Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Emma Reynolds

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

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

Let me begin by expressing my thanks and gratitude to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), not merely for his Bill but for the enormous amount of work that he has done over the last few weeks in building a coalition of support across the House and among outside organisations. We should not underestimate his commitment, or his success in building that support for his Bill.

Members have referred to the work of the Communities and Local Government Committee. We in the House are used to following precedents—we seem to do it all the time—but I think that, on this occasion, we have actually created a precedent. A report from a Select Committee has provided the basis for a private Member’s Bill, the Bill has then been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee, and the Committee’s subsequent report has helped to produce the Bill in its final form. That, I think, is unique. No one can find an example of its being done before. It is an important example of the two ways in which Back Benchers can best shape and influence legislation in this House—private Members’ Bills and Select Committees—coming together in a powerful way to produce legislation that has support right across the House and will, I hope, reach the statute book. I thank all my colleagues on the Select Committee for the work they have put into it.

Homelessness is a growing problem, as can be seen from the 50% increase in local authority acceptances since 2010 and the growing number of rough sleepers. We also know that the figures do not reflect the true situation. The UK Statistics Authority has said that the figures are not fit for purpose and the Government have agreed to review them, but this is a difficult job. It is difficult enough trying to count rough sleepers. The St Mungo’s estimates for London are eight times higher than the Government figures. We also know that many people go to a local authority and are not recorded properly. Then there are the thousands or tens of thousands who are living in overcrowded accommodation or sofa surfing, and who do not present to a local authority at all. They are not counted in the figures, but we know they are there. The problem is therefore far bigger than the figures indicate.

The Bill, admirable though it is and despite its support across the House, will not deal with the fundamental problem of the housing crisis in this country. There is a shortage of housing caused by decades of not building enough homes by Governments of all political persuasions. Interestingly, when the Select Committee asked three young witnesses what was the most important thing this House could do to deal with homelessness, they all said, “Build more social housing.” That was reflected in recommendation 3 of our first report on homelessness, which stated:

“There is therefore a case for the development of homes for affordable rent which we encourage the Government to act on by working with local authorities to deliver the homes that are needed at a local level.”

It is helpful that the new Minister for Housing and Planning is beginning to reflect that point in his comments. We look forward to the White Paper and the autumn statement, which hopefully will recognise that although homes to buy are important, there are many people who cannot afford to buy and who need a home for rent. That is something for the Government to consider.

[Emma Reynolds]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on the housing crisis and the failure of the Government to deal with it. Obviously, successive Governments have failed to build enough homes. May I bring him back to his point about supply? Is it not the case that some of the Government’s policies, such as forcing councils to sell council homes and watering down section 106 agreements to focus purely on starter homes, rather than council homes, are making the problem much, much worse?

[Mr Betts]

Personally, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Select Committee looked at this matter for our report on housing associations and the right to buy, and that was reflected in our report on homelessness. We accepted that there should be a housing programme to provide more homes in local areas to reflect local needs, and that it should include homes to buy and homes to rent. That was agreed across the parties. There is a need to recognise that housing markets are different across the country and that what is appropriate in London is not necessarily appropriate in the north-east. It is appropriate to look at local need and provide the homes that are needed in particular areas. There was all-party support for that.

The Select Committee looked at the problem of the growing gap between private market rents and the local housing allowance. Some 40% of homelessness cases are caused by the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy, often because the tenants cannot afford to pay the rent. In Westminster, the gap between the average rent and the local housing allowance is £500 a month. But it is not just Westminster: in Cambridgeshire, the gap is £250 a month. Those are large figures. If the local housing allowance is frozen from now until 2020, the gap will get worse. Recommendation 2 of the Select Committee’s first report on homelessness states:

“Local Housing Allowances levels should also be reviewed so that they more closely reflect market rents.”

There was cross-party agreement on that. It is a problem that in many areas, when people are made homeless, there is no social housing for them to go into and no private rented housing they can afford either. That needs to be addressed.

There are also problems with supported housing, although the Government have rowed back from their initial intention to relate the cost of supported housing to the local housing allowance. This still needs to be thought through. There are particular problems for people in supported housing who get back into work and then find that they cannot meet the cost of supported housing because housing benefit is withdrawn completely. That problem was raised with the Select Committee by a lot of young people during our inquiry and it needs to be addressed. People must be able to get back into work without finding, suddenly, that they have lost their supported housing at the time they most need it.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Clive Betts and Emma Reynolds

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. When we were in office we devolved power to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but I know from our colleagues in Scotland that they are very disappointed that there has not been much devolution from the Scottish Parliament downwards. As my hon. Friend says, if we are devolving to combined authorities, we need to ensure that there is real devolution to communities as well.

The Budget also reinforced the Government’s piecemeal approach to devolution. We are calling on them to deliver a more ambitious and comprehensive devolution agenda to every part of the country—to all our cities, towns and counties. Doing a small number of one-off deals is not a one nation approach.

This Secretary of State is certainly better liked than his predecessor—[Interruption.] I accept that it is not a particularly high bar. It remains to be seen, however, whether he will live up to the reputation that he is trying to forge for himself. We hope that he will fight the corner of local government, but we will judge him on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in the autumn, on the settlement that he achieves for local government, particularly in areas of high need, and, crucially, on the impact that any settlement will have on the vital public services on which people rely. Local government areas where more children are in care, where there are more vulnerable elderly people and where the needs of the local population are more complex and difficult are the areas where the Government have made the deepest cuts in the last five years. Let me say this to the Secretary of State: he cannot champion local government if he is impoverishing it at the same time. Devolution must not be a smokescreen to bring local government to its knees.

Housing is the other long-term challenge with which I want to deal. In our first debate in this House since the election I said to the Secretary of State, when debating the Queen’s Speech, that tackling the housing crisis was a key test for him and his Government. He agreed; he said it was an “issue of huge importance” and that this Government would

“build more homes in every part of the country”—[Official Report, 10 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1231.]

He even invoked the spirit of Harold Macmillan, but last week the Chancellor delivered a Budget that contained no proposal to tackle the housing crisis. Worse still—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. Worse still, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the Budget would lead to 14,000 fewer affordable homes being built, which is contrary to what the Secretary of State said today. His desire to emulate Harold Macmillan appears to have been rather short-lived. If he thought that private house builders would compensate for his Government’s policies, he was mistaken, because the OBR says that it does

“not expect private sector house-builders to offset this effect to any material degree.”

Then there was the Government’s so-called pay-to-stay measure. I was interested to read that the Prime Minister had reservations about these proposals because he was not sure of the wisdom of describing people earning £30,000 as high earners. Indeed, these proposals would mean that a couple working full-time on the living wage would be classified as high earners, with a combined income of just over £30,000 a year. We have not seen the details of these proposals yet, but that couple could have to pay, on average, an additional £3,600 a year according to the Government’s own figures. Those who secure a promotion or more hours could thus be hit by this measure.

[Mr Betts]

The details of this new measure are going to be interesting. Either we are going to have a cliff-edge where people suddenly start paying a lot more rent because they have earned a little more money, or we are going to have to bring in a taper system, which is another form of taxation. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will have a system whereby local authorities are in effect going to have to know the incomes of every single tenant so they can check when people go over this threshold? A massive bureaucracy will have to be created simply to implement this very small measure.

[Emma Reynolds]

Indeed, and the Government introduced a similar measure in the last Parliament, but the threshold was £60,000 a year. In their consultation on those changes, the Government said that putting the threshold below £60,000 a year would result in “perverse incentives” and a “disincentive to work”. Why have they suddenly changed their mind, and why was there no mention in the Red Book of the Government’s plan to extend the right to buy? Once again, it fell to the OBR to mention what the Government were not prepared to refer to. It warned that the policy risked adding £60 billion to public debt.

We welcome some measures—for example, the raising of the rent-a-room relief and the tackling of some of the over-generous tax reliefs for private landlords which help to squeeze out first-time buyers—but they are not going to end the housing crisis. Last week the Chancellor and the Business Secretary were busy announcing planning reforms, which unless I have missed something are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. While the Chancellor was plundering the Labour manifesto, the Business Secretary appears to have been pillaging Labour’s housing review. We welcome the following, given that these were our policies anyway: tougher measures to ensure that local areas have a local plan; strengthening the Government’s duty to co-operate; reform of compulsory purchase powers; and a new dispute mechanism for section 106 agreements. But these were only some elements of our Lyons housing review, which is a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis—something that this Government are sorely lacking. Sadly, one thing the Government are not taking forward is Labour’s commitment to zero-carbon homes. Pulling the plug on this policy will damage the house building industry, cost jobs and investment and mean higher energy bills for consumers, and I am wondering how on earth they can justify it.

The Government’s wider proposals announced on Friday also raise a number of questions. We welcome plans to build homes on brownfield sites, but if the Government were serious about building on brownfield why did they withdraw five years ago some of the investment and neighbourhood renewal fund which helped towards the costs of remediating polluted land—a fund that we put in place in our time in government? If brownfield sites are to get automatic planning permission, how will the Government ensure that local communities continue to have a say, that there is sufficient infrastructure for the plans to be delivered, that the quality of new homes is guaranteed, and that section 106 agreements are applied to ensure that developers fulfil affordable homes obligations? Given that a move to a zoning system represents a significant change to the planning system, will the national planning policy framework have to be amended? Will it perhaps be more accurately renamed the “national planning system”? It seems curious that the Conservative party spent so much time and energy attacking Labour’s spatial strategies in the name of localism, yet now appears to be nationalising planning. I cannot keep up with the Secretary of State: is he trying to be Macmillan or Lenin? I know the Secretary of State has been on a political journey from the Social Democratic party to the Conservative party, but this journey is rather unbelievable.

Housing

Debate between Clive Betts and Emma Reynolds

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

As I have said, we support the right to buy, but policies brought to this House must be workable, must be funded and must be costed. Many people have rightly expressed concerns about whether this will lead to a deepening of the housing crisis and perhaps an even greater shortage of council and housing association homes. Labour Members know that many of our constituents are on the waiting lists.

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

My hon. Friend has done an excellent job in giving us a comprehensive list of concerns about this policy, but may I add two more? First, many councils have sold off their housing stock in a stock transfer. Does that mean that they need contribute nothing towards the cost of the policy? Secondly, the most expensive houses owned by councils that still have stock are generally in the nicest and most expensive areas. Does that mean that, in future, those areas will not be available to anyone who wants to move into a council house, because all the council houses there will have to be sold off?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will have heard my hon. Friend’s first question. I have to admit that I do not know the answer to it, because the policy is so light on detail. It was written on the back of a fag packet during the Conservative party’s general election campaign.