Court Closures

Debate between Shailesh Vara and Neil Coyle

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend speaks with passion. He and I have corresponded much, and we have met on many occasions. In fact, it is fair to say that I dreaded entering the Tea Room when I knew he was there, because I knew he would come and speak to me about his court. I think he will agree that I have tried to give him the best information I can, but on the final conclusion he wants, we will have to agree to disagree.

The Government have listened carefully, which is why, in addition to the five court buildings we have retained, we have modified our initial plans for a further 22 sites. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will be mindful of that, because the court work that was initially going to be transferred to a court at Wandsworth, 6 miles away from Lambeth, will now be transferred to one at Camberwell Green, just 2 miles away. That was a consequence of our meeting and engagement with the local community.

In eight of the 22 sites where changes have been made, we will not close the court until suitable local alternative provision is in place. Work is under way to determine the specific provision to be provided at each of those locations, and to evaluate a number of options for holding hearings away from traditional court buildings. I expect further testing to take place over the coming months.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister clarify whether what he has just said is accurate? He seems to indicate that all the cases that were to be heard in Putney instead of Lambeth county court will now be held in Camberwell, but that is not the impression delivered previously. How much of the £700 million budget being made available will go to police or council facilities to ensure that a video link is possible?

[Mr Vara]

This four-year reform programme is worth more than £700 million, and the intention is to ensure that we have one of the best justice systems in the world. I will not give the hon. Gentleman details now about the precise minutiae and breakdown of a four-year programme involving so much money.

[Neil Coyle]

You do not know it.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman chunters away from a sedentary position, but if he had a little experience of business, he would know that in a four-year programme with such a huge sum of money involved, the figures might not be as precise as he would like them to be at the initial stage.

An important aspect of testing and evaluation will be to ensure that any hearings held outside a traditional court offer appropriate levels of security for members of the public, the judiciary, and court staff. Travel time was mentioned by a number of people, and there must be a fundamental recognition that far fewer people will have to travel to courts in the first place. We intend to use modern technology, and video conferencing facilities are already available. The hon. Member for Neath asked whether those have been tested in any way, but we already have such facilities—for example, there is a community centre in Wales that is used to give evidence.

We already have alternative places to use as courts, and employment tribunal cases have been conducted on oil rigs in the North sea. Only yesterday, a lawyer colleague of ours who joined the House after the election last year told me about probation cases that she had been involved in that were held in public houses.

Lambeth County Court

Debate between Shailesh Vara and Neil Coyle

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

May I say what a pleasure it is, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate—we have met about the matter—and I take the opportunity to put on record that she is an extraordinarily diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament who has spoken up very effectively for her constituents in the short time that she has been an MP. I am pleased to see that we also have the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) here today, because both of them have written to me and we have corresponded on this issue.

It is absolutely clear from today’s debate that the hon. Lady cares deeply about our courts and the delivery of justice. I want to assure her that I do, too. Before I speak about Lambeth county court, I will mention some general points. The consultation that we have just concluded ran last year and had more than 2,100 responses, all of which were carefully reviewed and analysed. I care about reforming our courts—about moving from places that have changed little since Victorian times to a modern, responsive and flexible system fit for the 21st century.

[Neil Coyle]

I echo the Minister’s kind words about my colleagues. I am sure that many of those respondents contacted the Minister and the Department to demonstrate their commitment to justice and modernising justice, but how many of the 2,100 responses agreed that it was sensible to close the court?

[Mr Vara]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise number regarding the 2,100 responses that we received, but it is fair to say that a number of them objected to closures. As I said, we carefully looked at all the responses that were given. If he gives me some time, I will say that we did actually listen to many of the points that were made—if he bears with me, I will come to that.

Despite the best efforts of our staff and the judiciary, the infrastructure that supports the administration of the courts and tribunals is inefficient and disjointed. It uses technology that is now decades old. We offer very few services online and rely on paper forms. We key in data and pass bundles of documents between agencies. When we need to take payment, we can often only accept cash or cheques. We convene physical hearings to discuss matters of process. We need to end the old-fashioned ways of working that create inefficiencies and which make it hard for the public to access justice.

That is why the Government have a significant reform programme in which there will be an investment of some £700 million over the next four years. That will transform the experience of everyone who comes into contact with the courts and tribunals. New services and new, more joined-up ways of working across the justice system will require a modern infrastructure to support them. The reforms will increase access to justice by making it swifter, easier and more efficient.

To achieve those benefits, however, we must make difficult decisions, and deciding to close a court is undoubtedly one of the most difficult. I want to emphasise that we have listened to the responses to the consultation. We have retained four courts and in one further case, we have retained one of the jurisdictions along with the building following the responses that we received. In 22 courts, we have modified the proposal in some way to reduce the impact of the closure on court users—indeed, Lambeth is one of those courts, and I will refer to specific points on that shortly.

In the case of Lambeth county court, the court is poorly used; it is only used for around 40% of its available sitting time. The building is in need of considerable maintenance, including the replacement of air conditioning, lighting and aspects of the heating and hot water system. In many respects, it is simply not fit for purpose as a modern and flexible court building.

As the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood mentioned in her speech, she and I had a meeting—I thought it was very productive—following which we were able to engage in conversation with my officials and she was able to liaise with the local council, Southwark council, and there was a very productive dialogue. Unfortunately, after Southwark council had carried out a feasibility study, it came to the conclusion that county court work could not be transferred to its premises, which we were open to considering. I am, however, pleased that following the representations that she and others made, and recognising the enormous number of housing possession cases that are at Lambeth county court, we have managed to shift the work two miles down the road to Camberwell Green magistrates court. I think that is not unreasonable, in that we have listened, and I would like to think that two miles is not a huge distance.

I understand that the closure of a court has a very real impact on the court’s users, staff and judiciary, but I want to make it clear that in England and Wales, the closure of 86 courts will only reduce the proportion of citizens who will be able to reach their nearest civil or family court within an hour by car by 1% and by public transport by 5%. It is also worth pointing out that the majority of the population will never have to attend a court, and for those who do, it is likely to be a rare occurrence.

The issue of access to justice featured prominently in the hon. Lady’s speech. Being able to access courts and tribunals when required is, of course, essential, but effective access to justice is not defined simply by the proximity to a court or tribunal building. It should be defined by how easy it is for court users to access the service they need, however they choose to do that. We want to take advantage of the choice and flexibility that digital technology offers. We will move towards a system in which face-to-face hearings are required only for sensitive and complex cases. Online plea, claims and evidence systems with much wider adoption of video conferencing into court will reduce the need for people to travel to court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

On the data, I assure hon. Members that the decision was based on the correct information. I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, with the best will in the world, consultation on 91 courts requires human beings to put a huge amount of data into documentation. I assure him that the decision was taken on the correct information.

On my use of the words “may” and “will”, the hon. Gentleman should look at our track record. During the consultation, I met the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. Following our meeting, there was instant dialogue between my officials and Southwark council. While the consultation was still proceeding, the council came to the conclusion that it was unable to accommodate what we wanted.

It would be unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to expect me to give a specific time, date or month. All I can say is that when we are putting in place a £700 million-plus programme of court reform throughout England and Wales, he must take it on trust that we will do our damnedest to make sure everything fits in and is timely and orderly because, if it is not, there will be one massive chaotic justice system, which is the last thing I want.

[Neil Coyle]

I note the absence of a specific timeframe, which is unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister will write to my hon. Friends about that. Where is the assessment of the new costs to the police and councils of providing space for the video conferencing that the Minister mentioned?

On journey times, can the Minister tell us what percentage of cases he expects members of the public will still have to attend? In my constituency, there is a growing number of controlled parking zones. Thousands of people are not allowed to own a car where they live so a massive number of people will still be expected to use public transport and, as I have said, a round trip from Rotherhithe in the rush hour will take around four hours.

[Mr Vara]

I am mindful that I have about two and a half minutes and I am keen for the hon. Lady to have a few minutes to sum up.

In response to the hon. Gentleman, 20 years ago it was unthinkable that people would be accessing banking services from the comfort of their kitchen table or their sitting room. They did not know they would be able to access the Inland Revenue and file their tax return from the comfort of their home. It is important to recognise that proximity to justice does not mean being in a physical building called a court. We already have online transactions taking place. We will do our best to ensure that the £700 million-plus programme works apace and that we deliver the service that we want for a 21st-century justice system that is fit for purpose.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this debate and I hope I have given her some comfort. I conclude by saying that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our court system and that is precisely what we seek to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shailesh Vara and Neil Coyle

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The latest figures show that the employment rate for young people who have left full-time education is above the UK average and is at its highest level for a decade at 74.3%.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Low pay and training needs affect many disabled people. Two years ago, almost to the day, the Department announced the extension of the Access to Work programme to disabled people seeking training, internships and apprenticeships. How many people have benefited from that scheme and when will we hear about its progress?

[Mr Vara]

We are very close to record levels as far as that initiative is concerned. As I said earlier, our long-term economic plan is continuing. While I am at the Dispatch Box, may I say that the House has considerable sympathy with all that the hon. Gentleman and a lot of his colleagues are going through?

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Shailesh Vara and Neil Coyle

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the measured way she has approached the debate and presented the case for her amendments. I am grateful to her for moving amendments 21 and 85, because they give me the opportunity to set out clearly why we have put these measures in the Bill.

The housing benefit bill for England in the social sector now stands at £13 billion, having risen by nearly a fifth over the past ten years. Rising rents in the social housing sector are fuelling that increase, with average rent increases in the social sector more than double those in the private sector over the past five years. The Government are determined to put welfare spending on a sustainable footing and reduce the deficit while protecting the most vulnerable. We made commitments to deliver £12 billion of welfare savings, and the scale of the housing benefit bill means that we must address it, including through social rents, if we are to reduce the deficit.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister’s concern for the rising rents in housing associations might be more welcome if it were married with concern for the rise in the private rented sector. Why is the Minister reluctant to address the concern of 70,000 private renters in Southwark and the steep rent rises they face?

[Mr Vara]

Let us talk about the private rented sector. In the years 2004 to 2014, the rent increase in the private rented sector was 23%, according to the Office for National Statistics. In the same period, the social housing rent increased by 63%. If that does not show that there is a difference, I do not know what does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I thought I had made it clear that the £2.4 billion was in the 2014 financial year. The £2.2 billion for local authorities was in the last financial year.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister used careful language—“most” and “many”—when talking about the financial robustness of housing associations. What distinction is made for those housing associations that are not in as strong a financial position? How will they be supported through a change that could see them lose significant sums?

[Mr Vara]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is still reading the Bill, but when he gets further on he will find a subsequent clause that deals with exemptions, including local authorities or housing associations that might be in financial difficulty, and there are measures to deal with them.

To help further, the regulator will be on hand to assist housing associations in considering how they can deliver more efficiency and better value for money. My colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government continue to engage with all those concerned as they develop plans to meet the reductions. We acknowledge, however, that there might be some circumstances in which the reduction policy should not apply. Clause 20 therefore provides some statutory exceptions and for further provision to be set out in regulation. In clause 21 we have also allowed for circumstances in which the financial viability of a private registered provider might be jeopardised. In such circumstances a provider may apply to be exempt from the rent reductions; similar provision is made for local authorities.

As for the number of new homes being built, the Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring housing for those who cannot access the market, and we support the ongoing role that the housing association sector has to play in the supply of affordable housing, as well as driving more home ownership. There continues to be a role for housing associations in delivering the mix of housing supply that the country needs, as we have already seen with the delivery of 260,000 new affordable homes over the past five years. We are committed to delivering 275,000 homes by 2020.

We do not believe that there is a need for a plan or a report, as suggested in the amendments. Our approach is measured and will be good for tenants and taxpayers while building in safeguards for supported accommodation and the financial viability of private registered providers. On amendment 184, the Government have made a commitment to reduce rents for a period of four years from April 2016, which is made clear in clause 19 and the new schedule. I hope amendment 21 will be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

In rising to speak to the amendment, I just want to say that I welcome the Minister’s commitment this morning to write to me so I can find out a bit more information. He suggested that I was trying to make a name for myself—I believe that was the term he used. I certainly do not intend to upset him in any way, not least because I understand he has a black belt in martial arts.

[Mr Vara]

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been here for 10 years and what he says will in no way upset me. He will very soon become a seasoned politician with a thick skin.

[Neil Coyle]

The commitment to providing information was linked to the amendment because we were talking about housing associations, representations and the discussions that the Department is having. It would be useful if the Minister, when answering in writing, could provide information on the number of housing associations that have been met; the numbers that indicated that they support the policy, especially those providing specified and supported accommodation; those that specifically outlined the risk to their business case of the policy going ahead; and any representations to the Department from organisations suggesting that they would be unable to provide specified accommodation. I would be grateful to receive that information. I do not expect an answer today.

We heard about specified accommodation in great detail from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, and from all the organisations that made representations—I am particularly grateful to Homeless Link, St Mungo’s Broadway, Shelter and Crisis. The amendment is designed to cover shared houses, hostels, refuges and self-contained accommodation owned by registered providers, and instances where housing-related support, including financial management, is provided.

St Mungo’s Broadway operates in my constituency. Of its residents—the people that it provides support to—52% have previously been rough sleepers, 72% have mental health needs, 44% have significant physical health problems and more than one in five have experienced violence or abuse from a family member or partner. That is the client group, to use the Department’s language, that we are talking about. The total number of units provided at the moment is around 105,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle mentioned Riverside, which estimates that it provides about 4,600 units of that kind of accommodation. We are not talking about a huge number, but the measure would make the provision of the services and housing more difficult for those organisations.

The Homes and Communities Agency was mentioned earlier. It has estimated that investment in supported housing results in a net cost-benefit to the public purse of £640 million per year. Does the Minister have any information about how that cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken or about the risk to that cost-benefit if housing is put at risk? The cost to local authorities of rough sleeping is roughly £8,600 per person. That does not include any cost to the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office—it is just the cost to local authorities. Getting this wrong and putting accommodation for vulnerable people at risk could have knock-on costs for all taxpayers.

The Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government have commissioned a review into supported accommodation to establish a better evidence base for future funding decisions. Would the Minister give an indication of where that review is at and why the Government are not prepared to wait for the outcome of that review before pressing on with the policy?

Riverside estimates that the cumulative cost of the policy to it would be about £100 million. It has said that

“a year on year reduction in rental income would make this element”—

the specified accommodation—

“of our business loss making”.

It would either have to subsidise from elsewhere or stop providing that accommodation.

St Mungo’s Broadway has said that

“the requirement to reduce rents in social housing in England by one per cent per year for four years will result in the loss of supported housing schemes for homeless and vulnerable people.”

It is saying categorically that it will be unable to provide some of the accommodation that it currently provides, and that there is a knock-on cost that the Government have not taken into account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth has mentioned, St Mungo’s Broadway has said that it will lose £1.25 million by the end of this Parliament as a result of the annual rent reduction. The four housing associations that I have spoken to, which provide some of their accommodation in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, have said that collectively, the cost to them of the proposed policy would be more than £180 million during the lifetime of this Parliament alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, some of which I will address later when I talk about other forms of help, assistance and funding.

We have tabled amendments that provide the Secretary of State with powers to allow, by regulation, rent setting for new tenancies in supported housing at up to 10% above the formula. That is similar to the existing rent policy and standard practice. We believe that should help providers of supported accommodation for vulnerable people to continue to provide that important housing. We also acknowledge that there might be some circumstances in which the financial viability of a private registered provider or a local authority could be jeopardised—something the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned. In those cases, the providers could apply to be exempt from rent reductions.

[Neil Coyle]

It sounds like some of what the Minister is saying is likely to be welcome. Let me reiterate that the borough of Southwark is the biggest landlord in London. In bringing forward other exemptions, would the Minister be willing to meet my local authority to ensure that the most appropriate accommodation is exempted to best effect?

[Mr Vara]

I would of course be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and anyone he wishes to bring to the meeting. What I would say is that we have been mindful of the fact that we cannot judge the situation as it is now. Where local authorities or housing associations find themselves in financial difficulty and their viability may be an issue, there are processes in place to ensure that the regulator works with them to make sure that things can be worked out. If it is felt necessary, then with the consent of the Secretary of State there can be alterations through a rent reduction, and organisations can make their case. However, we hope to set out in regulations the criteria that would be applied.

We intend to work with organisations—housing associations and local authorities—because we want to make this work. The change is not simply being imposed; we are consulting widely. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth was right to say that there have been a number of amendments, and I repeat that that is a direct consequence of lots of organisations coming to us and saying, “Well, how about this?” We have taken what I think is a commendable decision, in that we have genuinely listened and tried to clarify what we thought we were aiming for. It was not clear enough for the people concerned, so we sought to clarify it.

It is important to get the balance right between reducing the burden on taxpayers and supporting the provision of housing for vulnerable people, as well as the balance between supporting the provision of that housing and treating fairly those older or disabled tenants who pay their own rent and who should benefit from the rent reductions, but will not do so if there is a blanket exemption.

When it comes to dealing with vulnerable older and disabled people, it is important to look at the wider context. As a Government, we are determined to protect the most vulnerable in society and help them to live independent lives, and assistance goes beyond what we are discussing today. Funding for supported housing is included in the wider settlement to councils. The Government continue to support local areas to meet their local needs by maximising funding flexibility. For example, in 2015-16, we are investing £5.3 billion in the better care fund to deliver faster and deeper integration of health and social care. This will enable councils to invest in early action to help people to live in their own homes for longer and help to prevent crisis, as well as supporting councils to work together more effectively, deliver better outcomes for less money and drive integration across all services.

The Government are also investing in specialised housing for older and disabled people through the £315 million care and support specialised housing fund. Phase 1 is expected to deliver over 4,000 homes by 2018; phase 2 was announced in February and will set aside up to £155 million in capital funding for the development of specialist housing to meet the needs of older people and adults with disabilities or known mental health issues.

[Neil Coyle]

My understanding is that the better care fund is entirely restricted to new projects, so it cannot help towards councils’ existing accommodation costs. Given that we know the waiting lists that councils across the country have, I am not convinced that the better care fund is the solution to the specific problem before us. At the same time, the Government are ending the independent living fund, leaving councils potentially significant new costs for providing residential care accommodation for disabled people who had previously been able to be supported in their own homes.

[Mr Vara]

I repeat that we should not look at this solely in the context of what we are discussing today; there is a wider picture here, and I have given details of the other moneys available alongside the 1% reduction we are discussing.

I repeat that the Government are committed to ensuring that the most vulnerable people are protected. Statutory homelessness is lower now than in 26 of the past 30 years, at less than half the peak it reached in 2004. This Government have increased spending further to prevent homelessness, making over £500 million available to help the most vulnerable in society. That has resulted in local authorities preventing 935,000 households from becoming homeless since 2010.

[Neil Coyle]

There is a brilliant charity in Bermondsey called UK Homes 4 Heroes, which supports former members of the armed forces. We have seen a dramatic rise in the number of former members of our armed forces sleeping rough in London. How will this specific policy help councils and others to better support those coming out of the armed forces, to prevent them from ending up sleeping rough, given what the Minister has just said?

[Mr Vara]

That issue commands huge respect across Government and on both sides of the political argument. There is discussion and debate across Government to make sure that brave men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line for our safety and security get the best possible treatment. There are clearly still issues that need to be resolved. It is an ongoing debate. I am very aware of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers; there are RAF bases in my constituency, and I am only too aware of how we need to look after those people a lot better. We have made progress in the past five years, but we need to do more and should remain vigilant.

I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure the continued financial viability of housing providers while balancing the need to support tenants who should benefit from a reduction in their rent. I urge the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Shailesh Vara and Neil Coyle

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Vara]

I do not have that evidence to hand, but I am quite sure, given that the Department is responsible for paying the benefit, that it is there, and therefore that the measure is based on evidence. We all know people who have been on benefits for many years, in many cases for very good reasons, but it is a fact that many people out there have been on benefits for many years, so we must accept the reality of the situation.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The Minister has suggested that the evidence exists but he does not have it to hand. Will he make some of it available to the Committee?

[Mr Vara]

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has a distinguished record in the charitable sector. I take this opportunity to commend him and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, who also has a charitable background. Many people do such work but it gets very little recognition, so I am happy to give that recognition both to colleagues and to the hundreds of thousands of people working in that sector.

As for the evidence, it is abundantly clear that many millions of people are claiming benefit. It is also a fact that, in the election last May, this Government were given a mandate by the people of this country to put forward these reductions and cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I have not misled the Committee. It is a fact that the Government said that we would make £12 billion of reductions from the welfare budget, and it was on that basis that the people of this country, in their millions, voted for this Government as a majority Government and gave us the mandate to make those £12 billion of reductions in the welfare budget, as we are doing.

[Neil Coyle]

The Prime Minister also gave a commitment not to reduce tax credits, so I look forward to that commitment being implemented by the Government. To return to my previous point, where is the evidence for this Committee about decades-long benefit entitlement? [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister has been asked a specific question. I do not want the debate to broaden out to the topic of the general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

If £250 million is chickenfeed, to quote what the hon. Lady said, I am afraid that people reading our proceedings in Hansard will take a deep breath and say, “This is what those people think of £0.25 billion.” The consequence of several such chickenfeed decisions is the mess that the country is in now.

[Neil Coyle]

Given what the Minister has said about the economic competence of the Government before last, will he remind us of the savings projected for employment and support allowance and housing benefit in the previous Parliament and whether they were met?

[Mr Vara]

I do not have those figures to hand, but I am happy to obtain them and write to the hon. Gentleman. He is seeking to make a name for himself. On Tuesday he sought to do so by calling other Members names. Today he seeks to be clever by asking questions, which are important, but which he knows will get a written answer.

The amendment will not make a difference. This is all about fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The social rent clauses relate to the Government’s commitment to achieve a reduction in rents for social housing of 1% a year over four years. That will be good for the tenants and for the taxpayer, saving £1.445 billion by 2020-21. The amendments are the consequence of the Government listening to points made since the Bill was published by social landlords, local government and housing bodies, among others. We hope our amendments address some of the issues raised. The amendments in the group are either concerned with issues of clarification or make small drafting changes.

Amendments 141 and 143 clarify that the 1% rent reduction applies in each relevant year, which is to say, each of the four years from 2016. Amendments 142 and 146, taken together, clarify that the reduction relates to the amount of rent that is payable by a tenant in respect of a year—not the amount that is actually paid by the tenant, which is to recognise the reality that those figures might differ. Amendment 145 is a minor drafting point to clarify that the “amount” relates to the “amount of rent”. Amendment 170 is to simplify the drafting of clause 19 and amendment 173 is a drafting change to the clause to provide that a relevant year for a private registered provider whose practice is not an April start to a rent year will be determined in relation to the rent practice for the number of tenancies, not tenants.

Amendment 163 deals with the potential failures of providers to comply with the clause. It seeks to give the regulator of social housing the appropriate grounds on which to exercise monitoring and enforcement powers. With this amendment we have had regard to how the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 established such powers and the need to avoid any confusion in how the regulator should exercise its power.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister mentioned that he had had meetings with or representations from social housing associations. Will he clarify how many housing associations supported the measures proposed by the Government? How many housing associations have outlined to the Minister and the Department the risk that they might have to close some of the housing they provide as a result of the measure?

[Mr Vara]

Let me put things into context. We have spoken with a lot of organisations—I have a list at the back of my file and am happy to read out some of the names if necessary. The context of the measure is that it is part of the Government’s £12 billion welfare reduction. We made that absolutely clear to the country at the time of the general election. The people of the country voted democratically, in their millions, and we have a mandate to make those cuts. That is the reality of the position, which might be something that the Opposition do not like—

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will not give way for the moment; I will finish my answer. The reality is that that is the position.

We have, however, spoken with a lot of people. I simply refer to the comments made by David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, when he give oral evidence before the Committee. Most of us were at that sitting on Tuesday 15 September 2015. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, Mr Orr said:

“I think that, in truth, there is no sector anywhere that is not still capable of making further efficiency savings. That is as true in our sector as it is anywhere else.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

Riverside Housing Association has said that

“a year on year rent reduction would make this element of our business loss making.”

St Mungo’s has said that

“the requirement to reduce rents in social housing in England by one per cent per year for four years will result in the loss of supported housing schemes for homeless and vulnerable people.”

The Homes and Communities Agency has estimated that those services save the taxpayer £640 million per year. Where is the saving in the longer term if those services do not exist?

[Mr Vara]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was so keen to ask his question and so busy thinking about it that he paid no attention to what I was saying. He referred to one organisation. I referred to the comments of the chief executive of the National Housing Federation. We have done our homework, and estimate that we will save nearly £1.5 billion, as I have said.

Amendment 163 provides that a failure or risk of failure to comply with clause 19 is not to be, of itself, a ground for exercising certain monitoring and enforcement powers under part 2 of the 2008 Act, by removing clause 22(1) and (2) from the Bill as introduced. The practical effect of the amendment is that, before exercising those powers, the regulator must satisfy the specific grounds relevant to each power in chapters 6 and 7 of the 2008 Act, as amended by clause 22(3) to (8) of the Bill. Amendments 164 to 168 insert the correct title of the Bill into certain provisions.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Shailesh Vara and Neil Coyle

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Vara]

There is an impact assessment on the Government website and the hon. Lady is welcome to view it. She talks about evidence and I would have thought that record levels of employment for youth, women and the country as a whole is pretty strong evidence.

[Neil Coyle]

It is interesting that the Minister has absolute confidence in economic stability, but it is not shared by everyone. House prices are rising and falling at different rates, and different job opportunities are available, in different parts of the country. May I be the first to offer the Minister the moniker of Minister for repossessions?

[Mr Vara]

Sorry, I missed the hon. Gentleman’s last point. He was obviously trying to be witty and clever, but I am afraid that it was far too witty for this time of day.

[Neil Coyle]

It has been a long day. My point is that the Minister will become known as the Minister for repossessions as a result of a retrograde step. Labour changed that policy in government to ensure that, having contributed to benefits through national insurance, people had support if and when they needed it. The Government are taking that support away and the Minister will become known as the Minister for repossessions.

[Mr Vara]

May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House of Commons, that, if he wishes to survive, he will have to get used to being called a lot of things?

We intend to ensure that, through the regulations, we cover financial arrangements alternative to traditional mortgages. The amendments will also ensure that claimants who live in non-traditional homes, such as houseboats or caravans, will also be offered a loan. It is important that support is available to protect the homes of all individuals, regardless of the type of accommodation they occupy. The amendments ensure that the technical detail about calculating the amount of a person’s liabilities to make owner-occupier payments, and the maximum amount of those liabilities that can be met with a loan, will be set out in regulations.

The amendments ensure that regulations made under clause 16 requiring security for a loan may make provision for situations where there are alternative financial arrangements for a home, and ensure that the security can be taken in respect of a legal or beneficial interest in the person’s home.

Clause 17 allows for the detailed framework within which loans may be made to be put in place by regulations. That will allow for the tactical operation of support for mortgage-interest loans, which will provide fairness for taxpayers along with protection from repossession for claimants. It will also continue the current administrative arrangements that mean that payments of support for mortgage interest go directly to the mortgage lender.

The amendments to clause 17 are consequential to the amendments to clause 16. They replace the description of the payments for which loans may be made with a reference to owner-occupier payments, which will be defined in regulations. They will ensure that the loan scheme will be available to eligible claimants who have acquired their home through alternative finance arrangements rather than through a traditional mortgage.

Amendment 120 seeks to clarify what requirements a person will have to meet before receiving a loan. It ensures that regulations under the clause may make provision about entering into agreements with persons receiving loans. The Secretary of State will be able to specify terms in the agreement that he thinks fit, subject to any terms set out in the regulations. That will ensure that the regulations do not have to include every term that is needed in the loan agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shailesh Vara and Neil Coyle

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

T9. Lambeth county court serves my constituency. Will the Minister clarify whether the court met the Department’s definition of underused or surplus, if 50% of its available hearing time went unused? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of its potential closure on my constituents?

[Mr Vara]

No firm decisions have been made at the moment. The consultation document has individual papers as far as each individual court is concerned. They are quite comprehensive. If the hon. Gentleman has issues and concerns, I am happy for him to write to me and I am happy to correspond with him while the consultation is taking place.