Supported Housing

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and that is one of the reasons for reform. There are some appalling examples of supported housing, but because there are no checks and balances in the housing benefit system, people get away with providing that appalling housing and get paid the same as another provider who provides a good-quality service. We will work with the Local Government Association and the sector to put in place strong conditions to make sure that best practice is followed everywhere.

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

Will the Minister clarify how funding domestic violence refuge provision at the same level as today will address the shortfall in provision throughout the country? Between 2010 and 2014, 17% of refuges closed, and every day around 90 women and their children are being turned away from refuge provision throughout the country. Without an increase in the funding for refuge provision and the establishment of a national network, the Government will fail to guarantee that every woman and child fleeing domestic abuse can be kept safe in a refuge.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Every woman should be protected and have a safe place to go. There are more bed spaces than there were in 2010, but she has a good point, and early next year we will do a full audit to see what provision is like throughout the country. That will allow us to see where the gaps and challenges are, because we want to make sure that women are safe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that will not be the case. We will continue the funding at exactly the same level as currently. There will be a dedicated grant for local authorities that will be ring-fenced in the long term, and we will also make sure that vulnerable people will not need to deal with the payment of rent at a very difficult time in their lives.

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

The recent joint Select Committees’ inquiry on supported housing recommended that the Government should establish a national network of women’s refuges to avoid a postcode lottery and to ensure that there is even coverage across the country. Why did the Government reject that recommendation? What will they do to ensure that there is even coverage and that refuges reopen in those areas of the country where they have closed?

[Mr Jones]

We believe that it is right to have a locally led approach in this regard, but we have confirmed that we are committed to reviewing this policy in 2018 under the violence against women and girls strategy. We are looking at all the options, and we have not ruled out nationally commissioning refuges and refuge beds if that is found to be a better solution.

Temporary Accommodation

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I will certainly do what I can on that. I expect that a decision should not be too far away on the issue the hon. Lady mentions. She also mentioned rogue landlords. We have to be clear that they form a small part of the private rented sector, but wherever they exist we must work to drive them out of the system. That is why in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 we introduced further measures, such as the power to levy civil penalties of up to £30,000 on a rogue landlord, with the money then going back to the local authority to invest in respect of further enforcement powers. We have also introduced banning orders, so rogue landlords can be banned from renting property to people or from being a property agent.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) mentioned the situation in Southwark. I was delighted to go there several weeks ago to visit its housing options team, who are an early adopter of the Homelessness Reduction Act. I was struck by the progress being made in Southwark and the positivity of the team there. They seem to be doing a fantastic job and have embraced the principles of the new legislation. It was obvious that they were helping more people earlier to stay in their home, and I was extremely pleased with what I saw during that visit.

[Helen Hayes]

The Minister is right to commend the excellent work that Southwark Council is doing as a trailblazer to implement the 2017 Act early. I hope that officers and members at Southwark also shared with him their grave concern that the Government’s commitment to funding for that Act extends for only two years, and that without a commitment to fund at the extent that is needed all that good work will quickly be lost.

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have invested £72 million in funding for the 2017 Act. The Act is coming into force in April, but we are putting a significant amount of that funding into councils earlier, so that they can gear up for the new Act. She will know, from being heavily involved in the Bill Committee and through the process of the legislation—I commend her for that—that the Government have committed to reviewing the new burdens funding that is being provided within two years of the Act’s implementation.

Time is moving on, so if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will mention a point that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne made about that Act. I assure him that we were looking carefully at the legislation that was introduced in Wales, but while we were considering it, an excellent opportunity arose when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East came forward and the Government embraced his proposals.

It would be remiss of me not to offer on behalf of the Government my condolences following the death of Carl Sargeant, the Welsh Assembly Member who has regrettably passed away. I want to put it on record that the work he did on homelessness reduction in Wales has made a significant difference to the lives of people there, and the House should remember that.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne mentioned Labour’s action in 2003. When we look at what happened at that time, we should not forget that a lot of people were moved from their own areas during that period. A lot of people were moved out to places such as seaside resorts, where there was often little by way of job prospects or opportunities for people to make decent lives for themselves. In some of those areas, there are still social challenges caused by the decisions made at that time. The Government are committed to tackling homelessness, but also to an approach in which we try to do the best thing by people. Several Members mentioned people being moved out of areas; people should not be moved out of their area by compulsion. There should be a discussion between the local authority and the individual, based on the individual’s circumstances at the time.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the rough sleeping data, which we have improved since 2010. I should point out to him that in 2010 councils were not even compelled to provide rough sleeper data to the Department. They are now, but we want to go further and to obtain more data, because we know that if we do, we will be able to work out exactly what the challenges are and why people become homeless, and we will be far more effective at dealing with it. He also mentioned rent controls, which I certainly do not think are a way to help the situation, as I said earlier. They would compound the situation and make it worse.

I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden again for allowing me to set out the Government’s position on this extremely important issue. There is still a considerable amount of work to do. The Government are making progress, but we now need to accelerate it, and I think we will, particularly through the Homelessness Reduction Act, the additional funding that we have provided to local authorities, and the homelessness reduction taskforce that the Government are going to convene shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

10. What recent assessment the Government have made of the adequacy of the availability of domestic violence refuges for women.

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

Refuges provide vital support for victims of domestic abuse. We are investing £40 million over this Parliament in services to support victims of domestic abuse, including refuges. We expect local areas to assess their need, and to provide services and support to meet that need.

[Helen Hayes]

Domestic violence refuges are unique within the supported housing sector because many who need them have to flee a long distance to be safe. By relying solely on local authorities to commission refuge services, the Government are failing to maintain a strategic approach. We are now seeing patchy provision with, for example, the recent closure of the last remaining refuge in Cumbria. Is the Minister monitoring the number of specialist refuge services and specialist providers that have closed since 2010? If not, how can he be assured—

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

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

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of studies have been done around this issue, and that is where the figure of 3% comes from. As Members of this House—I am not, personally, a residential landlord but I know other Members who are—it is easy for us not to understand the challenges of being a residential landlord. The last thing we want to do is drive residential landlords out of the market so that we have less rental property for the people who we are trying to help to access good accommodation.

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

I am concerned by the number of references Government Members have made to how small the number of rogue landlords is. The 3% refers to the definition of rogue landlords from the data that the Government have. My experience is that there are very many more landlords who, although they might not fall into that category—nevertheless, 3% is a lot of landlords—of the most unscrupulous, are not as responsible and rigorous as they might be and do not provide tenants with the right level of service. This requirement is about local authorities being able to check that repairs that should have been done, have been done and that the property is in a fit state to move in to. Consistently this morning, the comments from Government Members have undermined the nature of the problem and the extent of the challenge that my constituents face.

[Mr Jones]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but my understanding of what I have heard this morning is that Government Members, including myself, are extremely concerned to make sure that people who are vulnerable have the right accommodation and are supported in accessing it. The hon. Lady was on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee in late 2015, before the Bill became an Act in 2016, so she will know that local authorities now have a real incentive to tackle rogue landlords. If that legislation leads to our identifying more rogue landlords because they are genuinely rogue, so be it. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

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

[Mr Jones]

That is something the hon. Lady needs to speak to her local authority about. I would need to see more details to comment further on that.

Both the prevention and relief duties, in conjunction with clauses 3 and 7, place an element of responsibility on the households themselves. They will be required to take their own reasonable steps to assist the relief of their homelessness. Requiring co-operation in that way means that, if an applicant deliberately or unreasonably refuses to co-operate, the duty can come to end. How that will work will be explained when we discuss clause 7.

A crucial difference between the prevention duty and the relief duty is that authorities may determine whether an applicant has a local connection with their district. If it is demonstrated that an applicant has a local connection with another district, a referral can take place. A relief duty provides another level of support and assistance for those households not in priority need that have become homeless. It is an important addition to the safety net and I welcome its inclusion in the Bill.

I will respond to some of the other issues raised. Taking your guidance, Mr Chope, I will not go as wide as some of those points. I see that I am receiving your endorsement to that approach, and I will try to follow that advice.

With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith on funding, he will not be surprised to hear me say again that the Bill will be funded. We are dealing with and speaking carefully to the Local Government Association and local authorities to make sure that we get the funding right. He will also note that there is a long-standing new burdens doctrine that we have to follow in that regard. I entirely accept what he says about this burden not being a situation that a local authority currently has to bear as such, and we are therefore approaching the funding to it on that basis. However, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, although this is not a duty that generally exists at the moment, there will ultimately be benefits to local authorities upstream, in terms of savings that can be made further down the line.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned temporary accommodation. I know that is an important issue in London. As he will know, we are devolving the temporary accommodation management fee, which will give local authorities a far better way to plan for temporary accommodation. I can also say to him that I have been disturbed by some of the stories I have heard about the approach that has been taken to securing temporary accommodation, in which local authorities have effectively been outbidding each other in certain cases. That is a real cause for concern, and I am trying to instigate work with London Councils to try to overcome that particular issue.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned tenancy length. The average length of an assured shorthold tenancy is actually four years, but I understand what he says about 12-month tenancies. I discussed that at considerable length with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and we came to the conclusion that, if we try to be too prescriptive on 12-month tenancies, it would cause a particularly difficult issue in places such as London, where a lot of landlords may not be willing to grant an assured shorthold tenancy for that length of time. However, what we are doing here does not preclude granting 12-month assured shorthold tenancies. We are trying to encourage landlords to engage with us and to take up the model tenancy agreement, which advocates a longer length of tenancy.

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

It may be the case that the average length of actual tenancy turns out to be four years. However, does the Minister accept that, within those four years, if the specified length of tenancy is one year, those tenants are nevertheless living with a lack of security and the uncertainty that the landlord could, if they choose, evict that tenant at will or bring the tenancy to an end? That lack of security is the issue as much as what happens in practice in terms of the average length of tenancy.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady may be leading me down a road that makes me incur the wrath of the Chairman. There is certainly a balance to be struck between people having certainty and people having somewhere to live. The challenge is, if we try to mandate very long tenancies on private landlords, we may soon find that we do not have the supply of private rented accommodation that we need.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

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

[Helen Hayes]

I apologise, Mr Chope; I thought we had moved on. I am happy to reserve my remarks until then.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith for highlighting an important issue. It is essential that authorities are able to make objective judgments on what constitutes a reasonable step. I reassure him that the current formulation will have the same effect as his amendment.

Under the measure as currently drafted, the authority must already consider what steps it is reasonable to take, taking account of all relevant factors. The existing reference to reasonableness brings in an objective standard, which is based on what steps a reasonable authority in the actual authority’s position would take in relation to that particular applicant, with all the characteristics, abilities and so on of that applicant. I hear what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about his hopes and aspirations that may one day be fulfilled by the Government’s accepting one of his amendments. I do not wish to dash his hopes and aspirations but, as he feared, I urge him to withdraw the amendment for the reasons I have mentioned.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

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

[Helen Hayes]

I wish to speak briefly in support of amendment 1, which arises directly from evidence we heard in the Communities and Local Government Committee, as the Chairman of that Committee has already said. It also speaks directly to the experiences of my constituents and some of the most devastating cases in my time as a Member of this House and, before that, as a local councillor.

As Members well know, homelessness is one of the most devastating circumstances that can befall someone in the UK today. In such challenging circumstances, people will often hang on to every little bit of stability that they can, in particular for their children. Which of us would not do that? My local authorities do everything possible to place people in borough when they have to provide families with temporary accommodation. When they place people outside the borough, they do everything they can to find accommodation in neighbouring boroughs, so people do not have to travel long distances.

The first of two cases that I particularly recall involved a family placed in temporary accommodation in Edmonton who were travelling with their children to primary school in Dulwich every day. That is a very long distance, by any stretch of the imagination. The train would have been the quickest way to make the journey, but they could not afford that, because they were a family facing homelessness. They had to leave their temporary accommodation in Edmonton at 5.30 every morning to travel with their children to my constituency for school, because they were part of a stable school community and knew that their children were receiving good support there.

More recently, a family living in temporary accommodation —a hostel in Dulwich—were travelling every day to Leytonstone with their daughter to attend primary school. Similarly, because they were a family in destitution and without any money, mum was sitting on a park bench in Leytonstone for the duration of the school day before collecting her daughter and travelling back to Dulwich. Such circumstances are devastating.

The other sets of circumstances covered by the amendment are, straightforwardly, invest-to-save provisions. I can recall countless constituents who have come to my surgeries to tell me that the local authority is suggesting that they move to accommodation further away, but they are fearful of what that would mean in terms of loss of support from their family and community networks. Furthermore, most often, they are constituents with mental health difficulties. As we know, and it seemed self-evident when I was talking to them, if they were forced to move from their support networks, their families and the people they rely on to maintain some stability in their lives, there would be additional costs. Not only would those individuals be much more likely to be forced into a crisis, but there would be additional costs to the NHS and to social services arising from people being moved away from their informal networks of support.

The final set of circumstances covered by the amendment involves people who are in employment. We all applaud anyone facing homelessness who manages to sustain their employment. That is a difficult enough thing to achieve in the best of circumstances, but if as a consequence of homelessness people are forced to move a long distance from their employment, so that they could not afford the travel costs or time, the burden would become unsustainable. That, too, would be a false economy. The state should be doing everything to ensure that, where possible, employment can be sustained.

For those reasons, I hope that the promoter and the Government will accept the amendment, because the matters that it covers are so important that they should be on the face of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

On amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, local housing authorities must already have regard to the significance of any disruption that would be caused by the location of the accommodation to the employment, caring responsibilities or education of the person or members of the person’s household under article 2 of the Suitability of Accommodation (England) Order 2012. I therefore do not agree that an amendment to repeat that point is necessary.

To expand on that and to reassure the hon. Gentleman, local authorities must by law take account of the factors included in a suitability order. If an authority acts illegally, as he pointed out, households would have redress by review and on appeal. My Department intervened in a Supreme Court case on just this point to ensure that the order and the guidance are followed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

19. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the local government grant formula in directing funding to areas of need.

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

We will shortly present our proposals for a sustainable and fair 2016-17 local government finance settlement to the House. We propose to continue our approach of transforming local authorities from being dependent on grant to benefiting from promoting local growth.

[Helen Hayes]

Spending on adult social care has fallen by £65 per person in the most deprived communities, whereas it has increased by £28 per person in the least deprived. In one of the councils I represent, the estimated shortfall in adult social care funding following the comprehensive spending review is £20 million, of which £2 million can be raised by increasing council tax by 2%. Is it not true that allowing an extra 2% rise in council tax merely devolves the blame without fixing the problem?

[Mr Jones]

In the provisional local government settlement that will come very shortly, we will announce changes to the local government finance system to rebalance support, including to those authorities with adult social care responsibilities, by taking into account the main resources available to councils, including council tax and business rates.

Housing and Planning Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Helen Hayes and Marcus Jones

Thursday 26th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

I wish to speak about the concerns that Shelter and Crisis have expressed that the abandonment clauses are a disproportionate response to a problem that does not exist to any great extent. Of all the private sector tenancies in the country, it is estimated that 0.04% are affected by abandonment. I am therefore not convinced that the proposals in the Bill are necessary.

I want to say a little about the means that already exists for landlords to reclaim their property legitimately in cases where tenants are in breach of their tenancy, namely the section 21 process. My caseload is full of cases of tenants who have experienced unscrupulous evictions under the section 21 process, and I bear witness to the distress, anxiety and, ultimately, homelessness that is caused by its unscrupulous use. There are very many examples in my constituency and I would be happy to share some with the Minister in some detail, because the problems are real and prevalent.

Landlords complain that the section 21 process is cumbersome and causes delay. In my experience, such delay happens for two reasons. The first is that landlords often do not administer the process properly and are therefore defeated in the courts on technical grounds—that happens very frequently. The second is that there are great inefficiencies in the court system, so there are often long waits to get a date for a court hearing.

Those problems will not be made better by the current Government proposals to close many of our courts, including Lambeth county court, which serves many of my constituents and is the busiest housing court in the country. Its proposed closure will not help the landlords who are seeking legitimately to claim their property through the section 21 process, nor will it help give tenants the opportunity to receive just and fair treatment through that process. If the section 21 process is properly administered, and has a proper reason behind it—including, for example, abandonment—it should be relatively streamlined. It is subject to a court process, which gives tenants every recourse to justice. It is right and proper that they have that.

I support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead. Requiring councils to support the view that a property has in fact been abandoned is important for three reasons, two of which relate to the relationship between local authorities and residents in their areas. First, local authorities administer housing benefit claims and are therefore in a good position to say whether a non-payment event, for example, is due to a claim that has not yet been processed—we know that the average processing time for a housing benefit claim is 22 days, and for universal credit it will be even longer, at up to six weeks.

Secondly, councils are often aware of the vulnerability of residents in their area. They interact with residents through social services, so will know whether, as in the examples highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, someone is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s or has recently been in prison. There will be social services involvement with those families, so local authorities will know about any vulnerability and will be well placed to advise on whether it is a reason for apparent abandonment.

The third reason why local authority validation is important is simply that local authorities are a third party. In my short time as a Member of the House, I have dealt with many cases that concern complex interactions between tenants and landlords, particularly small-scale landlords, where often the relationships are complex and there are complicated behaviour issues on both sides. Having a third party that is independent of both landlord and tenant and can take an independent view on whether a property has been genuinely abandoned is a really important check and balance.

I do not believe that that would be a cumbersome addition to the process. I support the view of Shelter and Crisis that the abandonment proposals in the Bill are not necessary, because they are a disproportionate response to a very small problem for which effective processes are already in place. However, if the Government will not concede that point, local authority validation as a minimum requirement is vital.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Alan. We have had a full debate with a number of points raised by hon. Members on both sides. I will do my best to respond to as many of them as I can.

The amendment would require a landlord to obtain confirmation from the relevant local housing authority that a property had been abandoned before they could serve a notice on the tenant to bring an assured shorthold tenancy to an end and repossess the property. We have introduced a procedure for dealing with abandoned premises that will allow a landlord to recover a property that has been abandoned without the need to obtain a court order. We have introduced safeguards to ensure that a landlord can use the process only in circumstances in which a tenant has genuinely abandoned the property.