Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and David Mackintosh

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester. He made many points that I would certainly want to associate myself with. Looking back to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s first report on homelessness, we drew attention to many of those issues, including the shortage of affordable homes to rent, particularly social housing, in many parts of the country, and the need to provide more homes of that kind. In the autumn statement, it seemed that the Government were moving more into that territory, although we are still trying to work out precisely how far they have moved. Maybe at some point the Minister could illuminate us on that.

There are many reasons for homelessness in individual cases, although the ending—for various reasons—of tenancies in the private sector is now the main one. In our Select Committee’s report on homelessness, we also drew attention to the increasing problem of the growing gap between rents and the level of local housing allowance that is paid in the private rented sector. If that level is frozen now for the next few years, it will become a more difficult issue and a bigger reason for the continuation of homelessness.

Those are all factors that, in general, we need to take account of, but the particular reason that I support the clause is the evidence we heard in the Select Committee. We all sat for several hours, listening to many witnesses with direct experience of being homeless. We also had a private conversation with some young people who were still being dealt with by the homelessness system at the time, and they talked to us confidentially about their experiences. It all created an impression that, in many cases, people go to their local authority and do not get the service they deserve. The clause is an attempt to put that right.

The Crisis mystery shopper exercise really affected all members of the Select Committee. Crisis sent someone out to local authorities, not declaring who they were, simply to find out what it was like to be homeless in that local authority area and to present before the local authority. It was revealed that people got inadequate advice and support in 50 out of 87 visits. That is a pretty staggering number—50 out of 87 got it wrong and did not give help and support. That goes along with many comments we heard about support, assistance and advice being unprofessional and sometimes inhumane. We cannot allow that to continue.

I slightly part company with Government Members in that I do think we are asking for a new burden on local authorities. At some point, the Minister will have to respond to that. I hope that there are helpful and constructive discussions with the Local Government Association; I am a vice-president of the LGA. To some degree, when local authorities, even the better local authorities that take their responsibilities seriously, have limited resources—we should not pretend that local authorities do not have limited resources, because they are more limited than they were—they naturally tend to deal, as a first priority, with those people who are in priority need. If they have resources to spend, they tend to be spent on people in priority need—people with children, for example—who present themselves. That family needs rehousing, so that is where the effort and support goes. If a young person, a single person, a couple without children or people in other circumstances turn up, they will get what is left. The person at the local authority has only a bit of time—a few minutes—to say, “Here’s a list of estate agents’ telephone numbers. Go and phone them.” We heard that, in some cases, those phone numbers were actually out of date. That is what people often get.

There is a code of guidance, which I am sure we will come to later in our discussions of other matters. The code of guidance is not always followed by local authorities, but it is guidance, not an absolute and utter requirement. There is a difference, to my mind, between having a code of guidance and having something on the face of an Act, which I hope the Bill will become. The duties in the clause are substantial, asking local authorities to look at not simply preventing homelessness, but the issues around care leavers, young people in prison or youth detention, people who have been in the armed forces, domestic abuse and people leaving hospital. The measure demands an awful lot of support and expertise within local authorities if they are to discharge that long list of responsibilities properly.

It is absolutely right that getting these things done in a proper way can ultimately save money. Homelessness has a cost not merely for the individuals, but for society as a whole and for public services. Very often local authorities have to spend the money—hopefully spend it well to stop homelessness, to help people in these situations and to prevent them from having other future problems—but the savings then come to other public bodies including, probably, the criminal justice system in due course, the health service and others.

Yes, it is absolutely right that we are changing the legislation and placing a stronger requirement on local authorities, but that is a new burden. It is one that is absolutely right, but it is a very big ask to get all these responsibilities carried out in a proper way. We will return to resources in due course but, to my mind, the measure does not really ask local authorities to do what they should be doing anyway; it asks them to do an awful lot more. I fully support the asks in the clause.

[David Mackintosh]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am particularly delighted to serve on this Committee because I served on the Communities and Local Government Committee and asked, with other Members, for the homelessness inquiry to be undertaken. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness. I see many cases in my constituency and through the work we did on the Select Committee where a range of different advice is offered. We even see different advice offered within the same authority, so this legislation is needed to mainstream the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

We had a very good debate on clause 2. It is a long time since I heard the Minister say, “I’ve got the money and I am going to spend it.” What welcome words! I think that is what the Minister said—he is not correcting me, so we will say that is what the Minister said; we will see in due course how much the money actually is when agreement is reached, as it hopefully will be with the LGA.

There is a similarity between what I am going to say and the debate that we have just had on clause 2. Clause 2 details a whole range of responsibilities for local authorities in terms of the advice and support that they give to people who present themselves as homeless, irrespective of whether they are in priority need. In clause 3, we come to the personal plan and to the eventual offer that is likely to be made to individuals who are homeless.

We heard in evidence to the Select Committee that there were also problems in that regard. I probably want to tag the name Daisy-May to the amendment, because we heard from Daisy-May Hudson, a young, very intelligent, very determined lady. Her family had been made homeless and ended up in temporary accommodation for about a year. She not only gave evidence to the Select Committee, but made a video that was shown to Select Committee members about her experiences. The way in which the family were treated was pretty horrific. As they put it, the brusque letters that came saying no to this and that were really heart-wrenching for them.

One particular issue came to mind, which is why I decided to table the amendment. I say straight away that I want to see something in the Bill that deals with this issue, and if the Minister has a better way of doing it, I am open to hearing from him. The similarity with clause 2 is that requirements relating to what is suitable accommodation, particularly in terms of its location, are all contained in guidance. The Minister has armies of civil servants—hundreds of people—to advise and assist him with his responses and to help him to draw up amendments and alternative wording, so if he can look to them and come up with a better of way doing this, I will always be open to suggestion.

As a Back Bencher, I rely on the expert advice from people in the House—and it is expert advice; it is important to recognise that. The Clerk of the Committee helped me to draft the amendment and drafting advisers on the Select Committee helped us throughout our process. People in the House of Commons Library also helped me to find the right words in the guidance. There is a lot about the suitability of accommodation and its location in the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012, which goes into detail about what authorities should be doing on suitability and location in respect of recognising people’s employment, caring responsibilities and education.

However, when Daisy-May gave evidence—indeed, this is in her film—we heard that the family were made an offer of accommodation, but that it was two hours away from her sister’s school. It was completely unsuitable and was just not a reasonable offer. Despite the fact that the family had provided a lot of evidence—medical and other supporting evidence—it was all pushed to one side. As they said, they got a letter and a form to send back with three lines to fill in to say why the accommodation was not suitable. That authority gave a token response, saying, “Here you are. This is the accommodation. If you don’t like it, say in three lines why you don’t.” It was a completely inappropriate way to deal with the matter.

The difficulty is this: eventually the family got a different offer, but only because they threatened to take the case to court—I think they had the help of Shelter, but I may be mistaken in that respect.

[David Mackintosh]

indicated assent.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I have probably got that right. I do not think the case actually got to court, but the threat of legal action being started meant that eventually a different offer was made. Not everybody can do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mackintosh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning this important point. I share his view that the video that Daisy-May Hudson presented to us in the Select Committee aptly deals with all these issues and should be viewed by every member of this Committee, so that they can see the issues that people face. I want to see provisions on that in the Bill, and I think the Minister might touch on that later.

[Mr Betts]

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I draw a parallel with clause 2, which will be on the face of the Bill—hopefully on the face of the Act—because the current guidance is not always observed; it is not as strong and does not give people as strong a right to the services that we think they ought to have. I am making the same point with the amendment. Currently, the suitability of the location is contained in the guidance. An authority should take account of it, but in the end it does not have to. Now, perhaps people can take a judicial review against the authority, but we should not be relying on applicants in very difficult circumstances to get appropriate advice and take a JR against the local authority to ensure that the will of this House is implemented.