Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Debate between Natalie Elphicke and Bob Blackman

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman]

I should say from the outset that I agree with the thrust of the amendment, but we need to look at the issue in some detail to ensure that it reflects exactly what we are seeking to do in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East will not press this to a vote. We will seek assurances from the Minister about what can be done to ensure that we enforce these regulations on local authorities and that we have proper standards.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Chair of the Select Committee is right to raise the issue of how housing standards can be enforced in this important area, particularly as they affect vulnerable people. I ask the Minister to consider whether the connection of the financial payment—that relationship with DWP extra support payments, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North rightly raised—could be part of the mechanism. We know that local authorities, even with resources, have struggled with rogue landlords and to really enforce housing standards in other ways. I encourage the thinking about financial as well as enforcement powers.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are a number of different existing models. Many local authorities pay the rent through housing benefit for a tenant to live in supported accommodation. There can then be a discretionary social services element, provided under a contract by the local authority to the housing provider, in order to provide support. It is a very complex area, as my hon. Friend knows. We must get this right; there could be unforeseen circumstances if we are too prescriptive at this stage. It may well be that the detail has to be set out in regulations as the consultation process and the regulations that follow from the Bill go through. I do not think it would be sensible at this stage to agree to the amendment. I trust we will get some assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister in that respect.

The clause requires appropriate supported housing standards to be followed, introduced and enforced by the local authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North said—his points were well made—people should be living in reasonable accommodation suitable to their needs. That is part and parcel of setting out what the standards should be. That does not mean the sort of things we saw in Birmingham, with its scandalous elements: where a three-bedroom house is suddenly turned into an eight-bedroom house, with a small kitchen and small living area, and people are crammed in without any support whatever; where there is no control over the type of people put into these houses or their needs; and where someone fleeing domestic violence, a recovering drug addict, someone who has left prison for sexual offences and others can all be accommodated within the same unit, without any consideration of their separate needs and responsibilities. We need to set the standards out.

Amendment 2 relates to the Secretary of State reporting back. We look forward to the Minister still being in place by the time we get the Bill on the statute book, although I notice that here we have an ex-Minister, who began the process, and another ex-Minister, who is now my Whip—we have had three Ministers already, during the course of the Bill’s proceedings. We need to make sure that we are making progress and that we are implementing the provisions. I look forward to some warm words, a firm contribution and a commitment from my hon. Friend the Minister, to make sure that we get action in this area quickly, expeditiously and appropriately as well as a commitment that, if we do not get that action, Ministers will come back and tell us why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, this is one of areas that was a concern when we produced the Bill—that, in the end, someone could be classified as being intentionally homeless if they object to the conditions that they are in, or anything else.

The other aspect that we have not brought out during this process but needs to be spelled out is that rogue landlords have a direct incentive for the individuals in their services not to improve their lot. If they were to have the temerity to actually go and get a job and get some income, they would be forced out, because they would no longer be entitled to enhanced housing benefit. We must address that scandal as well.

The key point is that tenants can be assured that if they have a complaint to make, they should go ahead and make it and draw to the attention of the local authorities, or the individuals operating the licensing regime, that their position is that their accommodation is not acceptable and needs to be improved. The landlords should not be holding them literally to ransom.

Clause 9 gives the reassurance that someone can go to their local authority and leave the premises they are in on the basis of it not being suitable to their needs—it is damp, mouldy, or in whatever condition—and that the local authority will then need to look at their circumstances appropriately. They would then be dealt with under normal homelessness legislation, so would not be “intentionally homeless” and would be able to gain support from the local authority.

I commend these two very important clauses to the Committee.

[Mrs Elphicke]

I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want briefly to explore the new provision on homelessness, the intent of which I wholeheartedly support.

The Bill has been introduced with a focus on the outrageous examples of rogue landlords, who must be dealt with. However, as we have explored in the Select Committee review, and in my own experience, some of the more mainstream providers, who we would otherwise think would be good providers in this space, have had situations in which they did not provide the right level of supported care for very vulnerable people. I want to explore with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East whether, in respect of the provision about whether the standard of care support and supervision is provided, the issue would be in the opinion of the person to whom the support or care is provided, rather than in the organisation’s opinion.

Let me give two brief illustrative examples. First, in my prior life I volunteered with a homeless night shelter. I worked in homeless support for a number of years. In the Dover Outreach Centre, which is a fantastic example of this kind of support, in a number of cases people found themselves back in homelessness because a respected local organisation that supports drug, alcohol and other situations found that those people were not suitable for their programmes and removed them from that accommodation after incidents of repeated alcohol or drug abuse. In such a situation, people need additional support or other organisations to help them; they are still in need, still vulnerable and still homeless. I am keen to ensure that the obligation to support would extend to situations where the programme that has been provided has not achieved the outcome of keeping that person from homelessness and has not got them on the road to being in a home.

My second point is that the son of a constituent of mine recently committed suicide, having been thrown out of supported exempt housing—again, in a situation where they had both physical and mental health needs. It was a complex situation, as is not unusual, and the case is subject to a coroner’s investigation, so I will not comment on the detail further, except to say again that if we are looking to ensure that there is a safety net of support for people in vulnerable housing and care situations, can we make sure that the legislation deals with those sorts of real-life situations, which can occur even in the best organised supported housing provider?