Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Karen Buck and Michelle Donelan

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

[Ms Buck]

As I indicated in responding to the Minister’s amendments, I, too, welcome this approach. I very much want to see a culture change in local authorities. The examples of gatekeeping that I referred to were applied to people in priority need. These are people who really should be navigated through the system because they have children, have disabilities, are elderly or have severe health problems. Even in those circumstances there are examples of gatekeeping that is so harsh that those people are effectively turned away or deterred from making an application.

On non-priority groups—the type of groups for which the Bill is particularly keen to see some form of service provided—we know that even some best practice involves little more than giving somebody a list of telephone numbers and telling them that they may be able to access accommodation in a hostel. My own local authority has a bundle of papers that runs to 40 or 50-plus pages of phone numbers. I have spent some afternoons doing my own mystery shopping, sitting and ringing the phone numbers, trying to find out whether they exist or will take people on benefits and so forth. I find, almost invariably, that someone will spend hours, and a lot of money, on a telephone, not being able to get through. We absolutely know that the gatekeeping process is very harsh, and sometimes even worse, because of the nature of the experience that an individual will have when they are in a housing option service. Local authorities need to work within statutory guidance and do not always do that.

The critical point for me is accountability. We need to have a form of measuring what local authorities are doing and a way to hold them to account. That should not be excessively bureaucratic—we do not want to add too much to the monitoring workload of already very stressed local authorities—but we cannot measure the success of the code of practice and the way that the cultural element of the Bill is working just through another mystery shopper operation later and by anecdotal evidence from charities or from our own casework.

At the absolute minimum, local authorities should provide a written statement of the advice and options that they give to everybody in non-priority need, which those people could then take away to whatever advocacy and representation they can access in this post-Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 world—some of it is still there—and which would demonstrate to that outside organisation, whether it is a councillor, a Member of Parliament or a charity, what the local authority has said is available and the advice that the local authority has given to that person. That would not be a set of actions that they have to take, but a summary of what the local authority is going to be able to do.

I do not know whether the Minister will commit to that, but we need a means of holding local authority performance to account, in a simple and consistent way that applies to Wandsworth, Hull, Blackpool and everywhere in the country. If we do not have that, further down the line we will find that there is good practice and some cultural change on the back of the Bill, but if all the other pressures continue to mount—we know further cuts in housing benefit are coming down the line, there is a pressure on affordability and a continuing crisis in housing supply—we will find that, despite the best efforts, we end up with a number of very vulnerable individuals still not receiving consistent advice. There will be a need for the code of practice further down the line, but ideally we do not want to have that. We want to make sure that the Bill’s provisions are implemented from day one. We need to know how we can measure that and hold local authorities to account.

The Minister mentioned earlier that where there were examples of local authorities not employing best practice, he would “beef up” his response. I am not quite sure what beef up means in this context. It would be helpful to turn that into something in language that we can understand and monitor. Will the Minister tell us a little bit more about what will happen to local authorities if they are judged as such down the line—as I think some will be, even if the best of all outcomes is achieved—and what he will do to those authorities to make sure that best practice is adhered to?

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I rise to support clause 11. As discussed, it seeks to create a basic standard in the form of a code of practice. That will ensure that local housing authorities have guidance on how to deliver homelessness prevention functions. The guidance will offer councils a reference to check against, to ensure that the level of service offered is equal to the best currently seen in the UK.

The clause speaks to the essence of what we have been talking about over the last few weeks. Up and down the country, services are being provided at a different level. Those people who are deemed vulnerable but not in priority need are often those who fall between the gaps and do not receive the service that they should. We have all agreed on that, which is why the clause is so important: it seeks to ensure that those people receive the best service throughout the UK, and indeed, to end the existing postcode lottery.

In many ways, the clause is not only about improving and equalising services, but about giving local housing authorities more guidance and steering—although it will not replace the existing code of guidance. It will enable the Secretary of State and all of us to raise the standards of homelessness support services across the country, so that the minimum level of service—equal to what is currently the best—is delivered. That minimum level will be one of the Bill’s supreme achievements.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Karen Buck and Michelle Donelan

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

[Ms Buck]

I shall be brief, as I endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. The cultural change that the Bill proposes is welcome. Many MPs have experienced dealing with constituents who faced homelessness and were left, in the most extreme cases—though it is not unusual—with their possessions piled up on the pavement outside their home, while the bailiffs were there and they waited for the local authority to assume its duty for them.

It is right that everything possible should be done to prevent that. The earlier we intervene, the better. As has been said, however, there are major structural pressures that militate against the effective delivery of what we hope the Bill will achieve. That does not detract from the aims and objectives, but it means that the Government must pay the matter serious attention.

We already know, from the prevention work done in priority homelessness cases under the prevention and relief of homelessness measures, what some of those structural problems are. The end of a shorthold tenancy is the principal driver of homelessness and, as my hon. Friend has just said, in many cases that is consequent on a section 21 notice being issued because a landlord knows that more money can be earned from a rental property, particularly in high-value areas such as London.

Research done with the Residential Landlords Association shows that only 7% of landlords in inner London are now prepared to let to people on housing benefit. The figure is about one in four across London as a whole, and it has been falling rapidly. A quarter of the cases that the prevention and relief of homelessness measures deal with are related to housing benefit problems—sometimes administrative, but often simply a shortfall. The Government are making such shortfalls worse by the extension of the benefit cap and will certainly make them worse with the additional local housing allowance measures that are being brought in.

The very people at whom the Bill is aimed—the non-priority cases and single homeless people, many of whose situations are terrible but who cannot cross the threshold into priority need—are precisely the ones most at risk from the additional squeeze on local housing allowance. In such circumstances the Government always say that the answer lies in discretionary housing payment measures, inadequate as they are, but the crux is that those payments are temporary.

I have raised that argument many times in this place: when we talk about measures to prevent homelessness and ensure that people are given some form of housing security, it is not good enough to rely on a local authority’s discretionary—the clue is in the name—housing payments, which are by definition time limited. They can mean the difference between homelessness today and in six, eight or 10 weeks’ time. They are not a means of protecting even priority households—households with children, elderly people or people with disabilities—from homelessness. They are certainly not going to be enough to protect non-priority and single people, whom we want and need to assist.

Does the Minister think that the discretionary housing payment scheme also needs to be reviewed? Should the temporary nature of such assistance be reviewed, if we are to make the measure work?

[Michelle Donelan]

I echo colleagues’ comments that clause 4 is the heart and core of the Bill—it is fundamentally about preventing homelessness, which is why we are here. The clause would end the current postcode lottery—it is also a time lottery, because someone can get help one day when they might not the next. It can depend on the area, which person they see, and a number of factors such as how busy the council is.

I am sure we all agree that the introduction of a standard system across the UK is fair, right and proper. It will mean that no one who is vulnerable can be turned away. The fact that we are increasing the window from 28 days to 56 days will prevent homelessness. We see constituents week after week in similar situations when they have left it too late after being given advice. The measure is about helping them and untying our councils’ hands.

There has been a lot of talk about burdening councils, but some parts of the Bill, including extending the time window to 56 days, actually untie councils’ hands. The relief duty means that those who need help will get it, and not just those who are deemed priority need on a particular day. That will help charities by allowing them to have more time to get on with helping homeless people rather than fighting councils over viewing people as priority need.

The clause will make things cheaper in the long run for councils and at a national level. Statistics show—this is echoed by my local charities including Doorway in Chippenham—that most people in the initial stages of being threatened with homelessness do not have the same complex needs such as mental health issues, drug abuse and alcoholism as people in later stages. The current system exacerbates problems and causes people a great deal of pain, as well as cost. It is our duty to try to alleviate and avoid that pain.

The success of prevention will be seeing people in the round, and implementing the duty in conjunction with the assessment and the personal plan. Preventing homelessness is possible only if we look at people as people and not as statistics. We must look at the other problems they endure and allow for more partnership working with other bodies. I fully support the clause, which is the essence of the entire Bill.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Karen Buck and Michelle Donelan

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Buck]

No, I do not welcome that at all. As we heard in the superb speech from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), we do not know what tenure those homes will have or where they will go. We have no guarantees whatsoever that they will be local. Therefore, they will simply not provide an equivalent level of accommodation or meet need. I cannot remember who said this, but that could result in rental properties for low-income households in inner London being sold to subsidise homes for sale somewhere else, thereby meeting a totally different kind of need.

Westminster City Council also points out—this has not been brought up this evening—that, in order to deliver the two-for-one requirement, the increase in housing delivery would have to be dramatically increased from its current rate, but there is no indication of how that will be achieved. The council has a long list of asks as to how the high-value sales programme will be organised and how inner-London authorities, including itself, would be protected. The Minister has given no answers whatsoever.

The council has also provided further context and it is interesting, given some of our discussions about pay to stay. Government Members describe anybody with a household income of £40,000 as rich, and the council has pointed out that the Government are imposing a higher pay-to-stay requirement on such households while at the same time cutting rents. They are cutting rents for everybody, including working households. People are being asked to pay a higher rent if they have a household income of £40,000, but they get a 1% cut in their rent at the same time. I simply do not understand the logic of that.

In my local authority, the implications are a loss to the housing revenue account of £32 million over the next four years and £237 million over the next 30 years, which will mean, as the local authority says, major cuts to the quality of existing properties or plans for new affordable house building. Yet again, the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other—indeed, they are taking away with a third hand, in this case—the capacity to provide additional homes. All that can be fairly summarised as meaning that the council that gave us homes for votes in the 1980s—the biggest scandal in modern local government history—is saying, “Even we do not like this.”

The council does not like the Government’s proposed starter homes policy either. The consultant who advised the council on the Housing and Planning Bill pointed out that a starter home capped at £450,000 in inner London, where the average open market property is going for £2 million, lavishes a gain on a particular small cohort of first-time buyers. Westminster Council states that

“the potential tax-free capital gain, after eight years of occupation…is very considerable (depending on the number of bedrooms) and wholly to the benefit of a first-time buyer”.

[Michelle Donelan]

It is interesting to hear about the housing market in London, but does the hon. Lady recognise that in Wiltshire, one of the fundamental reasons why we have an above-average ageing population is that young people cannot afford to buy in the area, and so they are leaving it? Does she agree that for the long-term health of communities such as mine, initiatives such as starter homes are a very good and reasonable policy that will enable people to enter the housing market?

[Ms Buck]

Funnily enough, that is almost the thrust of my argument. Things that are applicable in the hon. Lady’s constituency are not necessarily applicable in mine, so we want to have local flexibility and the freedom to develop a strategy that meets local needs. Also, I do not see why my constituents who are in housing need should fund home ownership for her constituents. We absolutely have to meet local needs; that is intrinsic to the idea of a local authority having statutory duties to meet housing need. I am afraid that I do not accept her point at all.

I know that other people want to speak, so I will not dwell on the issue that has already been raised—I have also raised it previously—about the income that people need to afford starter homes in places such as central London. It seems extraordinary that, on one hand, we think that social housing is a rare good that has to be rationed because we have to speak the language of priorities, but, on the other hand, our priorities are such that we can afford to give a 20% discount to people with incomes of up to £77,000 in central London. My colleagues and I, and Westminster City Council, make it absolutely clear that the strategy, as it is being imposed across the country, will have a very serious and negative effect in central London. It will provide a windfall gain for a very lucky and small cohort of people—good luck to them—but that, critically, will be bought at the expense of others.

I remind the House of what we have seen in recent years as a consequence of the Government’s catastrophic housing failure. In my area, we have 600 fewer social housing units than we had in 2009. We have 2,414 households in temporary accommodation. The number of people in housing need on the housing register has doubled to 4,500 since it was redefined, and reduced, in 2012. We have 1.2 million people on the housing register across the country. There has been an 80% rise in homelessness acceptances in London. We have seen a soaring housing benefit bill in the private sector, and a time bomb of housing benefit expenditure is coming down the line as low-income households are forced into the private rented sector. That is all before the Government cut housing benefit still further.

I end by going back to the point about the lottery. Good luck to those people who get the benefit of high value starter homes, but why should that be at the expense of people such as my constituents: the healthcare assistant I met last week, who is bidding for housing association homes where the monthly rent is more than her take-home pay; the family so overcrowded that their little son, who is suffering from skin cancer, has to share a bed with his siblings; the family of six—two parents and four young adults, two of whom are severely disabled—in a property so small that their wheelchair-bound son is unable to do his required physiotherapy; or the mum with two young children who was moved from Westminster and her local job to the edge of London, from where she has to commute in, getting her children up at 5.30 in the morning and returning home at 9.15 in the evening, who is weeping with the stress of her experience—it is duplicated in hundreds of other families—and who tells me that her daughter does not want to live with her anymore because she cannot bear the stress of homelessness? The Housing and Planning Bill, unfortunately, says that those people and their needs do not matter, and that housing will not be provided for people like them.

Much as I applaud initiatives to support affordable home ownership—and I do—I do not think that it should be achieved at the expense of people in housing need. That is what the Bill does, and that is why it is so pernicious. That is why I hope that we will be able to secure progress on at least some of the amendments that were achieved in the other place a couple of weeks ago.