Supported Housing

Debate between Richard Graham and Peter Aldous

Thursday 18th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is no longer in his place, but I congratulate him and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on securing this debate through their efforts, and those of their Committee members, to produce their groundbreaking and constructive report of 1 May 2017.

I welcome the new Minister, and pay tribute to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for his work over the past 18 months in helping us to move towards the goal that we are all striving for: that of putting the future funding of supported housing on a secure, sustainable and long-term footing. It is vital to do that if we are not to let down vulnerable groups, whether they are elderly, young, have physical disabilities, are fleeing domestic violence, or face mental health challenges and anguish. The demand for such care and support is rising, because we have an ageing population, and increasing levels of mental ill health and learning disabilities.

This is a difficult task, as the sector is made up of many sub-groups with different challenges and needs. It is necessary to do a lot of background work, to listen to the views of all interested parties, and to make proposals that will stand the test of time and help to secure much-needed investment in the sector.

It is important to recognise the good work that many people and organisations have done over the past 18 months. Providers, charities and their representatives have participated in consultations and have provided the Government, MPs, and peers with well-reasoned proposals. Credit is due to the Government for carrying out the first evidence-based review for 20 years, and for conducting two consultations in which they fully engaged with the sector. They listened to their concerns and have set up task and finish groups.

The Government have also provided a significant amount of money for supported housing schemes, such as the shared ownership and affordable homes programme, the care and support specialised housing fund, and funding for women and girls fleeing domestic violence. It is also important to recognise the very influential joint report of the Select Committees. They did a great deal of listening and thinking, and they have come up with constructive proposals that significantly move forward the complicated process of finding the right solutions.

It is appropriate to highlight the work that Lord Best, Housing and Care 21, Riverside, the Home Group and Hanover Housing Association did to analyse data from approximately 43,000 supported housing and older people’s tenancies across the United Kingdom, to demonstrate that the Select Committees’ supported housing allowance proposal represented a viable and workable approach.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend has been doing a great job on this subject for a long time, as other Members have said. When Lord Best and the five supported housing providers, including Riverside, analysed some of that data, they were very supportive of the Government’s principle that there should be some control of costs in the sector, and of having diversity in approaches, recognising that costs vary substantially across the country. We hope that that will be reflected in the Government’s eventual position. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Peter Aldous]

I do. That illustrates the point that the big challenge is in how to respond to local needs but not, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, create a postcode lottery effect.

The Government’s revised proposals, which they announced at the end of October, were generally a step in the right direction. I hope that through the consultation that closes next week, it will be possible to address the outstanding concerns, so that the Government can arrive at a funding scheme that we can all support.

Like colleagues, I received many briefings before the debate, and I will highlight some of the feedback. The Home Group, which is active in the north-east, Cornwall and East Anglia, including Lowestoft in my constituency, advised me that the Government’s October announcements gave it the increased confidence that it needed to get on with building supported housing services. It announced a £50 million investment package, which will commence in March, for three new supported housing schemes in Havant, Calderdale and Scarborough. It advised that the removal of the local housing allowance cap enabled it to commit to those developments, but it emphasised that it is vital that the detail of the new supported and sheltered housing funding proposals—such as the service charge cap—does not undermine the development of additional capacity, which we desperately need.

The Home Group believes that the overarching policy direction in this consultation is the right one; there is differentiation between short-term, sheltered and extra care, and long-term supported housing, which enables providers like it to design different funding mechanisms that cover legitimate costs. It recognises the diverse nature of its client groups in the sector. It stresses that it is essential that the three models work coherently alongside one another, as a pathway. As one of the UK’s largest providers, it works nationally with customer groups that fall into each of the three funding models. A customer may come to a service due to crisis, and thus will be eligible for short-term funding; however, they may depend on long-term support. It is therefore essential that a customer can move seamlessly through the pathway, and that a single scheme can efficiently incorporate two or more of the funding models.

We have heard that providers’ main concern with the proposals is about short-term housing. Those who have raised worries include the National Housing Federation, Anchor, Hanover Housing, Housing and Care 21, Riverside, YMCA, St Mungo’s, the Salvation Army, the Supported Housing Alliance, Rethink Mental Illness, and Emmaus, which has a community in Norfolk, near Bungay, which serves my constituency. The long list tells a story.

Riverside, St Mungo’s, YMCA and the Salvation Army have highlighted three concerns. First, the ring-fenced local authority block grants do not provide the same protections and rights for those living in short-term supported housing as for those living in long-term supported housing. They regard that as a backward step and a return to an institutional model. Secondly, they highlight that the proposed policy is moving in the opposite direction from universal credit, which seeks to encourage independence, with claimants managing their own housing costs. Thirdly, they point out that a discretionary local funding system would not provide the assurance required by providers seeking either to develop much-needed new schemes or to invest in the necessary upgrading and repairing of facilities.

Generally, funders lend on a 30-year basis, and the current model of benefit-backed rental income has enabled the sector to borrow significant sums at highly competitive rates. In contrast, local authority contracts normally last between three and five years only; that will not provide the necessary security of revenue to obtain private finance. There is no guarantee that ring fences will remain in place; indeed, recent history suggests that they are dismantled pretty quickly.

Fourthly, although authorities already commission services that reflect local needs, the proposals will extend this commissioning approach to housing costs, including rent and service charges. That will make providers completely reliant on local authorities for all funding. There is a worry that housing providers’ loss of independence will undermine sector viability and stifle innovation. Already, an example has been brought to my attention of a local authority specifically requesting, in tenders, that housing costs be reduced.

Finally, the organisations point out that establishing a new funding system for short-term supported housing requires complex arrangements that impose expensive administrative burdens and bureaucracy on local authorities. Their alternative proposal, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration, is threefold. First, they propose that housing costs remain in the welfare system. Secondly, instead of devising a complicated new funding system, the Government should review the administration of universal credit, and in particular the speed with which claims are administered, so that it can work better for cases of short stays. Thirdly, in services where the typical length of stay is such that universal credit cannot cover housing costs—for example, where the stay is a matter of days or weeks as opposed to months—localised funding should be an option. This localised funding model could help with the wait for housing costs to be met during the initial assessment period.

There has already been mention in the debate of the need, highlighted by the National Housing Federation, to tighten the definition of short-term services in the consultation paper. It is very wide and should be tightened, so that it is clear that the local system covers short-term emergency accommodation, where people stay for a period of weeks, rather than months. That would be in line with the recommendation in the joint report, and it would make the system fit better with universal credit.

Supported Housing Funding

Debate between Richard Graham and Peter Aldous

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. It is quite clear from the feedback from organisations around the country such as Riverside—I have met Riverside staff—that there are serious problems.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The report that my hon. Friend referred to, which the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and I co-chaired, made recommendations that would deal with two or three of the comments that have been made by Members so far, particularly by having a new supported housing allowance with four relatively modestly differentiated regional bands, which would deal with the point about not needing local authority top-ups. Does he agree that, if the Government were to go ahead and accept those recommendations, it is also important that they hold to account housing associations and others to ensure that the provision is of a consistent quality throughout the country?

[Peter Aldous]

I agree with that point and I also thank my hon. Friend, because I am aware that he played a key role in the report from the joint Select Committees.

The Associated Retired Community Operators, which is the main trade body representing the retirement community sector, has also expressed concerns.

State Pension Age (Women)

Debate between Richard Graham and Peter Aldous

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

In fact, the Committee had that discussion and we heard evidence from Women Against State Pension Inequality, which is a good, reasonable and sensible campaign. On the whole, its evidence to the Committee focused on the issue of communication, partly so that lessons can be learned so that when future announcements are made about what will happen in 10 years’ time, they are communicated effectively to those who will be affected. We do not want to end up in a similar situation in 10 years’ time, with another generation of women complaining about not knowing.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, hope that when the Minister sums up he will address the failure of the communication strategy since 1995 and right up to the current day? A constituent of mine was told in October that they had qualified for their state pension, but a few weeks later they were told that they had another three years to go. We really need to address that problem.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am sure the Minister will comment on communication. As I said in the debate in December, there are clear lessons and it would be good to have future changes clarified. I know that a further review is planned in 2017, and longevity continues to increase. The average life expectancy for women, as projected by the Office for National Statistics, has already increased by 2.6 years since the 1995 proposals, and Adair Turner, whose report led to the consensus that this House held for many years, said not very long ago that, if he had done the report now, he would have planned for faster changes to state pension ages.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South rightly said that at some point we will want to discuss the effect of the future state pension on women. In answer to her point about discrimination against women, I think it is really important that all Members and our constituents are aware that the new state pension will be much fairer to women than the old system. National insurance credits will be given for years taken out of work for caring or for bringing up a family. This is the first time this has happened in the history of the pension—it is a really important point. It will give women the same entitlement as they would get from national insurance contributions through earnings. That is a significant change and I would have thought that those Members who tabled the motion would want to allude to it.

Future of Town Centres and High Streets

Debate between Richard Graham and Peter Aldous

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I pay tribute to Mary Portas for the hard work, passion and imagination that she put into her report.

We have heard about the challenges that town centres face from out-of-town food stores, retail parks and the internet. Poor town planning has also played a role in the decline of town centres, whether in granting planning permission for out-of-town stores in the wrong places on inappropriate terms, by making town centres inaccessible and difficult to reach by car or public transport, or by doing little to prevent the rise of “same street” syndrome and clone towns throughout the country.

To halt that decline, town centres should be able to compete on a level playing field. We have heard about the importance of retaining the “town centre first” policy. Moreover, Mary Portas points out that the high street can be a hard place in which to trade. We need to make it easier, with fewer rules, regulations and restrictions, and a more balanced tax and rating system.

As for parking, in some towns, such as in Lowestoft in my constituency, the council, working with town centre shops, has put in place more customer-friendly car parking arrangements. However, the Government still need to do more.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what Gloucester city council has done, which is to reduce parking charges to £1 an hour, is exactly the sort of proactive work by local government that we need to help revitalise interest in our city centres?

[Peter Aldous]

I welcome that intervention, and I agree. Councils across the country are doing what they can, but the Government can do more. They should look at how parking at out-of-town stores is assessed for rating purposes. As a chartered surveyor, I do not believe that the current valuation approach truly reflects the value of that car parking to out-of-town retailers and the rateable values should be raised, with the additional funds generated being used to reduce car parking charges in town centres.

With rates, councils should be provided with more discretion over the discounts that they can offer, ratepayers should be able to spread their payments over 12 months rather than 10 months, and the anomaly whereby business rates are increased annually in line with the RPI, rather than the CPI, must be corrected as soon as possible.

Another challenge that needs to be addressed is the fact that there is a lot of unused space in town centres, both at ground and upper levels. We need to make it easier for that accommodation to be put to alternative uses, such as much-needed dwellings, doctors’ surgeries, gyms or other community uses. The use classes order, which for so long has acted as a straitjacket, should be relaxed and local councils liaising with local communities should have more discretion about what activities should be allowed.

In Kirkley in Lowestoft in my constituency, Desmond does not have a barrow in the marketplace; he has a superb coffee shop, with unique decor and a “Hancock’s Half-Hour” collection to rival the BBC’s. An episode is played at 10 am each day. Desmond wants to expand to provide hot food, but at present he cannot do so, as his use would be in the same use class as a kebab shop. That issue needs to be addressed.

Many town centres, including Lowestoft, are blighted by unkempt and dilapidated buildings that discourage people from going there. Councils should be given more compulsory purchase order powers to address such problem properties, and they should be able to serve empty shops management orders.

I agree with Mary Portas that markets should be encouraged. Markets were the procreators of town centres and they have an important role to play in their future. People like browsing around a marketplace. Markets bring people into a town, they provide an opportunity to showcase products or skills, and they give entrepreneurs the opportunity to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder that can lead to running their own business. Across the country, there are too many rules and regulations, too many hoops to jump through, before a market can be set up. Those need to be removed, and to be replaced with a presumption of favour of the right to trade.

Out-of-town parks have a major advantage over town centres in that they are in one ownership, subject to one management regime, with one common purpose. In the town centre there are many players and many stakeholders, with different goals and objectives. We need to help them come together to work as one to promote town centres, as they are doing in my constituency in Lowestoft, Beccles and Bungay. Business improvement districts, for which preparatory work is currently taking place in Lowestoft, can help as well, as can Mary Portas’s proposals for town teams.

In conclusion, Mary Portas’s report has highlighted a problem that is faced across the country, and this debate has helped move the discussion forward. I look forward to the Minister’s summing up and I urge the Government to respond to the report as a priority, so that we can all get on with the important task of bringing life and prosperity back to the country’s high streets.

Seagulls (Coastal Towns)

Debate between Richard Graham and Peter Aldous

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I will be coming to that subject. He is correct; at the moment, nuisance as such is not something that enables one to take appropriate measures. It might be appropriate to change the law, and I will come to that point.

As I said, gulls make a distinctive, piercing sound, and in certain areas, people find that they can no longer keep their windows open on warm summer nights. During the breeding season, nesting birds have a tendency to dive-bomb people they perceive as a threat to their nests or offspring. That can be extremely alarming for the elderly and the young. In one incident, riggers putting up a TV aerial were attacked and had to return on another date to complete their work.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on raising an issue that has stretched many miles from the sea all the way up the Gloucester and Sharpness canal to the historic city of Gloucester, where seagulls are as much a pest as they are in his constituency. Does he agree that the only way to solve the problem of those birds almost of mass destruction is, on the one hand, for those of us who have tips to close them as fast as possible so that the gulls do not have access to a great food source and, on the other hand—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans)—that the Government need to consider whether they should authorise more action by councils to co-ordinate the clearing of gull nests?

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point; I am aware that the problem is acute in Gloucester. We need to look at a variety of measures and I will certainly raise the two points he mentioned.

People are no longer able to enjoy their homes; there is an added health risk and a negative knock-on effect on the saleability and value of houses. Why and how has the problem arisen? It appears that the situation has become significantly worse in the last five to six years. Residents who have lived in their homes for 32 and 52 years respectively have told me that until recent years there was not a significant problem.

There is a need for research to accurately establish the causes, although anecdotally and based on feedback I have received from around the country, I suggest there could be a variety of reasons. First, the decline of the fishing industry that has taken place in Lowestoft and around the British coast may have removed more traditional food sources, thereby forcing gulls to move inland in search of other forms of sustenance. Secondly, the availability of discarded fast food and overflowing waste may encourage birds to move into new areas. On the seafront in Lowestoft, feeding the seagulls may seem like a good idea, but one household now has them breeding on its roof and dive-bombing householders as they leave home. Thirdly, it is possible that the encroachment of traditional natural breeding habitats may have forced seagulls to look for alternative nesting-places. Indeed, off Waveney Drive, the presence of a now empty timber processing factory, with many thousands of square feet of roof, has provided an ideal breeding-ground.