Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Clive Betts and Will Quince

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

[Will Quince]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Hammersmith. One issue I have with the current system is the short-sightedness of the approach of some local authorities. I do not want to do down local authorities, because many of them up and down the country do a fantastic job of offering high-quality advice. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham said, too many local authorities throughout the country offer advice that is frankly terrible—advice that suits the local authority, as opposed to the individual who faces the threat of homelessness. It is that postcode lottery that I am sure clause 2, and the Bill in general, will address.

We all know that there is a huge cost to homelessness, but we should never forget the huge social cost that comes with it, especially for those who are vulnerable—we have discussed some of the groups that fall under that category. When we look at homelessness, we know from some of the families who come to our surgeries that the people involved have considerable complex needs, which make addressing and preventing homelessness a particular challenge.

Take the example of a family who realise that they are failing to meet their monthly rent in the private rented sector. There may be all sorts of reasons for that. Let us say that they are £200 a month short. At the point at which they realise that they are starting to fall into arrears, they approach their local authority. Their local authority says, “Well, actually the best thing for you to do is wait until your landlord serves you with notice because your arrears have become so considerable—then let’s talk.” They get served with a notice and they go back to the local authority. The local authority then says to them, “Well, wait until the legal proceedings have been commenced and you are then forced out of that property by a bailiff.” Only last week, I met a family who were forcibly evicted from their house while the children were in it. The bailiff smashed the window and came in, the children were scared and crying and the family phoned me. That is disgraceful. That kind of advice should never be given, in my view, but if it is given, that should happen only in very rare circumstances.

Flip that on its head. Say that we applaud the family who recognise at the earliest possible opportunity that they are in difficulty or have a problem. They know they are getting into arrears, but they do not want to let down their landlord and they do not want to make themselves homeless, so they approach the local authority. The local authority says, “Actually, it’s £200 a month. Let’s sit down with you, let’s work with you and let’s see what we can do.” Even if the local authority decided, “You know what? For the sake of £2,000 to £2,500 a year, we will cover that cost”, that would be money well spent, given the cost of helping that family post-eviction. Not only have the family gone through that traumatic ordeal, they now have considerable arrears and a county court judgment against their name. Never again will they be accepted into the private rented sector, and—let us be honest—across all our constituencies, social housing is not readily available, especially for larger families.

Even when the council accepts that it has a duty to help and house the family after they are evicted via a bailiff, they are rarely put in temporary accommodation in the town where they seek help. In my constituency, people are often sent to neighbouring towns, away from their schools and their places of work, which puts both of those in jeopardy.

The point is that it is a huge disruption to their lives. However, the local authority then has very minimal options, because what does it do if it does not have the social housing and particularly those large houses? Its option is to look back to the private rented sector, but what landlord will help somebody who has a CCJ against their name, as well as a record of arrears and not paying their rent?

Moreover, what does what we are saying to those landlords do for the reputation of local authorities up and down this country? I am not a landlord and I will not defend the private rented sector, although it is very important to our housing options, but landlords often have mortgages, so six months of someone not paying rent affects their family, too. The likelihood of their then going on to be reasonable and help those who in the past have got into trouble financially, or indeed those who have a CCJ, is minimal at best.

I welcome the clause for several reasons, largely because of the duty it places on local authorities, to which, as effectively a branch of Government, individuals go for help at possibly one of the most vulnerable and emotionally difficult periods of their life. Those individuals need to rely on that support and have faith that the advice that they are given is not only the best advice but the right advice.

We know that, at the moment, some of the advice being given by local authorities across the country is not right, is against Government advice and is in the interests of the local authority, not those of the individual. Ironically, I believe that giving such advice is not in the medium to long-term interests of the local authority; it is in its short-term interests.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East raised a very good point about detailed advice on rights, because such advice should absolutely be tailored to each and every individual case. I mentioned earlier the complex needs of those facing the threat of homelessness. No one family and no one individual is the same as another family or individual. In one instance, it might be the case that paying that £200 in rent arrears was not only the most financially advantageous but the most socially advantageous thing to do. In other instances, it may not be, but we need to ensure—as this clause does—that when local authorities offer advice to vulnerable people at very difficult times, they give the right advice, including the different options that are open to them.

My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head when he said we should empower families in such a position not just to rely on the state but to consider the different options available to them to prevent their becoming homeless in the first instance. If we do that—if we offer that help and advice at the first possible instance—we will then have the best possible chance of preventing homelessness: preventing that social cost but also the huge financial cost that would otherwise fall on our local authorities.

Consequently, I wholeheartedly support this clause. It is absolutely the right thing to do and it ensures that, across the country, people will be offered consistent advice that is right for them as individuals.

[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.