Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between David Burrowes and Michelle Donelan

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?

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between David Burrowes and Michelle Donelan

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

Absolutely. It would be good if there were more transparency.

The Prime Minister has led the way, quite properly, in saying that the Government need to publish family impact statements whenever new policy is proposed. We need to look carefully at such statements, so the family impact of the proposed measure should receive serious consideration. I have put questions to the Business Secretary on a number of occasions—22 September, 15 October and 10 February—to ask for the publication of the family impact statement. The understanding was that it would be published alongside the Government’s response to the consultation, but that did not happen, and we have just received it, at the eleventh hour, before the debate.

The family impact statement makes several important points. It accepts that there could be a negative impact on the family and recognises that many individuals who responded to the consultation felt that families would be noticeably affected.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I, too, respect the comments of my hon. Friend, but will he explain why we are so concerned about the family impact on those working in retail, yet we do not regulate for those who work shifts in sectors such as the NHS, transport, catering, hospitality—the list goes on?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is often low-paid workers, in many cases women, who are affected by Sunday trading, and such trading has a knock-on effect on ancillary services in the supply chain to large stores. That, too, needs careful consideration.

On my substantive objections to the proposal, beyond the process—important though that is in determining how Members will vote later—an economic case has been made. It is important that we look at the evidence provided by not just the New West End Company, but Oxford Economics, which I mentioned earlier. It projects that under the Government’s proposals, 8,800 jobs would be lost in the convenience sector, with a net loss of 3,270 jobs in the wider grocery sector because of displaced trade from small to large businesses.