Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Healey

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the cross-party spirit in which we tackle this Bill may, in due course, lead to more of a cross-party spirit in tackling the bigger housing challenges that he mentioned.

I return to our two tests. First, the Government must fund the costs. The Minister told the Select Committee that he hoped to complete a costs estimate of the Bill before Second Reading. He has not, but in answer to a parliamentary question this week he confirmed to me:

“The Government will fund any additional costs in line with the longstanding ‘new burdens’ arrangements.”

The work to assess and agree the extra costs of the new duties or, if we like, burdens on councils that are in the Bill must be done urgently and openly. It cannot be done in some backroom deal between the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government. Local government must have confidence in and involvement in the process. That is the first commitment that we want the Minister to give the House today. Beyond that, councils rightly want to know that any additional funding of the costs really will be additional, not taken off some other part of the funding due to go to local government. We look for that commitment from the Minister today as well. First, fund the costs in full; secondly, tackle the causes.

Homelessness is not inevitable. It is not necessary in a country as well off and as decent as ours for people to have no home. Cutting all types of homeless was one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. At the time, it led the independent homelessness monitor produced by Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to declare

“an unprecedented decline in statutory homelessness”.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, homelessness, rough sleeping and people on the streets all fell by three quarters while we were in government.

I regret the fact that, since 2010, we have seen that trend go into reverse. Rough sleeping has doubled, statutory homelessness is up by almost half, and the latest official figures show that, each night, nearly 115,000 children are sleeping in temporary accommodation. Those are young lives blighted by transience. They are often in temporary bed and breakfasts and hostels. Their belongings are in their bags. They are often sharing bedrooms with siblings and bathrooms with other families. These are the children who cannot go home. These are the children with no home in our country today. That is a scandal that shames us all.

I say as gently as I can to the Minister that many of the housing policy decisions and failures we have seen over the past six years have led directly to the current homelessness crisis. There have been 13 separate cuts to housing benefit, including the bedroom tax, and, of course, the breaking of the link between housing benefit or local housing allowance and the rise in private rents. In the previous Parliament there was a 45% cut to Labour’s Supporting People programme, which provides vital funding and support to homelessness services. We have seen soaring private rents. Rent in the private sector is now on average more than £2,000 a year more than in 2010.

Councils cannot help the homeless if the Government will not build or, indeed, let councils build the homes that are needed. The number of new social rented homes started in Labour’s last year in government was 40,000; the number started last year was just 1,000.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. We often talk about people losing their homes; does he agree that people do not lose their homes like they lose their keys but are often being forced out of them by Government policy? We need a joined-up strategy of exactly the kind he is describing.

[John Healey]

We do indeed. Increasingly, the trend is that people face the threat of homelessness and, indeed, are made homeless by breakdowns in private rented contracts, and they are often evicted by a private landlord. To tackle homelessness, we have to tackle the causes of homelessness. We must build more affordable housing, act on the rising costs and short-term lets for private tenants, and reverse the crude cuts in housing benefit that hit some of the most vulnerable people.

In today’s cross-party spirit, I direct the Minister’s attention to two planned changes that he simply must stop. If he does, he will find almost as much support for doing so among Conservative councils and colleagues as he will among the Opposition. Both of the changes are part of the toxic legacy for housing left by the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), so perhaps there is plenty of scope for common ground. First, how can councils house the homeless if the Government are going to force them to sell off the better council houses every time they become vacant? The Minister should drop that plan from the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

Secondly, how can councils house the homeless if homeless hostels face closure because the new housing benefit or local housing allowance falls so far short of the housing costs? The Minister should fully exempt supported housing from the changes to housing benefit.

Finally, I turn to the hon. Member for Harrow East and his cross-party sponsors. The Opposition wish them well during their further detailed discussions and debates with the Government. We wish the hon. Gentleman well in moving forward with the Bill, and in securing the action required to fund the costs and tackle the causes of the homelessness crisis in our country. To the extent that he does that, he will have the Opposition’s full support.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Healey

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I do agree. What is interesting about the way in which the debate has progressed in the seven months since the House last discussed the issue is that the Commission has become much clearer in saying that the stance of its negotiating team will be not to lower consumer, environmental or labour standards. I will suggest later that that should be one of four central tests that we or anyone else should be able to level at the quality of the negotiations and the agreement struck.

My central point at this stage is to say that, for the first time—because of the level of interest and the level of mistrust in the establishment, politicians and big business—this cannot be a traditional backroom trade deal done by the elites in Brussels and Washington. Like justice, good trade policy must not only be done but must now be seen to be done. Any legitimate agreement must command the broadly based confidence that it will bring benefits to British consumers and workers, as well as to British business. It must be subject to the scrutiny of open debate; otherwise, there will be a risk that bad policy will remain unchanged and that fears will flourish unchallenged.

My argument to the Minister in particular is that those involved in securing and ratifying an agreement—Government Ministers, negotiators and elected politicians—will have to work much harder and more openly for a deal, and those of us across all parties who are for a deal will have to work much harder to provide support to enable that to happen.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing such an important debate. While Ministers seem keen to keep the public in the dark, the banking lobby is so happy with the financial services proposals that it has said that the text could have come straight from its own brochure. Does that ring the same alarm bells for the right hon. Gentleman as it does for me, and does he agree that the TTIP must not allow banks to undo the crucial EU agreement limiting harmful commodity speculation in particular?

[John Healey]

I had not heard that statement and I am surprised that the financial services industry has the detailed text of what is on the table, because we are not yet at that stage of the negotiations.

I want to do two things: first, I want to spell out a progressive economic case for trade and for the TTIP, and secondly, I want to set out four tests that I think a good TTIP deal and the Governments and negotiators involved must meet. On the economic case and why it is so important to the UK at present, I think that the great depression of the 1930s was the last economic crisis that was in any way comparable to what we suffered in 2008 with the global financial crisis and downturn. The policies pursued by the UK and the US back in the ’30s are, I think, widely seen to have prolonged that slump and held back any recovery. Not only were there deep cuts in public spending; there was also a sharp rise in protectionism and a decline in multilateral trade. Therefore, part of the reason why deals such as the TTIP and, indeed, the EU’s recent agreements with Canada and Korea are so important is that they avoid that default to beggar-my-neighbour economic policies and instead look to increase global trade through international co-operation. The UK has a particular need for the economic benefits and boost of trade.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Healey

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, with which I agree wholeheartedly. I do not think that the main problem we have with our political system is over-participation; we need to be encouraging more people to participate, and that is exactly what is done by third-party organisations, such as the non-governmental organisations, the community groups—

[John Healey]

And the trade unions.

[Caroline Lucas]

Indeed.

The fundamental principle at issue today is the right of citizens to express their views and argue for or against a particular policy, and to do so by joining with others who share their concerns. It is that combination of the people who come together that we need to protect. We must not rush into changes that could make a bad situation worse when it comes to public engagement with the democratic process and elections. We need an even-handed and thorough review of the current rules. Like others, I am looking forward to seeing the details of the Government’s concession, but there is a real fear that even if their changes do what they claim they will, this Bill will still impose a dangerously anti-democratic chilling effect on legitimate voices seeking to raise awareness and stimulate debate on issues of crucial public interest, be it NHS reform, fuel poverty, housing policy or wildlife conservation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and John Healey

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the implications of the recent violence in Turkey for stability in the region.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

10. What reports he has received on the Turkish authorities’ response to the recent demonstrations in Taksim square.