Under-Occupancy Penalty

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Julie Hilling

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this most important debate and on her fantastic speech.

A senior officer from one of my social housing providers has said:

“It is as if the Government was following a blueprint of how to ruin social housing within 5 short years.”

Let me give the background to why she said that. Since April, Bolton at Home has had arrears of £200,000. Many people are only partially paying their rent, and 9% of those in debt have arrears of more than £600. Bolton at Home is about to take 25 cases to court because of arrears due solely to the bedroom tax. Wigan and Leigh Housing has arrears of £650,000 and the number of people in debt has nearly doubled to 11,500, so it has revised its income rate to 96% of the amount it should get.

There are knock-on effects on costs. Providers now have to deal with an increased number of calls to the call centre and to employ more people to collect rents. There are increasing court costs, and many other costs besides. All providers are finding it harder to let three-bedroom houses, and have had to increase the number of void days on which they do not collect rent, which again costs them dear.

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), has told social housing providers to knock down three-bedroom houses and build something suitable. I would question her reasoning in the first place, but where are they supposed to find the money to alter houses or to build new ones when they are losing so much money because of the policy?

If the policy is so successful, why have the Government recently increased the discretionary housing payment pot by millions? Welcome though that is, it demonstrates how the policy is just not working. It is ill thought out, and in areas such as mine the majority of the housing stock is three-bedroom, so it will do nothing to alleviate overcrowding. It hinders the building of new homes and simply places people in abject poverty.

Behind housing providers’ problems are real-life difficulties for real people. Most of us would think that people with two children would be suitably housed in a three-bedroom house, but sadly not this Government. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education clearly agrees with me, because he thinks that every pupil should have a bedroom in which to do their homework. He should speak to colleagues in other Departments who think it entirely appropriate for a 15-year-old studying for their GCSEs to share their bedroom with a crying toddler, or for children to have their education disrupted when their parents are forced to move home—not once, but several times—when they or their siblings reach a milestone age at which the family’s accommodation is deemed unsuitable.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is describing a common circumstance, certainly from the stories I hear from my constituents. Does she agree that the cumulative impact—the stresses caused by high energy prices, the bedroom tax and all these things coming together, particularly for disabled and vulnerable people—is causing pain and distress to many of our constituents?

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend’s intervention leads me nicely to a study by York university and the Northern Housing Consortium, “Real Life Reform”, which states:

“Households are surviving on restricted budgets and struggling to get by. 65% have less than £10 per week to live on following rent and essentials such as food and bills. 37% have nothing left each week. Households are intending to cut back spending on food and fuel. 25% spend less than £20 per week on food. Eight out of ten households are already in debt and 83% are worried about getting into more debt. Over half of those in debt doubt they’ll ever be able to clear these debts… Households are reporting increases in levels of stress and depression. 88% of households are worried welfare changes will impact on their health and wellbeing. Parents report they are going without to protect their children’s health.”

That is a story of absolute misery.

I want to tell a story about two of my constituents, whom I will call Mr and Mrs Smith to protect their identity. Mrs Smith came to see me at my surgery because she was absolutely desperate. She came with her mother, but actually looked older than her mother because of the worry and stress she was going through. Her husband is desperately ill, having had a double lung transplant. Sadly, he is unlikely to survive. He needs apparatus to help him to breathe, so there is no way she can share a bedroom with him. The box room is full of oxygen tanks, and the fire brigade has said that no one can sleep in a room with oxygen tanks, because of the risks.

Mr Smith sleeps in one room, Mrs Smith sleeps in another—she cannot sleep with him because of the apparatus and the noise it makes—and oxygen tanks and other equipment occupy the box room, but they are deemed to be under-occupied by two rooms. That is absolute nonsense. They cannot get discretionary housing payments, because he gets disability living allowance, which just enables them to get about and to lead as normal a life as possible, bringing them up to other people’s income. The DLA is taken into account, which puts them over the rate at which they would qualify. Does the Minister think it right that DLA is taken into account? If not, will he do something to change that?

I will finish with a quote from another of my housing providers:

“It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a policy applied retrospectively. We are used to managing change, but not when the goalposts are moved overnight.”

The policy is cruel and heartless. It will not achieve the savings predicted by the Government. It will not allow the building of new homes and it is causing untold misery. I wish the Government would rethink: do as the Labour party says and abandon this cruel, heartless tax now.

Dangerous Dogs and Jade Lomas Anderson

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Julie Hilling

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Since Jade’s death there have been thousands of further attacks on people, including one on a child in Bolton who had her eyelid ripped away and has terrible marks under her eye. Fortunately, the dog missed the eye altogether so her sight was saved. This is not an insignificant problem. It is an issue that affects the quality of life of millions of people and one that deserves the full attention of the Government, who should provide legislation that will really make a difference.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong and passionate speech and paying a fitting tribute to Jade Lomas. My thoughts are with her family and friends. My hon. Friend will be aware that I recently witnessed a brutal attack by a Staffordshire bull terrier in which a cat was mauled to death in front of me and a man was injured—I only narrowly escaped injury myself. The family involved have been told that it would have been better if the dog had been running free in the street, because then something could have been done about it. That highlights again the issue of attacks taking place on private property. Does my hon. Friend agree that this simply has to change?

[Julie Hilling]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has it absolutely right. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to extend the legislation to cover private property, but that in itself is not enough, because preventive measures are necessary, too.

Dog control notices would give the authorities the power to intervene if concern has been raised about a dog. They would be able to instruct the owner to take a range of actions that could include keeping the dog muzzled, keeping it on a lead or keeping it away from children. The owner and dog could be made to undertake training. I believe, although not everyone agrees with me, that we should be able to order the owner to reduce the number of dogs in a household if the home is not suitable for the number and size of the dogs.

Dog control notices are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Veterinary Association, The Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Communication Workers Union. They have already been introduced in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and they should be introduced across the UK. Their existence would provide a swift, flexible and proportionate way to deal with irresponsible dog owners. They would act as an early warning system and action could be taken to promote responsible ownership, rather than just prosecuting owners after a tragedy has taken place.

I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the legislation on out-of-control dogs to cover assistance dogs, but I do not understand why they have not included all protected animals. “Protected animals” are already defined under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that would deal with the increasing problem of attacks on livestock as well as dealing with attacks on cats, which can often be the first sign that a dog is dangerously out of control. Why should not a responsible owner walking a dog on a lead be protected by law from an attack by a dangerous dog?

My constituent Ryan came to see me when his dog was attacked in a park. He not only had to deal with the trauma of the attack, but then had a huge vet’s bill to pay. He did not need to describe the attacking dog to the vet; the vet could tell him about the dog, because a series of people had come to him with their injured dogs. Another constituent, Beryl, came to see me after her two cats were attacked by a dog in her own garden. After much pressure, the police did take action, but it would be so much easier if there were clear legislation.

Dog charities and local authorities are reporting an increase in the number of abandoned dogs. Some are abandoned because their owners can no longer afford to look after them, others because their owners can no longer control them. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home told me that 41% of the dogs that came to its shelter last year were what it calls “bull breeds”, and 32% of those were Staffordshire bull terriers. The home has also seen an increase in the number of Akitas—Japanese fighting dogs—and Rottweilers. Like other charities, Battersea finds it difficult to re-home such dogs. Indeed, it was unable to re-home 28% of the dogs of all breeds that came to it. It was keen to stress that it does not destroy any dogs that can be re-homed, and places no time limit on the length of stay. In fact, the longest stay was by a Staffordshire bull terrier, who stayed for two years until the charity found him a new home.

We do need to take action on the indiscriminate breeding of puppies. The Blue Cross says that it would like hobby breeders who are flooding an already saturated market with puppies to be stopped. That could be done by decreasing the number of litters a year that a person is allowed before having to become a licensed breeder. Many organisations think that the number should be reduced to two a year; others, including the former chief vet for the RSPCA, believe that anyone who breeds dogs—even if by accident—should be registered. The Government are proposing the compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Why can they not require a register of breeders at the same time?

If microchipping is to be effective, there needs to be an obligation for the dog’s owner to transfer ownership officially. My local police tell me that they sometimes take a dog back to the registered address, only to be told that the owner gave it away some time ago. The old slogan “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas” needs to be brought to life by proper controls of ownership. The issues of dog welfare and community safety cannot be separated.

Replying to an intervention by me in a debate last week, the Home Secretary told me that the Government had not included dog control notices in their Bill because they believed

“that the other powers and orders we are introducing under this antisocial behaviour Bill will give sufficient power to the police to be able to deal with dangerous dogs without needing to introduce a separate—and yet another—notice.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 170.]

I have to inform her that none of the experts agree with her.

Dogs that are used as weapons may come to the attention of the police, and the owners could become subject to the new antisocial behaviour orders, but dogs like those that killed Jade would never come to attention in that way. The only complaint about those dogs appears to have been a complaint about noise. If that could have been investigated with dog control notices in place, maybe—just maybe—action could have been taken; or maybe the people who were scared to walk past the garden would have felt it worth while to lodge a complaint because something could have been done.

Jade’s was not the first case of dog attack to arise in my constituency, and if the Government do not take action, it will definitely not be the last. We need holistic legislation to deal with both dog welfare and dangerous dogs, because the two issues are inextricably linked. A well-trained, well-socialised and well-looked-after dog is far less likely to be involved in an attack. However, we also need to educate people about both care and respect for dogs. Even the most well-mannered dog may behave differently around children.

Many owners have spoken to me in the past few weeks, and have told me that they would never leave their dog unattended with children. Why can we not support the voluntary sector in its efforts to train children and adults to care for dogs and take responsibility for them? Why can we not encourage secondary schools to make that part of personal, social, health and economic education, and encourage primary schools to educate their children about care for their pets? The current proposals will not protect our children, and they will not protect our communities from the blight of dangerous dogs.

I would be the last person to suggest that if we had had legislation in place, Jade would have been saved, but one thing is sure: if we do not take comprehensive action there will be more Jades, and more people’s lives will be ruined by out-of-control dogs. Jade’s parents, Michael and Shirley Anderson, are fighting for Justice for Jade. They are determined to campaign to change the law so that no other family has to suffer in the way in which they are suffering. The Minister has the power to listen to them, to the many hon. Members who have raised the issue, and to the experts, and introduce comprehensive legislation. Will he do so?