will certainly keep the guidance under review and address any concerns about the applicants’ ability to understand and exercise their rights. I hope that, given that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

[Bob Blackman]

I trust that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will see from the Minister’s comments that new clause 3 is unnecessary. However, it is important that we consider the right to reviews in this process, because we are extending the homeless support services for people not only in priority need but across the range of homelessness, and the aim of the review process is to ensure that a fair and transparent service is offered to an applicant. It is crucial that that covers all the decisions that affect the applicant’s journey to seek and obtain support.

Currently, applicants have the right to request a review made by the local housing authority in relation to their homelessness case in specified circumstances, so it is important that clause 9 does not change the current review process but merely extends it to the new duties in this Bill. That will allow an applicant to request a review of specified decisions in the new prevention and relief duties in the Bill.

Specifically, with the decisions that can already be reviewed, individuals have the right to request a review when a housing authority decides: what steps it will take to help to prevent an applicant threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless, or to help an applicant to secure suitable accommodation; what duties are owed to all eligible persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness; to end the duty to help to prevent an applicant who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless, or the duty to help to secure suitable accommodation when an applicant—this is a very important aspect of the review process—has “deliberately and unreasonably” refused to co-operate with the authority when exercising its prevention or relief functions, or to take up any agreed step in the personalised plan to prevent or relieve their homelessness, or to take any step that the authority considers reasonable and has recorded when no agreement could be reached; what duties are owed to such applicants, and the suitability of accommodation offered by way of a “final Part 6 offer” or a final accommodation office offer.

The key issue here is that this process raises the bar on reviews and on the position of applicants who “deliberately and unreasonably” refuse to co-operate. That is very important. This is a bit of tough love, if you like. An applicant can come in and seek help from a local authority, but if they just sit back with their arms folded and say, “You’ve got to find me somewhere to live” and actually take no action on their own part, then a local authority can say, not unreasonably, “Well, you’ve got to be part of this process as well”. It is important that applicants understand that duty but also that local authorities can end the responsibility if someone unreasonably and wilfully obstructs the process.

All other aspects of the current review process remain, including the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if the applicant is dissatisfied with the initial decision. I trust that the hon. Gentleman understands that under those circumstances new clause 3 is unnecessary, because local housing authorities already have to inform applicants of their right to request a review. I therefore hope that he will not press new clause 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Duty in cases of threatened homelessness

[Andy Slaughter]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 30, leave out “reasonable steps” and insert

“such steps as it considers reasonable”.

This amendment would reduce an ambiguity in the present draft. The local authority should decide what steps it should take, subject to the normal rules of public law and judicial review.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 5, page 8, line 11, leave out “reasonable steps” and insert

“such steps as it considers reasonable”.

See amendment 5.

[Andy Slaughter]

I shall be very brief. On reflection, I am not quite sure why I tabled the amendments, because they are rather interfering. I was trying to assist the Government with their drafting, which I am not sure is really my job. If I want to get a job as a parliamentary draftsman, I will go away and do so—perhaps I would be better remunerated.

The amendment is on a narrow but important point. The phrase I have suggested,

“such steps as it considers reasonable”,

is more common, clearer and more accurate. Let me be clear: the amendment is not in any way designed to weaken the Bill, but to make the duties on local authorities more specific. There would obviously still be the full power of judicial review of any decisions, but what is being reviewed is the conduct of the local authority—whether it is behaving reasonably.

The applicants may want to say all sorts of things—they may be reasonable or unreasonable, or here or there—but we need to be clear about what we are reviewing. This perhaps relates back to clause 9. If we are going to have new powers and duties and a power to review—of course, that will include not only recourse to the county court, which will be the first point of recourse, but in certain circumstances recourse to the administrative court—we need to be clear about what we are reviewing. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is slightly technical in nature, and I thought the Government might be keen on it, but my hopes are no longer as high as they were a few moments ago, so we will see.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he stood up and said he could not quite work out why he had tabled the amendments. It is always helpful to have those indications at the outset of a speech. When I looked at the amendments last night, I found I was scratching my head trying to work out what difference they would make. The hon. Gentleman’s explanatory statement asserts:

“The local authority should decide what steps it should take, subject to the normal rules of public law and judicial review.”

With respect, it would have to do that in any event. The amendments would not make a difference one way or the other.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the form of words he has come up with is more common than what is in the Bill. Like him, I have come across housing cases in a court setting. In my view, it makes no odds whether the provision says “reasonable steps” or “such steps as it considers reasonable.” In any event, the local authority would have to follow the normal rules of public law and judicial review. I have enjoyed this close examination of the difference—or lack thereof—between the wordings, but there is precious little between the two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, I agree with other hon. Members about these two amendments. When I looked at his proposal, I wondered what the hon. Member for Hammersmith had in mind. I am a convinced localist. It is right and crucial that local authorities make their decisions and ensure they deliver services that they customise to their local residents.

However, one intention behind the Bill is to bring local housing authorities up to the standard of the best. The current wording of “reasonable steps” for the local authority to help people threatened with homelessness is crucial. I do not pretend to be a lawyer but I see a potential risk in the reading of the amendments. An interpretation could be that a local authority could decide what steps it considered reasonable to take, as opposed to the reasonable steps that are well understood in law that would be expected to be taken by a local authority.

The risk is that individual local authorities that may be laggards in assisting homeless people could interpret this by saying, “We consider this to be reasonable.” Different standards would operate in different areas of the country and between different local authorities. That is the risk of these amendments and I trust the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, withdraw them.

[Andy Slaughter]

I disagree with what the promoter of the Bill just said. On the contrary, focusing on local authorities’ behaviour is more likely to ensure consistency and the ability to challenge where a local authority has not behaved reasonably. Having said that, I do not want to prolong the debate so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

This clause is a major part of the Bill. It would insert a whole new section into the Housing Act 1996, requiring a local authority to take reasonable steps to help prevent homelessness. It is essentially a homelessness prevention duty. Reasonable steps could include the provision of debt counselling, the provision of tenancy support or help with family mediation, so that a person can stay with their family.

As we know, the causes of homelessness are vast and each individual case has to be looked at on its merits. The duty would be extended to any eligible household that is threatened with homelessness. It applies regardless of priority need, intentionality and local connection. As clause 1 would make changes to the period a household is threatened with homelessness, it does mean that households are owed this duty from 56 days before they are likely to become homeless. Clearly, that gives a two-month window in which a local authority can help someone who is threatened with homelessness. In deciding what reasonable steps it should take, a local authority must have regard to its assessment of the applicant. We have already agreed the assessment process in clause 3.

The prevention duty can be ended in a number of different ways, and those are set out in the Bill. The Minister has already given some of the detail of ways the duty can be limited, so I will add some observations. If the Bill is successful in creating a more effective and collaborative approach, I expect the most common way the duty will come to an end will be because the situation has been resolved—the household has been either rehoused or maintained in its existing, accommodation. That is the idea outcome, but the clause states that a local housing authority can be satisfied that the applicant has

“suitable accommodation available for occupation”

when there is a “reasonable prospect” of retaining that accommodation

“for at least 6 months”.

Where the local housing authority has secured that accommodation, it can choose to do so for a longer period if it agrees that that is the right solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I welcome the clause. As the promoter says, it is an important departure from current practice in law, if not necessarily from practice; the best local authorities have taken prevention duties seriously over a period of time. We are looking to codify that and make it consistent across the piece.

We should not underestimate the significance of this change. I do not intend to say a great deal in welcoming and explaining the reasons for the clause, as they are self-evident and have been previously debated. My colleagues may wish to add to that. Suffice it for me to say that this ought to be a virtuous circle. In the examples given by the promoter, or in any other examples, if homelessness can be prevented by negotiation with a landlord, with advice and support, or possibly with finance—we will perhaps come back to that later—somebody can be kept in their home, and provided that that is a reasonable and decent home, that is more likely to be suitable and will retain the links of locality, family, community and so forth. That is clearly desirable and is also likely to be cheaper than having to deal with homelessness, not just because of the distress to the individual and their family, but also because of the additional cost burden that falls on the housing authority. For that reason, I think that this is one of the two most significant provisions in the Bill.

Let me raise a couple of concerns, which the Minister may wish to respond to. My first point is that prevention is nothing new and that local authorities have done that over time. Yesterday, however, I received—I am sure other Members did too—the publication produced by Shelter for its 50th anniversary, and this section caught my eye:

“Homelessness acceptances fell sharply from 2003 to the end of 2009. Analysis shows that a large part of this was due to local authorities placing greater emphasis on homeless prevention, alongside increased funding for support services.

Homelessness acceptances started to increase from 2010. Local authorities still favour an approach that starts with preventing and relieving homelessness. However, such activities have become harder.”

That is the reality of the environment in which we now live.

We should not go into this wearing rose-coloured glasses, thinking that if we pass this legislation—as I hope we will—our job will be done. The Bill will create the duty, but the Local Government Association tells us—in an estimation only, although I know that the Minister is working with the LGA on this—that some London boroughs anticipate an average increase of 266% in the number of people coming to them for assistance as a consequence of the clause. That is a huge increase in work, predominantly from non-priority cases.

An important thing about the clause is that it is as much about priority as non-priority cases, but I have a concern—which we might discuss with clause 5—that existing duties on priority homeless already place such stress on local authorities that any massive additional burden will not only prove difficult in itself to deal with, but have that knock-on effect. The sort of priority homeless cases mentioned by both Opposition and Conservative Members, in particular of families with school-age children being sent many miles away, put in unsuitable accommodation or simply not being dealt with and therefore staying in emergency accommodation for a long time, will increase as a consequence of what we are doing in the Bill. We have to go into it with our eyes open.

My further point is about the legislation in Wales being prayed in aid of such an approach. We can all admire and learn from what the Welsh Government have done, but I make the point that, first, the Welsh legislation is different, because it is part of an overall strategy; it goes further than simply imposing a duty. Secondly—this was said by someone else last week, but it bears repetition—fewer people in total present as homeless to Welsh authorities than do to the London Borough of Lambeth alone. The hon. Member for Harrow East, the promoter of the Bill, made that point, so he is well aware of it, but it gives an idea of the magnitude of the task and of the responsibility that we are putting on local authorities, particularly those that are already under high levels of stress.

That does not in any way weaken my support for the Bill or the clause, but again our eyes must be open about the difficulties and the burden of responsibility that we will place on local authorities.

[Helen Hayes]

Thank you, Mr Chope, for your patience with my lack of attention to the procedure this morning.

I will speak briefly in support of the clause, which is one of the most significant measures in the Bill. It is at the heart of what we are seeking to do through the Bill. It is significant because it will shift the emphasis of local authority practice to prevention, not to the exclusion of their duties to assist people who have actually become homeless, but to make the work to support those facing homelessness more effective.

The measure addresses much of the evidence we heard in the Select Committee. It also speaks to some of the most harrowing cases that I have seen and continue to see in my constituency, which are those involving people facing certain homelessness. They are on a route that in law and legal practice can only lead to them becoming homeless, and yet they are told to wait until the bailiffs turn up and they are actually homeless before seeking help and support from the local authority.

Only last night, I was reviewing a case in my constituency and thought how useful this new prevention duty would be. The case concerns a family who are unlikely to be helped until they face the trauma of homelessness under the current legislation. In the Select Committee we looked at the evidence, and it found that the current statutory framework to support people facing homelessness is not fit for purpose. This new duty is one way in which we can make it fit for purpose.

A shift to prevention is about culture change within local authorities, but in certain circumstances it also has the potential to save local authorities money. Additional duties may increase the costs that local authorities face. However, in some cases the local authority ends up picking up the scandalous costs of nightly rate temporary accommodation if it waits until someone has become homeless before accepting a duty. Where those circumstances can be prevented and someone can be enabled to remain in their own home—perhaps by the local authority paying that rent for a short period, where the rent is lower than the scandalous costs of nightly rate temporary accommodation—there is potential for a focus on prevention to result in more efficient use of resources.

We cannot escape the fact that the current tools at local authorities’ disposal to undertake prevention are extremely limited. That is because we face a lack of supply of affordable housing in this country and because of the unregulated state of the private rented sector. We cannot escape the fact that the single biggest cause of new homelessness cases is the ending of a tenancy in the private rented sector. Until we address that, local authorities’ power to intervene to prevent homelessness for people living in the private rented sector is sorely limited. While the new duty is very important and significant in changing culture and practice within local authorities, I hope the Minister will reflect on the current limitations on the tools at local authorities’ disposal genuinely to prevent homelessness with the maximum possible effect.

We need to see a substantial reform of the private rented sector, longer forms of tenure introduced as standard and limits introduced on rent increases within the terms of a current tenancy. We also need reform of the section 21 process. There is provision in law for landlords who need their property returned to them for genuine reasons to do so without the section 21 provisions. I see in my constituency time and again the irresponsible and unethical use of section 21 notices, which causes instability for families and evicts people who have done no wrong—they have not failed to pay their rent or done anything to breach the terms of their tenancy, but they are simply made homeless so that the landlord can charge more rent to the next tenant. That practice is irresponsible and widespread, and the Government need to intervene outwith the bounds of this legislation to stop it.

I am fully supportive of the change in culture, practice and emphasis towards prevention. If we prevent some of the harshest consequences of homelessness, it will prevent many families from facing homelessness in the first place. That is the right thing to do. The Government need to take seriously the question of resourcing for local authorities in terms of front-line staff and additional burdens. They also need to look very carefully at the wider situation, because we have a private rented sector that is not fit for purpose for the many people who live in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will pick up just a few points that colleagues have raised during this debate on what I think essentially is the heart of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly alluded to the potential increase in applications to local authorities. I remind colleagues that, according to the House of Commons Library’s helpful briefing on the Bill, statutory homelessness applications—not acceptances—peaked in 2003-04 at nearly 300,000 cases and by 2010 had dropped to about 100,000. The point there is that individuals in a position whereby they know they will not get any help from a local authority will not go to it, but under the Bill everyone who is owed a duty will try to gain the assistance of a local authority. It is therefore natural that the case load will increase and, under the new burdens doctrine, I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that resources follow as appropriate.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and several other colleagues mentioned supply issues. I agree that we must increase supply, but that is beyond the scope of the Bill. She also alluded to reform of section 21 notices. Someone reminded me last night that this is already, I believe, the private Member’s Bill with the most clauses ever, so if we were to continue the process we would end up with a veritable dictionary. I agree that we must reform those notices, but that is also beyond the scope of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Westminster North rightly mentioned the shortage of housing and issues about the benefit cap and local housing allowance. Clearly that is for the Government to consider. It is appropriate for those issues to be raised in Committee but they are beyond the scope of the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter]

I note in passing that the title of the Bill includes the words,

“to make provision about measures for reducing homelessness”.

The hon. Gentlemen is courteous enough to say that it is reasonable to raise such matters. I would have thought that, given the matters covered by the Bill, the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and I have raised on supply, financial measures that are effectively increasing homelessness—whether LHA or other measures—and the nature of the private sector market are on point.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the Bill is part of an overall strategy. We must understand that, as we have said, the causes of homelessness are many and varied and the solutions are many and varied. Without doubt, supply is one of the key elements. The White Paper will be published soon—soon in Government terms seems to stretch quite a lot—and I look forward to its coming forward as quickly as possible so that we can debate increasing supply, which is important.

Several issues were raised in terms of the postcode lottery, with clear examples of potential rationing of services from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate in particular. We should remember that the Bill’s aim is a cultural change and dramatic shift in helping and advising people who are in desperate need of housing rather than having housing officers trying to trap them to stop having to provide them with help and assistance.

I note what my friend the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee said about its review and some of the issues raised. Pertinent points on the welfare system were made, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that they are raised with the appropriate Ministers so that they are looked at in the round as part of the overall strategy.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That in the Committee’s order of 23 November setting out the order in which the Bill be considered, leave out “Clauses 4 to 7, Clauses 10 to 13,” and insert “Clauses 4 to 6, Clauses 10 to 13, Clause 7”.

The purpose is to reorder consideration of the Bill, because we have discovered a technical problem with clause 7 that requires an amendment and we are awaiting clearance for that amendment before we can consider it in debate.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Chope. We do not oppose the variation, because it is important to get the drafting of the Bill accurate. I do however want to raise a concern. I am sure we are all capable of coping with taking clauses in any order, but, as we are now waiting on Government amendments in relation to clause 7 and, more importantly, clause 1, it would be useful to get an indication as to when those will be circulated. That is my first point.

Secondly, inevitably consideration will be stretched into the new year. I think there was probably an informal wish on both sides of the Committee that matters could be concluded before the recess but that clearly will not be possible. We have made our contribution to try to speed up the process in deeds rather than words by not moving several amendments and new clauses and either making those points more briefly in clause stand part debates that happen anyway, or by reserving the right to bring them back on Report.

I say that in the consensual spirit in which the Committee has largely proceeded thus far, but it would be helpful to get an idea of when the Bill’s promoter and the Government will be able to table the further amendments, whether we have some idea of when we might conclude, and whether it is in the mind of the promoter to schedule additional sittings—this is also a matter for you, Mr Chope—either before the recess next Tuesday, which is tight, or, if we are to sit on the morning of 11 January, later on that day or on another day that week. This event, as unfortunate as it may be, may focus our minds on those matters.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

To reassure the hon. Member for Hammersmith, the amendment to clause 7 is due to an unforeseen situation in relation to its drafting. He is correct that we need to get the Bill right and therefore we have had to take some additional time to change the drafting. He is also correct that a final version of clause 1 is still outstanding. I expect that those proposed changes to the Bill should be drafted shortly and laid in order to enable us to debate them on 11 January. If that were to be the case, I expect them to be laid by the Christmas recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The clear position is that, if relief efforts and reasonable steps in the plan have not been followed, the local authority can bring the duty to an end. That would still leave the applicant the opportunity of a review. For example, they might have agreed an action plan to accommodate them but not honoured their steps, or the local authority might not have honoured its steps. There can be a review at that point.

We need to be clear that there are duties on the applicant and the local authority. When people do not co-operate and behave unreasonably, it is not fair if others in desperate need and who are acting reasonably suffer—there will obviously be diminished efforts for them. Not paying the rent is a prime reason for someone to become intentionally homeless. That is a reasonable position to take.

Of course, an applicant might be entitled to benefits. Under those circumstances, if a local authority has not met the benefit requirements, it would be unreasonable to end the duty. That clearly has to be looked at on an individual basis.

Finally, it is up to the applicant if they wish to withdraw the application at any stage. I hope the duty would come to an end when a satisfactory position is achieved and the applicant has accommodation and is no longer homeless. With that, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter]

Alongside clause 4, clause 5 is a major part of the Bill and a major departure from current practice. We should all be aware when discussing the clause that it proposes a significant change to how homelessness legislation works.

We welcome both the 56-day period of assistance by local authorities to those who are not in priority need, and the requirement for six months with a possible extension to 12 months. I note that Shelter wishes to see a 12-month period, and we will see the Government’s response to that. We clearly do not want a yo-yo situation with people going into short-term accommodation and coming back. That will not be helpful either to that person or to the local authority, and 12 months might be a more appropriate period.

As I said, we welcome the measure although we do not underestimate the sea change. Let me highlight our concerns. First, will there be a knock-on effect from non-priority homeless to priority homeless? Local authorities, particularly those under heavy stress such as London boroughs and other metropolitan authorities, are finding it almost impossible to cope with the demands put on them by priority homeless cases. In theory, perhaps there should be no overlap. There has been a significant change since the first draft of the Bill, which I will come to in a moment, which means that the duty owed to non-priority homeless is very different from that owed to those in a priority situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend saw the report from the chief executive of Birmingham City Council on the news this week. He made specific reference to cuts to homelessness prevention expenditure, which he directly linked to the quadrupling of rough sleeping in the city of Birmingham. Does that in any way shape my hon. Friend’s view of the resource requirements?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We will debate homelessness in the main Chamber later today. I raised the example of social care not only because it is another example, and perhaps the clearest example, of the pressures on local authority finance, but because these matters are linked, and the Government need to look at them in a linked-up way. I note that the Government pray in aid the Bill in their amendment to the Opposition motion. That is all very well, but it works only if there is a joined-up and funded response to the pressures local government is under in terms of social care, supported housing, rough sleeping and homelessness legislation.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I encouraged the Minister to spell out where the money is coming from during our first sitting. The hon. Gentleman also recognised in his opening speech to the Committee that this is not only about the human cost, and that there is potentially a cost saving through the measures. If the Bill works—we sincerely hope it does, which is why we are here—there will be a long-term cost saving. The hon. Gentleman has recognised that potential, but does he still?

[Andy Slaughter]

I recognise that more in relation to the duty on prevention, but I do not want to go back to the debate we had last week. We are now talking about measures local authorities will have to take to secure accommodation. It is ironic hearing that from Government Members: every time the Opposition have mentioned the idea of investing to save—we argued for investing in housing advice services to prevent homelessness, and argued against cuts to legal aid—we have received a dusty answer. I will be glad if the hon. Gentleman is a convert. There will be costs up front even if there are savings down the line—people will be less reliant on services when they are properly housed, or indeed when homelessness is prevented. The key is that there will be substantive up-front costs.

What stands behind the Bill even more than the funding of local authorities in their discharge of the process is the fact that most local housing authorities, and particularly those in high-stress areas, are not in a benign climate. We are not in a climate in which chief executives and council leaders can sit down and say, “The law’s changed. We’d better now implement this. When people come into our homeless persons unit, we need to take it much more seriously and treat them not only with compassion but with efficiency. We need to secure them accommodation to the best of our ability.” Unfortunately, as a direct consequence of Government policy over the past six years, we are in the most hostile climate to those ambitions being achieved. That is true in relation to finance, the now reduced benefit cap, the bedroom tax and the freeze on local housing allowance.

It is also true of the private rented sector. The Government and the Housing and Planning Minister restated that only last week or the week before. The sector appears to be implacably opposed to longer tenancies, which we wish to see, and as part of that contractual change, to controls on rent increases. As we know, the serving of section 21 notices is currently the single greatest cause of homelessness. About 30% of people turning up at local authorities homeless are there because a section 21 notice has been served. At least part of that could be resolved by reform of that process.

On the other side, we are at a 24-year low in terms of the building of social housing. We know that the Government still, for the time being—I hope they see sense on this as they have in relation to other measures in the Housing and Planning Act 2016—intend to pursue not only the sale of housing association properties but the funding of that by the sale of high-value local authority properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North will correct me if I am wrong, but I think in her authority that means that the vast majority of council homes would have to be sold over a period because they are of high value. That is true of about 50% of the homes in my borough.

How can we realistically say we want local authorities to take on a major extension of their duties in relation to the provision of housing? One way they could do it, which I believe has been done in Welsh authorities—we see that as a template for the Bill in many ways—is by the use of authorities’ own accommodation. Stresses on social housing in Wales are much less than they are in London and other places. If the Government are not building social homes and actively encouraging or enforcing their sale, how on earth will the objective of the clause be discharged?

[Michael Tomlinson]

We started off in Committee with cross-party consensus that we want change—consensus has been the basis of many of the Bill Committees I have sat on, but particularly this one. However, for the last two or three minutes, the hon. Gentleman has made party political points about the past six years. I hear those points, and we will come back to section 21 arguments when we look at new clause 1. Does he not recognise the good intentions of not only the Bill’s promoter but the Government in backing clause 5?

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman and I have not had the pleasure of serving on the same Committee before, so he will not recognise that I am pulling my punches considerably and have engaged consensus mode for the duration. The Bill’s promoter recognises that because we have been in this position many times before. Yes, my points are party political to the extent that his Government have got so much wrong in the provision of housing supply, particularly for people who need social housing and genuinely affordable housing. That must be addressed, but I have tried to put that in non-party political terms as a fact.

I have gone through, in a short period, a long list of issues that I believe are compounding the housing crisis at the bottom end. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to get up and gainsay that—he might have some other points to make in a sparring way. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is correct that there is not a great deal of point in getting into a long tennis match in Committee, but I want to put on record that we cannot pass the Bill with our eyes closed and say, “Once it exists as statute, everything will be resolved.”

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to restrain himself to consensus mode as far as possible, and that he wants to avoid going into issues for later debates and stand part debates. However, although he gave a poke if not a punch to the Government’s record, the autumn statement takes us in the right direction—it included the housing deal for more than £1 billion with the Mayor of London, providing flexibility of tenure and 2,000 accommodation places for those with complex needs. Those are the people who are particularly affected and who we are concerned about. As part of a wider package, that will help to provide the resources to fulfil the duties in the clause.

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Hammersmith answers that, I think we are in danger of getting away from the specifics of the clause.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful, Mr Chope. I was about to conclude my remarks. I note in response to the hon. Gentleman only that, if he is inviting me to congratulate the Mayor of London on making an excellent start in his housing policies, I reluctantly join him in doing so.

I do not know how much detail the Minister wants to give in responding, but I would like some acknowledgment not only that he will get the financing of local authorities right in the execution of the Bill, but that something must happen in relation to housing supply. I note what London Councils sent to us for the debate. The estimated spend by London boroughs on temporary accommodation alone in 2014-15 was £633 million, of which £170 million was met from boroughs’ own funds.

Responses have alluded to this, but I would welcome confirmation from the Government that, following the changes from the original draft, nothing in the Bill will require local authorities to provide accommodation, and rather that they will be required only to assist. As the Minister will understand, that is of huge concern to local authorities, because a requirement to provide would take the burdens under the Bill from being onerous to insuperable. I believe the Government recognise that in the changes. We would all wish for people who are not priority homeless to be able to access good quality social housing, as may have been available in previous generations, but there is a social housing crisis in this country and it is not available.

[David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)]

I strongly believe that early intervention is essential in preventing homelessness and minimising all the stress and trauma that goes with it. However, we have all seen situations whereby people have come to local authorities, presenting themselves as homeless, and it is incredibly frustrating when they are seen as in non-priority need. In the eyes of many people they are homeless, and they require action from the local authority, which is not forthcoming. It is frustrating for Members of Parliament when we see that and get involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

We have had a wide-ranging debate on this clause. I will answer some of the points raised.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith raised important issues such as the knock-on effects for priority need households of extending the duty to single homeless and others who previously did not come under it. That is an important aspect of the Bill and one of the reasons why there will be funding for it under the new burdens doctrine. We look forward to the Minister announcing the extent of that funding soon—that is parlance that I have heard from colleagues across the House. This is clearly an issue, and we do not want to get to a position where priority need households are disadvantaged at all as a result of these new measures.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the 24-year low in building social rented accommodation. To correct my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, I think we can all say that the Government’s record-breaking £3.15 billion settlement with London for it to build 90,000 affordable homes is a great start to the process. The provision of housing goes beyond the scope of the Bill, but it is of course part and parcel of the whole process. If we give local authorities duties to help and advise and provide accommodation, we need that accommodation. Forgive me, Mr Chope, but I recall the hon. Member for Hammersmith opposing tooth and nail the Transport for London Bill, which I took through, and provided for TfL to supply affordable housing across London. I am sure he regrets that opposition now that his colleague the new Mayor of London can implement that wide-ranging and far-sighted proposal, which I had the honour of making.

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not want to test your patience, Mr Chope, but the issue with the Transport for London Bill was that TfL was building out schemes with no additional social housing and virtually no affordable housing. I am delighted to say that under new management, it is a reformed character.

[Bob Blackman]

The issue, of course, was giving TfL the power to develop housing; the political control of the delivery of that is up to politicians. You will be delighted to know that I will not be diverted any further, Mr Chope.

The other important point that the hon. Member for Hammersmith raised was that in the original draft Bill, there was provision for emergency accommodation for non-priority households. That would clearly be an extreme extra burden on local authorities. In our discussions before we produced the final version of the Bill that was introduced, I reluctantly agreed that we should remove that provision on the basis that it would produce major costs for local authorities, particularly in London. That is not to say that I would not like that provision to be in the Bill—I would. It would clearly be an extremely important contribution, but it would be very expensive, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been removed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South raised the important issue of applicants’ frustration. I went out last night with St Mungo’s night patrol to identify homeless people on the streets of the City of London and help its clients. One of the volunteers made clear that he was a non-priority individual. He had gone to his local authority, which had just said, “Sorry, nothing to do with us.” He was very proactive, but had he got the help and advice that he needed up front, he would not have become homeless. That is exactly what we are attempting to achieve with the Bill; as we have said, we have to change the culture set by changing the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of reasonable steps, which I trust the Minister’s answers have set out. It is difficult to prescribe those in legislation. We have to rely on a local authority understanding its duties and ensuring that it delivers them in a reasonable manner. To prescribe all those steps would be too prescriptive and would prevent local authorities from trying new ways of delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. We will come later to the duty of the local authority to inspect properties. This is a sensible change that would mean that local authorities could work much more efficiently and households would have more choice over where they live. That is often a key demand. In our surgeries, people often say that local authorities are making offers of properties in completely unreasonable locations. This measure would give applicants far more control over their future lives. I trust that we can agree to the clause and move on.

[Andy Slaughter]

I was not going to speak to the clause, but I will do so briefly because the debate has taken a slightly surreal turn. My reading of the clause is exactly the opposite of that of the hon. Gentleman.

The picture painted by some of the interventions is that non-priority homeless people are taking their pick of attractive properties in the area and may be competing with others or people who are not in the same market, and that local authorities might intervene with some bureaucratic procedure to stop them doing that.

My reading of the clause is that if somebody goes to a local authority with a duty under clause 5, it is much less restricted in how it can discharge that duty than would be the case for priority homeless people. That is why Shelter has asked for it to be made clear that this should be suitable accommodation under the 2012 homelessness regulations.

It would be wrong of me to oppose the clause. As I said in my remarks on clause 5, the onerous additional burdens placed on local authorities are likely to lead to their duty towards priority homeless people being subverted by the new duties. However, we should go into these matters with our eyes open. It will not be the applicant but the local authority that will be given a greater degree of flexibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct that this will be less bureaucratic and more effective, but to paint a picture that it somehow gives the keys to the housing market to those who come to local authorities with such a degree of need is, at best, wishful thinking.

[Mr Jones]

Clause 6 adds clarity to the homelessness prevention and relief duties. It ensures that the requirements that a local housing authority must meet when securing accommodation for applicants itself do not apply when it takes steps to help to secure accommodation. That common sense change means that authorities can work more efficiently and can direct resources to where they are needed most, and that households get the help they need while retaining their ability to make their own choices about where they live. The Government are therefore happy to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Duty of public authority to refer cases to local housing authority

--- Later in debate ---

That co-operation might be in tackling mental health problems, debt problems or a whole range of different issues that a homeless person has that must be tackled to ensure that that person can eventually get back into accommodation. Public authorities might also deal with other problems that might exist in homeless people’s lives. I hope the Minister sees this as a helpful contribution. If it does not go far enough and is a little timid in its approach, I look forward to the Minister’s suggesting how it might be strengthened.

[Andy Slaughter]

I support the amendment standing in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee. I had a similar amendment on the duty to co-operate between public bodies and local authorities, which I have not tabled. Both amendments would effectively have done the same thing.

Co-operation is important, but it runs both ways. As the Chair of the Select Committee has indicated, it is important because local authorities cannot achieve the objectives of the Bill on their own. Let me give an example that I came across last Friday: I spent the morning visiting the in-patient mental health unit in my constituency, where I was told that about a third of the beds there are occupied by people who are ready for discharge but have nowhere to go. In many cases those people will be referred to the local authority. The answer to the question of whether that is new is yes, it is relatively new.

I am not criticising local authorities, but the problem is that whereas they might have previously taken something on trust or accepted that they had a prima facie duty for it, they will now be much more scrupulous or detailed in looking at whether that duty is owed simply because of the demand on their services. They will do that across the board, even when dealing with other public authorities. The net effect will simply be to shift the burden from one part of the public sector to another, with the consequence that people either might not get the best care or might prevent others from getting the care that they need.

Accepting the amendment is absolutely crucial to the proper functioning of the Bill. One would hope that the public sector works in a joined-up way, and that Departments work in a joined-up way, but that is not always the case, so we would do well to give any encouragement to that.

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I welcome the intention and principle behind it, particularly because it flows into clause 10; it is just seeing how far it will bite. I particularly welcome the principle of joined-up services—we sometimes get sick of talking about joined-up Government, and it often does not mean that—when dealing with the concerns at the heart of clause 10, which is about trying to ensure that there is better co-ordination and co-operation.

As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I make particular reference to complex needs and to those people facing multiple disadvantage, and to the need to ensure that there is real co-operation. The litmus test of clause 10 is the implications of referrals for those with the most need and facing the most disadvantage. There is a particular impact on health: almost twice as many who use homeless services have long-term physical health problems and mental health diagnoses compared with the general public, and the average age of people who die while homeless is 47, which is scandalous.

That particularly comes into play when dealing with those who come into contact with health services in one form or another. Not least, homeless people might struggle to register with a GP because of not having a permanent address. A vicious cycle goes on where they end up in crisis management and in A&E. It is then a further scandal when the intervention that needs to take place at that stage does not. At the heart of the Bill is the fact that early intervention and preventive duties should not just stem from when people come into contact with the housing department. When they are in contact with the health services, and not least when they end up at A&E, that should lead to an intervention and referral, which leads to the co-operation that we want.

St Mungo’s has been on this case for a long time and has drawn attention to it with the “Homeless Health Matters” campaign. Before the Bill, it sought to have a charter that local authorities signed up to so that co-operation happened on an informal level. I believe that clause 10 takes things a huge step further as regards the statutory duty on referrals. The issue is how much further it explicitly needs to go with a mandatory requirement to co-operate across departments.

I also support the principle behind the amendment because, in many ways, it is already happening across Government—regardless of the cynicism that is around. One only has to look at the issue of violence against women and girls, which is a concern that we all share. If one looks at the national statement of expectations published on 7 December, one sees that it is all about co-operation. That comes from the Home Office and has a welcome two-year fund for refuges and other forms of accommodation. There is also all the extra investment in social impact bonds, in which co-operation is very much inbuilt. There are those with complex needs and the multi-agency approach that is used, although often not well enough. Sometimes these things are based around funding streams, and we need to see that happening across the country. The question is whether the duty to refer will help to ensure that good practice does happen across the country.

To home in on women—who are, sadly, some of the most vulnerable and face complex needs—the national statement of expectations from 7 December says:

“To deliver this, commissioners should…consider whether an individual may have complex needs or suffer from multiple disadvantage and, if so, the services in place to manage these…Commissioners should consider how these detect and respond to women’s experiences”

of violence, and ensure that there are services for them. That has come from the Home Office but plainly interacts across all Departments, and there is that expectation that it be delivered. At the end, the statement talks about how local authority, housing and homelessness policies must take account of sexual violence. That is included in the Bill in relation to the duties on advisory services; it is welcome that domestic violence is included, not least because of the work of the Select Committee.

The question is whether the Bill needs to go further in terms of a mandatory requirement for co-operation, or whether this referral will supplement and complement what is now happening to a much greater extent across Government. There is greater recognition and understanding of complex needs. Many of us have talked over the years about multi-agency approaches and joined-up government until we were blue in the face, but sadly these most vulnerable people are not getting what they need and deserve.

My view, which has been a common thread in discussions on the Bill, is that we need to balance doing what we can to ensure that this is a groundbreaking Bill—as I believe it is—that will help to provide greater support, preventive work and co-operation with whether this amendment will provide additional burdens across Government and have unintended consequences. Although it may provide a mandatory requirement—that, in many ways, is already the intention across Government—it might lead to additional financial burdens, which might lead to additional bureaucracy that might get in the way of the local co-operation between services that we want delivered on the ground. I am not convinced. If there is a proper fulfilment of the duty to refer, which may be wrapped up in guidance, having a mandatory co-operation requirement may provide additional undue financial burdens across Government and create bureaucracy that might, sadly, get in the way of what we want to do, which is to co-operate across services.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the intention is to lay out that individuals have responsibilities and must follow their actions. There is however a concern that in some local authorities—not all, but some—there could be an impact on priority need and vulnerable households. I expect that amendments will be tabled on Report to revise the position and make clear that we are talking, as I have said, about those who deliberately and unreasonably refuse to co-operate, but also to ensure that we do not impact the main relief duty. We have striven from the word go not to change the impact on individuals who are owed a responsibility by their local authority already.

I will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Minister to bring forward a package of amendments on Report, which I hope we will all be able to support. If Committee members want to put particular comments on the record so that we can use them in our deliberations between now and Friday, when we need to table the amendments for Report, I would be very keen to hear them. I will be working on the amendments over the next week, and I hope that Members will be able to support them when they come before the House.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I greatly missed the Committee last week.

[Bob Blackman]

We missed you, too.

[Andy Slaughter]

I hear what the promoter is saying, but I am sure that it is not true, because the Committee had the services of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. It is always dangerous to ask someone to stand in for you when they are more experienced, competent and knowledgeable on the subject, but there we are.

I will not be long on this clause. With all due respect to the promoter and the Minister, if we are to debate it all over again on Report, and we have yet to have the benefit of the amendments, I would rather wait and see what happens then. It is unfortunate that the Bill has had to be sliced in this way, and that we are jumping around from clause to clause. I understand that we all want to get it right, but it is not an ideal way to proceed, as will be clear when we come to clause 1. We Opposition Members will try to be as disciplined and organised as we can be, in order not to repeat ourselves or lengthen the debate more than is necessary, which is the guidance we have heard from Mr Chope as well.

Therefore, all I will say on clause 7 is that we do not oppose it; it is a necessary clause, because there has to be some sanction or limitation on the relationship between the applicant and the local authority. The key issue is getting the balance right. What is the balance? I pose the question, which may be better answered on Report, when we know the full extent of the clause. We are all familiar with the term “unreasonable”, but are perhaps less familiar with the term “deliberate”. There have been perfectly reasonable representations from both sides, if I can put it that way—from Shelter and from the Association of Housing Advice Services. One side of the argument is that it is essential that the bar is set very high, so that local authorities cannot evade their duty; on the other hand, the process must not be overly bureaucratic, or effectively provide no sanction because the applicant would be entitled to the same assistance as they would if they had not deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. That question hangs in the air. As for the definition of “deliberate” and what might constitute that behaviour or how authorities would define it, that is a question that the Minister or the promoter may wish to deal with, although it may not be a matter for today.

I reserve any further comments. It is regrettable that we are doing this on Report. I remember having a conversation early on with the promoter, in which I said, “We might wish to table some clauses on Report,” and he said, “Can you please ensure that you do that in Committee, so that we have a clean run at Report and Third Reading?” I think I may have to table something on Report myself now; we will see.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned unreasonable behaviour. I completely take his point and agree with what he says, but in clause 7, there is a definition to help local authorities define what the characteristics of unreasonable behaviour would be. Would he anticipate, as I do, that that sort of subsection will be essential in any sort of rewriting, to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected?

[Andy Slaughter]

Yes, but “unreasonable” is a term with which we and, more importantly, the courts are familiar, if a matter has to reach that point. “Deliberate” is a rarer and higher standard, and that term gives me pause, but I think the consensus is that it needs to be there, because “unreasonable” is not sufficient. I only ask for a slightly clearer exemplification.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever and makes an excellent point. Clearly, amendments will be tabled on Report. I assure him that anything in those amendments that constitutes a new burden on local authorities will be dealt with in the same way. There is nothing in the statement that we have already made that is not in the Bill today. If there are any additional costs as a result of amendments tabled on Report, they will quite correctly be dealt with separately from the £48 million that we announced in our statement. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

Amendments 16 and 17 represent the best balance between the interests of tenants, landlords and local housing authorities. I believe that the schedule of new burdens costs that we have set out for the Bill is fair and we did our homework in relation to the calculation of those costs. The clause is part of the excellent package that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has brought together with the support of the Select Committee, the Government, housing charities, and in the main local authorities. I am pleased to propose that the Committee supports the amendments and clause 1 as amended.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If I understood you this morning, Mr Chope, you would like single speeches addressing both the amendments and clause stand part. That is a sensible way to proceed. I observe in parenthesis that I would be the first person to be accused of being a hypocrite if I was to deprecate a filibuster. The only thing that I say is that in my experience, one usually does that when one does not care for the legislation one is talking over. I say to the promoter, the hon. Member for Harrow East, that I would hate, for the sake of posterity, for this debate to be one of rather more quantity than quality. I will try to set a good example by being clear, precise and concise while I hope covering the relevant points.

It would be churlish to say that the Government or the promoter have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse by spending several weeks mulling over what we should do with clause 1 and then deleting 95% of it. I also asked those advising us to have a look at it and they could not come up with much better than deleting most of clause 1. So there it is; that is where we are. There is broad agreement that the new slimline version of clause 1 is better than the old version, so I concede that point. There were technical and policy difficulties with the original version and the more that everyone looked into them, the more irreconcilable and unresolvable they became. Although the revised version is better, there are still problems. I will not ask the Minister to respond to those problems today, but do ask him at least to look at some of the concerns and to consider, perhaps before the Bill emerges in the other place, whether clause 1 does the entire job.

Rather than spend a long time outlining the problems, let me just give two examples. The Association of Housing Advice Services said:

“There is government guidance that requires councils to make a decision on a homelessness application within 33 working days (about 42 days). As an applicant is now threatened with homelessness as soon as they receive a section 21 notice, we must take the homelessness application at that point. Which means we will need to determine the application…before the S21 notice has expired and often whilst prevention work is still being undertaken. If we succeed in preventing”—

that is the local authorities—

“homelessness after the application has been decided, we have to formally end it with an offer of accommodation; which is unnecessarily bureaucratic as they (still) have somewhere to live. Currently if we are negotiating with a landlord, we can delay starting the homelessness application (as they are not yet threatened with homelessness) until that fails.”

However, Shelter says that

“in cases where the prevention assistance does not prevent proceedings or help find an alternative home, the amendment to Clause 1 would allow the local housing authority say that the applicant was not actually homeless right up to the date of eviction. Only homeless applicants in priority need are entitled to interim accommodation, so authorities would not be obliged to provide interim accommodation until the applicant actually became homeless, which could still be interpreted by local authorities as the date of the eviction.”

I am not saying that I entirely agree with either of those points, but they are worthy of consideration and are caveats to how the amended clause would run. They are not necessarily consistent with each other; indeed, in some respects they contradict each other. I just feel that we may not have resolved the fundamental issue with clause 1, although we have gone some way towards that.

My other concern relates to Government amendment 17 to clause 1, which refers to a “valid” section 21 notice having been served. What is a valid section 21 notice? I earned quite a lot of money arguing over that for a number of years, but in the end it was not my decision—it was the judge’s decision as to what would be valid. In this case, I assume it will be the view of the local authority, but will it be correct and does it have the full facts on which to determine what is a valid section 21 notice? These things can be quite technical and complicated, and there is a body of case law, not surprisingly, as a no-fault eviction, which is what the section 21 notice is all about, behoves representatives and courts to look even more closely at the technical side of the matter.

Notwithstanding what the Minister said about section 8 notices, the new version of the clause does deal with section 21 notices. Again, these are technical legal points, so rather than the Minister responding today, he might want to go away and reconsider them before Report or even before the Bill goes through the other place. I was not entirely persuaded as to whether there is some inequality between the serving of a section 21 notice—a no-fault process—and a section 8 notice. Of course, there are other types of tenancy as well, some of which are less secure than assured shorthold tenancies, which can be terminated by a notice to quit. Where do they stand? Given that the Bill does not deal with the myriad tenancies under housing law, but with anyone who is made homeless, we need to able to deal with those matters comprehensively. I entirely understand the problem of trying to draft something that deals with section 8 notices as well as section 21 notices, but nevertheless we need to hear a little more at some stage about how the clause will impact on those tenancies—a minority, probably—that are terminated other than by a section 21 notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

Having seen the announcement from the Government for the £48 million, I was surprised to see the response from the LGA. I expected its response to be, “It’s not enough. It’s never enough. It cannot possibly be enough.” In fact, its response was the opposite. It agreed fully with the Department’s methodology, which is a huge credit to the Minister and his departmental officials. Why does the hon. Member for Hammersmith suggest it is not enough? The LGA has only said that the measure should be reviewed in two years’ time, two thirds of the way into the three-year funding formula.

[Andy Slaughter]

We can all read the statements in the way that we wish to. Everybody wants the Bill to succeed. In the statements made not just by the LGA but by London councils and non-governmental organisations, I detected a sigh and a comment that seemed to suggest, “We hope this will succeed”. I did not see anything in the LGA’s statement or any other statement that said the funding was sufficient. The LGA’s statement welcomed the Minister’s comments in Committee that the Government wish to fully fund the Bill. I do not think it specifically said—hence the comment on review—that that was necessarily going to be the case. Let me rely on my own counsel rather than the LGA’s in this matter. I am simply raising our concerns.

It is difficult—I will concede this to the Government—to come up with a figure, because we are in new territory. I appreciate that. That should be an absolute reason why the Government should adopt the view of the LGA and agree to a review. Perhaps the Minister will say whether we will get a review. If it is right that none of us can be absolutely certain, we need to know, within the time that the money is still being paid out, which is effectively one to two years, whether the money will be sufficient.

[David Mackintosh]

It is fair to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Communities and Local Government yesterday circulated to local authorities and us the background behind the funding of the new burdens for this Bill, which includes quite a lot of information about the assumptions. It talks in great detail about Wales, where there was a 28% increase in cases, and works out a sensible assumption for England. It is helpful to point that out to the Committee. I wonder whether he has seen it.

[Andy Slaughter]

Of course I have seen it and read it. I was slightly surprised that it appears to have come personally from the DCLG statistician, rather than the Minister. I do not know whether that is to allow the Minister, if it all turns to dust, to say, “Oh, it was just some functionary who produced that”—[Interruption.] Let me take the points one at a time.

First, there is the matter of quantum. Although we do not have absolute figures, because we are in new territory, all the indications so far—I quoted some of them earlier—suggest that £48 million is not going to touch the sides. I am sure the responsible Minister saw the article in “Inside Housing” on 21 December, in which a number of councils volunteered what they think it will cost them. Lewisham, for example, said it would cost £2.38 million per year and Ealing said it would cost £2.55 million per year. AHAS estimated, and I think the figure has increased since then, that the 32 London boroughs will have a combined bill of £161 million in the first year, which is substantially in excess of £35 million.

I appreciate that even in the two pages of methodology there has been no attempt yet to divvy the sum up among authorities, and I think one can anticipate that London authorities are going to get a larger share than some rural or district authorities. Nevertheless, there is such a disparity between what the professional bodies and local authorities have estimated and what the Minister has provided. It is, shall we say, unlikely that it is going to fully fund, even in the first year, the local authorities’ new responsibilities.

[Mr Jones]

We do not recognise some of the very high figures that have been quoted. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is within the scope of the Bill and what will be within the new burdens. There is also the question whether the savings that will offset the costs have been taken into account. Has the hon. Gentleman done any homework and asked the local authorities in question whether they have considered those issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister is getting ahead of me. I am dealing simply with quantum now. I will come on to the methodology next and the savings as a third point.

There is an estimated gap of nearly £200 million by the end of the decade in local authorities’ current homelessness provision. If one looks at the fact that London boroughs spent £633 million in the last year for which figures were available—2014-15—on temporary accommodation, including £170 million of their own funds, and the fact that they are already subject to substantial reductions in funding, I am not surprised that they are very concerned about that. That is purely on the issue of quantum.

On the issue of methodology, I am not sure how far it takes us. Although something is better than nothing, I found it a slightly odd way of presenting the background information. I would like to see a full impact assessment. I appreciate that we may need to wait until we know exactly what the Bill is going to do. There may need to be a review of provision—the methodology concedes that—but once we know how the sum is going to be broken down, I would like to know exactly how the Government can justify their claim that this will be new burdens funding and that it will be fully funded.

On the issue of savings, of course we all hope for savings, not only cash savings but savings in human misery, bureaucracy and unnecessary action. I am, however, less sanguine than the Minister about the fact that that will all be resolved in one to two years. In part I say that because much of what the Bill will do is to encourage what we have often heard called a culture, a culture of local authorities doing more by way of prevention. Yet in a lot of the busiest authorities, prevention work is done—in 80% of cases in Camden, for example—so quite a lot is going on, and I am not persuaded that we will see an immediate culture change, or that that culture change will produce savings.

Savings are likely to come by averting homelessness for priority need cases, because that is where the substantial burden of cost comes. At the moment part of the point of the Bill is that a lot of local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously in relation to non-priority need cases. Thereby, if we simply see an increased focus on those cases on which there is not current expenditure, or people being turned away, I do not quite see where the savings are coming from or where the supposition comes that within two years there will be nil cost to local government. To be perfectly honest, I just do not believe it.

We could sit here all afternoon saying, “We think it is”, or, “We think it isn’t”, but surely the sensible course is to have an early review to see whether the LGA’s caution or the Minister’s option is justified.

[Mr Burrowes]

I want to encourage an optimistic view, perhaps even a realistic one. The Welsh choice led to that 69% decrease in the first year. I understand that the assumption in the figures we are discussing is for a 30% decrease in homelessness, but is that not seeking simply to follow the Welsh model, which is a great success? The shadow Minister, however, says that there will be hardly any reduction or savings. He cannot say that. What is his concern with 30%? Is 30% too optimistic? Where would he say there will be reduction?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The principal way in which a case could be resolved in Wales was by finding accommodation. We have been talking about Westminster for half a day, and we know that for the authorities with the most pressing housing need, finding accommodation is virtually impossible. It is not impossible in Wales; it is virtually impossible in many London boroughs. Resolving those issues will be expensive in any event—there is a higher cost attached, whether it is to mediation, landlord incentive, deposit schemes or whatever—but there is also less ability to do anything, so it will take more time and be more difficult to do. So yes, I am pessimistic about it compared with the situation in Wales.

If we do not know the answer, let us make sure that we build in a mechanism to ensure that we do know. I am sure that the Scots will agree with this, even if Conservative Members do not, but we do not want the initiative to fail, and certainly not for lack of resources. I will be delighted to make a public statement of having been totally wrongheaded about this if it turns out that within 18 months there is no additional cost to local authorities under the provisions of the Bill. At the moment, however, I am somewhat dubious about that. The Minister may call my bluff simply by agreeing to what the LGA wants.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman talks about 18 months’ time. Does he accept that the chances are that, in 18 months’ time, we will have only a matter of months’ worth of evidence on the effect of the policy and the costs and savings from it? It needs to be looked at over a longer period. The LGA is saying two years, but that is not 18 months.

[Andy Slaughter]

I said 18 months because the money runs out in two years, as a maximum, but if the Minister wants to say two years, let us say two years.

My final point is one that I suspect the Minister has heard before. It is difficult to look at the Bill, especially the funding element of it, in a vacuum. There is a supply crisis, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) urged the Government before Christmas to make additional properties available that were dedicated to relieving rough sleeping. Supply is a many-headed issue, but there is a specific issue about rehousing those who are in a particularly vulnerable position.

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne may talk a good game, but the Government are playing one. We are putting in place move-on accommodation, and we are going to spend £100 million on providing 2,000 places for the very people that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is talking about. Does he welcome that?

[Andy Slaughter]

I gave way to the Minister because he was so insistent that I thought he had something new to say.

Supply is an issue, and so is security. We know—Government Members have said it today—that the biggest cause of homelessness is ending private sector tenancies, because of the opportunity for “no fault” possession and because of rising rents and landlord attitudes. Our very sensible and moderate proposals for longer tenancies and for controlling rents would be a major way of controlling homelessness. The Government cannot ignore their own actions in relation to local housing allowance, the benefit cap and all the measures that we have heard mentioned today. I pray in aid Westminster City Council and other Conservative authorities, which are saying that they cannot cope because of the additional pressures that the Government are putting on them. Those pressures go right across the board for local authorities.

I will not labour the point. I simply say that the Government need to take a holistic approach and say, “Yes, of course we want the Bill’s provisions to work and we want to fund them properly.” However, we cannot do only that. We have to look at where the accommodation is going to be, at why people are increasingly coming to local authorities—there has been a substantial, 40% increase in the use of temporary accommodation over the last four years—and at the effects of other policies that are directly contrary to the intentions behind the Bill. I put that on the record. The question of money relates not just to the specific matters raised in the Bill, but to how the system works as a whole. At the moment the system is creaking incredibly. It is not getting better; it is getting worse.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I begin by picking up on one or two points from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. On a positive, optimistic note, let me start by saying what I agree with in his analysis of clause 1. He mentioned several other forms of tenancies, such as less secure tenancies; perhaps he could also have mentioned licences or those that are subject to a notice to quit rather than the more strict section 21 notice or court procedure. I agree with his analysis on that point. There are a wide range of tenancies that could have been encompassed within the clause but are not. I suspect that his analysis is right: that that is because of the sheer difficulty of juggling all the different potential tenancies. Look at the different Acts that we have to deal with, and that he had to deal with when in practice: the 1980, 1985, 1988 and 1996 Acts, all with varying levels and layers of interplay. I suspect that is why we find clause 1 drafted as it is.

I agree, to that extent, that as drafted and certainly as amended, the clause does not encompass a wide range of different forms of tenancy, especially those less secure. I will come back to section 8 and its interplay with section 21. However, I take issue with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members on criticising and being too antagonistic towards no-fault notices and that regime. I agree that it is desirable to have as long-form tenancies as possible and I was heartened by the Minister’s submission that confirmed that the average tenancy is four years. The Minister is nodding, so I heard that correctly.

Of course, that is not the whole picture but four years is a significant period. My concern, if no-fault tenancies are simply swept aside or undermined, is that landlords and potential landlords will be put off purchasing and letting out properties, so we would be in a worse position. That is a concern that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his colleagues should look out for if they seek to undermine no-fault tenancies and those who are, on the whole, perfectly good, decent landlords, as we heard this morning. I will pick up later the points the hon. Gentleman raised on finances and his self-professed pessimistic view on life. I will encourage him to have a slightly rosier view by the time my speech finishes. Whether I succeed is another story. I see he is busy looking at his papers.

I start with sounding alarm bells on what the Minister mentioned in relation to finance of further potential burdens on local authorities. I mentioned earlier that I had had meetings with East Dorset District Council. My constituency covers three local authorities—East Dorset, Purbeck and Poole—and each will be concerned about additional burdens if additional resources do not match them.

I want to come back to finances but I was heartened by the reassurance that, if there are to be further amendments—as we understand there will be on Report—there will be an opportunity for additional funding. I simply ask that the Minister, as he has done at this stage, gives an early indication when the new clause is considered on Report of the level of funding he assesses as necessary.

I support the principle of clause 1 but my concern relates to notices given under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Although amendment 17 looks like it offers a neat proposal, in fact it sweeps away any reference to a valid notice being given under section 8. The Minister began to give an explanation of why notices given under section 8 are to be swept away, but I fear he did not give us as complete an answer as he may or should have done.

Section 8 notices are important. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith noted, section 21 notices are no-fault notices, whereas section 8 notices are given where there has been fault, where there has been a breach of a tenancy agreement. Section 8 notices are divided into two parts: mandatory and discretionary. If an allegation that a tenant has breached a mandatory obligation is proved, a judge as of right will give a possession order. That is the mandatory part of the notices given under section 8. If it is an allegation under the discretionary part, there is discretion as to whether a judge would make an order for possession. I therefore fear that throwing all section 8 notices out might not have been as wise a move as it looked, because what section 8 and section 21 notices have in common—at least partly—is that they may inevitably lead to a possession order.

Although I note the reasons that the Minister gave for keeping section 21 notices in—they are mandatory, and it is all but likely that they will lead to a possession order in any event—those reasons also apply to the mandatory part of notices given under section 8. Take arrears of rent: if there are two months’ worth of arrears, both when the notice is issued and when the matter arrives at court, a possession order is mandatory, as it is in a no-fault procedure in relation to section 21.

However, I take on board what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said: there might still be a dispute about whether the correct notice has been given under section 21. I have stopped practising—I understand he has, too—but since October 2015, there has been a new regime for section 21 notices. They now have to be done on a mandatory form, whereas under the old system, when I was practising, there was no prescribed form for what a section 21 notice looked like.

I fear that throwing out all section 8 notices narrows things down too much, which is potentially unhelpful for those who inevitably will end up homeless. That is the thrust of clause 1 and why it has been devised: to help those who inevitably will end up homeless by inserting into section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 a change to the definition of homelessness. If it is inevitable that an individual—a tenant—will end up homeless, it is worth looking again at whether the mandatory parts of notices under section 8 should still fall into clause 1 as well.

We all want as many people helped as possible. I said I will come back to finance, but it is relevant in this instance as well. The more people who are helped earlier, the more it will help with the costs to them, local authorities, and housing associations or anyone who needs to take proceedings in court. It will also help in respect of the human cost. My understanding is that the clause’s intention is to help people who are inevitably going to end up homeless, so I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, to address this point: why have all section 8 notices been taken out, instead of retaining just the mandatory ones, where it is all but inevitable that a possession order will be granted?

I want to make a related point that shows the complexity of the Housing Acts. Perhaps at some stage a Government will be bold enough to look at a consolidation Bill—or perhaps not. Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 is still in force. It relates to pleas of exceptional hardship, but that would only delay possession and not stop it. It is not a defence; it is only a mechanism to delay the inevitable. Even with that in place, it is still inevitable that people will be made homeless, and therefore help should be provided at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

On a point of order, Mr Chope. As we have reached the end of the proceedings, I would like to thank you for your patient, good-natured and flexible chairing of the Committee. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee both for attending these sittings and for their contributions, which have added to the Bill and to our consideration of the amendments. The discussion has been consistently conducted in a consensual spirit. We have had the odd point of disagreement, which is healthy, but I believe we have worked well together to scrutinise the Bill and ensure it is returned to the House in a good state. That follows the excellent work of the Select Committee that preceded the Bill’s coming to us.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for marshalling the full resources of the Department to ensure that the Government support the Bill, and for allowing his officials, lawyers and the Bill team to help to draft the Bill and address issues as and when they have been identified. Finally, I thank the Clerks and the Doorkeepers for managing the Committee.

I look forward to seeing all Committee members when we next debate the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House. I feel confident that Members on both sides of the House will be able to support it in good conscience. The Report stage will take place on Friday 27 January, and the administrative arrangements for anyone who wishes to table amendments will be circulated to give them proper notice. With that, I thank you, Mr Chope, all members of the Committee and everyone who has been involved in reaching this stage of the process.

[Andy Slaughter]

Further to that point of order, Mr Chope. I echo the thanks expressed by the Bill’s promoter to everyone involved thus far. We all agree that the sittings have been conducted with civility and, where possible, consensus. I will leave it there, other than to thank you particularly, Mr Chope, for your forbearance. Perhaps the proceedings have been a little more helter-skelter than is common in such Committees; you may have been reminded of the national lottery by the random manner in which the clauses were drawn for debate. None the less, with your usual sang froid you have kept us in order, so thank you very much.

[Mr Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Chope. I add my thanks to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Hammersmith for your chairmanship of the Committee; you kept us in order throughout. I thank colleagues on both sides for their contributions on this important measure.

I particularly thank the Opposition Front Benchers for the spirit in which they have approached the Bill so far. It is a rare experience to be on a Committee where there is such a consensus, and I shall probably have to wait a little while before I experience another that operates in the same way. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that there had been a bit of a lottery for the clauses, but as someone who does the lottery now and again I feel we have probably had more success with the Bill than I ever do with that—although it has not always been all that easy.

I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for the energy and determination, and at times patience, that he has shown during the Committee sittings. It is not easy to negotiate one’s way through a Bill when there are so many different interests that we understandably want to work with on getting things right.

I also thank the officials who have worked so hard on the Bill. Parliamentary counsel worked extremely hard, especially during the many periods of recess, Christmas holidays and so on. Finally, I thank the Clerks and Doorkeepers, who have done a sterling job.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Restriction on the termination of assured shorthold tenancies—

‘(1) After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 (Assured shorthold tenancies: post-Housing Act 1996 tenancies) insert—

“Section 19B longer term tenancies

Any assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after April 1, 2018 cannot be terminated by the landlord within thirty six months of being granted other than for the breach of a an express or implied term of the tenancy if the termination would result in the tenant becoming homeless. It is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.”

(2) In Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (Recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) insert—

“(4ZAA) In the case of a dwelling-house in England no notice under subsection (4) may be given for thirty six months after the beginning of the tenancy.””

This new clause is an amendment to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which would prevent landlords from using the “notice only” grounds for possession for the first three years of the tenancy by private sector landlords where the tenant would become homeless.

New clause 3—Controls on rent increases within a tenancy—

‘(1) After section 23 of the Housing Act 1988 insert—

“Section 23A: rent increase

(1) This section applies to any assured shorthold tenancy granted on or after 1 April 2018 in respect of any property in England other than one granted by a private registered provider of social housing.

(2) It is an implied term of all such tenancies that the rent may only be increased in any year on the anniversary of the commencement of the tenancy and that the rent may increase by no more than the percentage specified by the Office for National Statistics as the Consumer Prices Index figure for the month immediately preceding the proposed increase if there is a significant risk that that tenant would become homeless.

(3) Any term of the tenancy (or any other agreement, whether between the landlord and tenant or any third party) which is inconsistent with subsection (2) is of no effect.

(4) The landlord must serve written notice of the new rent on the tenant and any other party who is responsible for the payment of the rent.

(5) The notice must be in a prescribed form (or substantially to the same effect) and must specify—

(a) the present rent;

(b) the percentage increase proposed; and

(c) the proposed new rent,

together with any other matters or information which may be prescribed.

(6) A person served with such a notice may, within 28 days of being so served, refer it to the appropriate tribunal for a determination as to the validity of the notice and, if necessary, to examine the risk of the tenant becoming homeless.

(7) Should a court or tribunal in any proceedings find that the landlord has received rent in excess of that permitted by this section, it must either—

(a) order that the excess rent be repaid to the tenant (including to any former tenant if the tenancy has come to an end),

(b) order that it stands to the credit of the tenant in respect of future rent which will fall due; or,

(c) set it off against other sums which the tenant owes to the landlord under the tenancy.

(8) The Secretary of State has power to prescribe a form for the purposes of this section and may make different provision for Greater London and the rest of England. The power must be exercised within a reasonable period and, in relation to Greater London if the Mayor of London makes a written request that it be exercised and provides a draft form, must be in the form proposed by the Mayor.

(9) The Secretary of State has power to modify subsection (2) by order and may make different provision for Greater London and the rest of England. Any modification is limited to substituting an increase which is lower than the Consumer Prices Index. That power must be exercised within a reasonable period and, in relation to Greater London if the Mayor of London makes a written request that it be exercised and specifies a particular substitution, must be the substitution specified by the Mayor.

(10) In this section—

“Greater London” shall have the same meaning as in the London Government Act 1963 (c.33)

“Mayor of London” shall have the same meaning as in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (s.29).””

This new clause concerns rent increases. It provides that it is an implied term of all assured shorthold tenancies granted on or after 1 April 2018, that the rent can only go up once a year and by no more than CPI if there is a significant risk of the tenant as a result of the increase becoming homeless. It requires a notice to be given to the tenant, giving them details of the increase and for a right to appeal that notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Secretary of State has a power to prescribe a lower increase and must do so in respect of London if the Mayor of London requests it.

[Andy Slaughter]

It is a pleasure to open today’s proceedings on this important Bill that, if passed, will mark a sea change in the way in which homelessness is treated in this country. This is a rare creature—a private Member’s Bill with a hope of success. I should not tempt fate this early in proceedings, but I cannot see the usual suspects sitting behind the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the promoter of the Bill, so I am already encouraged.

I think that the Bill has support from all parties. Importantly it has the support of the Government; otherwise, I suspect that we would not have got this far. We should not forget the good work that the Communities and Local Government Committee and its Chair have done in support of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the promoter of the Bill, who now knows more about the intricacies of homelessness law than he perhaps ever wanted to.

There are matters still to be resolved but—and I say this advisedly—I hope that, as far as this House is concerned, they can all be resolved this morning. For my part, I do not intend to go on at length. Although certain important matters need to be covered, I hope that in the time we have available today, the Bill will be able to complete all its stages.

Let me be clear from the outset that I do not intend to press new clauses 2 and 3 to a Division. I am hopeful that when the Minister speaks, I will hear words that will encourage me not to press new clause 1. One interesting feature of the Bill has been that we have had constructive discussions about it—outside the Committee, of course; not in it, as that would not be at all appropriate. My last email to the Minister was sent at about 11 pm last night. I appreciate that that might have been past his bedtime and he has not had time to respond, but we are getting where we want to go.

New clause 1 deals with perhaps the central unresolved issue, which relates not to the content of the Bill— we will come to that when we consider the Government’s amendments—but to its implementation and, in particular, whether the resources that the Government have set aside are sufficient. New clauses 2 and 3 are also important because they address what stands behind the Bill—the fact that legislation of itself will not tackle the homelessness crisis. To be fair to the promoter of the Bill, he has at all stages said that that that is the case, and he repeated it in his article that has been published on PoliticsHome.com this morning. I appreciate that, but we cannot look at the Bill in a vacuum; we have to look at the surrounding circumstances. Nothing illustrates that better than the figures on rough sleeping that were released two days ago, which revealed a shocking 16% increase year on year. More than 4,000 people are now sleeping rough on the streets of the UK. One rough sleeper is one too many, and what should alarm the House in particular is the fact this is a crisis that does not need to exist.

Under the previous Labour Government, rough sleeping fell by three quarters, because of direct Government intervention and co-ordination with not only local authorities, but the many fine homelessness charities, which also stand behind the Bill. This crisis is solvable, but the fact that street homelessness has gone up by more than 130% since 2010—under the coalition Government and now under this Government—really should shame the Government. We are here to pass an important Bill, but that does not get them off the hook.

I must strike one small note of discord: we do not want this to become a battle about who is more in favour of the Bill. The promoter’s article mentioned the danger of the Bill being delayed because of our new clauses. There must be a lot of confused pots and kettles out there, given that the Government have tabled 21 complicated amendments that no one would wish to consider on Report—they should have been taken in Committee. I am hopeful that we can deal with them, but the point is that it is not unreasonable or irrational for the Opposition to take a little time to debate important principles.

In Committee, Government Members spoke for two and a half times as long as Opposition Members. I realise that there were one or two more of them, unfortunately—

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

In a moment.

We all—even I—must sometimes curb our prolixity, and we were very disciplined in Committee. We withdrew many new clauses and amendments before the Christmas break to speed the passage of the Bill. Even though my colleagues in Committee had huge expertise and a lot to say, we were very disciplined. I wish that I could say the same for the Minister and Government Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson).

[Michael Tomlinson]

It was a great pleasure to serve in Committee with the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to hear that he is still in favour of the Bill and that it still attracts cross-party support. Today he can rely on my discipline and, I am sure, that of all colleagues to ensure that the Bill goes through.

[Andy Slaughter]

Excellent. I am sure that those rousing words will be followed by action. That might even be the last we hear from the hon. Gentleman today.

I do not want to labour the point, but we should have been able to get through the Bill in less time, notwithstanding the fact that it is an important and, for a private Member’s Bill, quite long Bill. It is considerably longer than the Bill that we will debate next week, although I suspect our consideration of that one will take rather longer.

It is regrettable that this Bill spent so long in Committee, but we know why it did: the Government were filibustering in order to keep the parliamentary boundaries Bill, which is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), out of Committee. I am not saying that we do not all play these tricks from time to time; I am just saying that we should not start pointing the finger over who is to blame for delaying the Bill, and instead get on with this now.

I want to deal with the point about money. Right at the beginning of our Committee stage, the Minister said, “I hope to tell you before the end of Committee how much money there will be.” The Government gave a welcome commitment to fund the additional costs fully—there will be substantial additional costs on local authorities, and under the new burdens doctrine, the money has to come from central Government—but we waited week after week with bated breath to find out what money there would be. He kept his promise—just—and at the last moment, some money came forward. It was not a negligible sum: about £48 million over two years. However, that amount must be compared with the sensible estimates from individual local authorities and their collective bodies, such as the Local Government Association and London Councils. For example, while £37 million or £38 million has been set aside for the first year of the Bill’s implementation, London Councils estimates that the cost will be about £160 million. There is therefore a massive disparity in the figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Newham Council has looked into the cost of implementation, and thinks that it will be £2.5 million in the first year alone. I am delighted that the Bill has been introduced, but does my hon. Friend honestly believe that the Government will fully compensate councils for the money that they will need to spend?

[Andy Slaughter]

I am one of nature’s optimists. The Minister is such a reasonable fellow, and so kind-hearted, that I am sure that if he says he wishes to provide the full amount, he means it. Unfortunately, however, the record of the Government as a whole is not one of being particularly kind-hearted, particularly to local government. They have a habit of passing the buck by cutting the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government, as is clear from the fact that local government cuts have been the biggest of all.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is absolutely right to be sceptical. That is indeed what we want to hear. There are many figures floating around, but Newham Council knows what it is talking about, because it has one of the most pressing housing needs in the country, some of the poorest communities in the country, and, I am afraid, some of the worst housing in the country, especially in the private rented sector.

These are matters of real concern. All we are asking for is a commitment from the Minister not just to a review, but to a review that will be undertaken at the right time and will be all-encompassing. As I said earlier, the Select Committee has played a key role—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), is an acknowledged expert, and he has also benefited from the able assistance of Members on both sides—and it, as well as local authorities themselves, should be involved in any review process.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Enfield, like Newham, contains some of the poorest people in the country with the greatest housing need, and obviously we want the Bill to be implemented, but good councils throughout the country are already embarking on the prevention measures specified in the Bill under the current funding settlement, and will welcome the provision of more money to enable them to continue those measures.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think the best thing to say is that there is a mixed economy among local authorities. Some do very well—some have to do very well because of the pressures on them—and others do less well. Part of the Bill’s purpose is to bring them all up to the same standard. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point cuts both ways. If it is true that Camden Council, for example, is already preventing 80% of those who present themselves from becoming homeless, the savings that are likely to be made—most of which, I understand, will result from an increase in prevention work, which will avoid the need to find alternative accommodation or fund the costs of homelessness in other ways—will be less. The Government rather piously hope that after two years there will be no need for funding, but I do not think anyone believes that, including the Government.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

This is not just a problem in London. In 2015-16, there were more than 1,000 homelessness prevention and relief cases in Wirral as a result of the council’s actions. Does my hon. Friend agree that any new duties that councils will have to take on should be fully funded, both now and in the future?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, the problem is clearly greater in some areas than in others. The precedent for the Bill is legislation passed by the Labour-run Government of Wales, which has already been successful: there have been substantial falls in homelessness. Of course there are parts of Wales where there is a real crisis, as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom, but there are also hotspots, and the big cities, particularly London, are hotspots.

We cannot rely on the example of Wales. It is still possible in many Welsh authorities for accommodation to be made available to people including those who are not in priority need. In London boroughs—and, I suspect, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and many others—that opportunity disappeared years ago, and the reverse is now the case. We spent some time in Committee talking about the disgraceful attitude of Westminster Council, which is sending its homeless people quite literally to Coventry, and I fear that other boroughs are doing exactly the same. That is the difficulty with which we are grappling.

I am not going to labour the point. We want assurances, which we believe new clause 1 would deliver, that the full funding of the Bill’s implementation by local authorities for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has rightly asked will be provided. Yes, the Government have made a start, and, yes, I think that we shall hear more about money today, given that some of the Government amendments will involve additional costs. We are pleased with what has been done so far, but we must have that funding, because otherwise the Bill will fail, and local authorities will be in an even more parlous state.

Let me now deal briefly with new clauses 2 and 3. We could have tabled a great many more new clauses illustrating the same point, which is that the Bill’s provisions cannot be seen in a vacuum. We all welcome the greater concentration on prevention to which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred, and we also welcome the new relief duties requiring local authorities to assist homeless people who are not in priority need. However, the pattern of homelessness is utterly bleak, and that is a perfect storm which, I am afraid, derives from the Government’s own actions or inactions.

The first problem, as the new clauses make clear, is the crisis in the private rented sector. The huge inflation in rents over the past few years has meant that many private landlords take advantage of the “no fault” eviction process for which the Housing Act 1988 provides. They say to people, “You are on benefit, and I can get a higher rent from someone else”, or they simply say, “I want a different tenant and I do not have to give any reason, so off you go.” Provided that the payments are in order, the consequence of that swift process, with no argument to the contrary, is that many thousands of people present themselves to local authorities as homeless. I believe that more than 40% of homelessness cases are caused by private sector evictions, with all the misery that they bring.

Again, however, the problem is not insoluble. The inclusion of new clauses 2 and 3 would make a significant difference. This is a modest proposal. I am suggesting that if there were longer tenancies—three-year tenancies—and if, within the period of those tenancies, there were controls over the levels of rent increases, we would end the present chaotic market in evictions in which landlords bid against each other.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting this point. I will pass over the typo in line four of his new clause 2 and simply ask: does he remember from the Bill Committee that the average length of tenancies was in fact four years, yet in his new clause 2 he refers merely to three years? Does he not accept that there also needs to be a balance, to encourage sufficient landlords?

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman does when he is not passing over typos, but I am afraid his argument works both ways. If, as the Residential Landlords Association says—this is, I think, the point the hon. Gentleman is making—tenancies are already on average longer than three years, what is the problem with ensuring that that is the case? Good practice suggests that a good landlord wants to keep a tenant for a period of time; that gives stability and continuity, and there are no breaks in tenancy and no additional fees involved. But not all landlords are good landlords, and some are playing this lottery game where they think they can get more money. Unfortunately, we have even had the spectacle of local authorities outbidding each other for tenancies, so desperate are they in this regard. All the hon. Gentleman’s intervention illustrates is how modest and reasonable this proposal is. When the Minister replies, he might want to say what the Government’s thinking on this matter is at the moment.

This is an issue in itself. It is not just an issue about homelessness, but these specific new clauses relate to the risk of homelessness and state that we would achieve the purposes of this Bill—put less pressure on local authorities, and have less need to prevent homelessness—if some landlords were not acting in the manner that they are. That is the purpose of the new clauses. I think they are quite reasonable. I appreciate that, given the time constraints, unless the Government suddenly decide to accept them this morning, it is unlikely that we are going to make progress on them in the course of this Bill, but we will return to this subject time and again until it is resolved.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

There is an extremely high rate of homelessness in Tooting among those aged over 60. I know that Wandsworth Council battles with this greatly day in, day out. Do you agree that it is absolutely unacceptable that we are failing the older members of our society, and that people over 60 need to be taken into account?

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely outrageous that residents aged 60 and over have to suffer in this way and that he must do all he can to ensure the Government address this issue?

[Andy Slaughter]

Absolutely, and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, also care about homelessness in Tooting. What my hon. Friend illustrates is that we are in new territory. Even though there were big problems, particularly in the private rented sector, 20 or 30 years ago, I doubt that we would then have been talking about homelessness among people of pensionable age. It illustrates how deep this goes in society now that we are worried not just about groups that were at risk in the days of “Cathy Come Home”, but about people who are at a time in their life when they deserve, and should have, stability and security.

I am not keeping to my promise, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude now, but let me just say this. Yes, new clauses 2 and 3 illustrate a clear point, but this is only part of the problem. Alongside that is the issue of housing supply and the terrible record, I am afraid to say, that this Government have on genuinely affordable housing, on allowing councils to build and ensuring that there is specialist housing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

Can the Minister not make the point in his own comments? [Interruption.] Very well, I will give way if he wants to intervene.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance in taking my intervention. Does he not welcome the record amount of £3.15 billion that this Government are providing to the Greater London Authority to provide affordable housing in London, which has been welcomed by the London Mayor?

[Andy Slaughter]

As the shadow London Minister, I welcome everything the London Mayor welcomes. I do not want us to go off on a tangent, but I will just say that we were beginning to make progress; we were beginning to make progress towards the end of the last Labour Government, and the best illustration of that is that under the coalition Government eight out of 10 council homes completed were started under the previous Labour Government. I do not mind the Minister taking credit and talking about the building of additional affordable and social homes, but his Government need to have their own record, not leach off ours.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

For the last time, I will.

[Ms Buck]

I am extremely grateful. While we are on this topic, is my hon. Friend also aware that the Chartered Institute of Housing estimates that 250,000 social homes will be lost as a result of right to buy and other measures between now and 2020, so whatever assurances the Government are giving us about the construction of new affordable housing, they are the equivalent of turning on the taps while leaving the plug out?

[Andy Slaughter]

Absolutely, and when I mentioned the quality of members on the Committee from my side, I was of course particularly thinking of my hon. Friend—as well as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, and my other hon. Friends on the Committee. I am afraid that they put my feeble efforts to shame, but there it is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) is absolutely right. We have a crisis in housing supply, we have a crisis in the private rented sector, and we also have—which the Government are directly responsible for through the benefit caps, the freezing of local housing allowance, and the cuts in Supporting People—a manufactured homelessness crisis which we are now seeing reflected in the figures I quoted earlier.

I pay tribute to the Minister for the work he has done on this Bill, as well as to the sponsor, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and the sincere comments made by Conservative Back Benchers during the course of this Bill, but they cannot put their heads in the sand and look at this Bill in isolation from everything else that is happening—and when they have looked at that, they have to change their policy. I am sure we are going to get the housing White Paper, possibly even this year, but when it comes, we will be looking for those matters to be dealt with, and that is the purpose of these new clauses. Their purpose is to make sure that this Bill functions and that Government policy as a whole functions in relation to homelessness. That is why I would like to hear from the Minister, if not warm support and acceptance of the new clauses, at least what he intends to do in relation to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Layering more regulation on to residential landlords will have the net effect of reducing supply. Many of our constituents rely on renting private properties, so we need to be very careful that the balance is right.

Finally, if new clause 3 is enacted, it will introduce rent controls in the private rented sector by compelling landlords to limit rent rises to no more than once a year and by no more than inflation in cases where there is a risk of the tenant becoming homeless as a result of a rent rise. Although I understand the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled, introducing rent controls is fundamentally the wrong approach and is not borne out by evidence. Experience from Britain and around the world shows that rent controls lead to fewer properties on the market and less choice for tenants. Returning to the situation in the 1980s when the private rented sector was in decline will not help landlords or tenants.

The key to improving affordability and choice for tenants is to build more homes rather than impose rent controls. Our build-to-rent fund has now contracted investment worth £630 million to deliver more than 5,600 high-quality homes specifically for private rent. Our £3.5 billion private rented sector housing guarantee scheme will increase the stream of investment in new private rented sector housing.

We have also established the private rented sector affordability and security working group to explore options to reduce the cost for tenants who access and move within the sector. This group is expected to submit its report to Ministers next month.

I therefore urge the House to agree that new clause 3 is not desirable, and, given the commitment I have made to Opposition Front Benchers, I hope that new clauses 1, 2 and 3 will now be withdrawn.

[Andy Slaughter]

I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I appreciate all the comments that have been made. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for speaking so passionately about the situation in Manchester and the issues of rough sleeping, reminding us that these problems go around the country.

I said in my opening remarks that I would not press new clauses 2 and 3 to a vote, and that is still the case. Their purpose was to try to elicit some positive comments from the Minister, but I think I have failed in that respect. We will return to those matters at an early date. Eviction by private sector landlords is the single greatest immediate cause of homelessness, and it does need to be tackled. We are living not in the world of 1988, but in a very different and less stable climate. I was disappointed by the Minister’s rather wholesale rejection of that issue today, but I hope that we will return to it on a future occasion.

On a more positive note, I said that I hoped not to press new clause 1 to a vote. I am greatly encouraged by what the Minister said, and I thank him both for entering into the spirit of the discussion and the specific words he used. He gave us the comfort that we were looking for in relation to a proper, timely and comprehensive review of the finances behind the Bill. I am particularly pleased that he said that the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and the Select Committee itself will be engaged in that process as well as local government. That is extremely helpful, especially given the time pressures we are under to get these matters sorted out here rather than in the other place. I am sure that the other place will be watching and listening to what the Minister and I have said. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 4

Duty in cases of threatened homelessness

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

“( ) But the authority may not give notice to the applicant under subsection (5) on the basis that the circumstances in subsection (7)(b) apply if a valid notice has been given to the applicant under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) that—

(a) will expire within 56 days or has expired, and

(b) is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.”

This amendment prevents a local housing authority from bringing the duty in section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 4) to an end after 56 days if the applicant has been given a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 that has expired or will within 56 days expire and which is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has been a diligent member of the Bill Committee, and I thank him for his intervention. He is correct: the Bill provides for a final written warning. Obviously, we want to make sure that people have an incentive to do the right thing and accept an offer of suitable accommodation, but we also need to consider people who present challenges and need a final warning, in some circumstances, to make them think again and take up the offer the local authority has made.

Amendments 3 and 5 insert helpful signposts into clauses 4 and 5 to ensure that they are appropriately cross-referenced with clause 7. Specifically, they insert references to the provisions in clause 7 about ending the prevention and relief duties when an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate, and to the provisions about ending the relief duty when an applicant has refused a final accommodation offer or a final part 6 offer. That simply means that the ways in which the prevention and relief duties can be ended are easier to see and understand for those reading the clauses.

Amendment 8, along with amendments 6 and 7, deal with the provision of interim accommodation while a local housing authority is helping an applicant to secure accommodation under clause 5. Amendment 6 sets out that, if a local housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must secure interim accommodation. It also sets out how that duty comes to an end.

In cases where the local housing authority has concluded its inquiries under the homelessness legislation and decides that the applicant does not have a priority need, the duty comes to an end in two circumstances: first, if the local housing authority notifies the applicant that the relief duty is not owed; and secondly, if the local housing authority notifies the applicant that, once the relief duty ends, they will not be owed any further duty to accommodate.

Amendment 7 is a technical amendment to the Housing Act 1996 required as a result of amendments 6 and 8. Where an applicant has been provided with interim accommodation and refuses a final offer, they may request a review of the suitability of that offer. Amendment 8 ensures that the duty to secure interim accommodation continues until any review has been concluded and the decision has been notified to the applicant.

Finally in this group, I turn to amendment 9. The duties to applicants under clauses 4 and 5—the prevention and relief duties—are to help the applicant to secure accommodation. In some cases, this will entail the local housing authority securing this accommodation directly, rather than helping the applicant by, for example, providing a deposit guarantee. Amendment 9 provides that, where that is the case, the provisions of sections 206 to 209 of the Housing Act 1996 apply in the same way they would if the local housing authority secured accommodation under the main homelessness duty.

Those sections contain various provisions about how a local housing authority’s housing functions are to be discharged—for example, about how authorities may secure that accommodation is available and how they can require an applicant to pay a reasonable charge for the accommodation. Provisions also cover the requirements relating to placements in and out of district, including notifications to the hosting local housing authority.

I will leave it at that on amendments 1 to 9. I hope that the House will look favourably on them, in the spirit in which proceedings on the Bill have been conducted, and support them.

[Andy Slaughter]

I must say that, after the 14 hours and seven sittings in Committee that we have heard about, I was somewhat alarmed when the Government tabled 21 amendments on over six pages last week. I have to say that, on my first reading of them, I was not much the wiser as to what was happening. However, one perseveres, as one always does with legislation.

I must say two things. First, I do appreciate the difficulties the Minister and the promoter have had in squaring the circle so that local government, landlords and homelessness charities are all happy about the way the Bill works, rather than about the principles of the Bill, which I think have been agreed. I am also grateful to the Minister for giving us time with his officials to go through in some detail the implication of the amendments and why they are necessary, and I think I speak for my hon. Friends in saying that. It is regrettable that things could not have been done differently, but we are where we are, and the Opposition regard these amendments and the next set, which we will come to in due course, as either necessary or improving of the Bill, so we will not oppose any of them today, and I can be fairly brief in responding.

I have only two concerns to raise. I think we have all struggled with clause 1. When you start debating clause 1 in the sixth session of a Committee, you know that something is awry. There have been real difficulties with getting this operative clause of the Bill correct, and it is still not perfect. Much of the original clause 1 had to be omitted because it created more problems than it resolved. The key point—about extending the duty from 28 to 56 days —is still there, but there are concerns that, notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the further amendments before us, which will extend that duty beyond the 56 days where necessary, local authorities will be able to continue to drag their feet in some cases. However, everything that has been said on all sides, and the refinements before us, which add to what is in clause 1, certainly show that the spirit of the Bill—I hope the same is true of the letter of the Bill when we come to the codes of guidance—really does require all local authorities to act at an early stage and to deal, particularly in the case of section 21 notices, with homelessness and threatened homelessness at an early stage.

The other point—the Minister may address this when we deal with the subsequent provisions—is what additional costs there are likely to be. There will undoubtedly be cost implications in relation to continuing prevention assistance beyond 56 days and—this is quite proper—to being clear about when interim duties come to an end and continuing them while reviews continue. I would like to hear from the Government not only whether those costs will be fully funded but whether the funds have been calculated. Will we hear about that today? We certainly need to before the Bill leaves both Houses. However, with those two caveats, I can be commendably brief and end my comments there.

[Bob Blackman]

I am pleased to support these amendments and to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter).

It is fair to say that the amendments have been some time in coming. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister, his officials, the homelessness charities and the landlord associations on assisting us in reaching an appropriate compromise. The hon. Member for Hammersmith pointed out that clause 1 was debated some way into the Committee sittings, as, indeed, was clause 7. By that time, we had passed clauses 4, 5 and 6, and these amendments relate to those clauses.

Clearly, the amendments we made to clause 1 in Committee had consequential impacts, which needed to be reflected in clauses 4, 5 and 6. Those clauses refer to the duty in cases of threatened homelessness, the duties owed to those who are homeless and the duties to help to secure accommodation. So the amendments before us are largely technical and follow up the changes made by the Bill Committee.

The most important aspect of this is that the prevention duty cannot end after 56 days with the individual or family still sitting in their home facing eviction under a section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988, and with nowhere else to go.

Clause 1 of the original draft Bill was substantially changed before Second Reading, after pre-legislative scrutiny, and was substantially changed again in Committee. That had a consequential, knock-on effect on the other clauses in the Bill, and that is why the amendments are essential.

We have now got to a position with these clauses where we can help to make sure that local housing authorities act at an early stage. We do not want—I think this is true right across the House—a single individual or family to be told by their local housing authority, “Yes, you may be threatened with homelessness. Go back to your home, stay put and wait until the court action follows and the bailiffs arrive.” That is completely against the spirit of the Bill and is against what everyone wants to see. If we get to a point where landlords are taking tenants to court, gaining possession orders and getting bailiffs and county court judgments against tenants, those tenants, who will then be evicted and face huge costs, will be extremely unlikely to get accommodation in the private rented sector ever again.

In correcting this position, we have to end the bad practice followed by some local authorities—by no means all—of telling tenants to go back and stay put. It is important, above all else, that individuals who are faced with homelessness can get help and advice from the word go, once they approach the local housing authority. The clarifications proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the local authority is not allowed to end its duty on reaching the technical position where the 56 days has expired. That is a very positive move.

The rest of the amendments in this group reflect the changes that we made to clause 7 in Committee. Once again, they ensure that protections are in place for applicants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The purpose of the amendments is to clarify and give certainty, where required, to certain provisions in the Bill and, in some cases, to correct drafting or extend the ambit of clauses. We have no problem with any of the amendments, and I am pleased to say, having just reread the briefing from the local government and charities sides, that although one side supports them more than the other, as one would expect, both agree that they should go forward as a package.

Amendment 10 makes it clear when the interim duty comes to an end, about which the LGA and others have been anxious for certainty. Amendments 20 and 21, which the Minister just referred to, were particularly called for by Shelter and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who led for the Opposition on that part of the Bill. I am pleased the Government have tabled the amendments because they address a key point by providing that all priority need households be included, rather than just those that are vulnerable, which clears up an important omission. One side, in particular, favoured the amendments, but all sides are at least content with them.

Another thing the amendments, particularly amendments 10, 20 and 21, have in common is that they incur costs. The Minister said, slightly coyly, that when the amendments passed, he would return to the matter of costs. I hope that means on Third Reading, because, from what I have heard, I assume the amendments will pass in a few moments. The costs will not be negligible. Obviously, he goes into this with his eyes open, but it would be helpful if we had an update today or at least were told when we will have it. We need to be certain not only about what the Bill means—that it addresses the key points—but that it will be fully funded.

With those comments, I need not prolong the debate, because we have gone through the amendments with the Minister and the officials, and I think we have a pretty keen understanding of why they are necessary and should form part of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

I am delighted to rise for the last time on Report in support of a group of amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister introduced them at length, so I will keep my remarks to the pertinent points. I thank him and the officials for all their work in getting us to the point of these detailed amendments. I am sure that all would agree that it has been a long and almost tortuous journey to identify the different issues with clause 7, but we have worked patiently and appropriately with the LGA, Crisis and, in particular, Shelter to resolve the issues such that everyone now supports the amended clause 7, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) pointed out.

As I said earlier, we did not want a change in the law to put priority-need families in an even worse position than they were already in. We wanted to enable single homeless people, and others who were not currently owed a statutory duty, to be given help and advice and an offer of suitable accommodation. At present, that accommodation will almost certainly be in the private sector, but it is up to local authorities to establish whether they can find a social rented property to provide for such people.

I particularly welcome amendments 20 and 21. As we heard from the Minister, in Committee there were representations—not least from the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who kicked off on the issue—about the scope of what is now clause 12 in relation to the suitability of offers in the private sector. Ideally, local authorities would inspect and approve every single offer to every potential tenant, but during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill we decided that the cost to them would be beyond what was reasonable. We therefore focused on priority need, and, indeed, vulnerable people. I am delighted that the Minister has found a way of extending the provision to all those people, not least pregnant women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I begin where the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the Bill’s promoter, finished by wishing the Bill every success in completing its passage as it leaves for the other place. I also echo some of his thanks. I thank him for putting extraordinary effort into the Bill. I do not know how long he intends to stay in the House, but I suspect that, whenever he departs, the Bill will be one of the things about which he is most proud—it will be a lasting testament to his work—and I am sure that many of us envy him. Such praise is well deserved because he has had to put time and effort in the Bill. I suspect that he now thinks it was all worth it, but I bet there were times when he doubted that.

Obviously the Bill would not be where it is without the support of the Government, which should be acknowledged, as well as that from the official Opposition and others. The Minister has been particularly assiduous in pushing through the Bill. Although he may or may not reveal this in his speech, he has had difficulty with his colleagues in other Departments. The hon. Member for Harrow East will recognise the Minister’s personal devotion to the Bill, which he will count a success.

I extend my thanks to all Members on both sides of the House who have been involved. I particularly thank the Labour members of the Committee who are sitting behind me: my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). They shared the burden with me in Committee and brought their considerable expertise to our proceedings. I am sure that the Minister and the Bill’s promoter would say the same of Government Members. It has been a good session.

We must also acknowledge the various interest groups involved, not only because they stood up strongly for their interests, but because, in the end, they wanted the Bill to succeed. They include the landlords and charities, but we should not forget local government, because it is local government that will have to execute the provisions of the Bill and on which its burdens fall. It knows more than anybody else the difficulties in dealing with homelessness, given the levels of funding and demand. The officers and councillors who are at the sharp end deserve our thanks. Some do fail—a number of authorities have lamentable records—but many do their very best under difficult circumstances. That is true of my own council and, I am sure, of many others.

The Bill has been a collective effort, and my final mention is to the Communities and Local Government Committee. Its work has formed the bedrock of the Bill and the basis on which it can go forward.

As the hon. Member for Harrow East said, our proceedings have been something of a template for the way in which complex private Member’s Bills can go forward. I, like him, hope that it can be a precedent for a change to just not just the House’s procedures, but the way in which the Government approach private Member’s Bills, It might change the way in which some of our colleagues approach such Bills, but perhaps that is a matter for another day.

As we have discussed the Bill for so long, it is quite easy to gloss over what it does. It does several fundamental things, such as introducing the prevention duty. Although, as we have heard, that is nothing new—the previous Labour Government encouraged that approach through legislation, and it is also encouraged by best practice in local government—the Bill puts the matter clearly and firmly into statute. That is a major change to the way in which homelessness is addressed.

The Bill also extends the relief duty to anybody who is homeless. Although the assistance to be given to those who are non-priority homeless cannot, for reasons of resources, be as comprehensive as it is for those who are priority homeless, that is, again, a significant change.

Let us not forget the duty to co-operate, about which we have had quite an extensive discussion. Perhaps the co-operation that will be required does not go as far as some of us would have liked—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East moved an amendment relating to that in Committee—but local authorities cannot avoid their responsibilities. We know that the homelessness sector and the charities have been working to perfect the way in which they deal with the complex needs of homeless people. Sometimes other institutions do a good job—those in the health service or probation, for example—but we really need everyone to step up to the plate. I am pleased that the duty to co-operate is in the Bill, but I hope we hear more about it as the codes are developed.

With the current pressures on the public sector, it is easy for people to say that these things are just too difficult. The reality is that a number of homeless people have been in mental health units or have just come out of prison. They need assistance, and that cannot come only from homelessness charities and local government. Everybody has to do their bit.

For those three reasons, among others, the Bill is a significant piece of legislation. I will not repeat what I said in the previous debate about what remains to be done, but let me mention just two things. First, when the White Paper is published, I would like to see in chapter 1 a commitment from the Government that is the same as that given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) before Christmas on behalf of a future Labour Government: rough sleeping will be eliminated over a single Parliament. Earlier this week, we saw shocking figures showing that 4,134 people are sleeping rough in England. That is a 16% increase on the previous year, and a 134% increase since 2010. I could not have agreed more with the hon. Member for Harrow East when he said that one person in that situation is one too many, but 4,134 is a national disgrace. Nevertheless, it is a figure that we can manage.

Many other aspects of homelessness are getting much worse over time. Statutorily homeless households have increased by almost 50% since 2010, with the number now standing at just under 60,000. That is a huge problem, and while the difficulties with housing conditions such as overcrowding all need to be tackled, the first step has to be dealing with rough sleeping and the street homeless. I would love to hear from the Minister today that that will happen, but I will look particularly at whether the issue is addressed in the White Paper. I would not say that that would silence us—we will never quite be silenced—but it would be an effective way of dealing with the points that have been made throughout the passage of the Bill when we have said, “Yes, legislation is great and yes, this Bill does some great things, but in itself it is not going to build one more house or house one more person—it is words on a piece of paper.”

I plead with the Minister to do what I have said. I praise the initiative of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, in taking the lead, but he will be the first person to say congratulations if the Government go ahead with this.

There are so many aspects of the problem that need to be dealt with to start to tackle homelessness that we could think that it is all just too much. I was impressed by the briefing that Shelter sent to us, which highlighted two aspects. It said:

“we consider it inevitable that, to be able to help people under the new duties, councils with significant levels of existing homelessness will require not only additional resources but, more importantly, an adequate supply of accessible, affordable and suitable homes in the social or private rented sectors.”

That is self-evidently true. The two things that are at the top of Shelter’s wish list are:

“Reverse the freeze on Local Housing Allowance rates”;

and an

“indefinite suspension of the forced sale of high value council homes in areas with high levels of homelessness”.

Neither of those is going to solve the problem, and they might not even be the most effective steps that could be taken, but they are the two most obvious ways in which the Government are actively making the situation worse. It is very difficult to accept the Government’s wholehearted support for the Bill when at the same time they are pushing those measures through.

I say that with clear personal knowledge from my own constituency, where, when a Conservative council was in charge for eight years, social homes were regularly sold when they became vacant. Several hundred individual homes were simply sold off at market rates rather than being used to rehouse homeless families. That has created devastating problems, the consequences of which we are still suffering. If we see that replicated on a grand scale throughout the country through the sale of high-value council homes—in my borough it would mean, over time, 50% of council homes being sold off—the homelessness situation is going to become far worse.

Local housing allowance rates are utterly distorting local housing markets and leading to what the Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow East and others have said today that they do not want to see: people being forced out of central London—and out of London and the south-east altogether—and separated entirely from their support networks, their families, their children’s schools and sometimes their jobs.

I am beginning to see another disturbing trend that I hoped never to see recurring. I shall refer to a case that I dealt with in my surgery only last week. Landlords are letting properties at rates that are just within local housing allowances, but they are doing so by letting properties that are unsafe and degrading, with no proper electricity and in danger of collapse. I never thought that I would see those housing conditions in this country.

The Government have to come to terms with the effects that their policies have on individual families living in the private rented sector. I beg them to look again at the freeze on the local housing allowance rate, because it is having a severely detrimental effect on thousands of families around the country.

We wish this good Bill well as it goes through its stages in the other place. We will do what we can to assist to ensure that it is enacted. I still look forward to the Minister’s comments about the extra funding, and I know that people in council finance departments all around the country are hanging on his every word about that. Let us celebrate the Bill today, but let us also be aware of how much we need to do if we are to tackle one of the worst crises in homelessness that we have experienced, certainly in my political lifetime, and one of the worst blights on our society.