Queen’s Speech

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in paying tribute to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. It was a positive and moving speech which underlined the importance of committed parents and teachers if one is to improve the life chances of a child. We look forward to her future interventions in our debates.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Queen’s Speech which, with measures on probation and adoption, seeks to build a reputation for this Government for social reform to match that of the previous Conservative Government of the 1980s on economic reform, but that reputation will be further enhanced if more progress is made on one of the key responsibilities of local government: housing, which has already been touched on. I very much welcome the measures that have already been taken to increase supply, but there was hope that there would be a commitment to legislation on homelessness in the Queen’s Speech following the interest shown in this recently by DCLG Ministers and following the welcome ring-fenced funding provided in the Autumn Statement.

Homelessness is sadly on the increase and the law as it stands creates a two-tier system involving people in “priority need”, who are owed the full homelessness duty, and those who are judged not to be and can be turned away with little or no help. This binary distinction is increasingly difficult to justify. The devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales are actually ahead of us here in England, having introduced reform to abolish that distinction.

In Scotland, priority need has been abolished which means that all homeless people are entitled to accommodation. The UK Government could learn from the progress that has been made and reform the law in England, as proposed by the housing charity, Crisis, and supported by the National Housing Federation. These proposals have been costed and the new duties to prevent and relieve homelessness would require an additional £43.9 million, to be offset by a £46.8 million reduction in spending. I hope that when he replies, my noble friend will be able to confirm that the prevention of homelessness remains a key priority and that legislation has not been ruled out.

A second housing issue is equally pressing: the challenge that faces supported housing. Last year, as part of the proposals to save money on welfare, the Government said that social rent should fall by 1% each year, with consequent reductions in housing benefit. This was very welcome for the Treasury and for tenants, but it had an impact on the financing of housing associations. I commend their response to the challenges that confronted them, because they reorganised their plans and managed to maintain investment in the mainstream programme. However, restrictions on housing benefit have a disproportionate impact on supported housing, which helps older people who want to remain independent, and victims of domestic violence, and probation hostels and homes for those with drug and alcohol problems, for which the running costs are much higher than for mainstream housing.

The imminent reduction of local housing allowances has also caused a critical problem. In response to representations on both sides of your Lordships’ House, the Government deferred the impact of these reforms while they announced a review. In the meantime, this has had a chilling effect on investment in the sector, with local authorities reporting that substantial investment has been suspended and the viability of a number of organisations is in doubt.

In a debate in the other place in January, the Minister said:

“The future of supported housing matters, which is why my Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have jointly commissioned a fact-finding review of the sector. This will report by the end of March”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/16; col. 288.]

That review is still awaited and I hope that the Minister can confirm that a stable financial framework will be announced for this key sector of the housing market by the Summer Recess.

As I still have two minutes left, I shall make a slightly less serious point, which relates to the Government’s vision for pollution-free transport. I declare an interest in that recently, I was incentivised by the Government to invest in an electric car for journeys that are too long for me to do on a bicycle. My problem with these cars is not range anxiety—Members of your Lordships’ House are familiar with range anxiety, as we wonder how many more of life’s milestones we will pass before our bodies run out of energy. The problem with electric cars is the infrastructure for charging the batteries.

If I refuel a conventional car at a petrol pump, it does not matter who owns the pump. I pay with cash or by credit card. But if I refuel an electric vehicle at a charging unit, I need a fistful of individual company cards because there are seven national schemes that own charging units and 12 regional ones, each with their own business model and membership card. This is nonsense. Owners should be able to pull up at any charging unit, pay by credit card and refuel. The Government have considerable leverage as they are funding the rollout of these charging units. So, will my noble friend who is replying to the debate make it his personal mission to rationalise the system, so that one card will keep me on the road instead of 19?