Homelessness Reduction Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

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

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). Like everybody else, I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the promoter of the Bill, and I am proud to be one of its cross-party sponsors.

Several weeks ago, the Prime Minister took to the stage at our party conference to deliver her vision for Britain: a country where every single person, regardless of their background or that of their parents, has the chance to be all they want to be, where government stands up for the weak and stands up to the strong.

Hon. Members might forgive Henry for his scepticism. At the age of 22, Henry found himself on the streets after being physically abused and thrown out of his home by his father who refused to accept that he was gay. Vulnerable and in desperate need of help, Henry turned to his local London borough, repeatedly waiting for hours in packed receptions, only to be told that there was nothing that could be done, and that he was not a priority and certainly not a statutory priority. Effectively in his mind, he did not matter. It is for people like Henry for whom we are standing up today and this week. We want to ensure that, at the very least, we have in statute a duty to prevent people like Henry from going through the cycle of despair without a home.

There have been many good speeches today; no doubt there are still more to come, but they will be getting briefer as we get to the time that will see this Bill safely on its passage. They will not necessarily bridge that gap in credibility that people like Henry see as they gaze across at this fine building. I am talking about those people across the Thames who are facing another night on the streets. It is, as others have said, a scandal that we too readily tolerate, and have tolerated, the increasing number of homeless people. It is also a preventable scandal, which today we can do something about by supporting this Bill.

The point of this Bill is to ensure that the causes of homelessness are tackled, so that people do not reach that crisis of being without a home. Inevitably, that means empowering councils and other agencies to focus more on the drivers of homelessness. Sadly, in the front seat is family relationship breakdown, which for six out of 10 young people is the main cause of homelessness, according to a Centrepoint report this week. This Bill will provide that duty of prevention. Yes, the burden will fall heavily on local authorities, but the responsibility is a shared one, particularly when one considers the costs of youth homelessness, which mainly hits central Government budgets. That is why I welcome the Government’s support today, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Inevitably, the Government are already picking up the costs, so they need to be involved in investing in prevention.

Centrepoint’s recent report highlights that the main cost of youth homelessness alone—on top of costs of offending, poor mental health, lack of education, employment or training, and domestic violence and so on—falls predominantly on the welfare budget. For those under 18, that amounts to £9,000 per young person per year, rising for 18 to 24-year-olds to £12,000. That amounts to some £560 million a year just in terms of homelessness. The Government’s £40 million announcement is welcome, but those figures put the problem in context and show us what is needed to be able to shift the focus on to prevention. Such a shift obviously makes so much sense both in terms of value for money and of social benefits.

Homelessness is a complex issue, because it involves individuals with multiple and complex needs. As we know from the great work of St Mungo’s and its supported accommodation—it also has accommodation in my constituency—of the 1,036 people who have slept rough and are currently in its accommodation, three quarters have mental health problems, 65% have drug or alcohol problems and half have a physical condition that has a substantial effect on their health. We therefore need to deal with things in the round and ensure that all agencies of government, centrally as well as locally, are focused on seeking to prevent homelessness.

The stark reality is that the average life expectancy of someone who is street homeless is 47—so someone of my age. At the age of 47, that would be it. That is appalling and hard to comprehend. We must be able to shift that in this day and age.

As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, there are examples of good practice. In my borough, there are individuals who are working incredibly hard—in John Wilkes House and others—to do a great job. Sadly, there are far too many examples of bad practice across local authorities. In my constituency, I have had some examples of really appalling, shoddy practices that dehumanise individuals as they try to seek help. This Bill will ensure that there is a level playing field for those who do not currently see that—the homeless. The reality is that we need to ensure that the good practice highlighted by Centrepoint of mediation, whole-family approaches, multi-agency working, and of the single frontier for services needs to spread throughout our land to help the most vulnerable.

All too often in my years as a Member of Parliament and as a councillor, I have seen that outer London boroughs such as mine can be in denial about the real numbers of homeless people—the hidden homeless and the real street homeless. They can acquiesce—not least because they are allowed to by legislation—to seeing those at risk of homelessness gravitate to central London hostels, to the Greater London Authority’s excellent scheme of No Second Night Out and the rest. They can effectively sit on their statutory hands while others pick up the bill. This is what this Bill seeks to address by ensuring that there is co-operation, relief and a duty of prevention, and I welcome that.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

I will press on so that others can speak.

We need to do what we can to tackle this issue. I am therefore disappointed, but not surprised, that my borough of Enfield and other north London councils in the North London Housing Partnership have sent round a submission that is very critical of this Bill. It says that it is unworkable in London and that it will increase homelessness. That is a huge shame. In their words:

“This is likely to detract from the very effective homelessness prevention that already takes place.”

They are in denial. I wholly disagree with them. We need to respect that the funds and support are needed. We need to look at those without recourse to public funds, and to support those who do not have family or local connections. I say to my council and others that what is unworkable is what Crisis reported, which is that what was offered to the 50 out of the 87 mystery shoppers—the people acting as single homeless people—was wholly insufficient. They reported a lack of private interview rooms and the insensitivity of staff, which was akin to public humiliation. Sympathy and empathy, which are there in individuals, were sadly in short supply. The poverty-related shame and the stigma were reinforced by what they received from their local authorities. That must end. That is what is unworkable. It is unworkable that many were just dismissed with a selection of leaflets that they were unable to understand or to decipher. Some were simply told to browse on Gumtree. That is unacceptable in this day and age, just as it is unacceptable to see the rising level of homelessness.

We must ensure for the good conscience of our nation that we do not just let people fall back on the priority need and “sitting on our hands” aspect of practice at the moment, and that we deliver much more comprehensive preventative duty. We need to recognise that the safety net provided by the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 is aged, failing and unworkable for the homeless. We must get on and back this Bill.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

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

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am pleased to see this clause in the Bill. I particularly welcome the emphasis that runs throughout the Bill on shifting resources into prevention, so that we stop as many as people as possible becoming homeless in the first place.

The Bill will drive a change in culture and we need legislation to drive that change in many local authorities. The culture that prevails has come about because the existing requirements on local authorities, as well as the pressure of resources, force councils into a position in which they support the people they have to support. Resources are not currently available to support all the people councils have to support, and it is necessarily the case that many people fall outside the scope of local authority support. I agree entirely that local authorities should have the flexibility to devise and design services at local level that are appropriate to the needs that present themselves.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole indicated that he does not believe the provision of advice services constitutes a set of new burdens on local authorities, but we delude ourselves if we think the provision of meaningful advice does not constitute a series of resourcing requirements that result in a set of new burdens on local authorities. It is important that the Committee acknowledges what we mean and the implications of the clause for local authorities. We should ensure that the clause can be effective in delivering the outcomes that we all want.

I am a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. I too heard and saw the evidence that that Committee received during the homelessness inquiry. We saw evidence of local authorities being unable to support many people presenting as homeless in two different categories. We saw evidence of very poor practice—that came through strongly from the Crisis mystery shopper exercise. Some local authorities were simply not interested in helping or advising anybody they did not have to advise. In some cases, even people eligible for support were not receiving support of any kind of quality or meaningfulness. We also saw overwhelming evidence that the systems that exist to support homeless people in local authorities are at breaking point—they are overwhelmed.

The problem faced by many local authorities is to do with the wider housing crisis that we face in this country. We saw evidence of advice that was not up to date, as other hon. Members have said. Referral to third-party organisations that are already overstretched is a common form of advice. Local authorities are saying, “Go and see the local advice agency, go to the local law centre, go to the citizens advice bureau.” Residents turning up to those places find that they have to wait in a long queue and that they cannot get an appointment immediately, and then find that those agencies are not in a position to provide meaningful advice because the housing that people ultimately need is simply not available. We saw evidence that advice was being provided for people to contact organisations that could and should be able to provide alternative housing, but which themselves had been forced to increase their threshold for accessing their support.

I have an example of a constituent who was given a list of organisations that she could telephone who would provide alternative housing because that was what she needed. She phoned them. As a single person, she was not considered to be in priority need, and every one of those organisations required a nomination from a local authority in order to access their services. Such advice is not in any way meaningful.

I want to ensure that we introduce clause 2, and that it will result in the provision of meaningful advice to people seeking support from local authorities. The provision of meaningful advice is to a large degree about the provision of meaningful options. I can say to my constituent, “I advise you to contact your local authority to seek their support with housing.” The local authority will say, “We simply do not have any social housing available and we have a list of many thousands of people already waiting for that housing.” That is not meaningful advice for me to provide to my constituent. We need to focus on the issue of meaningfulness.

Two things are important in ensuring that we deliver: first, we need to be clear that, in introducing a new duty, it cannot be acceptable for a local authority to discharge their duty, and to be considered to have discharged their duty, by providing advice that is poor quality or out of date, or not the best possible advice that can be provided. I flag up to Government Members the need for the provision of detailed guidance to accompany the Bill to make it clear to local authorities what constitutes the discharge of their duty to provide advice. The guidance would also make it clear that the Government will not stand for the continued practice of passing the buck to external agencies who cannot themselves provide that advice, resulting in a situation in which people are not meaningfully helped. Detailed guidance is important.

Secondly, we need to locate the clause firmly within the wider debate about the expansion of housing provision, including social housing, and the expansion of support for advice and support agencies that people need when they are at risk of becoming homeless. I wish to assert my view that the clause imposes new burdens on local authorities, and I would like a response from the Government on the question of what resources will be made available to enable those new burdens to be met. Otherwise we give ourselves a pat on the back in this House that we have enacted something that talks about the provision of advice. If the measure does not make the necessary difference on the ground, we have failed and we will be held to account. With those remarks, I am pleased to support the clause.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be involved in the debate on clause 2, which in many ways is at the heart of the Bill. If we get clause 2 right, we will have made a big difference in reducing homelessness. Following on from comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, the point I wish to make is that it is about ensuring that good practice is enshrined. As other hon. Members have said, good practice is not always followed.

On behalf of the vulnerable, and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I welcome the Bill and the duty to provide advisory services. Those groups of people often miss out and do not properly access the advice that they need. If they could access advice earlier at a preventive stage, it could prevent greater complexity, greater cost and crisis management.

I recognise that the Bill enshrines good practice and codes of guidance, as has been said. However, if properly applied, the Bill also places an additional burden on statutory services. If one looks at the example of the Bill, one sees the burden applies not least to persons leaving hospital. St Mungo’s has been particularly active in highlighting the scandal that 70% of homeless people who are in hospital are then discharged on to the streets. That must end, and the Bill must help it to end. Local authorities including mine in Enfield sign charters, but it is one thing to sign up to a charter and another to ensure that there is a link between health, social care and housing—that needs to happen and often does not—to ensure that support and advice is provided at the point when people need it most on leaving hospital. That is why it is welcome to see that explicitly included in the Bill. Frankly, it is neglectful that that does not happen and we need that statutory duty and provision.

I welcome, through the good endeavours of the Select Committee, the addition of victims of abuse and domestic violence. I pay tribute to Agenda, which is a charity representing the interests of women and girls at risk. I understand that it gave evidence to the Select Committee and made the point that the reality is, sadly, that the victims of abuse are not getting the proper advice that they need, which we will know from our constituency case work.

Indeed, in my surgery on Saturday, a victim of domestic violence came to me and said that she needed desperately to move from her house with her young child. Recently, her shed had been burned down by her abuser and her car had been vandalised. She went to Enfield Council to seek advice and was met, sadly, with indifference. I recognise that within Enfield Council there are some excellent housing officers, and in many ways they are overstretched, but she was met with a yawn and someone saying, “Well, we can’t help everyone.” That attitude towards my constituent in a state of absolute vulnerability is shameful and must end, which the Bill will help to do. She has simply been told, “We will get back to you in 10 days,” but then there is another 10 days and another 10 days. She has not heard anything from the council in terms of meaningful advice. The Bill and the clause will help.

May I draw attention to one detail? Within the draft Bill and what would have been the new section 179, people with a learning disability were included as a group, although the provision was not limited to them. That is not included in the Bill before the Committee. Hon. Members will know from experience that those with learning difficulties and disabilities are particularly vulnerable and have problems accessing meaningful advice. They may not fall within priority need or appear at first communication to do so, but because of their learning disabilities they may not be able to communicate those needs properly. There is therefore a need for specific and meaningful advice for them. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the Minister to help me to provide reassurance that the category of

“persons suffering from a mental illness or impairment”

properly includes people with learning disabilities and that, in practical terms, they will receive the meaningful advice they need.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point, and in responding I should declare my interest as a member of my local Mencap society. Obviously, adults with learning disabilities are an extremely important group that need to be supported. I reassure my hon. Friend that they are indeed dealt with within that definition. I additionally reassure him that that will be clarified within statutory guidance that will go alongside this Bill.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance.

For adults who are struggling to get a diagnosis of autism, clarification is needed in the guidance on the level of evidence necessary to ensure that the duties are triggered. I welcome the clause.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

I agree that the clause will substantially improve the ability of care leavers to access homelessness assistance. However, I would like to see some movement towards the Government’s “Keep on caring” strategy, which extends some support to care leavers up to the age of 25. There are other Bills looking at that as well. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I very much support the clause and its focus on care leavers. I note that it is not an extension of the local connection that was considered in the draft Bill, which the Communities and Local Government Committee scrutinised and recommended should not be extended more widely—and that was accepted—as it could have caused some issues and was perhaps in conflict with existing guidance.

I want to ask the Minister about a concern that I think is shared by the hon. Member for Westminster North. The Select Committee’s earlier report recommended that the Government should consider the guidance given to local authorities for when families move from lower-cost areas to high-cost areas and subsequently present as homeless after a short period in private rented accommodation. That is a regular reality in Enfield, where many people come for accommodation from boroughs such as Westminster. That leads not only to the presentation of homelessness after a period of time in private rented accommodation, but associated needs as well. There are often complex needs, and the bill has to be picked by Enfield.

That is something that happens all too often and there needs to be a proper attempt to deal with it, with guidance and proper co-ordination. I have spoken to London’s deputy mayor for housing about the meetings that are taking place with directors of housing to try to deal with this problem, which is affecting outer London boroughs such as Enfield.

[Mr Jones]

The Government welcome the clause. We believe that it will lead to more care leavers who experience homelessness getting help in the area that they feel at home in, where they are close to the people who are important to them and to the services that they use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate explained, broadly speaking somebody may have a local connection with an area because they live there or have been living there for a certain amount of time, because they work or have family associations in the area, or because they have other special circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mackintosh]

Under clause 3, we talked about the difficulties people face when they are made homeless, including the difficulty of relocating them in areas that contain their support network, not least their schools and families. It would be great if we could avoid that altogether by preventing homelessness in the first place. That is the intention behind clause 4, which is why I agree with colleagues that it is at the heart of the Bill. The measure will help local authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham said, and help councils to exercise their duty. For whatever reason, there are often difficulties in processing applications or helping people within 28 days. By extending the time period to 56 days, it is much more likely that people will be helped and avoid homelessness altogether.

I am sure we all have examples from our constituencies of people who have come to us to talk about the problems they face with their landlord, or with getting help and support from local authorities. Indeed, as part of the Select Committee evidence, we heard examples of people being deliberately led down the section 21 route to be made homeless because it allowed more time for the process. As a result, people are suffering trauma and other consequences. That is no way for people to be treated when they are at a vulnerable stage in their lives, and when they need help and support. The provisions within the clause will change that fundamentally, bring about the cultural change we have mentioned, help housing officers to do their job and prevent people from becoming homeless.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am pleased to take part in this stand part debate on clause 4 because, as hon. Members and hon. Friends have said, it is the essence of the Bill. If it is implemented properly, it will indeed help to prevent any eligible person who is at risk of homelessness from becoming homeless. Local authorities will no longer be able to turn away people who do not meet the priority need criteria or are unintentionally homeless. That broad approach is welcome.

Although there are concerns—we have received briefings about the cost implications of the Bill—the clause provides greater flexibility and a greater practical impact. It means we are not left in the situations that hon. Members have mentioned, with people coming to the constituency surgery who do not meet the statutory criteria and have been turned away. It is therefore not simply about providing accommodation in every place, in every town and locality. The measure provides greater flexibility. I have often had constituents who stay with an extended family member as a family crisis or situation arises. Because they are in that family accommodation and are not unintentionally homeless, they do not come within the criteria of being in priority need. In that situation, they are unable to receive what could be low-level support, such as family mediation, which may well lead to them staying in that family home or, indeed, finding other suitable accommodation.

I mentioned an example in a previous sitting of a victim of domestic violence who had been rebuffed by a housing officer. To take the point from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, there is no monopoly on compassion, whether by Members of Parliament, council officers or councillors. There is a reality of rationing resources, and dealing with limited housing stock and limited provision. However, the reality for that constituent was that they were told, “Do you think you’re the only one who needs help?” Clause 4 will bring an end to that kind of response.

That individual plainly needed help. She was facing a situation in which her shed and her car had just been vandalised by her abuser, and a litany of threats to her life had been recorded by the police. Women’s Aid were making the case that she needed to be considered for rehousing. She was in work but needed some help to get the rent deposit to be able to get away from the risk to her and her daughter’s life.

While we can say that she should not have been dealt with like that under existing legislation and guidance, the measure will make it crystal clear that it is not a case of a housing officer seeing whether an individual comes within the priority need requirements of being unintentionally homeless. She and others will be eligible—the broad understanding of and criteria for eligibility will be extended to those who are intentionally homeless. Many people in our constituencies will fall in that category for one reason or another. They are intentionally homeless, but that does not negate their need for proper support so that they avoid going into the crisis management that inevitably ensues, whether they are intentionally or unintentionally homeless.

I believe the Bill will release not only charities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham mentioned, but housing officers to do the job that they are there for and that they want to do. They want to help. They do not want simply to turn people away because they do not think they meet a particular threshold within a statute. It will open them up to saying, “Yes, I do want to help you. I am not going to simply judge whether you think you should receive more help than someone else.” There will be help.

I particularly welcome the help to secure provision in clause 6. That is important, because it means we have that important flexibility. It may be that the individual who comes to the housing officer will not need to be given new accommodation, but they may need a variety support. It may be that they can find their own accommodation in their own way themselves, but the housing office may have particular responsibilities, for example to give help to raise a rent deposit and guarantees of support. It may be that the duty can be discharged in that regard, and it will be up to the individual to move on.

The reference in the clause to suitability is important—we will come to that under clause 12. I recognise that location is not referred to and that there is no location element within the provision. There is no need for it because it applies to all accommodation that the local authority has secured, but it is important to recognise that the duty is to help to secure. That could mean a whole variety of factors and enables the housing officer not to turn around and simply rely on their duties.

That will help in a variety of ways. Presently, there is such a limited stock in my area of Enfield. The ability to find accommodation in Enfield may be limited, but that does not mean that the local authority can simply fall back on the lack of specific available property, or indeed the limited statutory responsibilities. The clause opens the door to a much greater variety of flexible support. In partnership with charities and others, the duty can be discharged to the benefit of all who are eligible and who are threatened with homelessness.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the hon. Members for Westminster North and for Sheffield South East that we have been clear that 30% of the savings that come from the local housing allowance rate will be re-purposed to support those people in areas where homes have the highest cost. It is not just about introducing the local housing allowance rate; it is also about supporting people in the areas of highest cost.

[Mr Burrowes]

Proposed new section 195(7)(a)(ii) covers the time limit requirement. I appreciate that it is now “at least 6 months”, rather than 12 months, but can the Minister confirm that “at least 6 months” covers situations such as those in hostels? This issue was brought to the attention of the Communities and Local Government Committee by the council of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, Harrow Council. It said:

“We know that many hostel places give 6 month agreements, which generally are extended over again for up to 2 years”.

Are those agreements included in the duty?

[Mr Jones]

We are talking about a minimum of six months. The provision does not prevent a longer period from being agreed. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

The final matter that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East mentioned was housing benefit and 18 to 21-year-olds. I reiterate that the reform will affect only new claimants on universal credit from April 2017. It will not affect people in work. The measure is intended to ensure that young people do not slip into a life on benefits. Youth unemployment has a long-term scarring effect on people, so it is important to improve the incentive for young people to move into work. We are introducing a new youth obligation, which will offer a new and intensive package of labour market support for 18 to 21-year-olds to get back into work.

The measure is also about bringing parity to a system in which an unemployed young person can leave the family home whereas an employed young person may not be able to. Exemptions will be put in place to ensure that those unable to return to the family home have the right access to support, and there will be a grace period for those who have been in work for the previous six months.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

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

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman and I have not had the pleasure of serving on the same Committee before, so he will not recognise that I am pulling my punches considerably and have engaged consensus mode for the duration. The Bill’s promoter recognises that because we have been in this position many times before. Yes, my points are party political to the extent that his Government have got so much wrong in the provision of housing supply, particularly for people who need social housing and genuinely affordable housing. That must be addressed, but I have tried to put that in non-party political terms as a fact.

I have gone through, in a short period, a long list of issues that I believe are compounding the housing crisis at the bottom end. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to get up and gainsay that—he might have some other points to make in a sparring way. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is correct that there is not a great deal of point in getting into a long tennis match in Committee, but I want to put on record that we cannot pass the Bill with our eyes closed and say, “Once it exists as statute, everything will be resolved.”

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to restrain himself to consensus mode as far as possible, and that he wants to avoid going into issues for later debates and stand part debates. However, although he gave a poke if not a punch to the Government’s record, the autumn statement takes us in the right direction—it included the housing deal for more than £1 billion with the Mayor of London, providing flexibility of tenure and 2,000 accommodation places for those with complex needs. Those are the people who are particularly affected and who we are concerned about. As part of a wider package, that will help to provide the resources to fulfil the duties in the clause.

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Hammersmith answers that, I think we are in danger of getting away from the specifics of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I support the amendment standing in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee. I had a similar amendment on the duty to co-operate between public bodies and local authorities, which I have not tabled. Both amendments would effectively have done the same thing.

Co-operation is important, but it runs both ways. As the Chair of the Select Committee has indicated, it is important because local authorities cannot achieve the objectives of the Bill on their own. Let me give an example that I came across last Friday: I spent the morning visiting the in-patient mental health unit in my constituency, where I was told that about a third of the beds there are occupied by people who are ready for discharge but have nowhere to go. In many cases those people will be referred to the local authority. The answer to the question of whether that is new is yes, it is relatively new.

I am not criticising local authorities, but the problem is that whereas they might have previously taken something on trust or accepted that they had a prima facie duty for it, they will now be much more scrupulous or detailed in looking at whether that duty is owed simply because of the demand on their services. They will do that across the board, even when dealing with other public authorities. The net effect will simply be to shift the burden from one part of the public sector to another, with the consequence that people either might not get the best care or might prevent others from getting the care that they need.

Accepting the amendment is absolutely crucial to the proper functioning of the Bill. One would hope that the public sector works in a joined-up way, and that Departments work in a joined-up way, but that is not always the case, so we would do well to give any encouragement to that.

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I welcome the intention and principle behind it, particularly because it flows into clause 10; it is just seeing how far it will bite. I particularly welcome the principle of joined-up services—we sometimes get sick of talking about joined-up Government, and it often does not mean that—when dealing with the concerns at the heart of clause 10, which is about trying to ensure that there is better co-ordination and co-operation.

As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I make particular reference to complex needs and to those people facing multiple disadvantage, and to the need to ensure that there is real co-operation. The litmus test of clause 10 is the implications of referrals for those with the most need and facing the most disadvantage. There is a particular impact on health: almost twice as many who use homeless services have long-term physical health problems and mental health diagnoses compared with the general public, and the average age of people who die while homeless is 47, which is scandalous.

That particularly comes into play when dealing with those who come into contact with health services in one form or another. Not least, homeless people might struggle to register with a GP because of not having a permanent address. A vicious cycle goes on where they end up in crisis management and in A&E. It is then a further scandal when the intervention that needs to take place at that stage does not. At the heart of the Bill is the fact that early intervention and preventive duties should not just stem from when people come into contact with the housing department. When they are in contact with the health services, and not least when they end up at A&E, that should lead to an intervention and referral, which leads to the co-operation that we want.

St Mungo’s has been on this case for a long time and has drawn attention to it with the “Homeless Health Matters” campaign. Before the Bill, it sought to have a charter that local authorities signed up to so that co-operation happened on an informal level. I believe that clause 10 takes things a huge step further as regards the statutory duty on referrals. The issue is how much further it explicitly needs to go with a mandatory requirement to co-operate across departments.

I also support the principle behind the amendment because, in many ways, it is already happening across Government—regardless of the cynicism that is around. One only has to look at the issue of violence against women and girls, which is a concern that we all share. If one looks at the national statement of expectations published on 7 December, one sees that it is all about co-operation. That comes from the Home Office and has a welcome two-year fund for refuges and other forms of accommodation. There is also all the extra investment in social impact bonds, in which co-operation is very much inbuilt. There are those with complex needs and the multi-agency approach that is used, although often not well enough. Sometimes these things are based around funding streams, and we need to see that happening across the country. The question is whether the duty to refer will help to ensure that good practice does happen across the country.

To home in on women—who are, sadly, some of the most vulnerable and face complex needs—the national statement of expectations from 7 December says:

“To deliver this, commissioners should…consider whether an individual may have complex needs or suffer from multiple disadvantage and, if so, the services in place to manage these…Commissioners should consider how these detect and respond to women’s experiences”

of violence, and ensure that there are services for them. That has come from the Home Office but plainly interacts across all Departments, and there is that expectation that it be delivered. At the end, the statement talks about how local authority, housing and homelessness policies must take account of sexual violence. That is included in the Bill in relation to the duties on advisory services; it is welcome that domestic violence is included, not least because of the work of the Select Committee.

The question is whether the Bill needs to go further in terms of a mandatory requirement for co-operation, or whether this referral will supplement and complement what is now happening to a much greater extent across Government. There is greater recognition and understanding of complex needs. Many of us have talked over the years about multi-agency approaches and joined-up government until we were blue in the face, but sadly these most vulnerable people are not getting what they need and deserve.

My view, which has been a common thread in discussions on the Bill, is that we need to balance doing what we can to ensure that this is a groundbreaking Bill—as I believe it is—that will help to provide greater support, preventive work and co-operation with whether this amendment will provide additional burdens across Government and have unintended consequences. Although it may provide a mandatory requirement—that, in many ways, is already the intention across Government—it might lead to additional financial burdens, which might lead to additional bureaucracy that might get in the way of the local co-operation between services that we want delivered on the ground. I am not convinced. If there is a proper fulfilment of the duty to refer, which may be wrapped up in guidance, having a mandatory co-operation requirement may provide additional undue financial burdens across Government and create bureaucracy that might, sadly, get in the way of what we want to do, which is to co-operate across services.

[Mr Jones]

Following on—

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fifth sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and other Members will wish to see and consider draft codes of practice before they are introduced. That is why I have tabled amendments 13 and 14, which require that a draft code of practice be subject to the negative procedure. Amendment 13 provides for that procedure to apply. Amendment 14 clarifies that the procedure for issuing a code of practice that amendment 13 inserts does not apply to reissuing a code. I hope that the Committee will accept both amendments.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

We are talking about the implementation of what we all want to achieve. The codes of practice are obviously important and the amendments set out that the statutory instrument will be subject to the negative procedure.

It is important to reflect on the concerns expressed in the Communities and Local Government Committee. For example, the London Borough of Wandsworth is concerned about the codes of practice being so woolly as to be meaningless or being so prescriptive as to be unworkable. We need to ensure the codes of practice are the focused tools that we want them to be and are based on collaboration and co-operation, so that they are not seen simply to impose a diktat or central command.

As we know, once a statutory instrument is before Parliament, particularly with the negative procedure, there is very little we can do to scrutinise it. Indeed, at an earlier stage, during the formal processes of consultation that will take place and eventually lead to the instrument’s being laid before Parliament, it will probably be too late, in many ways, to achieve the co-operation and collaboration that local authorities have suggested.

Shelter raised in the Select Committee the need for proper co-operation. Indeed, Salford has suggested a co-production and oversight of codes of practice, which I suggest should happen way before the formal process under amendments 13 and 14 and the formal consultation process that normally applies to statutory instruments. Will the Minister assure us that there will be the collaboration and consensus we see in the Welsh example, which we often pray in aid? The point is that it was a cultural change as much as an administrative one. That cultural change was about a consensual and collaborative approach that we have seen in this Committee and during the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for the way he has enabled that to happen. It is important that that continues into the implementation, not least of these very important tools, the codes of practice.

I seek assurance from the Minister that that approach is part of the process set out in amendments 13 and 14, because plainly when the statutory instrument comes before Parliament we might ask questions about co-operation and consultation but it will be too late. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Perhaps he could also tell us whether the assurance on compliance will form part of the statutory instruments. It is one thing to get a code of practice out there but another to ensure appropriate monitoring of local authorities that are not complying, with consequences for inaction.

[Ms Buck]

I want to reinforce those points. The code of practice is important as something to which local authorities can properly refer. We know from the Select Committee report that when housing charities undertook mystery shopping in local authorities they found extraordinary variation in practice.

We know there is very good practice and that local authorities are working under extraordinary stress, with staff on the frontline invariably seeking to do their best. At the same time, under the sheer scale of housing pressure, especially in high needs areas, hon. Members will know from their own experience with homeless households and the charities’ work on mystery shopping that there are also examples of very poor practice.

Individuals have told me, quite plausibly, some of the things they have been told in a harsh gatekeeping environment. They have been told that if they make a homelessness application they will be sent to another local authority, sent out of London or, in some cases, have their children taken into care. They have been told that it would be better for them not to make a homelessness application because it would be easier to house them outside the legislation, even though that is not what they want. We know there are examples of such poor practice.

I know that local authorities are anxious to ensure that a code of practice is of use. None the less, it is important that we have an opportunity to scrutinise that code of practice and are able to satisfy ourselves that it will be valuable, sharp and focused. I hope the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

By extending the provision to vulnerable people, and not only those in priority need, the clause goes to the heart of the Bill, which is about expanding what we do for everybody who needs the help on offer.

The checks we are talking about are important; things such as gas safety and electricity records are essential not only to people’s wellbeing but their lives. Vulnerable people would not necessarily be able to ensure that those checks had been done beforehand. Of course, a lot of people who rent in the private sector are aware of the necessary checks and are quite capable of getting them all the way through. A lot of vulnerable people will be able to do so too, but there are groups of people who cannot, and it is important that we look after their wellbeing and ensure that they are in safe accommodation.

Several hon. Members have spoken about rogue landlords and work that has already been done and work that still needs to be done. The clause must be seen in conjunction with tackling rogue landlords and not in isolation, because alone it is not sufficient. It is important to note that not all landlords are rogue landlords. They provide a great deal of service by providing housing, but we must look after those who are affected by housing that is not up to standard.

I note that many councils throughout the country are already doing these checks. Wiltshire Council, which covers my constituency, already provides checks for a number of vulnerable people. However, we need one standard across the country, and we need to ensure that, no matter where someone lives or is homeless, they get the same provision of care. That is very much what the Bill seeks to initiate.

I will touch on a point that was raised by an Opposition Member in the last sitting. Although the Bill extends the provision to include vulnerable people, not everybody who is in need, such as pregnant women, will fall into that category. There are a host of other anomalies that will slip through that gap; people who, if we sat back and thought about it, we would realise are very much in need of the extra checks on their private accommodation. I urge the Minister to think about expanding the clause. Thinking about pregnant women and other vulnerable people in my constituency, it would be harrowing for them if they were unable to get these additional checks, and it would be to the detriment of all of us working on the Bill. We need to ensure that it is inclusive and encompasses help for all.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Chope, to take part in the debate on this crucial clause on suitability. We all have experience of constituents who have been placed in unsuitable accommodation. What we need is evidence to back up what we all know about the importance of suitable housing for vulnerable households.

I want to refer briefly to the evidence commissioned by Crisis and Shelter, both of which are well placed to tackle homelessness. They undertook a 19-month study, published in 2014, looking at 128 people who had been rehoused. The evidence is very relevant because it makes an important, though perhaps obvious, point that private rented accommodation, which is now the predominant housing option available, is not suitable for everybody, particularly those who are vulnerable.

Tenants were found in properties that were in poor condition and where there had been issues with the landlord. Accommodation was cramped, unsuitable and often affected by damp, mould and insect infestation. With a lack of suitable fixtures, fittings and furniture, many tenants struggled to pay household costs, which often resulted in debt. The relevance is that the physical condition of accommodation is compounded in vulnerable households that might have multiple and complex needs. If they are placed in accommodation without suitable fixtures, fittings and furniture, leading to debt, their complex needs are compounded. I want to ask the Minister whether particular attention will be given through better practice and guidance to those vulnerable households.

Under the existing law, local housing authorities need to consider whether the accommodation is affordable for the person, as well as its size, condition and location. Are those considerations all tailored to vulnerability? The issues of affordability, size, condition and location are different for different and complex needs. On affordability, there are extra associated costs for those with complex needs, and size and location might also be important for those with mental health needs.

An example that has come to my attention recently that illustrates the point about location concerns people with addictions and in recovery. Location is relevant for an addict in recovery, for instance if their placement is in an area where drug use is prevalent or other addicts are around. That is particularly pertinent when considering suitable accommodation. Will the Minister tell us whether that factor will be taken into account? Those vulnerable individuals need to be placed in suitable accommodation to assist their recovery. It is one thing to get them off drugs, but it is another to keep them in sustained recovery. Appropriate and suitable housing is crucial to long-term recovery. The Government are due to publish soon an updated drugs strategy, and no doubt housing will be a key part for sustainable recovery. It is important that accommodation is suitable, so location must be taken into account.

Legal obligations predominantly address physical issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester rightly mentioned carbon monoxide, an issue I have taken an interest in through the all-party parliamentary group. However, location also includes who is present, although I am not sure that will come under the purview of this provision. A placement could be in a licensed multiple occupation property. Will account be given to how appropriate it is to place a vulnerable household in accommodation where there might be peers who are not conducive to someone’s long-term recovery? Will it get into that kind of detail to ensure that suitability is also based on who is present in the accommodation, or who is nearby?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that Westminster has explicitly stated that it is doing that because of Government policy on cuts to the support for temporary accommodation, the benefit cap, cuts in local housing allowance and a range of other measures? It is not an accidental development; it is the result of deliberate Government policy.

[Mr Burrowes]

I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and that is what the local authorities pray in aid as the reason they are obliged to do as they are doing. Nevertheless, they have duties and legal responsibilities. That is why I am interested in how far the Bill and the measures on vulnerable households will bite and oblige local authorities to look at the matter more seriously, rather than under the banner of “We are pressurised and do not have affordable accommodation”, taking the easier option of putting households in Enfield, for example, which has associated costs.

I have been talking to the Minister and to the relevant director of finance about both the local government finance settlement and this particular issue. I have also talked to the deputy Mayor of London, who I understand has been trying to bring about a more collaborative approach with directors of housing so that they cannot simply come up with the easy excuse of, “It’s just the Government’s fault.” They have legal responsibilities and should not just shunt their problems on to outer London boroughs.

We have had a debate about appropriate location and ensuring that households—particularly vulnerable households—are not moved away from supportive networks in relation to education, as well as other family and care support. How far will clause 12 ensure that Westminster housing officers deciding about vulnerable households will not place them in areas such as Enfield so easily? Yes, with suitability there is an issue of affordability, but there is also an issue of location. When there is a competing interest, which is the one that will really kick in? Can the Minister advise us on the discussions that he is having about ensuring that decisions are appropriate?

The Select Committee recommended that placing vulnerable households away from the area and their supportive networks should be not a first option but a last resort. I do not hear that it is being thought of as a last resort.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend talks about location. Article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 is relevant. He also mentioned houses in multiple occupation. Does he see, when he talks about location—and thinking about neighbours as well—that there would be a difficulty in an extension beyond HMOs, and the licensing regime within that structure? I understand his point about the suitability of the people nearby, but does he recognise that it would be difficult under article 3 to draw provisions as widely as he suggests?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend is right, but we shall probably hear later about the extent of inspections, and it may well be that when an inspection is done to make normal physical checks, an eye can be given to wider concerns that might affect vulnerable households. The multiple occupation provisions are an issue of licensing—it is a question of checking unlicensed multiple occupation premises. It is important to check that, because it is not surprising that there are extra risks in unlicensed multiple occupation premises, not least for those in recovery or with other needs. It is those unlicensed premises that need attention. The inspection regime will ensure that the current law is extended to vulnerable households and that accommodation in unlicensed houses in multiple occupation will be deemed unsuitable. That will help to ensure that vulnerable households will not be exposed to other risks.

[Michael Tomlinson]

As I understood the point my hon. Friend was making a few moments ago, he was seeking to draw the regime wider than HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed. Does he not see that, as drafted, article 3 does not catch accommodation that is wider than that, and that there would be difficulty in drawing it more widely? Certainly HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed, can be looked at, but if we go wider than that it will be very difficult to assess the suitability of accommodation under article 3 by dint of looking at the suitability of the neighbours, unless it is specifically in relation to HMOs.

[Mr Burrowes]

I concede that point. I am trying to encourage us to look at the wider duties in the Bill and its wider application to prevention duties that might assist. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.

This is an important clause and we want to hear from the Minister that we are making the best of what we can do here. I appreciate that we will come to implementation and costs, which must be proportionate. We want to ensure that they are not open-ended. I want to hear from the Minister that he is open to seeing how we can extend the checks to ensure that we do the best for vulnerable households and ensure that they receive suitable accommodation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

The Government welcome the introduction of greater protection for vulnerable persons placed in the private sector under the new homelessness prevention and relief duties. Existing legislation already requires local housing authorities to be satisfied that accommodation is suitable when exercising their part 7 functions on homelessness and the prevention of homelessness in relation to factors such as size of accommodation, affordability and accessibility. I hear what my hon. Friend said and I will certainly go into more depth on his important points. I feel under a little pressure from Conservative Members and get the impression that they have reflected on the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster North, who talked much the same language at our previous sitting.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, when making an offer in the private rented sector for those in priority need under the main homelessness duty, existing legislation also requires local housing authorities to make additional checks to ensure the property is in a reasonable physical condition, and is safe and well managed. The points to be considered are set out in the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012. Local authorities are therefore already used to making those checks and reputable landlords should be readily able to provide the requisite documentation.

I heard the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester and for Chippenham. They are quite right to say that most landlords are extremely responsible and do the right thing by tenants, but we know that 3% of landlords are rogues and do not do the right thing by their tenants. Frankly, the Government want to drive them out of renting property, particularly to vulnerable people. We have taken significant steps to drive out those rogue landlords through the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I will not go into the detail of that Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The legislation in relation to rogue landlords means that civil penalties of up to £30,000 can be levied against them. Those civil penalties can be retained by the local authority to put towards the enforcement that they make in this regard. There are strong powers there, which is a good thing if there is a second division of rogue landlords that we need to uncover. However, my hon. Friend is right: we need to get a balance.

[Mr Burrowes]

For clarification, the 3%—an upper tier that is not wholly relevant to the wider issue of the suitability of property and of landlords—deals with the number of rogue landlords, but does not account for the number of properties held by those landlords. If rogue landlords are particularly known for having large numbers of properties, the figure does not properly reflect the huge number of unsuitable properties under their control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the Minister be learning lessons from Wales, where there was a lead-in time before implementation? That helped to bring together a collaborative effort. Will he be relying on the trailblazers to be at the forefront, to ensure delivery as we transition to full implementation?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has brought me to where I wanted to be and prompted me on to my next two subjects.

First, we can look to the Welsh legislation to learn from its implementation. My officials are certainly doing that, and we have done it in relation to a number of areas in the Bill so far. My hon. Friend suggests an extremely sensible approach.

Secondly, I was about to come on to the prevention trailblazers. We have given £50 million to local authorities to undertake the rough sleeping work. Authorities across the country will already be gearing up for the legislative changes—testing new methods, gathering new data and working with external organisations to meet the aims we all want to achieve. I assure my hon. Friend that in that sense we are looking to what Wales has managed to achieve in a relatively short space of time, and we are also looking carefully at the prevention trailblazers. I have considerable hopes that those prevention trailblazers will really blaze a trail in creating the culture that we need to implement the legislation successfully and help people to get off the streets.

We are absolutely committed to the implementation of the Bill. We will be working closely with local housing authorities to ensure that the process takes no longer than it must, but it cannot be rushed. We have to get it right if we are to make a success of the Bill. On that basis of co-operation and in the spirit of how the Committee has worked, I will leave my comments there.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate: duty upon giving of notice

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

--- Later in debate ---

The clause will help to establish a process whereby people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless are encouraged to work proactively with their local housing authority to take responsibility to prevent or end their homelessness as soon as possible. Taken together with the other clauses in the Bill, the clause means that if applicants who are threatened with homelessness up to 56 days prior to becoming homeless put together a plan with the local authority and that plan is followed, no one should become homeless. We all understand that people will face more direct crises and need to approach a local housing authority much nearer the time that they become homeless, and may become homeless through no fault of their own and need assistance, but the clause is intended to ensure that applicants understand that this is not a one-way street where they turn up to the local housing authority, set out their case and then wait for the local authority to provide them with somewhere to live. The clause means that there will be a requirement on them, and importantly, if they do not accord with the plan and the steps that they have agreed to implement—

[Mr Burrowes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I will.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend has indicated that there have been discussions about amending the clause. So that the Committee is clear, is he concerned that although the clause ensures that the full rehousing duty is retained for those in priority need if there is a failure to co-operate—as Shelter and others have said, that is an important backstop—it is currently too wide and could lead to a penalty, not just in terms of compliance with the plan but in relation to the wider prevention and relief duties?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the intention is to lay out that individuals have responsibilities and must follow their actions. There is however a concern that in some local authorities—not all, but some—there could be an impact on priority need and vulnerable households. I expect that amendments will be tabled on Report to revise the position and make clear that we are talking, as I have said, about those who deliberately and unreasonably refuse to co-operate, but also to ensure that we do not impact the main relief duty. We have striven from the word go not to change the impact on individuals who are owed a responsibility by their local authority already.

I will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Minister to bring forward a package of amendments on Report, which I hope we will all be able to support. If Committee members want to put particular comments on the record so that we can use them in our deliberations between now and Friday, when we need to table the amendments for Report, I would be very keen to hear them. I will be working on the amendments over the next week, and I hope that Members will be able to support them when they come before the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I will follow on from those points in a similar vein. We are, in a somewhat rarefied Committee, looking at deliberate and unreasonable refusals to co-operate, while being far removed from the challenging circumstances faced by people, particularly those with complex needs. Even with revisions to the Bill on Report, we must be clear that the bar is set at a level that will ensure that there is understanding, particularly of those with mental health and complex needs, and that those needs are taken into account when considering what is deliberate and unreasonable. That does not mean that those people will not be liable to being deemed to have refused to co-operate. We need to look sensitively at how we ensure that the most vulnerable are taken account of properly.

On discharging duties, I recall a case in which the NHS was able to discharge its duty of care to a vulnerable constituent who had complex needs and was paranoid. When people knocked on the door to see whether he was going to co-operate, unsurprisingly he did not answer, because he was paranoid; it was a part of his condition. He repeatedly refused to answer the door, so the NHS discharged its duty of care to him. As for the safeguards in this provision, there is a warning letter. We need to look in detail—this matters—at how that warning letter will be communicated and take proper account of people’s needs, which include communication difficulties.

[Michael Tomlinson]

That is exactly the point I made a few moments ago. Subsection (6) refers to taking into account the “particular circumstances and needs” of the applicant. My hon. Friend’s story highlights the reason why we need that safeguard in any future redrafting of the clause—to protect exactly the sort of people he is talking about.

[Mr Burrowes]

We need to ensure that when the rubber hits the road, there is a reality to this, so that there is not the lowest common denominator of just discharging a duty, but there is a real, positive intent to meet people’s particular needs.

It is important to ensure there is reassurance and the backstop provided by new section 193B(4). The full rehousing duty for those in priority need must be maintained. We have often praised the Welsh for getting there first with the prevention duty, but this clause will do a lot better. It will ensure that, in this case, we do not follow the Welsh example, where legislation allows an authority to discharge all duties for those who refuse to co-operate and where there is evidence of one in eight households now being refused further help; emerging evidence suggests that they are often vulnerable people with support needs. That is despite codes of guidance, which we talked about in previous deliberations.

It is so important that we get this right. This is where it could go wrong, despite all the codes of guidance that might be produced. I welcome the care that has been given to ensuring that we get this right. The litmus test is those with complex, particular needs. We need to ensure in this deliberation on what is deliberate and unreasonable that we have a true understanding of vulnerable people.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, rise to say that I am disappointed by the difficulty that this Committee has been put under in not being able to look at clause 7. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and with the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that this is one of the most crucial parts of the legislation, and that a delicate balancing act needs to be got right.

That said, I support the principle. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, when he characterises this as tough love. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South mentioned personal responsibility, and the phrase “help to empower” was also used. I entirely agree with the principle behind the clause but am disappointed that we cannot thrash out more of the detail. I will certainly take up the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to set out what I believe needs to be within the clause, although I support the thrust of it.

I had a meeting with a representative of East Dorset District Council—a local authority that you know well, Mr Chope, because East Dorset covers three constituencies: mine, yours and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). The council is concerned not only about the potential burden on local authorities, but about the risk of this going wrong. The interplay between local authorities and housing associations was also raised.

Perhaps when the Minister gets to his feet in a few minutes, he will give me and those at East Dorset some reassurance on the clause as drafted, or as we hope it will be drafted in future, and on the interplay with housing association duties. Many of our local authorities own very little stock and rely on housing associations to perform many of their functions and duties. What is the interplay between that and the clause? Is there a risk that housing associations will fall short or have a lower standard than is the aim and intention behind the clause?

I have said before that we are looking at the most vulnerable. I agree that there should be a strict definition in clause 7. As drafted, the tough love aspect is whether an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith that this is familiar territory for lawyers and courts. In my view, it is helpful to have as much detail in the Bill as possible. That is why I welcome proposed new section 193A(6), which states that the characteristics—correction, circumstances—and needs of the applicant should be taken into account. Perhaps the Minister and promoter of the Bill should consider characteristics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate gave a striking example of why it is necessary to take into account the circumstances and needs of the applicant. Knocking on the door might be sufficient for one applicant but not for another. Therefore, clause 7 needs that additional safeguard in its redrafted form.

The term “reasonable period” is also fertile territory for lawyers. My concern is that, if it is left in the Bill, lawyers will argue the toss that the local authority says, “Yes, it was a reasonable period,” while the applicant says, “No, it was not because more time was required.” I understand entirely the difficulty of putting that sort of detail in the Bill. An indication of the timeframe from the Minister when he is looking at redrafting may be helpful, although I do understand the risk of causing problems.

Finally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I welcome the additional safeguard of a notice to inform and explain to the applicant. The Minister might pick up on one caveat. As drafted, subsection (8) provides for what would happen if a notice were not received. In an ideal world, we would need to ensure that notices are received. As we know, sometimes the serving of notices is not as straightforward in practice as it is to set out in a document. The Minister might consider and emphasise the need to ensure that notices are received.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. There is obviously an incredible amount of good will in relation to increasing the period over which people are supported and trying to mitigate the challenges they encounter before they become homeless, but some concern has been expressed about the approach. Landlords are worried that the flexibility could be misused by some local housing authorities to delay triggering their obligation to help tenants, which could result in increased costs for landlords in having to go through the courts to evict tenants and cause extra distress to vulnerable at-risk households. In general, landlords and local authorities were concerned that the clause as drafted was too complicated and could be misinterpreted or even misused.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and I have met a range of stakeholders to agree an approach that best addresses everyone’s concerns while keeping at its core our overall aim of helping people to solve their housing issues before they become homeless. I thank all of them for their constructive engagement and for helping us to reach the approach that the Government are proposing. Local authorities and the housing charities have confirmed that they support the amendment.

The prevention duty provides that local authorities must work quickly and proactively with applicants who are threatened with homelessness to find a long-term housing solution during that period. The amendment adds to that by making it clear that any applicant with a valid section 21 notice that expires in 56 days or less is to be treated as threatened with homelessness and therefore offered the relevant help and support. Where applicants in those circumstances seek help, local housing authorities will be required to work with them to try to prevent them from becoming homeless before the notice expires. That should help to reduce evictions from privately rented accommodation and facilitate less disruptive moves to alternative housing when tenants do have to move out. It has been mentioned many times that once a family have paid a deposit bond to a landlord, if they are subsequently evicted quite often the biggest challenge is that do not have that bond to get back into the rental market.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

On support from local authorities, how much engagement, involvement and sign-up from local authorities is there for the amended clause 1? I know that my hon. Friend has had discussions, and there will obviously be further debate about the costs. I think that some local authorities have been under a particular impression in terms of the somewhere-to-stay provision and using a cost element that is not focused on what is in the Bill now, although it will be if we pass the amended clause.

[Mr Jones]

There have been infinite discussions about this clause and the others. I think that, generally, the clause has been accepted readily by most people involved, particularly on the local authority side and by the Local Government Association. Generally that is because people recognise that if we gear our help to being upstream, rather than waiting for a housing crisis, that will significantly reduce the cost of helping people, but more important than the cost, it will put people in a far better position as individuals than would have been the case otherwise.

The end of a private rented sector tenancy is currently the main trigger for homelessness, so the Government commend the amendment as a way to ensure that valuable opportunities to prevent homelessness are not lost and that households are more likely to receive the help that they need at the right time. The amendment balances the need for flexibility for local housing authorities with recognition of the legitimate concerns of landlords and homelessness charities. Clear guidance will be issued to set out in more detail how that flexibility should be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

On the methodology, obviously it is important that there is as much agreement as possible on the basis for the Government’s welcome funding commitment for the implications of the Bill. Certainly one cannot predict how much demand there will be for prevention services, but has as much agreement been reached as is possible with local councils and the LGA in relation to the methodology testing that has taken place up until now?

[Mr Jones]

There has been extensive discussion on that, and from the LGA’s press statement it is apparent that it does not dispute the methodology used. It has talked about reviews—we can come on to that—but it has not disputed the methodology. On the methodology, we must be careful to ensure that we are comparing the potential cost with the burdens created under the Bill. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke at considerable length about what he saw as a multimillion pound commitment that his local authority would have to meet as a result of the Bill. That included concern over the original proposal for a “nowhere safe to stay” clause, which after speaking to local government the Government considered carefully. Although in an ideal world it would be fabulous to do what that proposal intended, it would have created a huge new burden that would have been difficult to deal with. More particularly, the big challenge around that was that that new burden’s demand could not be quantified. In many of the assumptions we have made in preparing the Bill, we have been able to use methodology relating to the experience of the Welsh legislation, and that legislation did not have provision for nowhere safe to stay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister is getting ahead of me. I am dealing simply with quantum now. I will come on to the methodology next and the savings as a third point.

There is an estimated gap of nearly £200 million by the end of the decade in local authorities’ current homelessness provision. If one looks at the fact that London boroughs spent £633 million in the last year for which figures were available—2014-15—on temporary accommodation, including £170 million of their own funds, and the fact that they are already subject to substantial reductions in funding, I am not surprised that they are very concerned about that. That is purely on the issue of quantum.

On the issue of methodology, I am not sure how far it takes us. Although something is better than nothing, I found it a slightly odd way of presenting the background information. I would like to see a full impact assessment. I appreciate that we may need to wait until we know exactly what the Bill is going to do. There may need to be a review of provision—the methodology concedes that—but once we know how the sum is going to be broken down, I would like to know exactly how the Government can justify their claim that this will be new burdens funding and that it will be fully funded.

On the issue of savings, of course we all hope for savings, not only cash savings but savings in human misery, bureaucracy and unnecessary action. I am, however, less sanguine than the Minister about the fact that that will all be resolved in one to two years. In part I say that because much of what the Bill will do is to encourage what we have often heard called a culture, a culture of local authorities doing more by way of prevention. Yet in a lot of the busiest authorities, prevention work is done—in 80% of cases in Camden, for example—so quite a lot is going on, and I am not persuaded that we will see an immediate culture change, or that that culture change will produce savings.

Savings are likely to come by averting homelessness for priority need cases, because that is where the substantial burden of cost comes. At the moment part of the point of the Bill is that a lot of local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously in relation to non-priority need cases. Thereby, if we simply see an increased focus on those cases on which there is not current expenditure, or people being turned away, I do not quite see where the savings are coming from or where the supposition comes that within two years there will be nil cost to local government. To be perfectly honest, I just do not believe it.

We could sit here all afternoon saying, “We think it is”, or, “We think it isn’t”, but surely the sensible course is to have an early review to see whether the LGA’s caution or the Minister’s option is justified.

[Mr Burrowes]

I want to encourage an optimistic view, perhaps even a realistic one. The Welsh choice led to that 69% decrease in the first year. I understand that the assumption in the figures we are discussing is for a 30% decrease in homelessness, but is that not seeking simply to follow the Welsh model, which is a great success? The shadow Minister, however, says that there will be hardly any reduction or savings. He cannot say that. What is his concern with 30%? Is 30% too optimistic? Where would he say there will be reduction?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I begin by picking up on one or two points from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. On a positive, optimistic note, let me start by saying what I agree with in his analysis of clause 1. He mentioned several other forms of tenancies, such as less secure tenancies; perhaps he could also have mentioned licences or those that are subject to a notice to quit rather than the more strict section 21 notice or court procedure. I agree with his analysis on that point. There are a wide range of tenancies that could have been encompassed within the clause but are not. I suspect that his analysis is right: that that is because of the sheer difficulty of juggling all the different potential tenancies. Look at the different Acts that we have to deal with, and that he had to deal with when in practice: the 1980, 1985, 1988 and 1996 Acts, all with varying levels and layers of interplay. I suspect that is why we find clause 1 drafted as it is.

I agree, to that extent, that as drafted and certainly as amended, the clause does not encompass a wide range of different forms of tenancy, especially those less secure. I will come back to section 8 and its interplay with section 21. However, I take issue with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members on criticising and being too antagonistic towards no-fault notices and that regime. I agree that it is desirable to have as long-form tenancies as possible and I was heartened by the Minister’s submission that confirmed that the average tenancy is four years. The Minister is nodding, so I heard that correctly.

Of course, that is not the whole picture but four years is a significant period. My concern, if no-fault tenancies are simply swept aside or undermined, is that landlords and potential landlords will be put off purchasing and letting out properties, so we would be in a worse position. That is a concern that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his colleagues should look out for if they seek to undermine no-fault tenancies and those who are, on the whole, perfectly good, decent landlords, as we heard this morning. I will pick up later the points the hon. Gentleman raised on finances and his self-professed pessimistic view on life. I will encourage him to have a slightly rosier view by the time my speech finishes. Whether I succeed is another story. I see he is busy looking at his papers.

I start with sounding alarm bells on what the Minister mentioned in relation to finance of further potential burdens on local authorities. I mentioned earlier that I had had meetings with East Dorset District Council. My constituency covers three local authorities—East Dorset, Purbeck and Poole—and each will be concerned about additional burdens if additional resources do not match them.

I want to come back to finances but I was heartened by the reassurance that, if there are to be further amendments—as we understand there will be on Report—there will be an opportunity for additional funding. I simply ask that the Minister, as he has done at this stage, gives an early indication when the new clause is considered on Report of the level of funding he assesses as necessary.

I support the principle of clause 1 but my concern relates to notices given under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Although amendment 17 looks like it offers a neat proposal, in fact it sweeps away any reference to a valid notice being given under section 8. The Minister began to give an explanation of why notices given under section 8 are to be swept away, but I fear he did not give us as complete an answer as he may or should have done.

Section 8 notices are important. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith noted, section 21 notices are no-fault notices, whereas section 8 notices are given where there has been fault, where there has been a breach of a tenancy agreement. Section 8 notices are divided into two parts: mandatory and discretionary. If an allegation that a tenant has breached a mandatory obligation is proved, a judge as of right will give a possession order. That is the mandatory part of the notices given under section 8. If it is an allegation under the discretionary part, there is discretion as to whether a judge would make an order for possession. I therefore fear that throwing all section 8 notices out might not have been as wise a move as it looked, because what section 8 and section 21 notices have in common—at least partly—is that they may inevitably lead to a possession order.

Although I note the reasons that the Minister gave for keeping section 21 notices in—they are mandatory, and it is all but likely that they will lead to a possession order in any event—those reasons also apply to the mandatory part of notices given under section 8. Take arrears of rent: if there are two months’ worth of arrears, both when the notice is issued and when the matter arrives at court, a possession order is mandatory, as it is in a no-fault procedure in relation to section 21.

However, I take on board what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said: there might still be a dispute about whether the correct notice has been given under section 21. I have stopped practising—I understand he has, too—but since October 2015, there has been a new regime for section 21 notices. They now have to be done on a mandatory form, whereas under the old system, when I was practising, there was no prescribed form for what a section 21 notice looked like.

I fear that throwing out all section 8 notices narrows things down too much, which is potentially unhelpful for those who inevitably will end up homeless. That is the thrust of clause 1 and why it has been devised: to help those who inevitably will end up homeless by inserting into section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 a change to the definition of homelessness. If it is inevitable that an individual—a tenant—will end up homeless, it is worth looking again at whether the mandatory parts of notices under section 8 should still fall into clause 1 as well.

We all want as many people helped as possible. I said I will come back to finance, but it is relevant in this instance as well. The more people who are helped earlier, the more it will help with the costs to them, local authorities, and housing associations or anyone who needs to take proceedings in court. It will also help in respect of the human cost. My understanding is that the clause’s intention is to help people who are inevitably going to end up homeless, so I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, to address this point: why have all section 8 notices been taken out, instead of retaining just the mandatory ones, where it is all but inevitable that a possession order will be granted?

I want to make a related point that shows the complexity of the Housing Acts. Perhaps at some stage a Government will be bold enough to look at a consolidation Bill—or perhaps not. Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 is still in force. It relates to pleas of exceptional hardship, but that would only delay possession and not stop it. It is not a defence; it is only a mechanism to delay the inevitable. Even with that in place, it is still inevitable that people will be made homeless, and therefore help should be provided at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Burrowes]

We are grateful for my hon. Friend’s expertise on this issue. He has spoken about section 8, but section 7 is also not part of the amended clause, so should further consideration be given to including section 7?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I clarify that my hon. Friend means section 7 of the Housing Act 1988?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Section 7 is important, because it states whether possession is mandatory or discretionary. It refers to schedule 2 to the Act, which has 17 parts, the first eight of which list mandatory grounds for possession. The ninth to 17th grounds for possession are discretionary. Section 7 of the 1988 Act, which, if I understand correctly, is what my hon. Friend referred to, is what distinguishes between mandatory grounds and discretionary grounds. I can see he looks slightly puzzled, so perhaps he means something else. If he did mean section 7 of the 1988 Act, it gives effect to schedule 2 and a body of law. Part I of the schedule sets out the mandatory grounds and part II sets out the discretionary grounds. It effectively feeds into notices given and possession proceedings under section 8 of the 1988 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point based on his experience and practice. I hope that the Minister will answer those points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham made a good point about emphasising early intervention. The clause encourages those at risk of homelessness to seek advice at the earliest opportunity, and I worry at the moment about the advice being given to local authorities. This advice disseminates quickly across local authority areas so people know that is being given out and it discourages them from going to the local authority. For example, first and foremost, they will often go to their Member of Parliament, the local council or a citizens advice bureau. If they say the likely advice from the council is this, they will be reluctant to take it. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the crisis point is far too late. We must intervene earlier, which will lead to far fewer people reaching a crisis.

Finally, I want to touch on funding. I was pleased about the funding announcement. As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood rightly pointed out, it would have been helpful to have it sooner, but nevertheless it was useful to have it before this sitting. I welcome the £48 million and, as I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I was interested to read the LGA’s response because, given the fact that it is a membership organisation representing local authorities across the country, I was expecting its response to be, “It’s not enough money.” I expected that response whatever the sum was.

It is hugely to the credit of the Minister and the officials in his Department for using the methodology that the LGA concurs, rightly in my view, is the right one and hence why a rather bland statement does not question the amount of money. It would certainly be worthwhile to review it after two years. Nevertheless it was somewhat disappointing, given the reaction of the LGA, to hear the response from the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Dulwich and West Norwood. There is no indication from the membership body of local authorities—which, incidentally, will be the LHAs implementing the Bill—to suggest that the funding is not sufficient.

[Mr Burrowes]

Good authorities are already, before the legislation is in place, fulfilling the mandate to do a lot of prevention, so they will welcome the fact that they will now have a lot more money than before.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right to suggest that good local authorities up and down the country are already doing a lot of this work, which eats into other budgets, so for them this is very valuable. We know there will be a transition, training requirements and a cultural change within organisations. LHAs—I spoke to my LHA only last week on this very point—do not want just to implement the Bill in full; they want to do it well. They want to make sure it works and they want emphasis and focus on prevention.

I very much support the clause, but I would like some reassurance from the Minister that there will still be flexibility in the advice, particularly in relation to ending a tenancy via a section 21 notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mackintosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue and I did indeed hear the argument he made so eloquently earlier. I am sure that the Minister and his officials also heard it, and that this issue will be looked at properly before we move forward. It is important that we consider all the options available. We have spent a lot of time in Committee debating matters, but I know the Minister is still considering some of those ideas.

As for this clause, I strongly welcome the relative speed at which things have developed, from the Select Committee inquiry to—I hope—a change in the law, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s update on how he can consider implementing in the future some of the changes that we have discussed.

[Mr Burrowes]

This clause goes to the heart of the concern that led to this Bill, namely the reality that the Select Committee and others have identified, which is that the termination of assured shorthold tenancies has become the single biggest cause of homelessness. While we can talk about the issue of the supply of affordable homes, we must go to the heart of this problem and this clause seeks to do so, in a more flexible way than other measures.

I will just talk about where support can come from and where it can feed into the issue of the supply of affordable rented homes. The Select Committee itself drew attention to the response of the National Landlords Association to the draft Bill. The association said:

“There are numerous reasons why a landlord might be reluctant to let their property to such households, but in the NLA’s experience they can generally be summarised as ‘risk’”.

Clause 1, as amended, will provide a positive move to reduce the risk to which landlords are exposed, therefore increasing their confidence in letting to vulnerable tenants. In my borough, and no doubt in other boroughs as well, the supply of homes available for rent to those on benefits, and particularly to those who are homeless, is decreasing. Unless there is supply, we will struggle to fulfil all our ambitions for the Bill. The amendments will help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on this. If there is a substantive reason why section 8 should not form part of clause 1, so be it, but he raises an important example. He mentioned antisocial behaviour, which in fact will fall within the discretionary grounds that are often relied on alongside a lesser outstanding rent. Where two months’ rent or more is outstanding both at the time of the service of the notice and the time of arriving in court, that falls under the mandatory grounds. It is worth looking at it in the round.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, and I look forward to hearing the Minister do that for us. Plainly, the essence of clause 1 is to prevent various local authorities, advice centres and indeed Members of Parliament from being complicit in a failed system by saying simply, “Sorry, nothing can happen until the bailiffs knock on the door.” We are dealing then with crisis management rather than with any kind of prevention. The trigger is the important element. Amendments 16 and 17 seek to change the trigger from an expiry notice under section 21 to the serving of the notice. I know that that has been particularly asked for and welcomed by the Association of Housing Advice Services, which has wanted to ensure early opportunities for prevention.

It is also worth recognising that there are some noises off. Not everyone agrees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East will know. Indeed, such noises off have come his way—and the Select Committee’s way—from his local council. Harrow Council says:

“If applicants are to be considered as homeless as soon as they receive a notice, then local authorities are not going to be able to prevent homelessness…There are at least 14 reasons why a s.21 notice can be invalid and homelessness can be prevented even after a court order using the legal processes and negotiations with a landlord.”

That draws on some of the concerns about the question of a valid notice. The word “valid” was also in clause 1 as originally drafted. No doubt the advice of lawyers and others says that one has to have that word and notices have to be valid. I would nevertheless be interested to hear from my hon. Friend, because his council has expressed concern that notices can be used in a lot of ways.

I understand that notices now cannot simply be used for administrative expediency. There was a time when section 21s were served pretty much when the landlord arrived at the door, as a way of covering all bases. I understand that that has not been allowed since October 2015, but a landlord may try it on, so it is worth ensuring that that bad practice is not allowed, that landlords do not abuse the essence of this trigger and that the notice has proper validity, if I can use that word, and applies genuinely. Section 21 notices have a wide application. Obviously, such a notice being served does not necessarily mean that there is a danger of homelessness, but they will allow the prevention duties to be put in place.

I also want to highlight some of the caution expressed by Crisis, which has been involved in the Bill from an early stage. I understand that Crisis had reservations about amending clause 1. In its briefing note—this draws out the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester about his campaign against a crisis-management approach on receipt of a bailiff notice—it says that the removal of clause 1(2) will preserve

“the status quo—meaning that local authorities should follow the existing Code of Guidance which clearly states that households should be considered homeless if they approach the local authority with an expired section 21 notice.”

The amendments will therefore perhaps leave the door open for local authorities not to follow good practice and for people who are considered homeless being put back in that situation. We need to nail that down and ensure that all authorities are signed up to and delivering on the codes of guidance, empowered by their statutory form, as well as revised clause 1.

On funding, it is worth giving the Minister and the Government a little more encouragement and support. Frankly, without the Bill—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East—we would not have got the extra £48 million, which we should really welcome; it is a significant amount of money. As we have all said from the very beginning, the Bill will not solve homelessness on its own, but it is an important tool in the box and encourages the good practice that is out there to be spread among councils. As I said earlier, good councils will welcome the incentive to do more of what they have been doing with existing funding, and the councils that are not doing anything will be encouraged with a carrot and stick approach. The Minister will no doubt use his codes of practice tool as well as some carrots, including funding, to say, “Get on and do what we all say should happen.”

There should be broad agreement for the additional money, which is welcome, but I recognise the context in which the funding is provided—the LHA freeze and the benefits cap implications. I represent a London constituency that has a deprivation profile that is going in the wrong direction and does not fit in with what we await as a new fairer funding formula. We are going in the wrong direction in being able to catch up with the demands on our borough, not least given the lack of affordable housing. I recognise that context, but the funding should be broadly welcomed none the less.

A lot of figures expressing doom and gloom and fear around the funding implications of the duties in the Bill were thrown around on Second Reading, which I think was based on a reading of an old draft Bill rather than the new position. My local authority joined in with that. It is important for local authorities to be up to speed and to recognise that the Bill’s methodology is far removed from that in the Select Committee report, which was based on Bedford Borough Council’s methodology. That council said itself that:

“Using a simple extrapolation model based on the Council’s existing footfall and the range of tools currently available to the Council to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Council would see a tripling of its costs incurred in discharging the duties under the draft bill. This would see an additional £1 million of cost to the Council.”

Unless councils were looking at this carefully, they were making assumptions on funding, such as Bedford saying staffing levels would need to increase by 50%, or the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea estimating that it would cost £1.22 million to comply with the new duty to assess and £2.37 million for the duty to help secure accommodation. I know time has been short since the ministerial statement, but it is important that local authorities look at the current funding in the context of the Government’s methodology, rather than relying on their simple extrapolation model.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Was my hon. Friend as reassured as I that the Government looked at funding compared with Wales, which already has similar legislation, and made assumptions on that basis? These are significant figures that are based on fact, rather than, dare I say it, just plucking out figures that sound rather inflated.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, and those costs were the exact homelessness spends by local authorities taken from the data submitted by local authorities on P1E forms that are used for the Government’s homelessness statistics. Research by Shelter and Acclaim also helped to inform the costs of prevention actions and of an acceptance. That, together with recognising that there are no doubt differential costs from area to area, is an important part of the reflection in the formula.

On the assumptions, I take issue with the shadow Minister, who took a very gloomy view. He cannot have it both ways. I still expect that there is cross-party support for the principle of the Bill and the fact that it will improve prevention, advice and support for those threatened with homelessness across the country. We cannot sign up to that, but say that is not going to have any effect. It is bound to have an effect over the number of years.

The Government’s assumption is that they will not simply go along in a simplistic way, as they perhaps could have done. Wales saw a 69% decrease in homelessness acceptances in the first year of having its legislation, although I recognise that there are differences in housing supply. We are going to get somewhere near that. The assumption is that there will be a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances over three years. If the Bill has not led to a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances in a three-year period, we will be really disappointed. We will not have done a proper job in passing a Bill that is fit for purpose and achieves that. Aside from the funding issue, if it has not practically done that there will be some serious questions to answer.

If there is not a review by the Government, no doubt the Select Committee will be asking some serious questions. If it does not achieve that, why not? It certainly should not come from a lack of funding, so we need to ensure that that is in place. The Government’s other assumption is that Wales saw a 28% increase in costs, so the sensible assumption for England is a 26% increase. That is a fairly reasonable assumption to make.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I am one of nature’s optimists. The Minister is such a reasonable fellow, and so kind-hearted, that I am sure that if he says he wishes to provide the full amount, he means it. Unfortunately, however, the record of the Government as a whole is not one of being particularly kind-hearted, particularly to local government. They have a habit of passing the buck by cutting the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government, as is clear from the fact that local government cuts have been the biggest of all.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is absolutely right to be sceptical. That is indeed what we want to hear. There are many figures floating around, but Newham Council knows what it is talking about, because it has one of the most pressing housing needs in the country, some of the poorest communities in the country, and, I am afraid, some of the worst housing in the country, especially in the private rented sector.

These are matters of real concern. All we are asking for is a commitment from the Minister not just to a review, but to a review that will be undertaken at the right time and will be all-encompassing. As I said earlier, the Select Committee has played a key role—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), is an acknowledged expert, and he has also benefited from the able assistance of Members on both sides—and it, as well as local authorities themselves, should be involved in any review process.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Enfield, like Newham, contains some of the poorest people in the country with the greatest housing need, and obviously we want the Bill to be implemented, but good councils throughout the country are already embarking on the prevention measures specified in the Bill under the current funding settlement, and will welcome the provision of more money to enable them to continue those measures.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think the best thing to say is that there is a mixed economy among local authorities. Some do very well—some have to do very well because of the pressures on them—and others do less well. Part of the Bill’s purpose is to bring them all up to the same standard. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point cuts both ways. If it is true that Camden Council, for example, is already preventing 80% of those who present themselves from becoming homeless, the savings that are likely to be made—most of which, I understand, will result from an increase in prevention work, which will avoid the need to find alternative accommodation or fund the costs of homelessness in other ways—will be less. The Government rather piously hope that after two years there will be no need for funding, but I do not think anyone believes that, including the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). Before I start, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests?

We should get back to the fact that this Bill is about reducing homelessness and is entitled the Homelessness Reduction Bill. At some stages during the hon. Gentleman’s rather lengthy speech, I began to wonder whether we were moving off on to the whole policy of housing. I think we should confine ourselves to this Bill, rather than broadening out to the wider aspects. I accept absolutely that one person sleeping rough on our streets at any one time is a disgrace; I have regularly gone on record to say that that is a national disgrace, as, equally, is the fact that we do not know the exact level of homelessness in this country. I start from that principle.

It is of course fair to say that the level of rough sleeping has increased. It is also fair to say that the level of homelessness has increased. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know well, the level of homelessness in this country peaked in 2002-03, when I suspect another party was in government. There was a reduction, which took place as a result of both Government intervention and local authorities taking appropriate action, but, actually, no change in legislation; we should remember that, effectively, legislation on this subject has not changed for 40 years. So we must get back to that particular issue.

Hopefully, we will have more details about the Bill by the time we get to Third Reading, but I will just gently mention that we spent some 15 hours in Committee debating the 13 clauses in this Bill. There were opportunities for amendments. The hon. Gentleman did table amendments, but then withdrew them before we could even debate them. The difference between the amendments that my hon. Friend the Minister will move later and the proposals from the hon. Gentleman is that the Government amendments are a direct consequence of the discussions that we had in Committee. They are designed to improve the Bill and to achieve the outcomes of discussions with housing charities, local government representative bodies, local government generally and the landlords associations. There is therefore a marked difference between those amendments—I accept that there are 21 of them—and the hon. Gentleman’s proposals.

I commend my hon. Friends across the House who served on the Bill Committee for their service. They will be aware that, at the last sitting, the Government made a firm commitment to reviewing the Bill at an appropriate point after implementation. I suggest to the Minister that it would be helpful if he were to repeat that commitment today and to clarify it further, so that no one can be in any doubt of the Government’s willingness to accept the fact that, as we have funding of £48 million over two years—I thank the Minister for that—we hope that that will lead to the provision of all the funding that local authorities will need to carry out their duties under the Bill, which we hope will become an Act in the not too distant future.

As I have said, however, we do not know what level of demand local authorities will experience as a result of the new burdens they will face. We do know that many local authorities are already accepting a prevention duty, and the funding will clearly be welcome to those authorities that are acting in a good and positive way. We could look at the stats from every local authority to see how many people are turning up for help, but we also know that the vast majority of single homeless people will be turned away by their local authority without any help or advice. Now, because of the massive change in the law and in the culture of local authorities, the numbers of people are likely to increase, especially during the first year.

[Mr Burrowes]

We also know that the Government are wholeheartedly committed to fulfilling the responsibilities outlined in the Bill, including the financial responsibility to provide funding of £48 million. If, beyond the current spending round, additional finances were needed in order to fulfil the duties in the Bill, having taken account of savings, does my hon. Friend agree that that wholehearted commitment should continue and that we would expect the money to be available for that?

[Bob Blackman]

I think the whole House would expect the Government to recognise that there will be extra cost pressures on local authorities and, given the commitment that they have made, to continue to fund these measures in the years to come.

One of the problems with new clause 1 is that it proposes a review after a fixed period of time, and then that would be it. That is not an acceptable way forward. I want the Government to keep this matter continually under review, and I am sure that the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee and the rest of its members, who are joint sponsors of the Bill, will ensure that the Minister—or whoever is the Minister at the time—continues to have their feet held to the fire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I have been shocked at how little input there has been from the Liberal Democrats: not one Liberal Democrat was here on Second Reading—and, as we can see today, they have not appeared on Report. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Although at a local level there may be some suggestion that the Liberal Democrats want to address this important issue, at a national level, they do not appear to be showing a massive interest.

[Mr Burrowes]

One of the concerns expressed on Second Reading and in Committee, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), relates to councils that seek to ignore statutory guidance and that will recognise someone as homeless only when a bailiff’s notice is served. Shelter has expressed continuing concerns about that issue in respect of clause 1. Can the Minister reassure us that the guidance and prevention duties will mean that councils cannot simply hide and wait for a bailiff’s notice before acting on these vulnerable households at risk of homelessness?

[Mr Jones]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Furthermore, given how the legislation will now work, it will be in the local authority’s interest to work more quickly with people at risk of becoming homeless. As we discussed many times in Committee, the legislation will very much drive a culture change, so that people are helped far further upstream than they have been to date. We are particularly keen to end some councils’ practice of saying to people, “Just wait for the bailiffs to arrive and then we’ll try to help you.” We want people to be helped far earlier. We do not want them to face a court appearance and a county court judgment; that will not help them to secure accommodation later.

I move on. The remaining amendments in this group relate to the issues that we identified with clause 7 but that we were, unfortunately, unable to address at an earlier stage. We identified a key issue: what is a workable balance between incentives and protections in cases where an applicant refuses a suitable offer of accommodation at the prevention and relief stages? We have been working closely with the local government sector and the homelessness charities to resolve the issue and to develop a way forward; I thank all those who have provided their expertise and support. We will discuss the core amendments to clause 7 in the next group: they are amendments consequential to amendments made to clauses 4, 5 and 6.

Amendments 2 and 4 clarify the circumstances in which the new prevention and relief duties can be brought to an end by a local housing authority. They would require not only that a suitable accommodation offer had been turned down but that accommodation would have been available for at least six months. Clauses 4 and 5 insert new sections 195 and 189B respectively into the Housing Act 1996. Those set out the duties owed to those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Both clauses have provisions allowing those duties to be brought to an end if a number of circumstances apply.

Amendments 2 and 4 would change new sections 189B and 195 to require that the grounds for giving notice would not only be the refusal of an offer of suitable accommodation but that, on the date when the accommodation was refused, there was a reasonable prospect that it would be available for at least six months or a longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as may be prescribed in regulations. The amendments are relatively simple and ensure consistency with provisions elsewhere in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a great pleasure to follow a whole litany of speeches rightly paying heartfelt tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I congratulate him and all those who have been involved in this Bill. I am glad that it is a cross-party effort, and also that there has been collaboration across the sectors that he has had to navigate and deal with over the past weeks. I am proud that a Conservative Member of Parliament has led the way on this. It is right that that should be the case. I was pleased to encourage him down this path when he was picking a subject. Everyone, including the Government, wanted to encourage him to take an easier route—a hand-out Bill. That would have involved less effort but would not have addressed a burning injustice—a phrase rightly used by the Prime Minister. Homelessness is a burning injustice, and it is right that my hon. Friend chose it. It was a great pleasure on this occasion, and probably the last occasion, to be a “Whip” on a Bill. [Interruption.] Who knows? We live in interesting and surprising times.

There is a long track record of Conservatives tackling homelessness, not least one of my predecessors from a part of Enfield; there were boundary changes then and we may or may not have boundary changes to come. In 1967, 50 years ago, Iain Macleod helped to found the homeless charity Crisis, to which we pay particular tribute for its great work in supporting this Bill. It is right to pay homage to him for that. Like others, I pay tribute to the other homelessness charities that have been supporting us along the way, particularly Shelter, St Mungo’s, and Centrepoint.

Iain Macleod fought for the first piece of legislation to protect homeless families. It is right and fitting that, 40 years on from the last substantive piece of homelessness legislation, Members across the House acknowledge that this is a good Bill. It will make prevention a statutory and core duty for all councils, which will make a significant difference. Homeless households will no longer have to put up with the current situation. There is some good practice on preventing homelessness, but that will now become the norm across the country.

My council in Enfield will no longer be able to wait for a bailiff eviction notice before it has to help vulnerable people threatened with homelessness. A constituent of mine fled domestic violence and needed help to move to alternative, private sector accommodation that would not be known to her attacker. She and those like her will no longer have to put up with the response she received from the housing officer when she made the call for help. They said, “What do you expect us to do?” She and others like her now know that, under this Bill, there in an expectation and a clear duty of prevention with regard to vulnerable people.

The Bill will also help—this is a particularly challenging case, but I look forward to it being delivered on—an elderly 72-year-old in my constituency who as we speak is in unsafe and unsuitable temporary accommodation. Basically it is a bedsit. The bed is propped up by chunks of wood and cold air comes through big gaps in the windows. There is very little furniture. There is an office chair. He and his wife have serious health needs, but they have been placed in unsuitable accommodation. He told my office manager recently, “My life isn’t worth living because I’ve been sent to a hellhole.” A lot more needs to be done, but I hope that the Bill will help to address the issue of inspections and the private sector, which, sadly, is increasingly a cause of homelessness, so that that does not happen again to that 72-year-old and others like him.

As has been said, the Bill will not end homelessness. There are structural issues, but those are for another day. We need to debate the issues of welfare reform and the local housing allowance; matching housing costs and benefits; the supply of affordable and supported housing; and the forthcoming White Paper. I look forward to the Bill being part of making progress on a cross-Government homelessness strategy.

I welcome the progress that has been made in London and the Mayor’s announcement of a record-breaking £3.15 billion deal for affordable housing, supporting 2,000 places for adults with complex needs. We have spoken about reviews and assessments, but the litmus test for the Bill will be its success in addressing the complex needs of those individuals who visit our constituency surgeries because they are always in and out of the system. The Bill will break that cycle of crisis management. It is about early prevention to help those complex individuals into sustainable housing.

In conclusion, in 1967, Iain Macleod spoke at a candlelit vigil in Hyde Park to raise awareness of homelessness. Sadly, his words continue to resonate 50 years on:

“This is an appeal to help those who no longer have any dignity and self-respect…What we do expect is that you will acknowledge that they are fellow human beings, and that they have nothing left to look forward to…We call upon the talents, ideas and enthusiasm of people from all different prejudices and beliefs in a constructive attempt to tackle this growing urban problem.”

The Bill is a constructive attempt to follow in that spirit of continued and sustained collaboration, with the aim of finishing the race—on a cross-party, cross-Government and, indeed, cross-housing sector basis—to end homelessness.