Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

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

[Bob Blackman]

In many ways, this substantive clause, on which we have been given notice of no amendments, goes to the very heart of the Bill. The current position is that advisory services are provided by local authorities to priority need households, but not to non-priority need ones. The measure will require each local authority to provide advisory services on all local housing authorities for all applicants. Authorities will have to provide information and advice to any person who goes to them from their area. The advice must cover: the provision of preventing and relieving homelessness; the rights of homeless people or those threatened with homelessness; the duties of the authority; the help available from the local housing authority and other agencies; and how to access the available help.

The idea is that each local authority should design its own service. We do not want to take away the flexibility of local authorities to design their help and advice service, but clearly they should design such a service with certain listed vulnerable groups in mind—for example, care leavers, who are covered in the Bill for the first time, and victims of domestic abuse. The Bill allows local housing authorities to outsource the advisory services, if they so choose, to a third party such as a contractor or a specialist agency.

The measure has been included in the Bill to ensure that local housing authorities provide detailed advice and information to all households in their area, including those that are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, so that households can be empowered to seek support and solutions to their current situation. That is a far cry from what goes on at the moment. Currently, many local authorities, as we discovered through the Select Committee process, do not provide such services to non-priority need homeless people. Clearly there are local authorities that do provide such services, and we do not want to hamper their ability to do so.

The measure ensures that everyone has access to a similar type of help in the first instance. People who face the terrible crisis of being threatened with homelessness or, worse still, have suffered homelessness will get help and advice; they will not just be shown the door by a local authority. It is quite clear that the existing law does not specify the type or quality of advice and information that must be provided on homelessness and its prevention, and nor does it require that advice to be tailored to the needs of local people, particularly the needs of certain groups. Evidence that we secured through the Select Committee process suggested that some local authorities provide minimal or, even worse, out-of-date information. The measure means that, for the first time, local authorities will have to provide that service to people in this terrible position.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend clarify how he envisages the interplay between this local authority advisory service and charitable organisations such as Routes to Roots, which is just outside my constituency but within Poole?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Local authorities will clearly have to design the service with local needs in mind. We cannot prescribe every single way in which they can choose to provide the help and advice that individuals in their area will need, because to do so would hamper their creativity. The whole idea behind the Bill is to turn on its head the attitude, which has existed in some local authorities, that they will not help someone unless they are in priority need. Local authorities would now be required to provide help and advice to anyone and everyone from their local areas who is threatened with homelessness. For example, my hon. Friend’s local authority may choose to outsource its role to a charity or another third party; that is its choice and we do not want to hamper it. What matters is that the individuals receive the help and advice they need to guide them in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

We are, therefore, starting from a very low base and in a climate in which the direction of travel has been towards pulling down the shutters and saying, “Look, there is very little that we can do here.” I am not going to dwell on that point, because I suspect we will return to it, but it raises the two pregnant questions that underlie the Bill. First, if we are to place these onerous additional duties on local authorities in particular, how are they to be resourced? Will they be resourced in terms of advice services? Assuming that that substantial hurdle can be overcome, against the trend of the past few years, how valid will the advice be in areas of particular housing stress where there is not only a chronic shortage of social housing, but a lack of access to housing in the private sector?

[Michael Tomlinson]

It is great to be on a Bill Committee where there is cross-party support. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the burdens on local authorities are not especially onerous and that the associated costs, specifically in relation to clause 2, will therefore be relatively minimal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I rise to address one or two points that have been made in this constructive debate, and I speak strongly in favour of clause 2 as drafted.

I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, and she is right that there is no point in setting out more detail in the Bill if the Bill does not impose additional duties and burdens, but my point is slightly different. There are heavier burdens and financial duties elsewhere in the Bill, and I had a measure of agreement on that from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. I do not minimise the additional duties set out in the clause—far from it. I will address one or two details, but I anticipate that in Committee we will hear further detail from the Minister on funding.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who commented on the interplay between local authorities and local charities and organisations. I mentioned the Routes to Roots organisation in Poole. Each year, the youth worker at the parish church of Lytchett Minster & St Dunstan’s at Upton organises the great Dorset sleep out. You can join us next year, Mr Chope, if you happen to be free on that date—I will perhaps need to give you lots of warning.

[Christian Matheson]

Can I come too?

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Member for City of Chester and other hon. Members are more than welcome to join, too. It is a fun occasion that makes a serious point. It does two things. First, it raises money for the charity. Secondly, it raises awareness of homelessness. People picture Dorset and Poole as a leafy part of the country and ask why on earth we have homelessness, yet even today people are sleeping rough on the streets of Poole. One evening a few weeks ago, we heard from two people who had formerly been homeless—they were not homeless in Dorset—but are happily now homed in Poole. Had the measures in the Bill to provide advisory services already been in place, they would have helped those two individuals no end by pointing them in the right direction.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause will free up charities to help people via other mechanisms rather than fighting for them to get the advice they need? My local charity in Chippenham, Doorway, has shared that with me.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is right. It is about flexibility. Local authorities will have a duty under the Bill, but I would like far greater interplay between local authorities and charities. The relationship works well in some areas, as we have heard from Members on both sides of the Committee, but the aim of the clause is to raise standards across the board.

My final point is on the detail. I am particularly pleased that proposed new section 179(2) of the Housing Act 1996 lists

“former members of the regular armed forces”,

which is right and proper. It also lists

“persons released from prison or youth detention accommodation”.

I am sure the Government’s ambition and intention is to reduce reoffending—if it is not, it should be. There are three key planks to that. One is housing, and the other two are education and employment. If housing or advisory support on housing were available, it would be a big step in the right direction. I strongly support the measures in clause 2.

[Mr Jones]

It is a pleasure to respond to clause 2 on the second day of our consideration. It is obvious from this first debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has chosen well because Members on both sides of the Committee are not only capable and knowledgeable but have spoken with immense passion and power. It is obvious that the members of this Committee care about the enactment of the Bill.

The Government welcome the duty to provide homelessness advisory services and hope it will go a long way in helping to provide access to the same high standard of information and support for everyone. It does not help to prevent homelessness if local authorities provide minimal and out-of-date information but, technically, they could still be acting within the law. The measure is a key first step to addressing that. Having said that, some local housing authorities provide relevant and up-to-date information and, in some cases, tailored advice, and they need to be commended.

The clause will help to ensure that all local housing authorities step up to the standard of the best by providing detailed advice and information to all households in their area while empowering people to seek support before their housing concerns turn into a housing crisis. We hope local housing authorities provide more personalised advice that meets the needs of households that are likely to be at risk of homelessness, and advice that targets the vulnerable groups identified in the clause.

Earlier, I mentioned some prevention trailblazers. The best local authorities include Newcastle, where staff work to gather information to identify people at risk of becoming homeless so they can target their advice and support far earlier so that people do not end up in a housing crisis. That is the spirit in which the clause sets out further obligations for local authorities, and what we expect to happen.

To ensure that the measures work in practice, we will work with local housing authorities, homelessness support organisations and others to review and update the guidance on how local housing authorities should comply with the new duty. In doing so, we will look to Wales, which has a similar duty enshrined in legislation in section 60 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, and to other good practice such as that which I mentioned in England.

As I mention Wales, may I respond, in order to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, to the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the extent of the legislation regarding England and Wales? I reassure him that we have discussed the Bill with Welsh Government lawyers and are satisfied that the approach taken in the Bill correctly addresses the devolution points he raised. I have some responses to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in a few other areas.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the issue of funding for the Bill. I reiterate that we are absolutely committed to funding the costs of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned, we are still working with local authorities and the LGA to identify the costs of the Bill. Given how the Bill has been brought to the House, the timescales have been tight, particularly for the Select Committee’s scrutiny process and the tabling of amendments.

We are now dealing with changes to clause 1 to deal with challenges raised by a particular stakeholder group, so we are still finalising the costs. We expect to be able to come to the Committee shortly with the final details of those costs. I can reassure people that when we come back with that final detail, we will be taking into account the costs as a result of clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I draw a parallel with clause 2, which will be on the face of the Bill—hopefully on the face of the Act—because the current guidance is not always observed; it is not as strong and does not give people as strong a right to the services that we think they ought to have. I am making the same point with the amendment. Currently, the suitability of the location is contained in the guidance. An authority should take account of it, but in the end it does not have to. Now, perhaps people can take a judicial review against the authority, but we should not be relying on applicants in very difficult circumstances to get appropriate advice and take a JR against the local authority to ensure that the will of this House is implemented.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, would the hon. Gentleman release the video that he is talking about, or get permission to have it released, so that those of us who do not have the privilege or pleasure of being members of his Committee can have the benefit of seeing it as well?

[Mr Betts]

I certainly will. The Select Committee saw it, and I believe that it was also sent to its members so that we could view it on our own computers. I think that there are licensing issues with the ownership, but I will certainly go back to the Clerk of the Committee to see whether it can also be released to members of this Committee. That is a very helpful point and I will try to achieve that.

The purpose of the amendment is to put on the face of the Bill the requirement to take account of those issues when drawing up the plan with a view to looking at what accommodation might be suitable. I entirely understand that it might not be possible in some parts of the country—particularly London. It might be that an authority has no suitable accommodation in-area and therefore, in the end, must go out of borough. That might be inevitable in some areas.

In other parts of the country, including mine in Sheffield, although there is a shortage of suitable accommodation and it is not always possible to have regard to all the factors when an allocation is eventually made, when considering a suitable offer authorities should at least have regard to where children are at school and where caring responsibilities are in place, either for or on behalf of the individuals who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. If people are in work, authorities should look at whether they can continue to get to their job and whether they will lose their job as a result of being found a house. Where possible, authorities should have regard to those things, but they do not always do so. I have had letters on behalf of constituents from my local authority saying, “We can’t really take account of those issues. It’s going to be one offer, and that’s it.” That is not acceptable. If it can be done, it should be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Before I speak to the amendments in my name, may I briefly express my support for the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East? I am surprised that Government Members are not prepared to support it; I ask the Bill’s promoter to encourage his colleagues to do so. Although the hon. Member for Colchester is absolutely right that there is case law and guidance on locality, it is fair to say that it is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The consequence is a lot of unnecessary litigation, where advice and lawyers are available to assist with it, and a lot of work. My office spends a huge amount of time on this issue, trying to persuade local authorities not to move people out of the area or to bring them back after they have been moved, when it has proved impossible for the family to continue to live as they did before.

I had a case in my surgery this week in which a family with three children were living in temporary accommodation that was so poor, with damp and disrepair, that the local authority needed to move them somewhere else. There is nowhere available in the borough at the moment, so it is seeking to move them outside London. All the kids are in local schools. My view was that the family had been in temporary accommodation for 10 years in a variety of places, so surely the solution was to find them permanent accommodation. That just showed that I am not completely in touch with everything that goes on, because my senior caseworker said that it is not exceptional now for people to spend 10 years in temporary accommodation. That gives a little insight into the real problems that occur, particularly in London boroughs but elsewhere too. That point needs to be emphasised, so I strongly support what my hon. Friend said.

Let me deal briefly with the amendments standing in my name. I entirely accept that I am placing those additional burdens on local authorities that I warned against about an hour ago. That is why I am particularly keen to hear the Minister come forward with his bag of cash at the earliest opportunity. Nevertheless, if we are to legislate for the long term, we need to make clear what we expect housing authorities to do.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am delighted by the smile on his face as he presents his amendments. Does he not see that, as drafted, the obligation on local authorities is so wide that they would have to look across multiple different authorities in order to fulfil it? I think he notes that by his smile. Is this not just placing unreasonable burdens on our local authorities?

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

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

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Chope. It is good to see you in the Chair again.

The clause is uncontroversial and we support it. The objective of the clause, as we see it, is to give greater flexibility in the case of care leavers, particularly when there is a conflict between different authorities or different tiers of authorities within the same area. I gently point out to the Minister that that is exactly the point I tried to make with amendment 4, which he rejected. It may be that, in looking at the Bill again, he would like to see those provisions not only for care leavers but more generally, and for local authorities to consider what their duties are towards people presenting as homeless.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I will briefly pick up on one theme in relation to clause 8, which I support wholeheartedly. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is relatively uncontroversial, but it is worth teasing out a little.

Of course, care leavers are at particular risk of homelessness. I think of foster carers. There are many excellent foster carers across all of our constituencies. Foster carers and families that I can think of in Dorset, in particular, look after children from beyond the boundaries of Dorset, and the clause will help them and local authorities to avoid any confusion as to whether there is a local connection for those care leavers. That relates to foster carers in particular, but there are other examples. I believe that the clause is uncontroversial and should go through unamended.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

I agree that the clause will substantially improve the ability of care leavers to access homelessness assistance. However, I would like to see some movement towards the Government’s “Keep on caring” strategy, which extends some support to care leavers up to the age of 25. There are other Bills looking at that as well. Will the Minister comment on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The Government do not believe that amendments 9 and 10 will have the intended effect. Rather than streamlining the reviews process, the changes would simply remove protections for applicants. They would have the effect of removing an applicant’s right to request a review of the steps the local housing authority considers reasonable for it to take to help the applicant to retain or secure accommodation, which we would not seek to do. It is only right that applicants have the opportunity of redress.

We recognise the concerns that the review process has become difficult for some authorities, but we do not believe that cutting out safeguards for vulnerable people is the best answer. We will monitor the impact of the new duties on the levels of reviews, and we will work with stakeholders, including local housing authorities, to see what improvements can be made to the process.

Taking up the general point made by the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Westminster North, we have worked with representative groups of authorities to understand the impact of the clause and have fed that back into the costs model. I can certainly say that this and other measures in the Bill will be funded. We are in the process of speaking to the LGA to discuss our final proposals. We also need to ensure that we have got things right in relation to clause 1.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Perhaps when there is clarity on funding and with reassurance from the Minister, the amendments, and the concerns of the hon. Member for Hammersmith in relation to the clause will fall away. His amendments would emasculate the clause.

[Mr Jones]

I hope that that will be the case. I was heartened to hear that the hon. Member for Hammersmith does not propose to press the amendments to a Division. Understandably he wants to highlight the issue, but he also does not want to put something in the Bill that has the effect of taking away the rights of very vulnerable people.

We are developing a costs model around this and the other clauses in the Bill. We expect to be in a position to bring it to the Committee shortly. We need to clarify clause 1, as I have said, but after that I expect that the Committee will be able to see that we are funding this provision and other aspects of this important Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I shall be very brief. On reflection, I am not quite sure why I tabled the amendments, because they are rather interfering. I was trying to assist the Government with their drafting, which I am not sure is really my job. If I want to get a job as a parliamentary draftsman, I will go away and do so—perhaps I would be better remunerated.

The amendment is on a narrow but important point. The phrase I have suggested,

“such steps as it considers reasonable”,

is more common, clearer and more accurate. Let me be clear: the amendment is not in any way designed to weaken the Bill, but to make the duties on local authorities more specific. There would obviously still be the full power of judicial review of any decisions, but what is being reviewed is the conduct of the local authority—whether it is behaving reasonably.

The applicants may want to say all sorts of things—they may be reasonable or unreasonable, or here or there—but we need to be clear about what we are reviewing. This perhaps relates back to clause 9. If we are going to have new powers and duties and a power to review—of course, that will include not only recourse to the county court, which will be the first point of recourse, but in certain circumstances recourse to the administrative court—we need to be clear about what we are reviewing. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is slightly technical in nature, and I thought the Government might be keen on it, but my hopes are no longer as high as they were a few moments ago, so we will see.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he stood up and said he could not quite work out why he had tabled the amendments. It is always helpful to have those indications at the outset of a speech. When I looked at the amendments last night, I found I was scratching my head trying to work out what difference they would make. The hon. Gentleman’s explanatory statement asserts:

“The local authority should decide what steps it should take, subject to the normal rules of public law and judicial review.”

With respect, it would have to do that in any event. The amendments would not make a difference one way or the other.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the form of words he has come up with is more common than what is in the Bill. Like him, I have come across housing cases in a court setting. In my view, it makes no odds whether the provision says “reasonable steps” or “such steps as it considers reasonable.” In any event, the local authority would have to follow the normal rules of public law and judicial review. I have enjoyed this close examination of the difference—or lack thereof—between the wordings, but there is precious little between the two.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

I shall briefly express my support for clause 4—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

In response to the request from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole about the Daisy-May Hudson film at our last sitting, I understand that Select Committee staff have been in touch with the Clerk to this Committee. The Clerk is looking a little vacant, but perhaps the email is on its way to say that Daisy-May has been contacted and is happy to make the film available to the Committee. It is a licence arrangement and will be available until 21 December for Members to look at.

The prevention duty is extremely important, but I will not repeat the comments by colleagues on both sides of the Committee about the heart of the Bill being to stop people becoming homeless in the first place. No doubt the Minister will say that that is not his responsibility, but he has a responsibility to draw his colleagues’ attention to matters that make it more difficult for local authorities to prevent people from becoming homeless. The Select Committee looked at a range of issues, some of them revolving around the welfare system. Reference has been made to the problems tenants face in the private rented sector with section 21 notices being issued because landlords can get more money from another tenant moving in. That will only get worse, as the Select Committee drew attention to in its report, if local housing allowance is frozen and rents continue to rise for the next four years.

The Government will not indicate that discretionary housing payments, if they are intended to deal with the problem, will increase at the same rate as rents to help local authorities to continue to bridge the gap. If they do not increase discretionary payments, the problem of section 21 notices being used to get rid of tenants who cannot afford to pay rising rents because their benefit is not sufficient will get worse, and the Minister must take account of it.

The Committee drew attention to other issues—perhaps the Minister will at least reflect and draw his colleagues’ attention to them—including direct payments and universal credit. One way to prevent a family from becoming homeless might be to arrange for payments to be made direct to the landlord, with the tenant’s agreement. We need assurances that the universal credit rules will be flexible enough to allow that to happen. For a long time, the welfare Minister’s view was that everyone would get the money and must sort it out, but if a family is not sorting it out and would welcome some assistance with direct payment to their landlord, the system should be flexible enough to enable that to prevent them from becoming homeless.

Another problem is that young people aged 18 to 21 will not be entitled to the housing element of universal credit. A young person might be in work and doing everything right. They might have their own property because they can afford it out of their earnings but then become unemployed. They might have a realistic prospect of getting another job and try hard to get one. We asked in our report whether there could at least be a period of weeks when that young 18 to 21-year-old who is not eligible for housing element of universal credit is allowed the housing element while they get back into work and are once again able to pay the rent, instead of becoming homeless and having to move out of the property.

The Select Committee drew attention to sensible solutions to those three problems. If the Government do not consider them, people may become homeless and the local authority would be unable to prevent it. A key aim of the Bill is stopping people becoming homeless and ensuring that local authorities have the range of measures they need for prevention.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for making the Daisy-May film available to those of us who do not have the benefit of being a member of his Committee. If he can get round the licensing arrangements in time for the next sitting, I am sure those of us who do not sit on his Committee will be grateful.

As I am on my feet, I will say that I fully support this clause as drafted. I agree with other colleagues of all parties that this is at the very heart of the Bill and that the extension to 56 days, for example, will be greatly welcomed.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

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

[Bob Blackman]

Clause 5 inserts a new section into the Housing Act 1996 requiring a local authority to take reasonable steps to help resolve homelessness. That means that the local housing authority has to take reasonable steps to help an applicant to secure accommodation.

It is not easy to prescribe in legislation every single eventuality that might mean someone becomes homeless, or the details of the help that they might need. A reasonable step could be the provision of a rent deposit. It could be help with family mediation, if a family had broken up—a local authority adviser could help to mediate so that someone did not become homeless and could live with another relative. It could be discussion with a private sector landlord about extending a tenancy. The clause does not specify exact details but prescribes that the local authority should carry out reasonable steps.

The clause also extends the duty to provide help and support in the form of reasonable steps to any eligible household that is homeless. It extends the duty for 56 days. Clearly, if a household has a local connection to another district, in that time a referral can be made to it—we are not prescribing anything.

It is important to note that households in priority need will be placed in interim accommodation while the reasonable steps are carried out. Those not in priority need will not be provided with accommodation, but the clause requires authorities to take reasonable steps to help them to secure accommodation. That is an important part of the process. Clearly there will have to be triage of applicants when they arrive, to ensure that the local authority understands its duty and how it will deal with the individuals or family affected.

As with all provisions of the Bill, the steps that the local housing authority will take will be based on the assessment and the plan that is agreed with the applicant, or they will be any steps that the authority considers reasonable where no agreement can be reached. The duty can be brought to an end in a number of ways, which are set out in the clause and are similar to those in clause 4, relating to the prevention duty. In that case, I would point out that the duty can come to an end if the authority has taken reasonable steps to help to secure accommodation and the 56-day period of duty has ended. If the relief duty efforts have not been successful, households in priority need will move on to the next stage and may be owed the main homelessness duty. The new enhanced information and advice duty we discussed under clause 2 persists and may be of assistance to those who are not in priority need.

The duty can also end if the applicant has become homeless intentionally from any accommodation that the authority has made available. For example, if they refuse to pay rent that would be a reason. That also addresses the point of an applicant, as well as the local authority, acting in a reasonable fashion.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned intentional homelessness and the interplay in the clause. Will he spell out the position under this clause or elsewhere when a tenant refuses to pay in the example he just outlined? What responsibilities and duties if any will there still be on a local authority, should those circumstances come to pass?

[Bob Blackman]

The clear position is that, if relief efforts and reasonable steps in the plan have not been followed, the local authority can bring the duty to an end. That would still leave the applicant the opportunity of a review. For example, they might have agreed an action plan to accommodate them but not honoured their steps, or the local authority might not have honoured its steps. There can be a review at that point.

We need to be clear that there are duties on the applicant and the local authority. When people do not co-operate and behave unreasonably, it is not fair if others in desperate need and who are acting reasonably suffer—there will obviously be diminished efforts for them. Not paying the rent is a prime reason for someone to become intentionally homeless. That is a reasonable position to take.

Of course, an applicant might be entitled to benefits. Under those circumstances, if a local authority has not met the benefit requirements, it would be unreasonable to end the duty. That clearly has to be looked at on an individual basis.

Finally, it is up to the applicant if they wish to withdraw the application at any stage. I hope the duty would come to an end when a satisfactory position is achieved and the applicant has accommodation and is no longer homeless. With that, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We will debate homelessness in the main Chamber later today. I raised the example of social care not only because it is another example, and perhaps the clearest example, of the pressures on local authority finance, but because these matters are linked, and the Government need to look at them in a linked-up way. I note that the Government pray in aid the Bill in their amendment to the Opposition motion. That is all very well, but it works only if there is a joined-up and funded response to the pressures local government is under in terms of social care, supported housing, rough sleeping and homelessness legislation.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I encouraged the Minister to spell out where the money is coming from during our first sitting. The hon. Gentleman also recognised in his opening speech to the Committee that this is not only about the human cost, and that there is potentially a cost saving through the measures. If the Bill works—we sincerely hope it does, which is why we are here—there will be a long-term cost saving. The hon. Gentleman has recognised that potential, but does he still?

[Andy Slaughter]

I recognise that more in relation to the duty on prevention, but I do not want to go back to the debate we had last week. We are now talking about measures local authorities will have to take to secure accommodation. It is ironic hearing that from Government Members: every time the Opposition have mentioned the idea of investing to save—we argued for investing in housing advice services to prevent homelessness, and argued against cuts to legal aid—we have received a dusty answer. I will be glad if the hon. Gentleman is a convert. There will be costs up front even if there are savings down the line—people will be less reliant on services when they are properly housed, or indeed when homelessness is prevented. The key is that there will be substantive up-front costs.

What stands behind the Bill even more than the funding of local authorities in their discharge of the process is the fact that most local housing authorities, and particularly those in high-stress areas, are not in a benign climate. We are not in a climate in which chief executives and council leaders can sit down and say, “The law’s changed. We’d better now implement this. When people come into our homeless persons unit, we need to take it much more seriously and treat them not only with compassion but with efficiency. We need to secure them accommodation to the best of our ability.” Unfortunately, as a direct consequence of Government policy over the past six years, we are in the most hostile climate to those ambitions being achieved. That is true in relation to finance, the now reduced benefit cap, the bedroom tax and the freeze on local housing allowance.

It is also true of the private rented sector. The Government and the Housing and Planning Minister restated that only last week or the week before. The sector appears to be implacably opposed to longer tenancies, which we wish to see, and as part of that contractual change, to controls on rent increases. As we know, the serving of section 21 notices is currently the single greatest cause of homelessness. About 30% of people turning up at local authorities homeless are there because a section 21 notice has been served. At least part of that could be resolved by reform of that process.

On the other side, we are at a 24-year low in terms of the building of social housing. We know that the Government still, for the time being—I hope they see sense on this as they have in relation to other measures in the Housing and Planning Act 2016—intend to pursue not only the sale of housing association properties but the funding of that by the sale of high-value local authority properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North will correct me if I am wrong, but I think in her authority that means that the vast majority of council homes would have to be sold over a period because they are of high value. That is true of about 50% of the homes in my borough.

How can we realistically say we want local authorities to take on a major extension of their duties in relation to the provision of housing? One way they could do it, which I believe has been done in Welsh authorities—we see that as a template for the Bill in many ways—is by the use of authorities’ own accommodation. Stresses on social housing in Wales are much less than they are in London and other places. If the Government are not building social homes and actively encouraging or enforcing their sale, how on earth will the objective of the clause be discharged?

[Michael Tomlinson]

We started off in Committee with cross-party consensus that we want change—consensus has been the basis of many of the Bill Committees I have sat on, but particularly this one. However, for the last two or three minutes, the hon. Gentleman has made party political points about the past six years. I hear those points, and we will come back to section 21 arguments when we look at new clause 1. Does he not recognise the good intentions of not only the Bill’s promoter but the Government in backing clause 5?

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman and I have not had the pleasure of serving on the same Committee before, so he will not recognise that I am pulling my punches considerably and have engaged consensus mode for the duration. The Bill’s promoter recognises that because we have been in this position many times before. Yes, my points are party political to the extent that his Government have got so much wrong in the provision of housing supply, particularly for people who need social housing and genuinely affordable housing. That must be addressed, but I have tried to put that in non-party political terms as a fact.

I have gone through, in a short period, a long list of issues that I believe are compounding the housing crisis at the bottom end. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to get up and gainsay that—he might have some other points to make in a sparring way. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is correct that there is not a great deal of point in getting into a long tennis match in Committee, but I want to put on record that we cannot pass the Bill with our eyes closed and say, “Once it exists as statute, everything will be resolved.”

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Gentleman also said that a simple culture change in how people deal with homeless people will not make a big difference. I fundamentally disagree. With its introduction in Wales it has been seen that culture change is a key part of changing our approach to homeless people and the way we help them. Clause 5 is a key part of the Bill, and I very much support it.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Perhaps you will permit me, Mr Chope, before I comment on clause 5, to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, who, through the Clerk to the Bill Committee, made Daisy-May Hudson’s film available to all of us who do not sit on that Committee. It was both compelling and difficult to watch, and it was illuminating for those of us who had not seen it before.

I suppose that we all sincerely hope that if clause 4 is successful in its aim of preventing homelessness, when there is a threat of it, clause 5 will not be needed, but I agree that it is none the less an important clause. I should welcome some clarity from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the sort of reasonable steps that are to be expected of local authorities.

As to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about local authorities, I agree that they work hard and that, certainly going by my experience in Dorset—in Poole, East Dorset, and Purbeck—they are struggling with resources. I should welcome clarity on the matter of reasonable steps, although my hon. Friend suggested a few. I understand—and you know this better than any of us, Mr Chope—that it is not desirable to set out in a Bill each and every reasonable step, and that guidance may be anticipated in due course, but it would still be helpful for the Committee to understand in more detail what the reasonable steps would be.

I am sure that that clarity will be forthcoming, and in view of that I warmly support the clause.

[Mr Jones]

The Government support clause 5, which introduces a new duty to households that are homeless, known as the relief duty. It requires the local housing authority to take reasonable steps to help to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless household.

Like the new prevention duty, the relief duty extends help and support to a wider range of households. It applies to all, regardless of priority need and intentionality, and provides 56 days of help and support. It provides an additional safety net for those households for which homelessness prevention activity has not been successful. It also provides additional help for households that have sought help at a later stage.

The type of help that they receive will be based on the information identified during the assessment process, which I talked about when we discussed clause 3. The authority and the applicant would identify the reasonable steps that the applicant would take, through that process. For example, if the main issue is that a household member has left home after a relatively minor disagreement with their family and that is the only cause of their homelessness, the local authority can provide mediation to try to reunite the household. I think that is the type of example that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was looking for.

Households in priority need, for example those with dependent children or vulnerable for some reason, will be provided with interim accommodation for the duration of the duty. They will be placed in interim accommodation as there is an expectation that the relief duty will be successful and they might be required to move to new settled accommodation at short notice. Less time spent in interim accommodation will mean less uncertainty for the household, so they can start rebuilding their lives more quickly.

Like the prevention duty, the relief duty can come to an end in a number of different ways. Again, it might be helpful if I set out some of the most important. The way we envisage it will be most frequently ended is through help to secure accommodation. If the authority is satisfied that the applicant has suitable accommodation and there is a reasonable prospect of their retaining it for at least six months, the duty will come to an end.

The duty can also come to an end if the local authority has taken reasonable steps for a period of 56 days but those steps have not relieved homelessness. In that case, the advice and information duty persists and those in priority need can move to the main homelessness duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The housing White Paper will address many of the issues regarding supply. My hon. Friend gives me a good segue to bring my comments to an end. The relief duty will bring another level of support and assistance for households not in priority need. He is right that the Bill is an extremely important part of dealing with some of the challenges we have, but it will not be a panacea so it would probably be best if we spent more time debating the substantive clauses.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will give way one last time.

[Michael Tomlinson]

This is an important point. In relation to this clause, the Minister spelled out the importance of flexibility and the interplay between six-month and 12-month tenancies. Will he explain and persuade the Committee of the evidence for that? I hear the arguments from both sides of the Committee about the importance of security, but will he spell out the evidence on six-month tenancies? I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, but this is a crucial point.

[Mr Jones]

I think we all recognise that the ideal situation would be to have 12-month tenancies for the people we are discussing. Often they are in a very difficult position, and that additional certainty may well be very helpful to them. We also have to acknowledge that there are a number of barriers to that. I am not saying that in future we may not get to the promised land in this sense, but we have to be realistic about the current situation.

While we are talking about six-month tenancies, the measure does not preclude 12-month tenancies. As I said earlier, we are speaking to landlord groups and other stakeholders to agree things such as model tenancy agreements, so that we can get to a position where all parties come to the conclusion that 12-month tenancies are more desirable than six-month ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The issue, of course, was giving TfL the power to develop housing; the political control of the delivery of that is up to politicians. You will be delighted to know that I will not be diverted any further, Mr Chope.

The other important point that the hon. Member for Hammersmith raised was that in the original draft Bill, there was provision for emergency accommodation for non-priority households. That would clearly be an extreme extra burden on local authorities. In our discussions before we produced the final version of the Bill that was introduced, I reluctantly agreed that we should remove that provision on the basis that it would produce major costs for local authorities, particularly in London. That is not to say that I would not like that provision to be in the Bill—I would. It would clearly be an extremely important contribution, but it would be very expensive, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been removed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South raised the important issue of applicants’ frustration. I went out last night with St Mungo’s night patrol to identify homeless people on the streets of the City of London and help its clients. One of the volunteers made clear that he was a non-priority individual. He had gone to his local authority, which had just said, “Sorry, nothing to do with us.” He was very proactive, but had he got the help and advice that he needed up front, he would not have become homeless. That is exactly what we are attempting to achieve with the Bill; as we have said, we have to change the culture set by changing the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of reasonable steps, which I trust the Minister’s answers have set out. It is difficult to prescribe those in legislation. We have to rely on a local authority understanding its duties and ensuring that it delivers them in a reasonable manner. To prescribe all those steps would be too prescriptive and would prevent local authorities from trying new ways of delivery.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I agree. I am not advocating that my hon. Friend spells out each and every circumstance in clause 5. If I were, I would have tabled my own amendment and proposed it to the Committee. However, I welcome what my hon. Friend and the Minister have said, because it is helpful for the Committee to have discussed and fleshed out some of the options that local authorities will have, so that they themselves can take them on board or innovate as my hon. Friend says.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, what has been referred to is a way forward for us.

The Minister has clarified many of the issues that colleagues have raised. One that has come up in many interventions is six-month versus 12-month tenancies. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I also served on the Communities and Local Government Committee in the previous Parliament. It produced an excellent report—I would say that, because I was part of it—which recommended that tenancies be extended. I strongly support longer tenancies for people in the private rented sector. Such provision provides security of accommodation and of tenure. In my view, it should not be a question of six or 12 months; tenancies should be even longer. Why not have three-year tenancies? We have to solve the problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made the point about mortgage lenders and other individuals who are involved having to come to terms with what has been suggested Actually, we need another change in the law. I crave your indulgence, Mr Chope. That is something else that needs to be acted on in law, but it is not within the scope of this Bill. What is within its scope is the issue of a local authority trying to house a family or single individuals who are homeless and securing accommodation for them.

We have discussed the matter in detail, and it is clear that if we stuck with a 12-month tenancy, the problem would be lack of supply. It is better to prescribe a minimum of six months, which hopefully could be extended to 12 months to prevent someone from going through a regular cycle of having a six-month tenancy, returning to the local authority, getting another six-month tenancy and so on. I am talking about a cycle of homelessness—the insecurity of people moving on and on and on in an unfair manner. I have explained where we would like to be. As I said, I would prefer to be in a position whereby we could prescribe even longer tenancies. That would be much better for families and for individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

When authorities carry out their prevention work they do not generally need to take account of those requirements, because the household usually sources its own accommodation. Under the clause, the requirements will apply only when the local housing authority secures accommodation.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I was scratching my head when I first read the clause—perhaps it was too late at night. My hon. Friend said that, although the clause is short, it is none the less important. I looked again at section 205 in part 7 of the 1996 Act to ensure that I was reading it correctly. If what I am told is right, the clause will help single homeless people in particular; we often meet them in our surgeries and they are more likely to be street homeless, as is the case in Poole. However, I cannot fathom out how on earth the clause helps that category of people. Have I misunderstood? Will my hon. Friend enlighten me?

[Bob Blackman]

Let me try to enlighten my hon. Friend. The aim, as I have explained, is to provide flexibility so that if a household is able to secure its own accommodation—this might be part of a plan that has been put together—it can do so and then return to the local authority if, for example, the deposit is an issue. The local authority can then say, “Fine. We can deal with the deposit. Thank you very much. Off you go.” For someone who is more vulnerable and requires the local authority to identify housing for them, clearly that is a different issue, because they will need more help and advice. The local authority will then secure accommodation for the individuals affected.

The clause aims to ensure that local housing authorities have the flexibility they need and that applicants can secure accommodation and then return to the local authority and say, “We have found somewhere.” The local authority cannot then turn around and say, “We don’t want you to go there; we want you to go here.” The clause provides flexibility ultimately to protect the applicants, which is key. It will also help the local authority to avoid potential conflict when applicants are, not unreasonably, acting to help themselves. We do not want people to sit back and wait for the local authority to do it for them; we want them to get on, do it for themselves and get help and advice from the local authority. That is what we want the Bill to achieve.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fifth sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

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

[Bob Blackman]

Clause 10 relates to what is commonly referred to as the duty to refer. It requires public authorities in England specified in the regulations to notify a local housing authority of service users who they think may be either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The safeguard is that the clause requires the public authority to get the individual’s consent before referring them, and it allows the individual to choose the local housing authority to which they are referred. Specified English public authorities exercising functions in relation to any individual will have the duty to refer that person if they think that they may be either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

One reason that the clause is so important, as we have heard during our deliberations, is that the Bill names a large number of public authorities and the arrangements will be different. For example, I know from evidence presented to the Select Committee, and from visits that I have made up and down the country, that people in the health service do not routinely refer people who they think are homeless to their local authority, because they do not think that it has anything to do with them. One of the problems that then arises is that people who are rough sleeping go to hospital, get patched up and are then sent back on to the streets, and it becomes a cycle of despair, frankly, for those individuals. The clause will place a duty on hospitals to refer to the local housing authority those individuals who they think may be either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, so that it can take action. That is absolutely right.

Given the time, I will not go through the details of the large number of other areas affected, but some of them are very important. For example, it is an outrage that we allow ex-offenders to leave prison on a Friday afternoon with £40 in their pockets and hope that they will not reoffend. They have nowhere to go for advice or help, but we are surprised when they gravitate back to their circle of friends who are probably involved in criminality. They then reoffend and end up back in prison. We have to break that cycle.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

On the subject of prisons, how does my hon. Friend see the interplay between the clause and the many excellent charities that already work with ex-offenders, such as the Footprints Project, which helps to mentor them? Is there any way that the duty to notify the local authority could be extended to include charities such as the Footprints Project?

[Bob Blackman]

My personal view, having looked at the issue in detail, is that workshops could be rolled out for people who are about to leave prison. That would allow them to be trained and assist them in living a normal life in society. We often forget that people who have been in prison for some time have lost touch with how society has moved on, what their duties are and how they can obtain help and advice. The Bill would require prison services to refer individuals to the housing authority, but I want to see a cultural change. We are giving prison governors far more power and responsibility. The last thing they should want to see is ex-offenders reoffending. If we can get people on to a straight and narrow way of life, that has to be a better way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Chope. May I extend my best wishes to you and to the rest of the Committee for 2017?

I welcome the clause and the duty that it places on anyone working at the frontline in the public sector to take account of the risk of homelessness and to behave responsibly in order that people who are at risk of homelessness can get access to the support that they need. However, I want to flag some complexity in relation to the implementation of parts of the clause, and to make a plea for the Minister to consider additional guidance when the Bill becomes an Act.

The complexity arises in particular in relation to proposed new section 213B of the Housing Act 1996. Subsection (3)(b) states:

“If the person…identifies a local housing authority in England to which the person would like the notification to be made”.

In my experience, there is a lot of complexity around the question of which housing authority should pick up the responsibility for people who are at risk of homelessness. I want to flag just three examples of where I have known that to be the case and where there is some concern.

The first example involves people of no fixed abode who have a mental health crisis and find themselves being held under the Mental Health Act 1983, and who are taken to a place of safety. In my area of London, the place-of-safety provision for five boroughs is being consolidated on to a single premises in the London Borough of Southwark. The health authority involved has worked with the local authorities on protocols for discharge, but there is great concern that, under the clause, someone who has reached crisis point and been admitted to hospital but who has no local authority that has clear housing responsibility for them may be discharged again and again into the same local authority. That local authority already has very significant housing pressure on it. Guidance and protocols need to be put in place so that the additional burden of people with very high levels of need does not fall automatically on one local authority. There should be a firm responsibility on other local authorities to help out in those circumstances. That is worthy of further consideration.

The second issue relates to ex-offenders, who have been discussed. People in prison often lose their tenancy or home. They may also lose connection with friends and family as a consequence of their incarceration. People who are released from prison often use their £40 to buy a train ticket—that train ticket is often to a place a long way from London. I know from work that I have done in the past that coastal towns, for example, often have very high concentrations of ex-offenders living in a very small area. There is no necessary reason why an area should have to pick up responsibility for high numbers of ex-offenders simply because the cost of private housing there is low.

My main concern is that that outcome is not necessarily in the interest of getting those ex-offenders back on track and enabling them to make a fresh start. Advice on the protocols that should apply to the housing authorities that should pick up responsibility for ex-offenders on release from prison would be welcome and helpful. It would help to achieve the kind of outcomes that we want as a consequence of introducing the clause.

My final point concerns a situation I have seen time and again as a local councillor and Member of Parliament: a dispute between local authorities over which should take responsibility for somebody—it might be somebody whose last permanent address was in one local authority but they have been sofa-surfing with family members for a time in another. The family might have broken up. The resident might be arguing that they need to be a distance from where they used to live due to domestic violence or other reasons.

Whatever the reason, there is a dispute between local authorities over which should take responsibility and it is the individual who ends up suffering and falling between the cracks. The clause would provide too much scope for those poor outcomes that either place undue pressure on local authorities that are already under great pressure, or it could mean that individuals are not easily able to access the support they need. There is too much scope for that if the clause is left as it is without further additional guidance on the protocols that need to apply in practice. I ask the Minister to take that into account in his response and to pick it up as the Bill progresses.

[Michael Tomlinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Chope, for the first time in 2017. I welcome the clause and support it as drafted. I believe there is an opportunity to rise to the good practice that appears in Westminster and elsewhere and raise the standard across the whole country. We all like to think there is good practice in our areas. I have three local authorities in my constituency: Purbeck East, Dorset and Poole, and Dorset County Council. I strongly believe the duty to refer will encourage other authorities to follow suit.

I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster North that the duty to refer is not the complete answer. That is absolutely right. It is not the complete answer but it is a good step along the way and will help to show what proper good practice should be.

Every hon. Member who has spoken so far has mentioned prisons. Perhaps that shows the important link between release from prison and the streets. It is no different on the streets of Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset from in Westminster, London and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South mentioned what is happening in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The Footprints Project operates in Dorset, Hampshire and Somerset. It is a charitable organisation that helps ex-offenders in a through-the-gate service, offering mentoring and help to get into work.

I believe the clause provides an opportunity to work with local authorities and charitable organisations. Charities are already performing good works in preventing reoffending and trying to get people on the straight and narrow. There is a great opportunity for local authorities to work more closely together. I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East speak of local authorities choosing to outsource some of those services and work closely alongside charitable organisations that are doing a good job, which can only be a good thing.

Hospitals have not been mentioned as much as prisons. I will return to what will be in the regulations in due course, but we all hate the term “bed blocking”. It is a completely inappropriate term for unfortunate people who find themselves in hospital through no fault of their own and have nowhere to go. I strongly believe that the duty to refer will help in that regard. Perhaps the Committee could come up with a better phrase for “bed blocking” because it is very distasteful indeed. I strongly believe that the clause, with a duty to refer and co-operate with hospitals, other organisations and local authorities, will help in that regard.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

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

[David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)]

During my time as a council leader, the Government introduced a number of measures aimed at combating rogue landlords. We have heard real horror stories of how some private landlords are behaving, so those measures were welcome and, in my view, long overdue. That minority of rogue landlords gave the whole industry cause for concern, but the changes mean that local authorities now have experience in and knowledge about dealing with them. Further changes introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will also help.

That experience will be really important in relation to the clause, because the new prevention and relief duties mean that we are helping to house more people in the private rented sector, and they may be vulnerable. Local authorities will already be checking the suitability of accommodation for those deemed to be in priority need under existing legislation. However, as more people are brought into that classification, it is right to ensure that additional protections apply to people deemed vulnerable, so that we can safeguard them against rogue landlords or unsuitable accommodation.

I am pleased that the provisions are clear about, for example, the need for the property to have fire safety precautions, a gas safety certificate, compliance with electrical safety regulations and precautions against carbon monoxide poisoning. Those are all things we would want in our own homes, and it is right that we seek the same protections for vulnerable people who are going through a difficult time in their lives. I welcome the inclusion of those protections.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, for what we hope is the final day of consideration of the Bill in Committee. I, too, rise to support this important clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South picked up an aspect that I want to touch on briefly, which is carbon monoxide poisoning.

Many of us know either personally or from constituents what a deadly killer carbon monoxide can be. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and others are officers of the all-party parliamentary group on carbon monoxide, and there are a number of similar groups. This issue highlights the importance of ensuring that there are additional protections against rogue landlords.

It is right to say that the Government have already made large steps in that direction, but inserting this provision into article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 will strengthen those protections further. I welcome the other measures in the clause, but the carbon monoxide poisoning provision is particularly worth dwelling on.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, I used to be a councillor. I recall numerous cases—I am sure we all can, as Members of Parliament—of constituents coming to me about rogue landlords in the private rented sector, where there is a local housing allowance relationship. Part of the problem is that the vast majority of landlords are very good. Rogue landlords—I do not particularly like that term—are a small few, and they give most landlords, who are very good, a bad name. Nevertheless, we have to protect people from those few.

I would rather the legislation went much further. I would like to see local authorities making checks on all the properties they let out, but that would be extremely onerous on local councils and would undermine the premise that the vast majority of people are capable of making those checks themselves and determining whether a property has the necessary gas safety certificate, carbon monoxide detection equipment, smoke alarms and the other things we have come to expect, whether we are renting or own our own properties.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a balancing act? As he says, there are many good landlords out there, but there are a few for whom I believe “rogue landlord” is the right expression. However, in this clause, as in others, it is a matter of getting the balance right, so that we have sufficient landlords—without them there would be no property to rent—but with sufficient safeguards and protections to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As much as we would like to extend the protections to all, we have a duty to safeguard the most vulnerable—people who are not necessarily able to make those checks or to make informed decisions because of their financial position, a disability, a mental health issue or all sorts of other reasons that mean the council has an additional duty to safeguard them.

I support the clause. As much as I would like to see it go further, I am realistic about what we can achieve. Protecting the most vulnerable is what we should aim to do, and that is exactly what the clause does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I hear the hon. Lady’s point, and that is what the local authorities pray in aid as the reason they are obliged to do as they are doing. Nevertheless, they have duties and legal responsibilities. That is why I am interested in how far the Bill and the measures on vulnerable households will bite and oblige local authorities to look at the matter more seriously, rather than under the banner of “We are pressurised and do not have affordable accommodation”, taking the easier option of putting households in Enfield, for example, which has associated costs.

I have been talking to the Minister and to the relevant director of finance about both the local government finance settlement and this particular issue. I have also talked to the deputy Mayor of London, who I understand has been trying to bring about a more collaborative approach with directors of housing so that they cannot simply come up with the easy excuse of, “It’s just the Government’s fault.” They have legal responsibilities and should not just shunt their problems on to outer London boroughs.

We have had a debate about appropriate location and ensuring that households—particularly vulnerable households—are not moved away from supportive networks in relation to education, as well as other family and care support. How far will clause 12 ensure that Westminster housing officers deciding about vulnerable households will not place them in areas such as Enfield so easily? Yes, with suitability there is an issue of affordability, but there is also an issue of location. When there is a competing interest, which is the one that will really kick in? Can the Minister advise us on the discussions that he is having about ensuring that decisions are appropriate?

The Select Committee recommended that placing vulnerable households away from the area and their supportive networks should be not a first option but a last resort. I do not hear that it is being thought of as a last resort.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend talks about location. Article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 is relevant. He also mentioned houses in multiple occupation. Does he see, when he talks about location—and thinking about neighbours as well—that there would be a difficulty in an extension beyond HMOs, and the licensing regime within that structure? I understand his point about the suitability of the people nearby, but does he recognise that it would be difficult under article 3 to draw provisions as widely as he suggests?

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend is right, but we shall probably hear later about the extent of inspections, and it may well be that when an inspection is done to make normal physical checks, an eye can be given to wider concerns that might affect vulnerable households. The multiple occupation provisions are an issue of licensing—it is a question of checking unlicensed multiple occupation premises. It is important to check that, because it is not surprising that there are extra risks in unlicensed multiple occupation premises, not least for those in recovery or with other needs. It is those unlicensed premises that need attention. The inspection regime will ensure that the current law is extended to vulnerable households and that accommodation in unlicensed houses in multiple occupation will be deemed unsuitable. That will help to ensure that vulnerable households will not be exposed to other risks.

[Michael Tomlinson]

As I understood the point my hon. Friend was making a few moments ago, he was seeking to draw the regime wider than HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed. Does he not see that, as drafted, article 3 does not catch accommodation that is wider than that, and that there would be difficulty in drawing it more widely? Certainly HMOs, whether licensed or unlicensed, can be looked at, but if we go wider than that it will be very difficult to assess the suitability of accommodation under article 3 by dint of looking at the suitability of the neighbours, unless it is specifically in relation to HMOs.

[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.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Before the Minister moves on to what the Government are already doing, if I understood and heard him correctly, he said that they deem only 3% of landlords to be rogue landlords. Perhaps he could clarify where that evidence comes from, but if he is right, does he not agree that it is a matter of balance—of making sure that we are not punishing those landlords who are doing a perfectly good job already, and potentially deterring and putting off other people from becoming landlords and providing much-needed accommodation?

[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.

[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.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said, save for this: 3% is a relatively small number. To my mind, one rogue landlord is one rogue landlord too many—I am very happy to put that on record. Perhaps the Minister has other evidence of a second tier of bad landlords that do not reach rogue status and therefore are not in that top 3% but may be below it. Either way, the point from this side—certainly, I speak for myself—is that one rogue landlord is one rogue landlord too many, but 3% is relatively small and there should be a balance in relation to this clause and the whole Bill.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will take your guidance, Mr Chope. As the Bill’s promoter, I am very happy to discuss finance under clause 1.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, see the force of discussing finance under clause 1. On clause 13, my hon. Friend mentioned timings, on which he is being understandably sensitive. As the promoter of the Bill, when does he envisage the measures we have been debating so extensively coming into force?

[Bob Blackman]

In an ideal world, I would like this to be implemented immediately, but I recognise that councils will need time to prepare, and to recruit and train staff. They will also need to capture a lot of data. Local authorities that do a good job on homelessness prevention will have data on potential landlords, properties that may be available, help and advice from the third sector and other organisations that have the capability to provide the help and assistance required under the legislation. The concern is that a large number of local authorities are not in that position and will need time to gear up. They will need to begin the process of staff recruitment and the time to train people. They will need to change the culture in which they work—we must remember that the original culture is denial of service to homeless people unless they are in priority need. The Bill will change the cultural aspects. I hope local authorities around the country are planning how they will implement the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

As the Committee knows, we reordered the business because we anticipated amendments being tabled to this key clause. It is clear, however, that we do not have any amendments to discuss today. I know that many of us will be disappointed by that, and I want to update the Committee on the situation and the reasons why we have reached this position.

In our last sitting before Christmas, I reported that we had discovered a technical problem with clause 7 —specifically, that the clause was drafted too widely. At that time, we believed that a simple amendment would resolve the issue, tightening up the circumstances in which the provisions of the clause could be triggered. However, when drafting the amendments and the consequential amendments to other parts of the Bill, the local government sector and the charities that work day-to-day with homeless people—namely Shelter and Crisis—identified further issues with how the prevention and relief duties would be ended should an applicant refuse an offer of suitable accommodation. That is obviously a key part of how the Bill will work in incentivising applicants to work co-operatively with local housing authorities. If it did not work correctly, there would be a very real risk that the Bill would create an unacceptable new burden on local housing authorities and would fail to achieve the policy objectives.

I have been working with my hon. Friend the Minister and with Shelter, Crisis and the Local Government Association to address the issues that have been identified. The priority has been to ensure that we maintain protections for all applicants who co-operate with the new duties. That has involved working through the complex relationship between the Bill and the existing legal framework to ensure that the protections for those in priority need are not affected unacceptably. We want no reductions in how priority need households are assisted. We want to make it clear to new applicants that we are providing help and assistance, but it is not a one-way street.

We are now exploring potential solutions and hope to be in a position to resolve the situation on Report, with amendments tabled by Friday. I hope that if colleagues have concerns they will place them on the record so that I, as the Bill’s promoter, and the Minister can look at them in the round and make sure we deal with the issues that have rightly been raised by the charities and the LGA and in other representations we have received on this clause.

When we debated clause 3 in December, we discussed the new duty on local housing authorities to assess the applicant’s case and agree a personalised plan. Clause 7 outlines the important steps that must be followed in those hopefully rare cases where an applicant deliberately and unreasonably refuses to co-operate with the key required steps set out in the plan that they agreed with their local housing authority. This process is designed to include safeguards that will protect vulnerable applicants from abuse of the process.

When people who are threatened with homelessness or are actually homeless present themselves to the local authority, they might be in a state of difficulty not only from a mental health point of view, but in facing this problem for the first time in their lives. If that is the case and they are directed to do things by a housing authority, they may not appreciate and understand the plan. Throughout the development of the Bill, I have listened carefully to the views of the homelessness charities to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not unfairly penalised for non-co-operation on some of the very issues that caused them to seek assistance in the first place.

The clause includes numerous safeguards that I will outline briefly. I can assure the Committee that, in the recent discussion of amendments, my key driver has been to protect those safeguards and to enhance them if possible, so that no one is placed in a position whereby they feel they have been fooled and tricked into accepting something that they do not want.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Before Christmas, my hon. Friend characterised the clause as “tough love”. Given his recent comments, does he anticipate that that will remain his attitude in relation to the clause, or has it changed?

[Bob Blackman]

I do characterise the clause as tough love. I do not believe it is acceptable for someone to arrive at a local authority and say, “Under the law, you have to provide me with housing; I do not have to do anything,” and then fold their arms, sit back and wait for the local authority to do things. Part and parcel of the clause is to say that there are responsibilities on the local authority and on individual applicants.

Clause 3 is about personalised plans. Under clause 7, if applicants do not co-operate with the local authority, it can terminate the duty. That is the tough love that I previously described. That is where the bar is placed in terms of a deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. I am very clear that we want to ensure the bar is sufficiently high so the local authorities do not disadvantage applicants, but at the same time make it clear to them that they have to co-operate with the local authority that is assisting them in alleviating their homelessness or threat of homelessness.

The personalised plans will clearly set out the required steps that have been agreed between the applicant and the local housing authority. The steps must be those that are most relevant to securing and retaining accommodation. In some cases, the applicant and the local housing authority may not be able to reach an agreement about the actions despite trying very hard to do so. If that is the case, the required steps will be those recorded in writing and considered reasonable by the local housing authority.

The local housing authority will be required to keep under review both its assessment of the applicant’s case and the appropriateness of the required steps. If the local housing authority considers that the applicant is deliberately and unreasonably refusing to co-operate, it must give them a warning—it is not acceptable that it ends its duty at that point—explaining the consequences for the duties owed to the applicant if they do not begin to co-operate. At that point, if the individual sits back and says, “I’m not doing anything. I’m not taking the steps that I have agreed to take,” the authority can use a sanction.

The local housing authority must also allow a reasonable period for the applicant to comply and take external advice if necessary. If the applicant continues to refuse to co-operate following the warning, the local housing authority can choose to issue a notice that brings to an end the duties under proposed new section 195(2), the duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant prevent homelessness, and proposed new section 189(b)(2), the duty to take reasonable steps to help secure suitable accommodation for those homeless and eligible for assistance.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend mentioned a reasonable period, which appears in proposed new subsections (4)(b) and (8), but, unless I have missed it, there is no precise definition in clause 7 itself of what a reasonable period is. As he knows, a reasonable period for one man may be a very unreasonable period for another. Can he, as the promoter of the Bill, indicate to the Committee what he envisages would and would not be a reasonable period?

[Bob Blackman]

If I could just continue the point. The notice must explain the reasons for giving the notice and its effect, and inform the applicant of their right to request a review of the decision to issue a notice and the time period for doing so. My hon. Friend is a learned lawyer, and reasonableness is an issue that has been tested by the courts on many occasions. What is reasonable to an applicant facing a crisis and what is reasonable to a local authority may be two different things. It is difficult to lay out every detail in the Bill; regulations may be required to specify the period, and in the code of guidance that will be issued when the Bill becomes an Act, I expect to see a clear statement to local authorities of what is considered to be a reasonable period. If local authorities are acting in what the Minister and the Department consider to be an unreasonable manner, we may have to insist on a code of practice to set out that detail. I trust that local authorities will see that they are seeking to end the duties that they have to the applicant, so they must act in a reasonable manner.

As a final safeguard, where the prevention or relief duty has been ended under these measures, rendering the main housing duty inapplicable, the local housing authority has a further duty to the applicant if they are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and became homeless through no fault of their own. In such cases, the local housing authority must as a minimum make a final accommodation offer of an assured shorthold tenancy of at least six months. To ensure that that measure and the safeguards work effectively, the clause also allows the Secretary of State to issue regulations setting out the procedures to be followed by local housing authorities in connection with notices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I hear what the promoter is saying, but I am sure that it is not true, because the Committee had the services of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. It is always dangerous to ask someone to stand in for you when they are more experienced, competent and knowledgeable on the subject, but there we are.

I will not be long on this clause. With all due respect to the promoter and the Minister, if we are to debate it all over again on Report, and we have yet to have the benefit of the amendments, I would rather wait and see what happens then. It is unfortunate that the Bill has had to be sliced in this way, and that we are jumping around from clause to clause. I understand that we all want to get it right, but it is not an ideal way to proceed, as will be clear when we come to clause 1. We Opposition Members will try to be as disciplined and organised as we can be, in order not to repeat ourselves or lengthen the debate more than is necessary, which is the guidance we have heard from Mr Chope as well.

Therefore, all I will say on clause 7 is that we do not oppose it; it is a necessary clause, because there has to be some sanction or limitation on the relationship between the applicant and the local authority. The key issue is getting the balance right. What is the balance? I pose the question, which may be better answered on Report, when we know the full extent of the clause. We are all familiar with the term “unreasonable”, but are perhaps less familiar with the term “deliberate”. There have been perfectly reasonable representations from both sides, if I can put it that way—from Shelter and from the Association of Housing Advice Services. One side of the argument is that it is essential that the bar is set very high, so that local authorities cannot evade their duty; on the other hand, the process must not be overly bureaucratic, or effectively provide no sanction because the applicant would be entitled to the same assistance as they would if they had not deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. That question hangs in the air. As for the definition of “deliberate” and what might constitute that behaviour or how authorities would define it, that is a question that the Minister or the promoter may wish to deal with, although it may not be a matter for today.

I reserve any further comments. It is regrettable that we are doing this on Report. I remember having a conversation early on with the promoter, in which I said, “We might wish to table some clauses on Report,” and he said, “Can you please ensure that you do that in Committee, so that we have a clean run at Report and Third Reading?” I think I may have to table something on Report myself now; we will see.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned unreasonable behaviour. I completely take his point and agree with what he says, but in clause 7, there is a definition to help local authorities define what the characteristics of unreasonable behaviour would be. Would he anticipate, as I do, that that sort of subsection will be essential in any sort of rewriting, to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected?

[Andy Slaughter]

Yes, but “unreasonable” is a term with which we and, more importantly, the courts are familiar, if a matter has to reach that point. “Deliberate” is a rarer and higher standard, and that term gives me pause, but I think the consensus is that it needs to be there, because “unreasonable” is not sufficient. I only ask for a slightly clearer exemplification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I am conscious that there are likely to be further amendments on Report. I want to touch briefly on the new duty to assess cases and agree a plan. I very much support the idea of a personalised plan, whereby we empower those who seek help with a number of key steps that they are expected to take, which are reasonable, proportionate and, most importantly, achievable. That will encourage positive action and working together to find a solution, rather than people simply turning up at the council saying, “You have a duty to house me because I’m homeless.” Instead, we will say, “Let’s look at the steps we can take together to address the issues”—and, in many cases, the complex needs—“behind your homelessness or risk of homelessness before the situation gets worse.”

No doubt we have all seen situations involving councils. It is difficult, because the vast majority of local authorities are excellent and take their duties and responsibilities very seriously. Some, however, discharge their homelessness duties far too easily, which has knock-on effects on other areas and local authorities. For example, if a borough or district council discharges its duty on homelessness for whatever reason, it puts added pressure—especially if children are involved—on either the unitary authority or the county council in respect of social services, and that is often hugely expensive compared with the action that could have been taken by the local authority.

There have been a number of comments on deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate and the definition of “unreasonable”. Clear guidance on what is unreasonable would certainly be helpful, but the addition of that word adds a safeguard. I used to be a lawyer as well.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Hear, hear.

[Will Quince]

I used to be; I am not any more, I am glad to say. The addition of that word protects those with mental health issues or complex needs. We know that the vast majority of people who are at risk of homelessness or are homeless have very complex needs.

I very much welcome the safeguards in the Bill, including the concept of a warning letter that clearly and succinctly sets out what will happen if someone fails to co-operate and the clear steps that will be taken after that. On the whole discharging of the duty, I welcome the fact that those who are found to have deliberately or unreasonably failed to co-operate, even after the warning letter, will still receive, as a minimum, an offer of suitable accommodation, with an assured shorthold tenancy of six months. That adds the necessary protection and safeguard. and stops additional pressure being put on county councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I will follow on from those points in a similar vein. We are, in a somewhat rarefied Committee, looking at deliberate and unreasonable refusals to co-operate, while being far removed from the challenging circumstances faced by people, particularly those with complex needs. Even with revisions to the Bill on Report, we must be clear that the bar is set at a level that will ensure that there is understanding, particularly of those with mental health and complex needs, and that those needs are taken into account when considering what is deliberate and unreasonable. That does not mean that those people will not be liable to being deemed to have refused to co-operate. We need to look sensitively at how we ensure that the most vulnerable are taken account of properly.

On discharging duties, I recall a case in which the NHS was able to discharge its duty of care to a vulnerable constituent who had complex needs and was paranoid. When people knocked on the door to see whether he was going to co-operate, unsurprisingly he did not answer, because he was paranoid; it was a part of his condition. He repeatedly refused to answer the door, so the NHS discharged its duty of care to him. As for the safeguards in this provision, there is a warning letter. We need to look in detail—this matters—at how that warning letter will be communicated and take proper account of people’s needs, which include communication difficulties.

[Michael Tomlinson]

That is exactly the point I made a few moments ago. Subsection (6) refers to taking into account the “particular circumstances and needs” of the applicant. My hon. Friend’s story highlights the reason why we need that safeguard in any future redrafting of the clause—to protect exactly the sort of people he is talking about.

[Mr Burrowes]

We need to ensure that when the rubber hits the road, there is a reality to this, so that there is not the lowest common denominator of just discharging a duty, but there is a real, positive intent to meet people’s particular needs.

It is important to ensure there is reassurance and the backstop provided by new section 193B(4). The full rehousing duty for those in priority need must be maintained. We have often praised the Welsh for getting there first with the prevention duty, but this clause will do a lot better. It will ensure that, in this case, we do not follow the Welsh example, where legislation allows an authority to discharge all duties for those who refuse to co-operate and where there is evidence of one in eight households now being refused further help; emerging evidence suggests that they are often vulnerable people with support needs. That is despite codes of guidance, which we talked about in previous deliberations.

It is so important that we get this right. This is where it could go wrong, despite all the codes of guidance that might be produced. I welcome the care that has been given to ensuring that we get this right. The litmus test is those with complex, particular needs. We need to ensure in this deliberation on what is deliberate and unreasonable that we have a true understanding of vulnerable people.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I, too, rise to say that I am disappointed by the difficulty that this Committee has been put under in not being able to look at clause 7. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and with the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood that this is one of the most crucial parts of the legislation, and that a delicate balancing act needs to be got right.

That said, I support the principle. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, when he characterises this as tough love. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South mentioned personal responsibility, and the phrase “help to empower” was also used. I entirely agree with the principle behind the clause but am disappointed that we cannot thrash out more of the detail. I will certainly take up the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to set out what I believe needs to be within the clause, although I support the thrust of it.

I had a meeting with a representative of East Dorset District Council—a local authority that you know well, Mr Chope, because East Dorset covers three constituencies: mine, yours and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). The council is concerned not only about the potential burden on local authorities, but about the risk of this going wrong. The interplay between local authorities and housing associations was also raised.

Perhaps when the Minister gets to his feet in a few minutes, he will give me and those at East Dorset some reassurance on the clause as drafted, or as we hope it will be drafted in future, and on the interplay with housing association duties. Many of our local authorities own very little stock and rely on housing associations to perform many of their functions and duties. What is the interplay between that and the clause? Is there a risk that housing associations will fall short or have a lower standard than is the aim and intention behind the clause?

I have said before that we are looking at the most vulnerable. I agree that there should be a strict definition in clause 7. As drafted, the tough love aspect is whether an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith that this is familiar territory for lawyers and courts. In my view, it is helpful to have as much detail in the Bill as possible. That is why I welcome proposed new section 193A(6), which states that the characteristics—correction, circumstances—and needs of the applicant should be taken into account. Perhaps the Minister and promoter of the Bill should consider characteristics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate gave a striking example of why it is necessary to take into account the circumstances and needs of the applicant. Knocking on the door might be sufficient for one applicant but not for another. Therefore, clause 7 needs that additional safeguard in its redrafted form.

The term “reasonable period” is also fertile territory for lawyers. My concern is that, if it is left in the Bill, lawyers will argue the toss that the local authority says, “Yes, it was a reasonable period,” while the applicant says, “No, it was not because more time was required.” I understand entirely the difficulty of putting that sort of detail in the Bill. An indication of the timeframe from the Minister when he is looking at redrafting may be helpful, although I do understand the risk of causing problems.

Finally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I welcome the additional safeguard of a notice to inform and explain to the applicant. The Minister might pick up on one caveat. As drafted, subsection (8) provides for what would happen if a notice were not received. In an ideal world, we would need to ensure that notices are received. As we know, sometimes the serving of notices is not as straightforward in practice as it is to set out in a document. The Minister might consider and emphasise the need to ensure that notices are received.

[David Mackintosh]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there should be a written warning or notice rather than just a verbal statement? People could be confused and lose bits of paper, so it is important to have this written down.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I agree in part with my hon. Friend, but in fact it would be helpful to have both. Depending on the needs and circumstances of the individual, it could be helpful to have the notice read out. Of course, it should also have the fall-back authority of a piece of paper or document.

I would like the Minister to pick up the point in subsection (8) about the notice being

“made available at the authority’s office”.

Given we are considering the most vulnerable people, is that sufficient to draw attention to the fact that their rights are to be taken away under the homelessness provisions?

[Mrs Drummond]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. If that information is not put very clearly in writing to the vulnerable person, surely the appeals will be more difficult. Will we see an increase in appeals if we do not get the clause absolutely right in the detail?

[Michael Tomlinson]

That is absolutely right. It is not only the difficulty with appeals, but the rise in the number of appeals, exactly as my hon. Friend says. As a former lawyer, I want fewer of these cases appearing in front of court. Far too often, we have seen lawyers arguing over clauses exactly like this one by picking up points of technicality and trying to say whether a notice was served. Every effort should be made to ensure that notices are brought to the attention of individuals, and I would like reassurance from the Minister specifically on that point because the clause takes away rights that we are seeking to give to individuals.

While I entirely support the thrust, aim and intention of the clause and its characterisation as tough love, I regret the fact that we are not able to debate its final form. We are almost shadow boxing in anticipation of what may or may not be incorporated into clause 7. I encourage the Minister to take on board all the points that have been made.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

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

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

When we broke at the last sitting, I was coming on to the subject of written warnings. I nearly got one this morning, I detected, but was very fortunate that I evaded the wrath of the Chair.

We would expect that before a local housing authority issued a written warning, it would make all reasonable efforts to engage the individual, explore the reasons for their failure to act and try to re-establish a co-operative relationship. Following that written warning, if the applicant continued deliberately and unreasonably to refuse to co-operate, the local housing authority might choose to issue a notice that brings to an end its duties to prevent or relieve the applicant’s homelessness.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I fear the Minister is about to move on. At that stage, is there not, under proposed new section 193A (3)(b), the right to request a review of that decision? The notice is therefore not necessarily the end of the piece, because the applicant may request a review if they feel they have been unfairly dealt with.

[Mr Jones]

There is, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, a right to review. I am sure he realises that I will not go into too much detail about that, because we will deal with it far more when we come to the amendments tabled to the clause on Report.

Where a local housing authority has brought its duty to an end in this way, and the applicant was made homeless through no fault of their own and is in priority need, the authority will be required to make a final offer of a private sector tenancy of at least six months. The Government will review and update the homelessness code of guidance to provide clear guidance on how that will work in practice. As I said, that will include guidance on the meaning of “deliberately and unreasonably” refusing to co-operate.

Guidance will be developed in consultation with stakeholders across local government and the charity sector to ensure that it is clear and fair. We had quite a lengthy debate about that this morning and will discuss it on Report, so I will not go into it any further. We must ensure that the provisions are clear and fair, and that we minimise as far as possible the risk of someone failing to get the support they need. We will also work closely with stakeholders across local government to develop further regulations relating to the process that local housing authorities should follow. As colleagues have said, that is key to getting this right.

This is an important part of the Bill and of driving the cultural change we want, so that local housing authorities and individuals work together for the best outcome within a framework that is clear and fair, with a balance of responsibilities. Although the need for amendments is disappointing for all of us, the importance of the clause drives my determination to make the amendments that the Committee expects.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I hope the Minister will at some stage address the point that not only I but a number of colleagues made about the particular circumstances and needs of the applicant. I understand that we will have an opportunity to look at the clause when it is rewritten, but we were invited by the Bill’s promoter to make particular representations on those parts of the clause that we think should remain in it. Does the Minister agree that new section 193A(6) is an important part of it? Even if we do not use exactly these words, we should look at the applicant’s particular circumstances and needs when assessing whether he or she has unreasonably refused to co-operate.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We will deal with this in far more detail on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1

Meaning of “homeless” and “threatened with homelessness”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It has been said outside this Committee many times and in the discussions I have had, particularly on the amendments we are looking to make to clause 7, that the housing market in England and particularly in London is very different from that in Wales. We can certainly draw many parallels with the Welsh legislation and have confidence that, in many ways, this legislation will have a very positive effect. On whether it will have the significant effect it has had in Wales, I make two points. First, local authorities in England were already better, in general, at preventing homelessness than those in Wales before the legislation was introduced; we need to take that point on board. Secondly, our assumptions—particularly on cost, which I will come to later—have been based very much on an acknowledgment that the housing market is very different in England, and particularly London and the south of the country.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Is not the point about clause 1 that all these notices are meant to be mandatory? The local authority will have confidence that it will be giving advance help, or that there will be more warning, in the knowledge that when the notice is provided, it will eventually lead to a possession order and therefore homelessness.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Michael Tomlinson]

With respect, the Minister is slightly skating over the significance of the amendment he tabled. It sweeps away any section 8 notices as well. He says he consulted landlords and other bodies, but perhaps he could deal with this, because section 8 notices can be mandatory as well. Why do only section 21 notices remain under the amendment? Why have section 8 notices been swept aside?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that up. I will deal with that at the appropriate point.

As I said, the amendment balances the need for flexibility for local housing authorities with recognition of the concerns of landlords and homelessness charities, and clear guidance will be issued. I can confirm that to ensure that applicants threatened with homelessness due to the issuing of a section 21 notice receive continuous help and support through the prevention and relief duties, the Government plan to table an amendment on Report to clause 4—the prevention duty. That will require that while the applicant remains in the same property, the prevention duty continues to operate until such time as the local authority brings it to an end for one of the reasons set out in clause 4, even if 56 days have passed. In an ideal world, if we were dealing with the Bill in the usual order, I would have tabled that amendment once we had debated clause 1, in advance of the debate on clause 4. Regrettably, because of the timetabling and the challenges we had with clause 1, I was not able to do that, which I apologise for. Unlike with clause 7, that could not have been avoided at all.

The prevention duty may be brought to an end because, for example, agreement is reached by a tenant to stay in the property for at least a further six months; alternative suitable accommodation has been secured for the household; they have become homeless and eligible for the relief duty; or they have withdrawn their application. The amendment to clause 4 will address a concern raised by some charities that there may be cases where the 56-day prevention duty period has run out but the household is unfortunately still at risk of homelessness. They may not yet be homeless and would therefore, in some instances, not be covered by the relief duty.

To complement that change to the legislation, the Government will take other action to encourage people at risk of homelessness to present earlier to their local authority. We will amend form 6A, which is used to evict tenants through section 21, and amend the “How to Rent” guide to include information encouraging tenants to seek help earlier when they receive a section 21 notice and believe they are at risk of homelessness as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that kind offer. The Select Committee has taken an active role in the Bill—in fact, as he is well aware, a number of changes have been made as a direct result of its intervention. We will certainly look to review the policy and how it is working in practice once there has been time for the system to bed in. Bear in mind that the policy will not be implemented on the day that the Bill gets Royal Assent; it will be reviewed ahead of the new burdens assessment in the 2021 financial year. New burdens reviews do not lead to automatic recoupment of overpayments. Any review will be based on assumptions and estimates, although informed by experience on the ground. The actual policy cost may differ between local authorities, depending on how they choose to implement it. That is an important point, which we need to take into account.

[Michael Tomlinson]

On finance, it has been indicated that several amendments will be tabled in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South was talking about a different thing; I am talking about the specific amendments, which may place additional burdens on local authorities, that may be tabled when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. Will the Minister look at that issue again and give reassurance on it when the time comes?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever and makes an excellent point. Clearly, amendments will be tabled on Report. I assure him that anything in those amendments that constitutes a new burden on local authorities will be dealt with in the same way. There is nothing in the statement that we have already made that is not in the Bill today. If there are any additional costs as a result of amendments tabled on Report, they will quite correctly be dealt with separately from the £48 million that we announced in our statement. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

Amendments 16 and 17 represent the best balance between the interests of tenants, landlords and local housing authorities. I believe that the schedule of new burdens costs that we have set out for the Bill is fair and we did our homework in relation to the calculation of those costs. The clause is part of the excellent package that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has brought together with the support of the Select Committee, the Government, housing charities, and in the main local authorities. I am pleased to propose that the Committee supports the amendments and clause 1 as amended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I gave way to the Minister because he was so insistent that I thought he had something new to say.

Supply is an issue, and so is security. We know—Government Members have said it today—that the biggest cause of homelessness is ending private sector tenancies, because of the opportunity for “no fault” possession and because of rising rents and landlord attitudes. Our very sensible and moderate proposals for longer tenancies and for controlling rents would be a major way of controlling homelessness. The Government cannot ignore their own actions in relation to local housing allowance, the benefit cap and all the measures that we have heard mentioned today. I pray in aid Westminster City Council and other Conservative authorities, which are saying that they cannot cope because of the additional pressures that the Government are putting on them. Those pressures go right across the board for local authorities.

I will not labour the point. I simply say that the Government need to take a holistic approach and say, “Yes, of course we want the Bill’s provisions to work and we want to fund them properly.” However, we cannot do only that. We have to look at where the accommodation is going to be, at why people are increasingly coming to local authorities—there has been a substantial, 40% increase in the use of temporary accommodation over the last four years—and at the effects of other policies that are directly contrary to the intentions behind the Bill. I put that on the record. The question of money relates not just to the specific matters raised in the Bill, but to how the system works as a whole. At the moment the system is creaking incredibly. It is not getting better; it is getting worse.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I begin by picking up on one or two points from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. On a positive, optimistic note, let me start by saying what I agree with in his analysis of clause 1. He mentioned several other forms of tenancies, such as less secure tenancies; perhaps he could also have mentioned licences or those that are subject to a notice to quit rather than the more strict section 21 notice or court procedure. I agree with his analysis on that point. There are a wide range of tenancies that could have been encompassed within the clause but are not. I suspect that his analysis is right: that that is because of the sheer difficulty of juggling all the different potential tenancies. Look at the different Acts that we have to deal with, and that he had to deal with when in practice: the 1980, 1985, 1988 and 1996 Acts, all with varying levels and layers of interplay. I suspect that is why we find clause 1 drafted as it is.

I agree, to that extent, that as drafted and certainly as amended, the clause does not encompass a wide range of different forms of tenancy, especially those less secure. I will come back to section 8 and its interplay with section 21. However, I take issue with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members on criticising and being too antagonistic towards no-fault notices and that regime. I agree that it is desirable to have as long-form tenancies as possible and I was heartened by the Minister’s submission that confirmed that the average tenancy is four years. The Minister is nodding, so I heard that correctly.

Of course, that is not the whole picture but four years is a significant period. My concern, if no-fault tenancies are simply swept aside or undermined, is that landlords and potential landlords will be put off purchasing and letting out properties, so we would be in a worse position. That is a concern that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his colleagues should look out for if they seek to undermine no-fault tenancies and those who are, on the whole, perfectly good, decent landlords, as we heard this morning. I will pick up later the points the hon. Gentleman raised on finances and his self-professed pessimistic view on life. I will encourage him to have a slightly rosier view by the time my speech finishes. Whether I succeed is another story. I see he is busy looking at his papers.

I start with sounding alarm bells on what the Minister mentioned in relation to finance of further potential burdens on local authorities. I mentioned earlier that I had had meetings with East Dorset District Council. My constituency covers three local authorities—East Dorset, Purbeck and Poole—and each will be concerned about additional burdens if additional resources do not match them.

I want to come back to finances but I was heartened by the reassurance that, if there are to be further amendments—as we understand there will be on Report—there will be an opportunity for additional funding. I simply ask that the Minister, as he has done at this stage, gives an early indication when the new clause is considered on Report of the level of funding he assesses as necessary.

I support the principle of clause 1 but my concern relates to notices given under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. Although amendment 17 looks like it offers a neat proposal, in fact it sweeps away any reference to a valid notice being given under section 8. The Minister began to give an explanation of why notices given under section 8 are to be swept away, but I fear he did not give us as complete an answer as he may or should have done.

Section 8 notices are important. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith noted, section 21 notices are no-fault notices, whereas section 8 notices are given where there has been fault, where there has been a breach of a tenancy agreement. Section 8 notices are divided into two parts: mandatory and discretionary. If an allegation that a tenant has breached a mandatory obligation is proved, a judge as of right will give a possession order. That is the mandatory part of the notices given under section 8. If it is an allegation under the discretionary part, there is discretion as to whether a judge would make an order for possession. I therefore fear that throwing all section 8 notices out might not have been as wise a move as it looked, because what section 8 and section 21 notices have in common—at least partly—is that they may inevitably lead to a possession order.

Although I note the reasons that the Minister gave for keeping section 21 notices in—they are mandatory, and it is all but likely that they will lead to a possession order in any event—those reasons also apply to the mandatory part of notices given under section 8. Take arrears of rent: if there are two months’ worth of arrears, both when the notice is issued and when the matter arrives at court, a possession order is mandatory, as it is in a no-fault procedure in relation to section 21.

However, I take on board what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said: there might still be a dispute about whether the correct notice has been given under section 21. I have stopped practising—I understand he has, too—but since October 2015, there has been a new regime for section 21 notices. They now have to be done on a mandatory form, whereas under the old system, when I was practising, there was no prescribed form for what a section 21 notice looked like.

I fear that throwing out all section 8 notices narrows things down too much, which is potentially unhelpful for those who inevitably will end up homeless. That is the thrust of clause 1 and why it has been devised: to help those who inevitably will end up homeless by inserting into section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 a change to the definition of homelessness. If it is inevitable that an individual—a tenant—will end up homeless, it is worth looking again at whether the mandatory parts of notices under section 8 should still fall into clause 1 as well.

We all want as many people helped as possible. I said I will come back to finance, but it is relevant in this instance as well. The more people who are helped earlier, the more it will help with the costs to them, local authorities, and housing associations or anyone who needs to take proceedings in court. It will also help in respect of the human cost. My understanding is that the clause’s intention is to help people who are inevitably going to end up homeless, so I ask the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, the Bill’s promoter, to address this point: why have all section 8 notices been taken out, instead of retaining just the mandatory ones, where it is all but inevitable that a possession order will be granted?

I want to make a related point that shows the complexity of the Housing Acts. Perhaps at some stage a Government will be bold enough to look at a consolidation Bill—or perhaps not. Section 89 of the Housing Act 1980 is still in force. It relates to pleas of exceptional hardship, but that would only delay possession and not stop it. It is not a defence; it is only a mechanism to delay the inevitable. Even with that in place, it is still inevitable that people will be made homeless, and therefore help should be provided at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Burrowes]

We are grateful for my hon. Friend’s expertise on this issue. He has spoken about section 8, but section 7 is also not part of the amended clause, so should further consideration be given to including section 7?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I clarify that my hon. Friend means section 7 of the Housing Act 1988?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Section 7 is important, because it states whether possession is mandatory or discretionary. It refers to schedule 2 to the Act, which has 17 parts, the first eight of which list mandatory grounds for possession. The ninth to 17th grounds for possession are discretionary. Section 7 of the 1988 Act, which, if I understand correctly, is what my hon. Friend referred to, is what distinguishes between mandatory grounds and discretionary grounds. I can see he looks slightly puzzled, so perhaps he means something else. If he did mean section 7 of the 1988 Act, it gives effect to schedule 2 and a body of law. Part I of the schedule sets out the mandatory grounds and part II sets out the discretionary grounds. It effectively feeds into notices given and possession proceedings under section 8 of the 1988 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that prevention is always better than cure, but there is also the question of rewarding the right kind of behaviour. We want to encourage people to come to us at the earliest possible opportunity, when they are not in crisis but can foresee a risk of homelessness. Then we can take the most appropriate action. She is right to say that at that early opportunity people have options, but when they reach a crisis they have few, and they are expensive.

To return to the point about which I am concerned, I hope that the Minister can give me comfort on the Government amendment, because this is important. As I have said, I am the first to chastise local authorities or housing authorities that routinely advise tenants to stay in the property, for all the reasons I gave—I recently met representatives of my local housing authority, and I have been a critic of it—but on occasion, that can be the right advice. A hypothetical example might be a local authority that has no option but to rehouse a family out of area that week; it might work with the landlord, and say, “I understand why you have done what you have, that you would like them to leave, and that you have served the section 21 notice, but we are happy to cover the rent, if you are happy for the tenants to stay there for three more weeks, when we know there will be a more suitable property locally.” My concern—this is why I like the original wording—is that we should include conditions in which it could be considered reasonable to stay until the expiry of the possession order.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I invite my hon. Friend to look at my submission on section 8 notices. As he has acknowledged, section 21 notices are no-fault notices, and what he has described, rightly and properly, are cases where tenants have fallen into arrears of rent, which would ordinarily come under a notice served under section 8. If there are sufficient rent arrears, that is a mandatory ground, and therefore homelessness is inevitable, and the case should be caught by the clause. Does he agree?

[Will Quince]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point based on his experience and practice. I hope that the Minister will answer those points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham made a good point about emphasising early intervention. The clause encourages those at risk of homelessness to seek advice at the earliest opportunity, and I worry at the moment about the advice being given to local authorities. This advice disseminates quickly across local authority areas so people know that is being given out and it discourages them from going to the local authority. For example, first and foremost, they will often go to their Member of Parliament, the local council or a citizens advice bureau. If they say the likely advice from the council is this, they will be reluctant to take it. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the crisis point is far too late. We must intervene earlier, which will lead to far fewer people reaching a crisis.

Finally, I want to touch on funding. I was pleased about the funding announcement. As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood rightly pointed out, it would have been helpful to have it sooner, but nevertheless it was useful to have it before this sitting. I welcome the £48 million and, as I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I was interested to read the LGA’s response because, given the fact that it is a membership organisation representing local authorities across the country, I was expecting its response to be, “It’s not enough money.” I expected that response whatever the sum was.

It is hugely to the credit of the Minister and the officials in his Department for using the methodology that the LGA concurs, rightly in my view, is the right one and hence why a rather bland statement does not question the amount of money. It would certainly be worthwhile to review it after two years. Nevertheless it was somewhat disappointing, given the reaction of the LGA, to hear the response from the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Dulwich and West Norwood. There is no indication from the membership body of local authorities—which, incidentally, will be the LHAs implementing the Bill—to suggest that the funding is not sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mackintosh]

I share some of the concerns that have been raised about the timing by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I also share my hon. Friend’s view that the LGA has put forward a much more positive response than anticipated. I agree that there should be a review of the funding formula going forward and I also agree with some of the comments by my colleague on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, that the Bill alone will not solve some of the homelessness issues. The Select Committee recently had evidence sessions with the Director General, Housing and Planning, and questioned her on some of these issues. She rightly pointed out, as I am sure will the Minister, that the Government are planning to publish very soon a White Paper on housing, which may address some of the issues that my colleague on the Select Committee raised. They are valid points, but will not necessarily be addressed in the Bill.

Moving on to the amendments, I am pleased that they have been raised. They help to prevent some unintended consequences. For example, amendment 16 will help to prevent the trauma of people and families being forced to wait for a local authority to get involved and a bailiff to knock at the door, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. In my experience, the sooner a council can start helping, the more help can be offered without a long-term effect on people’s wellbeing or credit rating because of county court judgments. We have heard about that throughout our discussions.

I worry about the effects that we see under the current rules, including tenants being served with eviction notices. I am sure that all hon. Members have dealt with families who have contacted them when faced with eviction, which often comes out of the blue, and as well as the practical challenges there is also huge trauma for people to deal with. They face having to leave their home and often their community or social support networks, perhaps without much notice, and then they face being told by the council that they cannot be helped until they have been physically evicted.

Therefore, I am pleased that amendment 17 allows those households that have received an eviction notice, even if it has not expired, to be treated as “threatened with homelessness”, thereby coming under the duty on local authorities to prevent the household from becoming homeless, as we discussed at length when we considered clause 4. This is a really positive step forwards that will make a huge difference in the future to people facing eviction.

As for the rest of the clause, when the Communities and Local Government Committee started looking into homelessness, we developed a clear idea of things that could be done to help to prevent homelessness. Indeed, other work that has been done by the all-party group on ending homelessness has also fed into the hopes and aspirations that the law will be changed.

However, I must confess that things have moved much faster than I had imagined and we now look forward to this Bill becoming law—hopefully. The Bill being chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has propelled this agenda forward so much quicker than we could have hoped. I am grateful that that is happening, but I also have some questions for the Minister about how the Bill can be implemented, which I hope he can address in his response.

How can local authorities cope with this sudden change in legislation when the Bill becomes law, as anticipated? What lessons can we learn from the changes implemented in Wales and what detailed measures are being put in place to ensure that that best practice is spread as far and wide as possible? How fast can training be put in place, not only for local authority staff but for other staff in the public sector, so that they can properly understand these big changes in the legislation and any new responsibilities they might have to refer people at risk of becoming homeless? Also, I urge the Minister to talk to his counterparts in other Government Departments, to make sure that they are aware of these changes and that that knowledge filters down through them.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I note my hon. Friend’s comments and he has confined them specifically to section 21. I hope that he heard my suggestion about section 8 notices; it may be that there is some policy reason why it cannot be done. However, does he agree that this issue should at least be looked at again, to check that for the mandatory grounds—where possession of a property is all but inevitable—there is a good reason why those section 8 notices should not be brought back in relation to clause 1?

[David Mackintosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue and I did indeed hear the argument he made so eloquently earlier. I am sure that the Minister and his officials also heard it, and that this issue will be looked at properly before we move forward. It is important that we consider all the options available. We have spent a lot of time in Committee debating matters, but I know the Minister is still considering some of those ideas.

As for this clause, I strongly welcome the relative speed at which things have developed, from the Select Committee inquiry to—I hope—a change in the law, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s update on how he can consider implementing in the future some of the changes that we have discussed.

--- Later in debate ---

Section 8 is relevant to the households that we are dealing with, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister in relation to its absence from the revised clause. I also suggest that if dealt with carefully within an amended clause 1, it could also give confidence to landlords and reduce risk.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on this. If there is a substantive reason why section 8 should not form part of clause 1, so be it, but he raises an important example. He mentioned antisocial behaviour, which in fact will fall within the discretionary grounds that are often relied on alongside a lesser outstanding rent. Where two months’ rent or more is outstanding both at the time of the service of the notice and the time of arriving in court, that falls under the mandatory grounds. It is worth looking at it in the round.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, and I look forward to hearing the Minister do that for us. Plainly, the essence of clause 1 is to prevent various local authorities, advice centres and indeed Members of Parliament from being complicit in a failed system by saying simply, “Sorry, nothing can happen until the bailiffs knock on the door.” We are dealing then with crisis management rather than with any kind of prevention. The trigger is the important element. Amendments 16 and 17 seek to change the trigger from an expiry notice under section 21 to the serving of the notice. I know that that has been particularly asked for and welcomed by the Association of Housing Advice Services, which has wanted to ensure early opportunities for prevention.

It is also worth recognising that there are some noises off. Not everyone agrees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East will know. Indeed, such noises off have come his way—and the Select Committee’s way—from his local council. Harrow Council says:

“If applicants are to be considered as homeless as soon as they receive a notice, then local authorities are not going to be able to prevent homelessness…There are at least 14 reasons why a s.21 notice can be invalid and homelessness can be prevented even after a court order using the legal processes and negotiations with a landlord.”

That draws on some of the concerns about the question of a valid notice. The word “valid” was also in clause 1 as originally drafted. No doubt the advice of lawyers and others says that one has to have that word and notices have to be valid. I would nevertheless be interested to hear from my hon. Friend, because his council has expressed concern that notices can be used in a lot of ways.

I understand that notices now cannot simply be used for administrative expediency. There was a time when section 21s were served pretty much when the landlord arrived at the door, as a way of covering all bases. I understand that that has not been allowed since October 2015, but a landlord may try it on, so it is worth ensuring that that bad practice is not allowed, that landlords do not abuse the essence of this trigger and that the notice has proper validity, if I can use that word, and applies genuinely. Section 21 notices have a wide application. Obviously, such a notice being served does not necessarily mean that there is a danger of homelessness, but they will allow the prevention duties to be put in place.

I also want to highlight some of the caution expressed by Crisis, which has been involved in the Bill from an early stage. I understand that Crisis had reservations about amending clause 1. In its briefing note—this draws out the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester about his campaign against a crisis-management approach on receipt of a bailiff notice—it says that the removal of clause 1(2) will preserve

“the status quo—meaning that local authorities should follow the existing Code of Guidance which clearly states that households should be considered homeless if they approach the local authority with an expired section 21 notice.”

The amendments will therefore perhaps leave the door open for local authorities not to follow good practice and for people who are considered homeless being put back in that situation. We need to nail that down and ensure that all authorities are signed up to and delivering on the codes of guidance, empowered by their statutory form, as well as revised clause 1.

On funding, it is worth giving the Minister and the Government a little more encouragement and support. Frankly, without the Bill—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East—we would not have got the extra £48 million, which we should really welcome; it is a significant amount of money. As we have all said from the very beginning, the Bill will not solve homelessness on its own, but it is an important tool in the box and encourages the good practice that is out there to be spread among councils. As I said earlier, good councils will welcome the incentive to do more of what they have been doing with existing funding, and the councils that are not doing anything will be encouraged with a carrot and stick approach. The Minister will no doubt use his codes of practice tool as well as some carrots, including funding, to say, “Get on and do what we all say should happen.”

There should be broad agreement for the additional money, which is welcome, but I recognise the context in which the funding is provided—the LHA freeze and the benefits cap implications. I represent a London constituency that has a deprivation profile that is going in the wrong direction and does not fit in with what we await as a new fairer funding formula. We are going in the wrong direction in being able to catch up with the demands on our borough, not least given the lack of affordable housing. I recognise that context, but the funding should be broadly welcomed none the less.

A lot of figures expressing doom and gloom and fear around the funding implications of the duties in the Bill were thrown around on Second Reading, which I think was based on a reading of an old draft Bill rather than the new position. My local authority joined in with that. It is important for local authorities to be up to speed and to recognise that the Bill’s methodology is far removed from that in the Select Committee report, which was based on Bedford Borough Council’s methodology. That council said itself that:

“Using a simple extrapolation model based on the Council’s existing footfall and the range of tools currently available to the Council to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Council would see a tripling of its costs incurred in discharging the duties under the draft bill. This would see an additional £1 million of cost to the Council.”

Unless councils were looking at this carefully, they were making assumptions on funding, such as Bedford saying staffing levels would need to increase by 50%, or the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea estimating that it would cost £1.22 million to comply with the new duty to assess and £2.37 million for the duty to help secure accommodation. I know time has been short since the ministerial statement, but it is important that local authorities look at the current funding in the context of the Government’s methodology, rather than relying on their simple extrapolation model.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Was my hon. Friend as reassured as I that the Government looked at funding compared with Wales, which already has similar legislation, and made assumptions on that basis? These are significant figures that are based on fact, rather than, dare I say it, just plucking out figures that sound rather inflated.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, and those costs were the exact homelessness spends by local authorities taken from the data submitted by local authorities on P1E forms that are used for the Government’s homelessness statistics. Research by Shelter and Acclaim also helped to inform the costs of prevention actions and of an acceptance. That, together with recognising that there are no doubt differential costs from area to area, is an important part of the reflection in the formula.

On the assumptions, I take issue with the shadow Minister, who took a very gloomy view. He cannot have it both ways. I still expect that there is cross-party support for the principle of the Bill and the fact that it will improve prevention, advice and support for those threatened with homelessness across the country. We cannot sign up to that, but say that is not going to have any effect. It is bound to have an effect over the number of years.

The Government’s assumption is that they will not simply go along in a simplistic way, as they perhaps could have done. Wales saw a 69% decrease in homelessness acceptances in the first year of having its legislation, although I recognise that there are differences in housing supply. We are going to get somewhere near that. The assumption is that there will be a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances over three years. If the Bill has not led to a 30% decrease in homelessness acceptances in a three-year period, we will be really disappointed. We will not have done a proper job in passing a Bill that is fit for purpose and achieves that. Aside from the funding issue, if it has not practically done that there will be some serious questions to answer.

If there is not a review by the Government, no doubt the Select Committee will be asking some serious questions. If it does not achieve that, why not? It certainly should not come from a lack of funding, so we need to ensure that that is in place. The Government’s other assumption is that Wales saw a 28% increase in costs, so the sensible assumption for England is a 26% increase. That is a fairly reasonable assumption to make.

--- Later in debate ---

I think that the hon. Member for Hammersmith mentioned that the prime reason why many households find themselves homeless is the end of a private sector tenancy. According to the last figures that I saw, some 41% of homelessness applications arise as a result of that. It is the main trigger for a statutory homelessness acceptance. This provision will help to ensure that more of those who are at risk of becoming homeless will receive the right support at the right time and, we hope, an offer of accommodation before the end of the tenancy so that the household can move seamlessly from one property to another without becoming homeless at all.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has mentioned private landlords, but he has not as yet mentioned section 8, which of course does not come within the terms of our discussion. I fear that I am pressing this too hard, but I would welcome his explanation as to why a scaled-down version of the original drafting could not be acceptable to all sides. This is obviously a balancing act: we need to cater for landlords as well as tenants. I am completely aware of that, but can he envisage a situation in which a scaled-down version of the original drafting, which just narrowed the scope to the mandatory provisions under a section 8 notice, would be acceptable to all sides?

[Bob Blackman]

I noted during my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution earlier his very detailed knowledge of the technical issues of housing law.

In the various meetings, we considered the different aspects of section 21 and section 8 and whether we could reach a compromise that would satisfy all parties. The drawback, if we set out all the procedures—almost a flow chart—in the Bill, is that unfortunately we cannot address every single reason why someone becomes homeless; we cannot set out every position in relation to section 8 or section 21 notices. Obviously, what we want to do is to make it clear that the position will be that on receipt of a valid section 21 notice or, indeed, section 8 notice, the local authority will treat that as a means of starting the process of combating the threat of homelessness. That is the clear message that I want to impart as promoter of the Bill. We do not want landlords to have to go off and wait and go through a lengthy legal process, which is of no benefit to them or the tenants and, in the long run, costs the local authority substantial amounts of money when it has to put a homeless family who are in priority need into temporary accommodation. This is one of the issues that we looked at in considerable detail. I will not go on too much about this issue and the various discussions that we had. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that we looked at this in detail and concluded that the way to reach a compromise was to accept the Minister’s amendments.

A planned amendment to clause 4 will also ensure greater continuity of help between the prevention and relief duties for households during the eviction process, if such a process follows. I hope that we never get to families being evicted but recognise that we cannot solve all those problems in one go.

I welcome the commitment to provide stronger encouragement for people to engage early through the forms used in the section 21 process and the “How to Rent” guide that the Department has published.

The intention is to recognise that prevention is vital to tackling homelessness. The earlier someone gets help, the less likely they are to end up in crisis. The clause works with the rest of the Bill, which should be seen as an entire package, and with current legislation in placing more emphasis on prevention, encouraging people to seek help at an early stage.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

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

[Andy Slaughter]

It is a pleasure to open today’s proceedings on this important Bill that, if passed, will mark a sea change in the way in which homelessness is treated in this country. This is a rare creature—a private Member’s Bill with a hope of success. I should not tempt fate this early in proceedings, but I cannot see the usual suspects sitting behind the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the promoter of the Bill, so I am already encouraged.

I think that the Bill has support from all parties. Importantly it has the support of the Government; otherwise, I suspect that we would not have got this far. We should not forget the good work that the Communities and Local Government Committee and its Chair have done in support of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the promoter of the Bill, who now knows more about the intricacies of homelessness law than he perhaps ever wanted to.

There are matters still to be resolved but—and I say this advisedly—I hope that, as far as this House is concerned, they can all be resolved this morning. For my part, I do not intend to go on at length. Although certain important matters need to be covered, I hope that in the time we have available today, the Bill will be able to complete all its stages.

Let me be clear from the outset that I do not intend to press new clauses 2 and 3 to a Division. I am hopeful that when the Minister speaks, I will hear words that will encourage me not to press new clause 1. One interesting feature of the Bill has been that we have had constructive discussions about it—outside the Committee, of course; not in it, as that would not be at all appropriate. My last email to the Minister was sent at about 11 pm last night. I appreciate that that might have been past his bedtime and he has not had time to respond, but we are getting where we want to go.

New clause 1 deals with perhaps the central unresolved issue, which relates not to the content of the Bill— we will come to that when we consider the Government’s amendments—but to its implementation and, in particular, whether the resources that the Government have set aside are sufficient. New clauses 2 and 3 are also important because they address what stands behind the Bill—the fact that legislation of itself will not tackle the homelessness crisis. To be fair to the promoter of the Bill, he has at all stages said that that that is the case, and he repeated it in his article that has been published on PoliticsHome.com this morning. I appreciate that, but we cannot look at the Bill in a vacuum; we have to look at the surrounding circumstances. Nothing illustrates that better than the figures on rough sleeping that were released two days ago, which revealed a shocking 16% increase year on year. More than 4,000 people are now sleeping rough on the streets of the UK. One rough sleeper is one too many, and what should alarm the House in particular is the fact this is a crisis that does not need to exist.

Under the previous Labour Government, rough sleeping fell by three quarters, because of direct Government intervention and co-ordination with not only local authorities, but the many fine homelessness charities, which also stand behind the Bill. This crisis is solvable, but the fact that street homelessness has gone up by more than 130% since 2010—under the coalition Government and now under this Government—really should shame the Government. We are here to pass an important Bill, but that does not get them off the hook.

I must strike one small note of discord: we do not want this to become a battle about who is more in favour of the Bill. The promoter’s article mentioned the danger of the Bill being delayed because of our new clauses. There must be a lot of confused pots and kettles out there, given that the Government have tabled 21 complicated amendments that no one would wish to consider on Report—they should have been taken in Committee. I am hopeful that we can deal with them, but the point is that it is not unreasonable or irrational for the Opposition to take a little time to debate important principles.

In Committee, Government Members spoke for two and a half times as long as Opposition Members. I realise that there were one or two more of them, unfortunately—

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

In a moment.

We all—even I—must sometimes curb our prolixity, and we were very disciplined in Committee. We withdrew many new clauses and amendments before the Christmas break to speed the passage of the Bill. Even though my colleagues in Committee had huge expertise and a lot to say, we were very disciplined. I wish that I could say the same for the Minister and Government Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson).

[Michael Tomlinson]

It was a great pleasure to serve in Committee with the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to hear that he is still in favour of the Bill and that it still attracts cross-party support. Today he can rely on my discipline and, I am sure, that of all colleagues to ensure that the Bill goes through.

[Andy Slaughter]

Excellent. I am sure that those rousing words will be followed by action. That might even be the last we hear from the hon. Gentleman today.

I do not want to labour the point, but we should have been able to get through the Bill in less time, notwithstanding the fact that it is an important and, for a private Member’s Bill, quite long Bill. It is considerably longer than the Bill that we will debate next week, although I suspect our consideration of that one will take rather longer.

It is regrettable that this Bill spent so long in Committee, but we know why it did: the Government were filibustering in order to keep the parliamentary boundaries Bill, which is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), out of Committee. I am not saying that we do not all play these tricks from time to time; I am just saying that we should not start pointing the finger over who is to blame for delaying the Bill, and instead get on with this now.

I want to deal with the point about money. Right at the beginning of our Committee stage, the Minister said, “I hope to tell you before the end of Committee how much money there will be.” The Government gave a welcome commitment to fund the additional costs fully—there will be substantial additional costs on local authorities, and under the new burdens doctrine, the money has to come from central Government—but we waited week after week with bated breath to find out what money there would be. He kept his promise—just—and at the last moment, some money came forward. It was not a negligible sum: about £48 million over two years. However, that amount must be compared with the sensible estimates from individual local authorities and their collective bodies, such as the Local Government Association and London Councils. For example, while £37 million or £38 million has been set aside for the first year of the Bill’s implementation, London Councils estimates that the cost will be about £160 million. There is therefore a massive disparity in the figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, the problem is clearly greater in some areas than in others. The precedent for the Bill is legislation passed by the Labour-run Government of Wales, which has already been successful: there have been substantial falls in homelessness. Of course there are parts of Wales where there is a real crisis, as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom, but there are also hotspots, and the big cities, particularly London, are hotspots.

We cannot rely on the example of Wales. It is still possible in many Welsh authorities for accommodation to be made available to people including those who are not in priority need. In London boroughs—and, I suspect, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and many others—that opportunity disappeared years ago, and the reverse is now the case. We spent some time in Committee talking about the disgraceful attitude of Westminster Council, which is sending its homeless people quite literally to Coventry, and I fear that other boroughs are doing exactly the same. That is the difficulty with which we are grappling.

I am not going to labour the point. We want assurances, which we believe new clause 1 would deliver, that the full funding of the Bill’s implementation by local authorities for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has rightly asked will be provided. Yes, the Government have made a start, and, yes, I think that we shall hear more about money today, given that some of the Government amendments will involve additional costs. We are pleased with what has been done so far, but we must have that funding, because otherwise the Bill will fail, and local authorities will be in an even more parlous state.

Let me now deal briefly with new clauses 2 and 3. We could have tabled a great many more new clauses illustrating the same point, which is that the Bill’s provisions cannot be seen in a vacuum. We all welcome the greater concentration on prevention to which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred, and we also welcome the new relief duties requiring local authorities to assist homeless people who are not in priority need. However, the pattern of homelessness is utterly bleak, and that is a perfect storm which, I am afraid, derives from the Government’s own actions or inactions.

The first problem, as the new clauses make clear, is the crisis in the private rented sector. The huge inflation in rents over the past few years has meant that many private landlords take advantage of the “no fault” eviction process for which the Housing Act 1988 provides. They say to people, “You are on benefit, and I can get a higher rent from someone else”, or they simply say, “I want a different tenant and I do not have to give any reason, so off you go.” Provided that the payments are in order, the consequence of that swift process, with no argument to the contrary, is that many thousands of people present themselves to local authorities as homeless. I believe that more than 40% of homelessness cases are caused by private sector evictions, with all the misery that they bring.

Again, however, the problem is not insoluble. The inclusion of new clauses 2 and 3 would make a significant difference. This is a modest proposal. I am suggesting that if there were longer tenancies—three-year tenancies—and if, within the period of those tenancies, there were controls over the levels of rent increases, we would end the present chaotic market in evictions in which landlords bid against each other.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting this point. I will pass over the typo in line four of his new clause 2 and simply ask: does he remember from the Bill Committee that the average length of tenancies was in fact four years, yet in his new clause 2 he refers merely to three years? Does he not accept that there also needs to be a balance, to encourage sufficient landlords?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I think the whole House would expect the Government to recognise that there will be extra cost pressures on local authorities and, given the commitment that they have made, to continue to fund these measures in the years to come.

One of the problems with new clause 1 is that it proposes a review after a fixed period of time, and then that would be it. That is not an acceptable way forward. I want the Government to keep this matter continually under review, and I am sure that the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee and the rest of its members, who are joint sponsors of the Bill, will ensure that the Minister—or whoever is the Minister at the time—continues to have their feet held to the fire.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Long may he reign.

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed, but this Minister cannot commit his successor to maintaining a particular position. However, we on the Select Committee will keep this matter under review. We will scrutinise the level of activity and the funding that follows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 1. This is my first speech on this important Bill, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on introducing it. He has done so with great persuasion and has performed an important service for us all. I also congratulate both Front-Bench teams on working constructively to bring the Bill to this point.

I support the Bill but, as good as it goes, we will be kidding ourselves today if we leave this House, pat ourselves on the back and believe that the House has done everything that it could to tackle an emergency that is unfolding before our eyes. I chose to speak in today’s debate to reflect the rising concern among my constituents in Leigh—a concern that is shared widely in Greater Manchester—that an increasing number of people can be seen huddling in doorways across the region. People will not just walk on by; they do not accept that things have to be like this. Homelessness and rough sleeping are not inevitable facts of life in 2017. Our society is wealthy enough to ensure that nobody should spend a night without a roof over their head. We need new urgency on both sides of the House to bring forward appropriate action to address the situation.

If there is a problem with the Bill, it is that it goes nowhere near far enough to tackle the scale of the problem. It does not address the wider cross-governmental work that is necessary to provide an appropriate response. Let us take a reality check. The Minister will be aware of the figures that came out this week showing a 16% rise in rough sleeping over the past year—my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) referenced that in his opening remarks. Since 2010, rough sleeping has doubled across England and is increasing at an alarming rate. The problem is even worse in Greater Manchester, with a 41% increase in the past year across the 10 boroughs. According to local officials, that figure does not reflect the full picture. They believe that at least 300 people across Greater Manchester will spend tonight out on the streets. That is simply unacceptable, and I have not heard from the Government what they are doing about that. What are they doing now to help people find warmth and shelter?

As I said, the number of people rough sleeping has doubled, but the Bill will not reverse that trend and our eyes need to be open to that. I support new clause 1, because urgency is crucial in this debate. We need a clear commitment to review what is happening. I take the point of the hon. Member for Harrow East, but we all know that timetables shift after a Minister at the Dispatch Box commits to review something. The civil service will say, “We will review it in the autumn,” and that becomes the winter and then the spring. That is what happens, but it is not good enough. The problem is bigger than that. We need clarity and certainty. There should be a commitment to review how the legislation is working—both whether it is reducing homelessness and whether the Government are giving councils adequate funding.

For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) a moment ago, I do not believe that the funding is adequate. I differ from my Front-Bench team here in that I think the review should take place within one year. We need more urgency. Although I expect the Bill to have a modest but welcome impact on homelessness, I believe that an annual review would reveal that it goes nowhere near addressing the scale of the problem and that Government funding for councils is inadequate. We must remember that most of the funding comes next year and then reduces sharply in the year after. In the third year, there is nothing at all. I do not want to wait until the third year to find out whether the legislation is working. The review should be conducted within 12 months.

We need to hear much more from the Government. If they want to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, there must be a cross-Government response. When Labour was in government, we established a rough sleepers unit, bringing together all the Departments with a role to play. I do not see that level of cross-Government working here. In addition to that commitment to work across Government, we need a clear ambition. What is the Government’s ambition on rough sleeping? I am not aware of one. Rough sleeping is increasing at an alarming rate, so what are they going to do about it? Will they reverse that trend? Will they make the same commitment that I have made in Greater Manchester that we should work to eradicate rough sleeping by 2020? [Interruption.] It is all very well the Minister looking the other way and talking to his colleagues, but what is he going to do about rough sleeping now and in the next few years? What is the Government’s ambition? Are they committed to reversing the increase? Will they go further and eliminate rough sleeping? We need to hear about that from the Minister today. I do not want to inject a partisan note into this debate, but we will be doing nobody any favours if we sit here today and think that the Bill, as good as it is, is enough. The Bill will not reverse the looming cuts to housing benefit.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The right hon. Gentleman admits that he did not sit on the Bill Committee and that he did not contribute on Second Reading. Had he done so, he would have seen the cross-party nature of proceedings. While I am sure that his points are relevant to new clauses 1, 2 and 3, they will not attract the same cross-party support that has to date been the nature of the Bill.

[Andy Burnham]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There is cross-party support. I support the Bill—the hon. Member for Harrow East and the Government have my support today—but I am entitled to speak for the people who will be on the streets of Greater Manchester and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency tonight. I am entitled to give them a voice in this House. The Bill will not change their situation or reduce rough sleeping anytime soon, so who is speaking for them? It is unacceptable for the House to debate homelessness in a cosy way without facing the reality that rough sleeping is rising at an alarming rate. What is the Minister doing about that? The House and, more importantly, the people out there on the cold streets deserve an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), with whom I served on the Bill Committee. It is right that we pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—he will be blushing all afternoon, I am sure. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) might be right that this process will be the model of how to get difficult legislation through in a private Member’s Bill. All the praise that has been given is due.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith invited me to exercise iron discipline today. In fact, he invited me not to speak at all, but that would have been a step too far. However, I will exercise discipline, not least because as you will have noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, my Bills appear on the Order Paper at positions 3 and 4. I am sure you will be interested to hear that my speech on Bill No. 4 refers to cricket in some detail, so it would be a shame indeed if we were not to get to that. Pages 3 to 5 of my speech are beautiful prose about cricket, and the House will be disappointed if we do not get to those Bills this afternoon.

I want to sound a note of caution. I was disappointed by one speech this afternoon—that from the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is no longer in the Chamber. I was disappointed because it sounded more like a campaign speech than points about new clauses 1 to 3. It might be that he misunderstood the situation because he was not here on Second Reading and did not have the benefit of sitting on the Bill Committee. He was wrong when he said that there was a cosy consensus. There is cross-party support for the Bill, but there were robust debates in Committee involving exchanges from both sides to ensure that the Bill got through.

If there was consensus, it was on one fact. I believe that every member of the Bill Committee, and every single individual in the Chamber, shares the same view—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Hammersmith have mentioned this—that one person sleeping rough is one person too many. If there is a cosy consensus around that, so be it; I stand guilty as charged.

Moving on from that one sour note, let me say that it was a huge pleasure to serve on the Committee. This was my first private Member’s Bill Committee, and if they are all like that Committee, they will be a pleasure indeed.

We cannot pat ourselves on the back at this stage because there is more work to be done as the Bill goes through the Lords. I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that this is but one step—it is not the complete answer—and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made the same point. The Bill is not the whole answer, but it is a big step in the right direction.