Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I have been shocked at how little input there has been from the Liberal Democrats: not one Liberal Democrat was here on Second Reading—and, as we can see today, they have not appeared on Report. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Although at a local level there may be some suggestion that the Liberal Democrats want to address this important issue, at a national level, they do not appear to be showing a massive interest.

[Mr Burrowes]

One of the concerns expressed on Second Reading and in Committee, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), relates to councils that seek to ignore statutory guidance and that will recognise someone as homeless only when a bailiff’s notice is served. Shelter has expressed continuing concerns about that issue in respect of clause 1. Can the Minister reassure us that the guidance and prevention duties will mean that councils cannot simply hide and wait for a bailiff’s notice before acting on these vulnerable households at risk of homelessness?

[Mr Jones]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Furthermore, given how the legislation will now work, it will be in the local authority’s interest to work more quickly with people at risk of becoming homeless. As we discussed many times in Committee, the legislation will very much drive a culture change, so that people are helped far further upstream than they have been to date. We are particularly keen to end some councils’ practice of saying to people, “Just wait for the bailiffs to arrive and then we’ll try to help you.” We want people to be helped far earlier. We do not want them to face a court appearance and a county court judgment; that will not help them to secure accommodation later.

I move on. The remaining amendments in this group relate to the issues that we identified with clause 7 but that we were, unfortunately, unable to address at an earlier stage. We identified a key issue: what is a workable balance between incentives and protections in cases where an applicant refuses a suitable offer of accommodation at the prevention and relief stages? We have been working closely with the local government sector and the homelessness charities to resolve the issue and to develop a way forward; I thank all those who have provided their expertise and support. We will discuss the core amendments to clause 7 in the next group: they are amendments consequential to amendments made to clauses 4, 5 and 6.

Amendments 2 and 4 clarify the circumstances in which the new prevention and relief duties can be brought to an end by a local housing authority. They would require not only that a suitable accommodation offer had been turned down but that accommodation would have been available for at least six months. Clauses 4 and 5 insert new sections 195 and 189B respectively into the Housing Act 1996. Those set out the duties owed to those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Both clauses have provisions allowing those duties to be brought to an end if a number of circumstances apply.

Amendments 2 and 4 would change new sections 189B and 195 to require that the grounds for giving notice would not only be the refusal of an offer of suitable accommodation but that, on the date when the accommodation was refused, there was a reasonable prospect that it would be available for at least six months or a longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as may be prescribed in regulations. The amendments are relatively simple and ensure consistency with provisions elsewhere in the Bill.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

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

[Mr Burrowes]

I concede that point. I am trying to encourage us to look at the wider duties in the Bill and its wider application to prevention duties that might assist. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.

This is an important clause and we want to hear from the Minister that we are making the best of what we can do here. I appreciate that we will come to implementation and costs, which must be proportionate. We want to ensure that they are not open-ended. I want to hear from the Minister that he is open to seeing how we can extend the checks to ensure that we do the best for vulnerable households and ensure that they receive suitable accommodation.

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

The Government welcome the introduction of greater protection for vulnerable persons placed in the private sector under the new homelessness prevention and relief duties. Existing legislation already requires local housing authorities to be satisfied that accommodation is suitable when exercising their part 7 functions on homelessness and the prevention of homelessness in relation to factors such as size of accommodation, affordability and accessibility. I hear what my hon. Friend said and I will certainly go into more depth on his important points. I feel under a little pressure from Conservative Members and get the impression that they have reflected on the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster North, who talked much the same language at our previous sitting.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, when making an offer in the private rented sector for those in priority need under the main homelessness duty, existing legislation also requires local housing authorities to make additional checks to ensure the property is in a reasonable physical condition, and is safe and well managed. The points to be considered are set out in the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012. Local authorities are therefore already used to making those checks and reputable landlords should be readily able to provide the requisite documentation.

I heard the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester and for Chippenham. They are quite right to say that most landlords are extremely responsible and do the right thing by tenants, but we know that 3% of landlords are rogues and do not do the right thing by their tenants. Frankly, the Government want to drive them out of renting property, particularly to vulnerable people. We have taken significant steps to drive out those rogue landlords through the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I will not go into the detail of that Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The legislation in relation to rogue landlords means that civil penalties of up to £30,000 can be levied against them. Those civil penalties can be retained by the local authority to put towards the enforcement that they make in this regard. There are strong powers there, which is a good thing if there is a second division of rogue landlords that we need to uncover. However, my hon. Friend is right: we need to get a balance.

[Mr Burrowes]

For clarification, the 3%—an upper tier that is not wholly relevant to the wider issue of the suitability of property and of landlords—deals with the number of rogue landlords, but does not account for the number of properties held by those landlords. If rogue landlords are particularly known for having large numbers of properties, the figure does not properly reflect the huge number of unsuitable properties under their control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the Minister be learning lessons from Wales, where there was a lead-in time before implementation? That helped to bring together a collaborative effort. Will he be relying on the trailblazers to be at the forefront, to ensure delivery as we transition to full implementation?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has brought me to where I wanted to be and prompted me on to my next two subjects.

First, we can look to the Welsh legislation to learn from its implementation. My officials are certainly doing that, and we have done it in relation to a number of areas in the Bill so far. My hon. Friend suggests an extremely sensible approach.

Secondly, I was about to come on to the prevention trailblazers. We have given £50 million to local authorities to undertake the rough sleeping work. Authorities across the country will already be gearing up for the legislative changes—testing new methods, gathering new data and working with external organisations to meet the aims we all want to achieve. I assure my hon. Friend that in that sense we are looking to what Wales has managed to achieve in a relatively short space of time, and we are also looking carefully at the prevention trailblazers. I have considerable hopes that those prevention trailblazers will really blaze a trail in creating the culture that we need to implement the legislation successfully and help people to get off the streets.

We are absolutely committed to the implementation of the Bill. We will be working closely with local housing authorities to ensure that the process takes no longer than it must, but it cannot be rushed. We have to get it right if we are to make a success of the Bill. On that basis of co-operation and in the spirit of how the Committee has worked, I will leave my comments there.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate: duty upon giving of notice

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. There is obviously an incredible amount of good will in relation to increasing the period over which people are supported and trying to mitigate the challenges they encounter before they become homeless, but some concern has been expressed about the approach. Landlords are worried that the flexibility could be misused by some local housing authorities to delay triggering their obligation to help tenants, which could result in increased costs for landlords in having to go through the courts to evict tenants and cause extra distress to vulnerable at-risk households. In general, landlords and local authorities were concerned that the clause as drafted was too complicated and could be misinterpreted or even misused.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and I have met a range of stakeholders to agree an approach that best addresses everyone’s concerns while keeping at its core our overall aim of helping people to solve their housing issues before they become homeless. I thank all of them for their constructive engagement and for helping us to reach the approach that the Government are proposing. Local authorities and the housing charities have confirmed that they support the amendment.

The prevention duty provides that local authorities must work quickly and proactively with applicants who are threatened with homelessness to find a long-term housing solution during that period. The amendment adds to that by making it clear that any applicant with a valid section 21 notice that expires in 56 days or less is to be treated as threatened with homelessness and therefore offered the relevant help and support. Where applicants in those circumstances seek help, local housing authorities will be required to work with them to try to prevent them from becoming homeless before the notice expires. That should help to reduce evictions from privately rented accommodation and facilitate less disruptive moves to alternative housing when tenants do have to move out. It has been mentioned many times that once a family have paid a deposit bond to a landlord, if they are subsequently evicted quite often the biggest challenge is that do not have that bond to get back into the rental market.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

On support from local authorities, how much engagement, involvement and sign-up from local authorities is there for the amended clause 1? I know that my hon. Friend has had discussions, and there will obviously be further debate about the costs. I think that some local authorities have been under a particular impression in terms of the somewhere-to-stay provision and using a cost element that is not focused on what is in the Bill now, although it will be if we pass the amended clause.

[Mr Jones]

There have been infinite discussions about this clause and the others. I think that, generally, the clause has been accepted readily by most people involved, particularly on the local authority side and by the Local Government Association. Generally that is because people recognise that if we gear our help to being upstream, rather than waiting for a housing crisis, that will significantly reduce the cost of helping people, but more important than the cost, it will put people in a far better position as individuals than would have been the case otherwise.

The end of a private rented sector tenancy is currently the main trigger for homelessness, so the Government commend the amendment as a way to ensure that valuable opportunities to prevent homelessness are not lost and that households are more likely to receive the help that they need at the right time. The amendment balances the need for flexibility for local housing authorities with recognition of the legitimate concerns of landlords and homelessness charities. Clear guidance will be issued to set out in more detail how that flexibility should be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

On the methodology, obviously it is important that there is as much agreement as possible on the basis for the Government’s welcome funding commitment for the implications of the Bill. Certainly one cannot predict how much demand there will be for prevention services, but has as much agreement been reached as is possible with local councils and the LGA in relation to the methodology testing that has taken place up until now?

[Mr Jones]

There has been extensive discussion on that, and from the LGA’s press statement it is apparent that it does not dispute the methodology used. It has talked about reviews—we can come on to that—but it has not disputed the methodology. On the methodology, we must be careful to ensure that we are comparing the potential cost with the burdens created under the Bill. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke at considerable length about what he saw as a multimillion pound commitment that his local authority would have to meet as a result of the Bill. That included concern over the original proposal for a “nowhere safe to stay” clause, which after speaking to local government the Government considered carefully. Although in an ideal world it would be fabulous to do what that proposal intended, it would have created a huge new burden that would have been difficult to deal with. More particularly, the big challenge around that was that that new burden’s demand could not be quantified. In many of the assumptions we have made in preparing the Bill, we have been able to use methodology relating to the experience of the Welsh legislation, and that legislation did not have provision for nowhere safe to stay.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

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

[Mr Jones]

I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and other Members will wish to see and consider draft codes of practice before they are introduced. That is why I have tabled amendments 13 and 14, which require that a draft code of practice be subject to the negative procedure. Amendment 13 provides for that procedure to apply. Amendment 14 clarifies that the procedure for issuing a code of practice that amendment 13 inserts does not apply to reissuing a code. I hope that the Committee will accept both amendments.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

We are talking about the implementation of what we all want to achieve. The codes of practice are obviously important and the amendments set out that the statutory instrument will be subject to the negative procedure.

It is important to reflect on the concerns expressed in the Communities and Local Government Committee. For example, the London Borough of Wandsworth is concerned about the codes of practice being so woolly as to be meaningless or being so prescriptive as to be unworkable. We need to ensure the codes of practice are the focused tools that we want them to be and are based on collaboration and co-operation, so that they are not seen simply to impose a diktat or central command.

As we know, once a statutory instrument is before Parliament, particularly with the negative procedure, there is very little we can do to scrutinise it. Indeed, at an earlier stage, during the formal processes of consultation that will take place and eventually lead to the instrument’s being laid before Parliament, it will probably be too late, in many ways, to achieve the co-operation and collaboration that local authorities have suggested.

Shelter raised in the Select Committee the need for proper co-operation. Indeed, Salford has suggested a co-production and oversight of codes of practice, which I suggest should happen way before the formal process under amendments 13 and 14 and the formal consultation process that normally applies to statutory instruments. Will the Minister assure us that there will be the collaboration and consensus we see in the Welsh example, which we often pray in aid? The point is that it was a cultural change as much as an administrative one. That cultural change was about a consensual and collaborative approach that we have seen in this Committee and during the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for the way he has enabled that to happen. It is important that that continues into the implementation, not least of these very important tools, the codes of practice.

I seek assurance from the Minister that that approach is part of the process set out in amendments 13 and 14, because plainly when the statutory instrument comes before Parliament we might ask questions about co-operation and consultation but it will be too late. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Perhaps he could also tell us whether the assurance on compliance will form part of the statutory instruments. It is one thing to get a code of practice out there but another to ensure appropriate monitoring of local authorities that are not complying, with consequences for inaction.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

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

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I welcome the intention and principle behind it, particularly because it flows into clause 10; it is just seeing how far it will bite. I particularly welcome the principle of joined-up services—we sometimes get sick of talking about joined-up Government, and it often does not mean that—when dealing with the concerns at the heart of clause 10, which is about trying to ensure that there is better co-ordination and co-operation.

As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I make particular reference to complex needs and to those people facing multiple disadvantage, and to the need to ensure that there is real co-operation. The litmus test of clause 10 is the implications of referrals for those with the most need and facing the most disadvantage. There is a particular impact on health: almost twice as many who use homeless services have long-term physical health problems and mental health diagnoses compared with the general public, and the average age of people who die while homeless is 47, which is scandalous.

That particularly comes into play when dealing with those who come into contact with health services in one form or another. Not least, homeless people might struggle to register with a GP because of not having a permanent address. A vicious cycle goes on where they end up in crisis management and in A&E. It is then a further scandal when the intervention that needs to take place at that stage does not. At the heart of the Bill is the fact that early intervention and preventive duties should not just stem from when people come into contact with the housing department. When they are in contact with the health services, and not least when they end up at A&E, that should lead to an intervention and referral, which leads to the co-operation that we want.

St Mungo’s has been on this case for a long time and has drawn attention to it with the “Homeless Health Matters” campaign. Before the Bill, it sought to have a charter that local authorities signed up to so that co-operation happened on an informal level. I believe that clause 10 takes things a huge step further as regards the statutory duty on referrals. The issue is how much further it explicitly needs to go with a mandatory requirement to co-operate across departments.

I also support the principle behind the amendment because, in many ways, it is already happening across Government—regardless of the cynicism that is around. One only has to look at the issue of violence against women and girls, which is a concern that we all share. If one looks at the national statement of expectations published on 7 December, one sees that it is all about co-operation. That comes from the Home Office and has a welcome two-year fund for refuges and other forms of accommodation. There is also all the extra investment in social impact bonds, in which co-operation is very much inbuilt. There are those with complex needs and the multi-agency approach that is used, although often not well enough. Sometimes these things are based around funding streams, and we need to see that happening across the country. The question is whether the duty to refer will help to ensure that good practice does happen across the country.

To home in on women—who are, sadly, some of the most vulnerable and face complex needs—the national statement of expectations from 7 December says:

“To deliver this, commissioners should…consider whether an individual may have complex needs or suffer from multiple disadvantage and, if so, the services in place to manage these…Commissioners should consider how these detect and respond to women’s experiences”

of violence, and ensure that there are services for them. That has come from the Home Office but plainly interacts across all Departments, and there is that expectation that it be delivered. At the end, the statement talks about how local authority, housing and homelessness policies must take account of sexual violence. That is included in the Bill in relation to the duties on advisory services; it is welcome that domestic violence is included, not least because of the work of the Select Committee.

The question is whether the Bill needs to go further in terms of a mandatory requirement for co-operation, or whether this referral will supplement and complement what is now happening to a much greater extent across Government. There is greater recognition and understanding of complex needs. Many of us have talked over the years about multi-agency approaches and joined-up government until we were blue in the face, but sadly these most vulnerable people are not getting what they need and deserve.

My view, which has been a common thread in discussions on the Bill, is that we need to balance doing what we can to ensure that this is a groundbreaking Bill—as I believe it is—that will help to provide greater support, preventive work and co-operation with whether this amendment will provide additional burdens across Government and have unintended consequences. Although it may provide a mandatory requirement—that, in many ways, is already the intention across Government—it might lead to additional financial burdens, which might lead to additional bureaucracy that might get in the way of the local co-operation between services that we want delivered on the ground. I am not convinced. If there is a proper fulfilment of the duty to refer, which may be wrapped up in guidance, having a mandatory co-operation requirement may provide additional undue financial burdens across Government and create bureaucracy that might, sadly, get in the way of what we want to do, which is to co-operate across services.

[Mr Jones]

Following on—

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

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

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I very much support the clause and its focus on care leavers. I note that it is not an extension of the local connection that was considered in the draft Bill, which the Communities and Local Government Committee scrutinised and recommended should not be extended more widely—and that was accepted—as it could have caused some issues and was perhaps in conflict with existing guidance.

I want to ask the Minister about a concern that I think is shared by the hon. Member for Westminster North. The Select Committee’s earlier report recommended that the Government should consider the guidance given to local authorities for when families move from lower-cost areas to high-cost areas and subsequently present as homeless after a short period in private rented accommodation. That is a regular reality in Enfield, where many people come for accommodation from boroughs such as Westminster. That leads not only to the presentation of homelessness after a period of time in private rented accommodation, but associated needs as well. There are often complex needs, and the bill has to be picked by Enfield.

That is something that happens all too often and there needs to be a proper attempt to deal with it, with guidance and proper co-ordination. I have spoken to London’s deputy mayor for housing about the meetings that are taking place with directors of housing to try to deal with this problem, which is affecting outer London boroughs such as Enfield.

[Mr Jones]

The Government welcome the clause. We believe that it will lead to more care leavers who experience homelessness getting help in the area that they feel at home in, where they are close to the people who are important to them and to the services that they use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate explained, broadly speaking somebody may have a local connection with an area because they live there or have been living there for a certain amount of time, because they work or have family associations in the area, or because they have other special circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

Proposed new section 195(7)(a)(ii) covers the time limit requirement. I appreciate that it is now “at least 6 months”, rather than 12 months, but can the Minister confirm that “at least 6 months” covers situations such as those in hostels? This issue was brought to the attention of the Communities and Local Government Committee by the council of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, Harrow Council. It said:

“We know that many hostel places give 6 month agreements, which generally are extended over again for up to 2 years”.

Are those agreements included in the duty?

[Mr Jones]

We are talking about a minimum of six months. The provision does not prevent a longer period from being agreed. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

The final matter that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East mentioned was housing benefit and 18 to 21-year-olds. I reiterate that the reform will affect only new claimants on universal credit from April 2017. It will not affect people in work. The measure is intended to ensure that young people do not slip into a life on benefits. Youth unemployment has a long-term scarring effect on people, so it is important to improve the incentive for young people to move into work. We are introducing a new youth obligation, which will offer a new and intensive package of labour market support for 18 to 21-year-olds to get back into work.

The measure is also about bringing parity to a system in which an unemployed young person can leave the family home whereas an employed young person may not be able to. Exemptions will be put in place to ensure that those unable to return to the family home have the right access to support, and there will be a grace period for those who have been in work for the previous six months.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

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

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be involved in the debate on clause 2, which in many ways is at the heart of the Bill. If we get clause 2 right, we will have made a big difference in reducing homelessness. Following on from comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, the point I wish to make is that it is about ensuring that good practice is enshrined. As other hon. Members have said, good practice is not always followed.

On behalf of the vulnerable, and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I welcome the Bill and the duty to provide advisory services. Those groups of people often miss out and do not properly access the advice that they need. If they could access advice earlier at a preventive stage, it could prevent greater complexity, greater cost and crisis management.

I recognise that the Bill enshrines good practice and codes of guidance, as has been said. However, if properly applied, the Bill also places an additional burden on statutory services. If one looks at the example of the Bill, one sees the burden applies not least to persons leaving hospital. St Mungo’s has been particularly active in highlighting the scandal that 70% of homeless people who are in hospital are then discharged on to the streets. That must end, and the Bill must help it to end. Local authorities including mine in Enfield sign charters, but it is one thing to sign up to a charter and another to ensure that there is a link between health, social care and housing—that needs to happen and often does not—to ensure that support and advice is provided at the point when people need it most on leaving hospital. That is why it is welcome to see that explicitly included in the Bill. Frankly, it is neglectful that that does not happen and we need that statutory duty and provision.

I welcome, through the good endeavours of the Select Committee, the addition of victims of abuse and domestic violence. I pay tribute to Agenda, which is a charity representing the interests of women and girls at risk. I understand that it gave evidence to the Select Committee and made the point that the reality is, sadly, that the victims of abuse are not getting the proper advice that they need, which we will know from our constituency case work.

Indeed, in my surgery on Saturday, a victim of domestic violence came to me and said that she needed desperately to move from her house with her young child. Recently, her shed had been burned down by her abuser and her car had been vandalised. She went to Enfield Council to seek advice and was met, sadly, with indifference. I recognise that within Enfield Council there are some excellent housing officers, and in many ways they are overstretched, but she was met with a yawn and someone saying, “Well, we can’t help everyone.” That attitude towards my constituent in a state of absolute vulnerability is shameful and must end, which the Bill will help to do. She has simply been told, “We will get back to you in 10 days,” but then there is another 10 days and another 10 days. She has not heard anything from the council in terms of meaningful advice. The Bill and the clause will help.

May I draw attention to one detail? Within the draft Bill and what would have been the new section 179, people with a learning disability were included as a group, although the provision was not limited to them. That is not included in the Bill before the Committee. Hon. Members will know from experience that those with learning difficulties and disabilities are particularly vulnerable and have problems accessing meaningful advice. They may not fall within priority need or appear at first communication to do so, but because of their learning disabilities they may not be able to communicate those needs properly. There is therefore a need for specific and meaningful advice for them. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the Minister to help me to provide reassurance that the category of

“persons suffering from a mental illness or impairment”

properly includes people with learning disabilities and that, in practical terms, they will receive the meaningful advice they need.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point, and in responding I should declare my interest as a member of my local Mencap society. Obviously, adults with learning disabilities are an extremely important group that need to be supported. I reassure my hon. Friend that they are indeed dealt with within that definition. I additionally reassure him that that will be clarified within statutory guidance that will go alongside this Bill.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance.

For adults who are struggling to get a diagnosis of autism, clarification is needed in the guidance on the level of evidence necessary to ensure that the duties are triggered. I welcome the clause.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Marcus Jones and David Burrowes

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The Government are absolutely committed to tackling homelessness. The hon. Lady mentions bed-and-breakfast accommodation but, to put it into context, a small number of authorities—about 5%—account for 80% of the breaches. We are taking this very seriously and are absolutely clear that the long-term use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with children is unacceptable and unlawful. However, the hon. Lady must also bear it in mind that the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a third of its peak under the Labour Administration.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Given the pernicious link between homelessness, mental illness, addiction, crime and unemployment, what progress has been made on the autumn statement commitment to extend the principles of the troubled families programme to other individuals with multiple needs?