Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Bob Blackman Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

For the benefit of those Members who have been travelling overseas, who may not have noticed that the selection and grouping list has changed since the provisional version was circulated on Monday, revision two is available in the Committee Room this morning.

[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.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith for raising those issues. Clearly the amendments to clauses 1 and 7 are not available to us. I thank the Minister for clarifying when he expects to table them. We have proceeded thus far on a cross-party, consensual basis, and it is clearly our intention to continue to do so. There is no intention to rush things so that amendments do not receive proper consideration, particularly where they are detailed, as with clause 7. There is a more substantive amendment to clause 1 and we want everyone to be able to see and review it before we debate it.

My intention as the Bill’s promoter is that, depending on our progress this morning, we shall reconvene on the morning of 11 January. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith for not moving his amendments and new clauses, which should enable us to make speedier progress. If we are not able to conclude on the morning of 11 January, my intention would be to table a motion to bring us back on 18 January, including the afternoon if necessary, so that we would conclude on that date at the very latest. The Bill could then return to the Chamber on Report and hopefully Third Reading before being dispatched to the other place.

I appeal to Opposition Members: if there are amendments it is better for us to debate them here than for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. We can consider things in detail, from the perspective of detailed knowledge; otherwise there is the potential for delay and a risk that the Bill will be derailed in the Chamber. I trust that we can agree on the revised order of consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

Duties owed to those who are homeless

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

[Bob Blackman]

Clause 5 inserts a new section into the Housing Act 1996 requiring a local authority to take reasonable steps to help resolve homelessness. That means that the local housing authority has to take reasonable steps to help an applicant to secure accommodation.

It is not easy to prescribe in legislation every single eventuality that might mean someone becomes homeless, or the details of the help that they might need. A reasonable step could be the provision of a rent deposit. It could be help with family mediation, if a family had broken up—a local authority adviser could help to mediate so that someone did not become homeless and could live with another relative. It could be discussion with a private sector landlord about extending a tenancy. The clause does not specify exact details but prescribes that the local authority should carry out reasonable steps.

The clause also extends the duty to provide help and support in the form of reasonable steps to any eligible household that is homeless. It extends the duty for 56 days. Clearly, if a household has a local connection to another district, in that time a referral can be made to it—we are not prescribing anything.

It is important to note that households in priority need will be placed in interim accommodation while the reasonable steps are carried out. Those not in priority need will not be provided with accommodation, but the clause requires authorities to take reasonable steps to help them to secure accommodation. That is an important part of the process. Clearly there will have to be triage of applicants when they arrive, to ensure that the local authority understands its duty and how it will deal with the individuals or family affected.

As with all provisions of the Bill, the steps that the local housing authority will take will be based on the assessment and the plan that is agreed with the applicant, or they will be any steps that the authority considers reasonable where no agreement can be reached. The duty can be brought to an end in a number of ways, which are set out in the clause and are similar to those in clause 4, relating to the prevention duty. In that case, I would point out that the duty can come to an end if the authority has taken reasonable steps to help to secure accommodation and the 56-day period of duty has ended. If the relief duty efforts have not been successful, households in priority need will move on to the next stage and may be owed the main homelessness duty. The new enhanced information and advice duty we discussed under clause 2 persists and may be of assistance to those who are not in priority need.

The duty can also end if the applicant has become homeless intentionally from any accommodation that the authority has made available. For example, if they refuse to pay rent that would be a reason. That also addresses the point of an applicant, as well as the local authority, acting in a reasonable fashion.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned intentional homelessness and the interplay in the clause. Will he spell out the position under this clause or elsewhere when a tenant refuses to pay in the example he just outlined? What responsibilities and duties if any will there still be on a local authority, should those circumstances come to pass?

[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 ---

[Mr Jones]

Again, we are going slightly awry here, but we have been concerned about that. That is why we are doing a huge amount of work to put local authorities in a better position to secure temporary accommodation and plan for the future. I completely agree with the hon. Lady that the practice she mentions is not desirable or one we endorse.

[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.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I agree. I am not advocating that my hon. Friend spells out each and every circumstance in clause 5. If I were, I would have tabled my own amendment and proposed it to the Committee. However, I welcome what my hon. Friend and the Minister have said, because it is helpful for the Committee to have discussed and fleshed out some of the options that local authorities will have, so that they themselves can take them on board or innovate as my hon. Friend says.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, what has been referred to is a way forward for us.

The Minister has clarified many of the issues that colleagues have raised. One that has come up in many interventions is six-month versus 12-month tenancies. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I also served on the Communities and Local Government Committee in the previous Parliament. It produced an excellent report—I would say that, because I was part of it—which recommended that tenancies be extended. I strongly support longer tenancies for people in the private rented sector. Such provision provides security of accommodation and of tenure. In my view, it should not be a question of six or 12 months; tenancies should be even longer. Why not have three-year tenancies? We have to solve the problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made the point about mortgage lenders and other individuals who are involved having to come to terms with what has been suggested Actually, we need another change in the law. I crave your indulgence, Mr Chope. That is something else that needs to be acted on in law, but it is not within the scope of this Bill. What is within its scope is the issue of a local authority trying to house a family or single individuals who are homeless and securing accommodation for them.

We have discussed the matter in detail, and it is clear that if we stuck with a 12-month tenancy, the problem would be lack of supply. It is better to prescribe a minimum of six months, which hopefully could be extended to 12 months to prevent someone from going through a regular cycle of having a six-month tenancy, returning to the local authority, getting another six-month tenancy and so on. I am talking about a cycle of homelessness—the insecurity of people moving on and on and on in an unfair manner. I have explained where we would like to be. As I said, I would prefer to be in a position whereby we could prescribe even longer tenancies. That would be much better for families and for individuals.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The length of tenancies certainly needs to be considered, but does he agree that every action has consequences and we must ensure that any legislative change that we bring in—I am thinking of changes that mean additional risk for members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and for insurers—does not end up pushing up the mortgage payments and insurance premiums of all the people in the country who have mortgages and insurance?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly that is a consideration, but perhaps for another Bill and another day. It is certainly not within the scope of this clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred to the housing White Paper. If it is to be released later this year, it will not be long before we receive it. However, I am sure that what the Minister meant was “soon” in parliamentary parlance. That is an important part of this process. The housing White Paper, I trust, will build on the good work that we are doing with this Bill to ensure that we have the accommodation that goes with the duties. I hope that the Committee approves clause 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Duties to help to secure accommodation

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

[Bob Blackman]

This relatively brief clause was introduced to add clarity and assist with the efficient functioning of the homelessness prevention and relief duties. It ensures that the requirements that the housing authority must meet when it secures accommodation itself do not apply when it takes steps to help an applicant to secure accommodation. This is about efficiency and providing flexibility to applicants.

This short clause is particularly important for a number of reasons. Let us consider a typical scenario: a household has been unable to find accommodation because it cannot afford the rent deposit. That is often a problem, particularly in areas of London. The household approaches the local authority, which assesses its situation and sees that the single barrier is the deposit. The reasonable step is for the authority to provide that deposit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I was scratching my head when I first read the clause—perhaps it was too late at night. My hon. Friend said that, although the clause is short, it is none the less important. I looked again at section 205 in part 7 of the 1996 Act to ensure that I was reading it correctly. If what I am told is right, the clause will help single homeless people in particular; we often meet them in our surgeries and they are more likely to be street homeless, as is the case in Poole. However, I cannot fathom out how on earth the clause helps that category of people. Have I misunderstood? Will my hon. Friend enlighten me?

[Bob Blackman]

Let me try to enlighten my hon. Friend. The aim, as I have explained, is to provide flexibility so that if a household is able to secure its own accommodation—this might be part of a plan that has been put together—it can do so and then return to the local authority if, for example, the deposit is an issue. The local authority can then say, “Fine. We can deal with the deposit. Thank you very much. Off you go.” For someone who is more vulnerable and requires the local authority to identify housing for them, clearly that is a different issue, because they will need more help and advice. The local authority will then secure accommodation for the individuals affected.

The clause aims to ensure that local housing authorities have the flexibility they need and that applicants can secure accommodation and then return to the local authority and say, “We have found somewhere.” The local authority cannot then turn around and say, “We don’t want you to go there; we want you to go here.” The clause provides flexibility ultimately to protect the applicants, which is key. It will also help the local authority to avoid potential conflict when applicants are, not unreasonably, acting to help themselves. We do not want people to sit back and wait for the local authority to do it for them; we want them to get on, do it for themselves and get help and advice from the local authority. That is what we want the Bill to achieve.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that the measures are about empowering those who find themselves in that position? I suggest that they do not want to appear as victims reliant on state handouts. They want empowerment to get their lives back in order. If they are making those decisions, that will be best for all involved.

[Bob Blackman]

During the Select Committee inquiry, several witnesses made clear that they were happy to approach the local authority to get help and advice and then take action. The problem that they experienced at first was not getting the help and advice from the local authority. Many individuals were homeless for the first time and were shocked at not knowing what to do and how to do it. If the local authority were to act as a one-stop shop and point them in the right direction, they would be perfectly able to secure accommodation. They just want that extra assistance. We do not want to bind the hands of people who are perfectly capable of looking after themselves but just need that extra help and advice, given that they face a major crisis in their lives.

[Mr Jones]

In an area with high demand where properties are snapped up quickly, a family might want to move to a certain property. If they have to go back to the local authority for it to inspect the property, that would cause delay and the property might be taken by somebody else in the interim. Is that not the type of situation we are trying to avoid?

[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.