Supported Housing

Debate between John Healey and George Howarth

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

That is true, and my hon. Friend is another of the House’s experts in this area. However, it is also the case that the housing benefit element of the costs of supported housing is designed to cover the housing costs and the management of housing costs, not the personal or support care costs.

Sometimes there is a confusion of those issues, but there should be no confusion for the Minister or the Government. In their own review in 2011, they listed the main reasons behind the costs of supported housing, where housing costs are often greater than those for general needs housing, saying that they included

“providing 24 hour housing management cover…providing more housing related support than in mainstream housing…organising more frequent repairs or refurbishment…providing more frequent mediating between tenants; and…providing extra CCTV and security services”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is absolutely right, and I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing her speak, and that she too will welcome the Prime Minister’s partial announcement today.

For all of us in this House and, in particular, for the 700,000 people who currently have their homes in supported or sheltered housing, what the Government do instead matters a great deal. The devil is always in the detail and the funding. We are told that we will have to wait until next week for the detail, so let me turn to funding. The previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now the deputy Prime Minister, said in a written ministerial statement in September 2016:

“we will bring in a new funding model which will ensure that the sector continues to be funded at current levels”.—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 37WS.]

That is simply not true. Total funding is only protected in year one, 2019-20. In year two, the sector faces a funding cliff edge with cuts of more than £500 million scheduled from April 2020. Government Members are right to look puzzled and a little alarmed. This has not been mentioned by Ministers and it is only evident in the small print of the Treasury’s fiscal reports. If Members look closely at the Treasury documents, as I have, they will see exactly what the Government plan.

On page 87 of the Budget 2016 Red Book, table 2.2 shows that the Government scored cuts to supported housing spending of £390 million in 2020-21. Following the pledge by the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to protect funding, page 12 of the Treasury’s 2016 autumn statement policy costings report reflected the commitment that overall funding for supported housing will be the same in 2019-20. However, it also confirmed that the amended policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman will

“generate additional savings in subsequent years as it is applied to the stock of supported housing tenants”.

In other words, that includes all current supported housing tenants and not just, as originally planned, the new ones. It shows additional cost cuts in 2020-21 of £160 million. Of course, that was updated in the Budget 2017 Red Book to £165 million. As well as the £390 million of cuts already announced, therefore, there will be a further cut in 2020-21, the second year of any new system.

The upshot is clear: Ministers have lined up costs for this programme. And they have lined up cuts of over half a billion pounds for year two of any new system they put in place, and further cuts after that. This is a funding cliff edge for existing supported housing and it entirely demolishes Ministers’ claims that they will protect supported housing. Will the Minister confirm today that the Government will make good this funding gap in full, so that the Prime Minister’s pledge this morning to the House in Prime Minister’s questions can be properly honoured?

In our motion, we say the Government should adopt a system that

“safeguards the long-term future and funding of supported housing.”

I want to set out four tests for the Government, which explain what we mean and how we will judge the detail of any plans for change. First, any new funding system must reflect the real cost of running supported housing. Secondly, any new funding system must be needs-led and be able to deal with increases in demand and need for supported housing, not subject to arbitrary cash limits such as departmental revenue spending. Thirdly, any funding model for the future must take account of the particular needs of very short-term accommodation, including homeless hostels and women’s refuges—this is one of the very serious failings with universal credit. Fourthly, and most importantly, any new funding system must not lead to the closure of any vitally needed supported housing.

This is a Government with no majority or mandate for domestic policy, because this is not covered by their deal with the Democratic Unionist party. It is Britain’s first minority Government for 38 years. As a Parliament, and as Members on all sides, we are still coming to terms with the much bigger role and much stronger say we have in Government policy decisions. The influence—[Interruption.] The Minister snorts, but the truth is that the influence of Members from all sides has had a very significant bearing on the policy on supported housing. It has been very significant so far, but there is a good deal more to do. I trust that Ministers will see this debate as another important contribution.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John Healey]

I will. I was just about to finish, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Howarth]

Good timing on my part! I suggest to my right hon. Friend that a fifth test might be in order: would any new Government scheme enable more supported housing to be built, thereby releasing family housing for those in housing need, while also saving money on care home costs further down the line?

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right; perhaps that should be a fifth test. Certainly the first part of any fifth test must be whether, when the Government announce their plan, all the schemes halted in the last couple of years then get the go-ahead.

Finally, Parliament, the housing sector and the Government must together sort out a good long-term system for supported housing. I hope that our motion and this debate can be the basis for just that.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between John Healey and George Howarth

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right; I could have extended the list. Tory Ministers and Back Benchers have voted against our proposals to reinforce councils’ hands so that they deal with such abuse from landlords and such exploitation of tenants, to require homes to meet standards that make them fit for human habitation and to mandate annual electrical safety checks. They rejected each and every one of those proposals, to which we will return in the other place.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend add to that list the failure to address the fact that some private landlords use properties to launder drug money?

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend may well be right in some cases. One of the weaknesses of the enforcement regime and council powers, not to mention the resources being stripped out by the deep cuts, is that action to deal with such problems, often with other agencies, is prevented. Those issues blight many areas when they could be dealt with.

During the Bill’s passage the Prime Minister has been hyperactive with housing announcements; if press releases built homes, he would have had the housing crisis sorted by now. In years to come, people will judge him, the Government and the Bill on whether their housing pressures have eased, their housing prospects have improved and their housing costs have become more affordable. After five years of failure, we desperately needed a Bill to give people hit by the high cost of housing and the cost of housing crisis some hope that things will change. But this is not that Bill. This is an extraordinary and extreme Bill, and we will vote against it again tonight.

Fire and Rescue Services

Debate between John Healey and George Howarth

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend underlines the modest case that the fire chiefs have been making, which many Labour MPs have been prepared to back. Indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South did so today. The scheme does entrench the unfair pattern that we have seen in years one and two, but, from the fire chiefs’ point of view, it recognises that the Fire Minister, unless he is going to renegotiate the settlement with the Treasury for years three and four, will have to find cuts worth more than £130 million in the next couple of years.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I add my voice to the praise that has been heaped on my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this subject. On the question of unfairness and the difference between the six metropolitan districts and the rest, does not the Merseyside case make that point very well? We have one of the highest incident rates, yet we also have one of the highest negative funding differences. That illustrates the point he is making. We have to be selective, but we also need to bend the rules a little towards those who are in the greatest difficulty.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is a pattern of deep cuts, especially in the six metropolitan areas, and it is strongest in poorest areas with the highest number of fires; urban areas in which the risk of fires is greatest; metropolitan brigades that have done the most over the past decade to become more efficient; and the six fire and rescue authorities that have done the most, and do the most, to cover other areas in cases of national emergency such as flooding, terrorism and major incidents. If the pattern of years one and two is repeated in years three and four, our areas together will be looking at axing an extra 1,000 firefighters, 150 extra staff and another 40 fire engines.

We worked with the Minister’s predecessor very closely over the past nine months. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, his officials and the chief fire officer for the way in which they have worked. I also pay tribute to the chief constables, their staff, the unions and the members of the fire and rescue authorities in the six metropolitan areas.

In the past nine months, we have given the Government fair warning, and the Minister should take this as a final warning. He is close to having to make a decision. If the cuts fall in the same way, so deeply and so unfairly in the metropolitan areas, there will be fewer firefighters, fire engines and fire stations. Bluntly, more people will die.

Let me offer a solution to the Minister—we argued this with his predecessor—and encourage him as a fresh Minister to take a fresh look and learn from the Home Secretary. This year, each of the 43 police authorities have had an even cut in their budgets of 6.7%. Last year, each and every one of them had the same cut of 5.1%. and it was done through the floor-damping mechanism. Exactly the same policy is at the Minister’s disposal to apply to the 31 fire and rescue authorities. It would be more equitable. It would still be tough, and it would be especially tough in those metropolitan areas that have some of the highest need, the highest risk, the lowest council tax base and the weakest levels of economic growth but, none the less, the fire chiefs are prepared to accept that and go with it.

Finally, will the Minister take a fresh look at how fire and rescue authorities are treated in the future? He should adopt the same approach to those authorities as has been taken to the police. In the middle of July, his Department produced a big document on the consultation on business rates retention. It confirms that in future, police authorities will be funded outside the new business rates retention scheme. The document says that the reason for doing so is that it is recognised

“that the police have limited levers to influence growth.”

Exactly the same argument applies to the fire and rescue services. The fire service, which is also an emergency service, has exactly the same need for stable and predictable funding. I urge the Minister to take a leaf out of the Home Secretary’s book, for years three and four, and for the long term. Let us put the funding of fire services on a proper footing—and a fairer footing—for the future.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between John Healey and George Howarth

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That underscores the point that he and others made earlier: to some extent, we are taking a leap in the dark. Several hon. Members have said that one of the difficulties with local government finance is that, when you change it, the impact is unpredictable. I do not need to rehearse the history of the poll tax to show that. The position that we are considering is exactly the same in that it is unpredictable and volatile.

[John Healey]

The effect is uncertain, but it is possible to make some projections. In my authority of Rotherham—a member of the SIGOMA group—if the pensioners are protected in the way in which the Government clearly believe that they will be, everyone else who is currently entitled to support, including many who work but get low wages, and therefore require and have a right to that support, will take a cut of not 10% but 19.5%.

[Mr Howarth]

My right hon. Friend makes a strong point, which I hope to tackle shortly.

Currently, many people, especially young people, have to accept jobs, often well below the level of their qualifications, on a minimum wage, at the same time as having to forge an independent existence from their families. I fear that they, or young couples with families, in which the principal earner is on a low wage, will be most affected and put in an impossible position, unless the discretionary powers that the Bill describes are spelled out clearly so that the outcomes cannot be arbitrary. We deserve to know at least what the Government are planning, and that should appear on the face of the Bill. Who are the classes of people? There are vague descriptions in schedule 4, but nothing is spelled out clearly.

I said I wanted to talk about Knowsley and the Liverpool city region. I am indebted to the director of finance in Knowsley for the impartial briefing he has given to me—it is a Labour authority, but he has provided advice on the basis of his financial experience and qualifications. His view is that the 10% cut combined with pensioner protection means that the benefit of other claimants will have to be cut by 18%. If there is provision for others in a local scheme—they could be singled out or ring-fenced—that 18% cut could increase to as much as a 100%, because people could be excluded altogether, as the hon. Member for Poole said.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between John Healey and George Howarth

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). I sat through his speech last week on the first day in Committee, in which he pleaded the case for Westminster. I found it difficult to sleep that night, given the strong concerns that he raised about the consequences of the Bill for his constituency. On reflection, I decided that it might not be that bad really.

I have some sympathy with the Minister, with the amendments and, indeed, with the Bill. Local government finance generally is so technical that it reminds me of the Schleswig-Holstein affair. People think that they understand it, but many years later they have forgotten it. Some 25 years ago, when I was a local authority finance chairman, I actually understood multiple regression analysis, but if anyone were to intervene and ask me to explain it now, I would struggle.

[John Healey]

rose—

[Mr Howarth]

My right hon. Friend would give me another sleepless night.