Social Housing Standards

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that issue. Although Guildford is an absolutely beautiful city, there are some parts that she represents where the state of housing, in both the social and private rented sectors, is simply not good enough. We have discussed that in private in the past, and she is right. We will be bringing forward measures to ensure that her constituents get the support they deserve.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s sincerity, but I suspect from my own caseload that this problem is far more widespread than has hitherto been acknowledged. What guarantee can he give today that there will be concerted action, and that we will not see a flurry of activity from landlords and housing associations, rushing round to properties, slapping on a bit of anti-mould paint, and leaving parents in the same predicament as Awaab’s parents, of worrying for their children’s future because nothing is really being done to address the problem?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman articulates a fair concern, and it is striking that Awaab’s parents were told that paint in itself would be an answer to the mould problem. In some circumstances anti-mould paint can help to alleviate the problem, but it does not tackle it at root. On the broader issue of whether we will see a flurry of performative activity rather than fundamental change, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why the new powers for the regulator are so important, and why it is my commitment to ensure that we review those powers, review the decent homes standard and, if for any reason there is backsliding, take further action.

Budget Resolutions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I love the enthusiasm among Government Members, but it reminds me of that story about the emperor’s new clothes, with them all simpering over the Chancellor while ignoring what is before their eyes. I understand why they want to believe in levelling up, but after 11 wasted Tory years, they are not levelling up. Our economy and public services are facing terminal decline. After 11 years, households across the country are facing a collapse in living standards. High inflation, rising taxes, low growth, falling living standards and crumbling public services are not indicators of levelling up; they are evidence that the Government have lost the plot.

This Budget does not address the childcare crisis. It disproportionately penalises women. It continues to ignore those self-employed who have been excluded and cast adrift. It punishes those working hard by crippling them with national insurance increases, council tax rises, unaffordable mortgages and a combination of shortages and higher food bills.

We need to grow our economy if we are ever to pay properly for decent public services without taxing people out of existence, but the Chancellor’s ambition is to return education spending to the level that he inherited in 2010. He is taking us back, not forward, wasting time when we should be taking the necessary steps towards a high-value, highly skilled, productive and green economy. As those missed opportunities mount, so the façade becomes harder to maintain. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have hit on a good slogan, but they are completely naked when it comes to taking the necessary action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged, as ever, to my right hon. Friend. He is right. We have met on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. I will not labour the point about the public funds we have already expended on remediation or the plans we have to bring forward further support for those who find themselves in this very difficult and distressing situation. I will always talk to him and consider the thoughts and ideas he presents.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the regulation of standards of care in exempt supported accommodation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

Supported housing plays a vital role in delivering better outcomes for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. My Department has been working with local authorities on several pilots focused on improving the quality of accommodation and support for people in exempt accommodation. We have given more than £5 million to five councils, including almost £2 million to Birmingham City Council. The pilots concluded in September, and we are assessing the findings to decide our next steps.

[Steve McCabe]

I am aware of the pilots, but the Minister must know that in more than 150,000 exempt accommodation premises across the country, vulnerable people are living in the most appalling circumstances. The regulator recently judged that the largest provider in Birmingham was non-compliant, while it is costing the taxpayer £110 million in Birmingham alone. For how much longer does he think the Government will be able to tolerate this state of affairs?

[Eddie Hughes]

It is important that we consider the fact that there are some excellent providers of supported housing across the country, and I say that with a vested interest, because I worked for one of them in Birmingham before I came to Parliament. Although I fully appreciate that the number of units of supported accommodation in Birmingham has doubled from approximately 11,000 to 22,000, it only takes a small percentage of rogue landlords to create a significant problem. As I said, we will continue to work closely with the council and Sharon Thompson, the councillor responsible there, to ensure we come up with a solution. I respect the hon. Gentleman tremendously, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.

Levelling-up Bids: North Somerset

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave, and that Mr Speaker has recommended that we wear masks.

I call John Penrose to move the motion.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered levelling up bids in North Somerset.

It is good to have you in charge of our process, Mr McCabe. It is also good to see my fellow Somerset MP and constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is here to support the debate and is expecting to speak later, as well as the Minister, who I hope will respond fully and positively to some of my questions and provide reassurances during the course of the debate.

The debate is about North Somerset Council’s bids last week for both the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund. The bid documentation is somewhere in the bowels of the Minister’s Department and is being gone through in huge detail, so I do not propose to take up an enormous amount of time by dwelling on what it says, other than to summarise briefly and say that my right hon. Friend and I strongly support both bids. It is quite noticeable that, at the moment, North Somerset Council is being run by a rainbow coalition, which is political speak for anybody except the Tories, yet here we are—my right hon. Friend and I, as the two local Conservative Members of Parliament—supporting the bids too. This is a cross-party, non-party political and pretty much unanimous set of proposals, which we urge the Minister to take very seriously indeed.

It is true that Weston has come an extraordinarily long way in recent years. Since I was elected 16 years ago, the place has become unrecognisably better, but even its most ardent supporters—I put myself right at the front of the queue—would say that we still have a great deal more that has to be done. The two bids for the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund are a key part of taking the next steps in North Somerset’s journey overall, but particularly Weston-super-Mare’s journey.

Without going into too much detail about what is in the detail of the bids, I will highlight three main areas. One is the renewal of our local heritage assets. Weston-super-Mare was primarily built during the Victorian seaside town heyday, and it has some beautiful architecture. It has many beautiful bits of local heritage to it, with some of it going back much further than the Victorian era—for example, there is an iron-age hill fort. However, renewing those assets and making current use of them, so that they can continue to be used and looked after—they should be part of the town’s future, not just its past—is essential. That is a key part of the bid. They give the place its character and its sense of place, and are an absolutely essential part of the bid.

Equally, the bid involves a whole series of proposals for more festivals, activities and attractions—everything from street theatre to buskers—in order to create a sense of theatre, a sense of dynamism and a buzzing atmosphere, which will make the place great not just for local residents to visit and live. As we are a seaside town and a visitor destination, that will also make it a great place for visitors. Of course, visitors have traditionally been one of the town’s lifeblood industries, because we are a tourist destination, so that is an essential piece of the bids.

Last but not least, the bid dovetails with the Weston place-making strategy, which means that we have input from local businesses and residents, and from the council, to try to ensure that Weston as a location has a sustainable mix but also a balanced mix of reasons to live there, to visit there and to do business there and create wealth. The place-making strategy is essential, and it is also a key part of what the council has put together for the two bids.

So, if the bid is so flipping brilliant, why am I worried, why have I asked for this debate and why do we have the pleasure of the Minister’s company this afternoon? The answer is very simple. It is that in spite of the quality of the bid and of the cross-party backing that I mentioned earlier, there is one fly in the ointment. It is that, as the Minister will know, North Somerset Council as a whole—the entire district—is currently designated as a priority 2 area for both the funds that we are bidding into. It is not a priority 1 area, but a priority 2 area. Potentially, that is a problem because it might demote us in terms of the importance—even the urgency—and eligibility of our bids for those funds.

I am here to argue today that that designation is actually a mistake—or it would be a mistake if it were to happen—simply because North Somerset as a district overall is a place of stark contrasts. The constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset is one of the wealthiest constituencies in the country, whereas, to put it simply, my constituency of Weston-super-Mare is not.

For example, we can compare my constituency with two neighbouring district council areas, both of which are designated as priority 1 areas. I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with them; they are Sedgemoor District Council and Mendip District Council. They are right next door to the town of Weston-super-Mare. They are almost identical in terms of their populations to the population of my constituency as a whole. So, if my constituency was a district council, it would be pretty much the same size as they both are. Yet my constituency has a higher proportion of people claiming benefits than either of those two priority 1 areas, even though my area is technically designated as a priority 2 area.

My constituency has a lower healthy life expectancy than either of those two neighbouring districts, even though they are designated as priority 1 areas and my area is designated as priority 2. My constituency has a worse average travel time to employment than either of those two districts, even though they are designated as priority 1 and my area is designated as priority 2.

So I hope the Minister will understand why I am concerned. If my constituency was a stand-alone piece of geography, and not part of the broader North Somerset Council area, we would easily qualify as a priority 1 area. However, because of the accident of postcodes, if I can put it that way, and because of the averaging effect, we do not qualify as a priority 1 area. Of course, that is not to say that the need in my constituency of Weston-super-Mare is not extremely serious or, indeed, every bit as serious as that in the other district councils I have mentioned, both of which are priority 1 areas.

I will go further and say that I have just given the Minister the figures for my constituency as a whole. Within my constituency, the situation is even starker. If we look at two wards in the centre of the constituency, Weston-super-Mare South and Weston-super-Mare Central, they have indices of multiple deprivation that would rank them in the top—or worst, depending on how we look at it—3% or 4% of wards in the entire country; in fact, parts of one of them are in the worst 2%. They are equivalent to anywhere else that is right at the top of the priority 1 areas. It is not just that we would scrape into priority 1 area designation: we would be right at the top of the Minister’s list of concerns, and rightly so, because of those indices of multiple deprivation scores.

So, what do both I and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset hope to hear from the Minister when he gets to his feet in a minute? The answer is very simple. We hope to hear from him that he is able to give strong weighting to those overall scores—scores that are at a more detailed and more granular level than the scores for the district as a whole—when assessing the bid. As I mentioned right at the start, I hope that it will qualify under its own steam in any case.

We do not want a strong and capable bid to be disallowed because of an accident of postcode and because of the averaging effect. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to reassure me and the residents of the constituency of Weston-super-Mare that that will not be the case, and that the bureaucratic process can be bent and manipulated sufficiently within the rules to allow the genuine need—as shown by the genuine levels of multiple deprivation—to be properly taken account of when these bids are finally totalled up.

If the Minister can do that, I may not be able to guarantee that we will erect a small statue in his name somewhere in the middle of Weston-super-Mare, but I can at least promise him that we will easily be able to carry him shoulder high along the Weston seafront, given the importance of the bids to the people of Weston-super-Mare. I will now sit down to make sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has an opportunity to add to what I have already said and to explain the perspective from the other part of the North Somerset district council area.

Greensill Capital

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme that we are being asked about today for large businesses protects many jobs in those companies, but it is right that we also looked at a diversity of lenders and of approaches to cover small businesses, as they do not always have the resilience and capacity of those larger businesses to survive and respond in these tough times.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

I assumed that “whatever it takes” meant making sure that people got the help and the support that they needed, not deploying Treasury officials to try to mangle the rules in order to protect David Cameron’s shares. Just how many people and how many hours did the Chancellor devote to Mr Cameron’s concerns as opposed to those 3 million excluded self-employed people whom this Government have abandoned?

[Paul Scully]

The Chancellor and other Ministers have spent many, many hours speaking to lenders and to businesses of all sizes to make sure that we can best reflect on and flex the support that is given to them. The system worked when the Chancellor was asked to change the scheme inappropriately, because, rather than having the banks involved in the CCFF, it was a Government-backed scheme with the Bank of England. That is why he rejected that approach, which meant that the procedure went well.

Rough Sleeping

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I join my hon. Friend in praising Westminster City Council, its officers, its brilliant leader Rachael Robathan, and its very good previous leader, both of whom have been extremely committed to that issue. I have spoken to her and to Rachael Robathan almost weekly about it and, as she says, Westminster has now experienced a 27% decrease in rough sleeping, which is a phenomenal achievement for all involved. I look forward to working with her and Rachael Robathan in the future.

We have reviewed the Vagrancy Act and will be saying more in the weeks ahead. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is my opinion that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed. It is an antiquated piece of legislation whose time has been and gone. We should consider carefully whether better, more modern legislation could be introduced to preserve some aspects of it, but the Act itself, I think, should be consigned to history.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate the Secretary of State but, further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), in Birmingham it has just been announced that Prospect Housing’s exempt accommodation is to close, following serious safeguarding issues. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that it is not out of the frying pan into the fire for those 1,600 vulnerable people, and that they do not end up on the streets?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will look into the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have seen concerning evidence about some providers of supported housing. That is why we are doing the work at the moment to see what the true situation is, whether a tighter regulatory environment is required, and, if so, how we deliver that. I would be happy to take his advice as to how we move forward. I take the opportunity to praise his council in Birmingham for its hard work. Birmingham is one of the shining examples of success over the course of the last year, and its rough sleeping count, announced today, of just 17 individuals for a large city—England’s largest local authority—is a huge achievement.

Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

Like others who have spoken, I remember my visit to Auschwitz with a group of sixth formers, organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, to which I pay tribute. It was around this time of year. It was freezing. There was no snow on the ground. I will never forget how I felt as I thought of human beings being forced to march across that frozen ground, barefoot, near naked, on their way to extermination.

We must never forget that we allowed it to happen. That is why we cannot quietly ignore or excuse antisemitism. That is why we must challenge phoney equivalence arguments and free speech excuses, no matter where they come from or who says it. Excuses mean complicity.

When we think of Israel, it is right to question the motives of those who constantly single out that state for special treatment. That does not mean that I do not support a just settlement, a democratic and viable Palestinian state, and a secure and recognised Israel—I do support those things. It does mean, however, that when I hear the frank views of As’ad AbuKhalil, who has said:

“The real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel…That should be stated as an unambiguous goal”,

or those of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who has said:

“It is the mission of the Islamic Republic…to erase Israel from the map of the region”,

I question the intentions and the motives of those who support such people and such movements.

It was exactly those kinds of views that paved the way to Auschwitz. We should never forget what indifference and turning a blind eye can lead to. Let us be a light in the darkness.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Earlier in the year, I laid a written ministerial statement that set out the Government’s position with respect to local government reorganisation. It remains my view that, where there is local support, councils should consider further reorganisation to drive the sorts of efficiencies my hon. Friend speaks of, but there must be support for that within the local community. It is not the Government’s intention to impose that on parts of the country where it does not work for the character and nature of local government. We have taken forward three propositions—one in Cumbria, one in Somerset and one in North Yorkshire. Bids for those have been submitted to me, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government and I will be making decisions on that early in the new year.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Public health teams have been a key part of the response to the covid crisis, but the King’s Fund reports that the public health grant settlement last year was 22% lower per head than it was for 2015-16. How does the Secretary of State plan to address that?

[Robert Jenrick]

We have provided exceptional resources both to the NHS and to local authorities over the course of the year, so the suggestion that public health has not been resourced this year is not correct. We have been providing huge sums of money to support the increasingly important role of directors of public health in local councils and the teams that are around them. With respect to Birmingham, we have provided £177 million of covid-19 expenditure funding already, much of which will have gone to support the sort of work that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, including through the infection control programmes.

Winter Homelessness Support

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate.

I cannot think of many things worse than being homeless. Maybe it is not surprising that homeless people are three and a half times more likely to commit suicide than the general population. The suicide rate among rough sleepers is estimated to have increased by 30% in just 12 months, and Birmingham has recorded 25 homeless deaths over a 12-month period—not all of them suicides, but that is the second highest rate in the country. More people will almost certainly perish on our streets this winter. In Birmingham, over 3,500 house- holds are homeless, living in temporary accommodation, which includes bed and breakfasts and some pretty grim hotels. Some 16,000 households are on the Birmingham housing register.

It is not a lack of will that causes these problems. We saw during the Everyone In programme what can be achieved, and I really admire the energy and determination of Birmingham Councillor Sharon Thompson in trying to make a difference. However, we need a more joined-up response, and we need to agree that homelessness is as much of an evil as hunger or disease. I do not wish to strike a discordant note in this debate, but I was slightly surprised by the emphasis that the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster and for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) placed on people’s social problems, at a time when so many prominent voices in the Tory party have been promoting Housing First as a policy. I would be really interested to hear from the Minister whether there is a view on that.

Birmingham is a generous city, and The Birmingham Mail’s #BrumWish campaign has raised money from its readers for more than 2,000 presents for children living in homeless accommodation this Christmas. However, we cannot solve homelessness with donations: we need action to address the lack of affordable housing. Private rents in Birmingham are already too high, and with the economic uncertainty that lies ahead, there will be a further increase in homelessness unless some practical measures to address exorbitant rents are introduced.

[Adam Holloway]

I totally get the hon. Gentleman’s point about 60,000 people on waiting lists, emergency accommodation and everything else, but this is what we always do. We are always conflating the homelessness of the sorts of people the hon. Gentleman is talking about with the street homeless, who are sometimes used as a thing to batter Government with. I think there is a very big difference between the entrenched street homeless and the sorts of people that the hon. Gentleman is describing. They are different, and we will not help the street homeless or our cohorts unless we accept that there is a difference between the two groups.

[Steve McCabe]

I guess my point is that we should be helping both. I would say it is as simple as that: I do not really want to divide and separate these people, but to help both groups.

We also need strengthened arrangements to prevent developers wriggling out of obligations to provide affordable housing by fiddling figures to disguise their real profit margins at the expense of homeless people. That is what is happening in my city, and I will wager that it is happening up and down the country. As the Minister will know, too many people in Birmingham and elsewhere are placed in expensive and dodgy exempt accommodation, draining the public purse of money that could be put to much better use in tackling homelessness on both of these fronts. We should be dealing with the people on the streets, but if a child is sharing a bed with their three sisters and mother in a bed-and-breakfast house in Birmingham, they do not have much of a future, either.

Supported Accommodation: HMOs

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the conversion of family homes to houses in multiple occupation for supported accommodation.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford.

I want to make it clear that I have no problem with permitted development when it comes to individual homeowners adding a conservatory, a granny flat or an extra bedroom for an unexpected addition to their family, but I cannot believe that it was ever intended to allow developers to destroy existing family homes and create unregulated hostels, solely for profit.

I represent an area that is already plagued by developers adding extra rooms to family homes left, right and centre. Their actions have lowered the number of homes available for young families in the Selly Oak area and created properties that—once the student population for whom they were originally conceived makes greater use of the rapidly expanding supply of customised accommodation—will have a value only as unregulated hostels, which are more commonly described as supported or exempt accommodation. That is a real problem in my part of Birmingham and many other towns and cities across the country.

That destruction of family homes through conversions under permitted development is bad enough, but what consideration have the Government given to how the problem is likely to be exacerbated by their latest proposals to allow the addition of up to two extra storeys on dwelling houses and purpose-built detached flats? It seems like the perfect recipe for a rash of jerry-building on a scale previously unimaginable.

When I recently consulted my constituents about the Government’s proposals for reforming our planning laws, 97% told me that they wanted more power to seek redress against developers who breach or ignore existing planning laws. They want a deterrent against rogue builders and developers who are destroying their communities. Some 93% also want a right of appeal against applications that have a significant impact on a local residential area and change of use applications that are likely to have a similar effect.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a very important issue. For me, the big issues are vulnerable people and supported accommodation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for something to be classified as supported accommodation, the support workers must be on the ground? Therefore, the buildings must be suitable and accessible, not simply to the vulnerable individual, but to their family and indeed the families residing in the area. There must be a point of contact to protect the vulnerable tenant and the local neighbours.

[Steve McCabe]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and in fact I will touch on that point later in my speech.

My constituents say that because they are fed up with seeing perfectly good family homes destroyed by those who insist on converting them with the sole intention of turning huge areas of Selly Oak into little more than dormitories. The first target for that activity is students, who are a lucrative source of income as they are short-term tenants who are unlikely to make too many demands about repairs. As I said, students are increasingly being enticed to move to more modern, customised accommodation, leaving the owners saddled with large and unattractive houses in multiple occupation.

Unsurprisingly, those owners are looking for financial pickings elsewhere, and they have found them in what we tend to call support supported or exempt accommodation. My experience is that most of that non-commissioned accommodation is anything but supportive. It has become a gold mine, enabling Government money to roll in for houses in which vulnerable people from a variety of backgrounds are packed in like sardines.

In theory, supported housing refers to any scheme in which housing and support services are provided jointly to help people live as independently as possible. The sector covers a range of accommodation types, including group homes, hostels, refuges and sheltered housing. Much of that accommodation is excellent, and the providers should be applauded, but supported housing can be provided by a wide variety of bodies, and not all are as reputable as we might hope. Exempt accommodation, as the name implies, can be provided by non-metropolitan councils, housing associations, registered charities and other bodies, and it is exempt from normal licensing requirements and checks.

Research undertaken by the Spring Housing Association, the Housing and Communities Research Group and Commonweal Housing examined non-commissioned exempt accommodation in Birmingham. It concluded that there are many thousands of individuals living in non-commissioned exempt accommodation environments that are potentially unsafe, unsuitable and not conducive to progression or growth.

One problem with exempt accommodation is that there appear to be no standards beyond the most basic. They are supposed to be buildings fit for human habitation with no hazards, and to comply with the relevant legislation regarding building maintenance and conditions. That means they can accommodate an extraordinary mix of tenants, including youngsters from the care system, people with mental health difficulties, those released from prison, and victims of domestic abuse and their children. Such people often find themselves living together in the same house.

It is not unusual to find more than one exempt property or unregulated hostel in the same street. Local residents are frequently on the receiving end of problems emanating from those unregulated hostels. Regular complaints include noise, drug use, antisocial behaviour and other unacceptable activities. Local residents are verbally assaulted if they dare to complain. My constituent witnessed a person being chased down the street by her exempt accommodation neighbour, who was wielding an iron bar.

On occasions where a property has been reported to the police or local authority, its ownership has mysteriously changed hands. The tenants are given no say over their choice of residence and frequently cannot identify the landlord—these are often desperate and vulnerable people. I was contacted by a young woman who had been advised that the property to which she had been referred was not suitable for couples with children. She was several months pregnant at the time, but none the less found herself placed in a property in need of multiple repairs. When she complained to an employee of the supported housing group responsible for the property, she and her partner were threatened with a knife.

One establishment specialised in parties during the March lockdown. There was some difficulty in establishing who owned that property, but, again, it appeared that tenants had been placed there initially in the hands of one group, only for it to be replaced by another as the complaints mounted. In Gristhorpe Road, the landlords appealed against a notice for eviction by the local council because of repeated problems. The appeal was lost, but the notice has been ignored.

In another street, there are three properties side by side. Again, ownership is unclear, but there are reports of frequent drug dealing and antisocial behaviour. Just the other evening, I learned of a group of so-called paedophile hunters who turned up to deliver their vigilante justice at a property converted to bedsits for that purpose. The police are not consulted when a property is converted with the intention of providing exempt accommodation. They, like local residents, become aware of those residing there after problems emerge.

The research to which I referred earlier concluded that there is an accountability deficit with respect to this kind of accommodation and advised strengthening the criteria for housing benefit or universal credit rent paid to providers. It also suggests that new powers might be needed for the regulator of social housing to address some of the problems.

A key issue in my area and many other parts of the country is the shortage of family homes, but I submit that the relaxation of planning laws envisaged in the current White Paper is the wrong prescription when it comes to increasing their supply. The combination of existing permitted development rules, new flexibilities and the continued disregard for planning laws is likely to only increase the problems caused by unregulated hostels.

A prevalent view in Government circles seems to be that delays in house building are a problem with the planning process. When it comes to houses, nine out of 10 planning applications receive fairly prompt approval, but approval does not equate to building. Government figures show that 2,564,000 units have received planning permission from local councils since 2009-10, but only 1.5 million homes that have received permission have been built. How do the Government account for the shortfall? Proposed changes will tip the planning process in favour of developers but ignore the problems faced by local communities. In many cases, it will result in a reduction, rather than an expansion, of much-needed family homes.

We need better regulations. We need a clearer definition of what constitutes adequate support in supported accommodation, and we need increased transparency when it comes to identifying the providers. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government needs to consider mandating the regulator of social housing, in order to develop a stronger framework for consumers and better protections across the exempt accommodation sector. Providers should be monitored regularly, and close attention paid to client-tenant feedback. I would also advocate that any property intended for use as supported accommodation should be subject to a background planning check, to ensure that it is safe and suitable for such purposes and that there is no history of breaches of planning law or unapproved extensions or building work. We also need to be clear about who is responsible for managing and supervising such accommodation, and the owner should be subject to fit and proper person checks.

We need proposals to protect existing homes, not plans to ease their conversion to HMOs or unregulated hostels. We need permitted development to be used to help people with family homes, not developers who are determined to destroy them. We need policies to encourage more affordable housing, not policies likely to reduce the supply. We need planning powers designed to support local communities and vulnerable people in need of housing, not measures that will undermine them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing the debate; it has touched on issues that are of deep concern to me as a relatively new Minister in the post. I have taken a keen interest in how we can ensure that there is the right of supply of supported housing for people who need it, and that the right oversight arrangements are in place to ensure that it delivers the best outcomes for such individuals. Those are priorities for the Government.

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns of his constituents around some of the challenges presented to them when faced with a large number of properties that they believe are managed incorrectly. It is shocking to hear the stories of some his constituents this year. As he touched on, supported housing is critical in providing vulnerable individuals with the support that they need to live as independently as possible. For some, it is a transitional arrangement whereby short-term accommodation provides them with support and equips with the tools and skills that they need to move on, to live independently and to thrive in the community.

The Government are committed to ensuring high standards across all provisions of supported housing. That means delivering high-quality accommodation and support for residents, but also value for money for the taxpayer. We know that insufficient support and poor-quality accommodation leads to poor outcomes for individuals. That is unacceptable, and it fits with what the hon. Gentleman said. Although the vast majority of the sectors deliver high-quality provision and positive outcomes for individuals, I am aware of the issues surrounding poor-quality supported housing in some areas. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about supporting housing schemes in his constituency and others, where there are particular questions about the sufficiency and ownership of the support provided.

Such properties often house individuals with multiple complex needs who are extremely vulnerable. They may have experienced homelessness, rough sleeping, drug and alcohol dependency, involvement with the criminal justice system, poor mental health, or a combination of those factors. It is vital that they get the support they need to live and thrive independently.

The hon. Gentleman raised serious and valid issues—as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place—of which the Government are well aware. We are actively working to improve quality and oversight across the whole supported housing sector to ensure that all schemes meet the high standards set by most providers to improve the homes that people live in, so that the support those people receive is tailored to their needs and schemes provide good value.

Supported housing schemes should be appropriately planned and placed in the right locations within communities. That helps to foster good relationships between local residents and residents of the supported housing. I understand that lack of planning can cause issues that are detrimental to the cohesion of the community, such as antisocial behaviour. Social landlords are required by the Regulator of Social Housing to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour in neighbourhoods where they own homes. Collaboration between local partners and the relevant powers, including the council, police and landlords, is essential for tackling and solving the problem of antisocial behaviour, but it is right that decisions are taken locally.

The vast majority of supported housing providers are legitimate, ethical landlords who provide high-quality accommodation and support to vulnerable people. Most supported housing providers are registered providers, which means that they are registered with and subject to regulation by the Regulator of Social Housing, including on governance, financial viability, quality and value for money. The Government also have regulations in place to oversee the safety and management of HMOs and to monitor their proliferation in certain areas.

Local authorities already have powers, through the planning system, to limit the number of HMOs—Birmingham City Council has already used an article 4 order to restrict the development of new HMOs across the whole city—ensuring that all such properties will now be consulted on locally and that the view of neighbours and local communities are taken into account in the decision-making process.

HMO licensing was extended on 1 October 2008 alongside the minimum size for bedrooms, which, for a single adult, must be a space greater than 6.51 square metres. Through the Housing and Planning Act 2016, we are determined to crack down on rogue landlords who cause misery to their tenants and put their health and safety at risk. We have put measures in place to make it easier for local authorities to tackle rogue landlords effectively by introducing civil penalties of up to £30,000 and rent payment orders for a wide range of offences. Banning orders and the database of rogue landlords are an important part of the package to help local authorities to tackle the worst offenders.

Although the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak raised undoubtedly serious issues, I cannot stress enough that they relate to only a very small part of the sector. Introducing over-hasty regulations to control that very small part of the sector may have unintended consequences for the rest of it, particularly smaller providers. Being regulated by a national body and the local council could prove to be far too onerous, and there could be consequences for much-needed supply if good providers exit the market. The Government are committed to ending rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. Penalising good-quality providers, who make up the vast majority of the sector, could damage critical progress towards that aim.

The Government already have a programme of work in train on the regulation and oversight of supported housing, and it is right that we pursue that to thoroughly test ideas. My Department, which has been working jointly with the Department for Work and Pensions to drive improvements in oversight and regulation of supported housing, recently made two announcements on the progress of that work. First, we have published a national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out the Government’s vision for achieving the best quality accommodation to meet local needs. That emphasises the importance of strategic planning in understanding and managing local need for and supply of supported housing, and empowering local authorities to develop a sustainable longer term plan to meet the needs of residents. The national statement of expectations also mentions the need for community cohesion and proper engagement with residents. I strongly support that.

[Steve McCabe]

I understand the Minister’s point about being concerned about over-hasty regulation, but as she progresses this work, will she look at whether there is a role for the Regulator of Social Housing in relation to exempt accommodation, and at the easy access that landlords have to Government funds for exempt accommodation? Those seem to be two difficulties at the moment.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Absolutely. I will be looking at all the options that are available. There is a fine balancing act when it comes to decisions or regulations that we make. However, the hon. Gentleman will know of one of the pieces of work that we have already initiated—the £3.1 million of funding for five local authority areas to test approaches to improving quality and oversight in the housing sector. That will enable us to get data, evidence and best practice to test some of the work. That is ongoing work but we hope that the pilots will influence some of it.

There are a number of objectives for the pilots. Undertaking inspection and enforcement work through a multidisciplinary team will drive up standards in accommodation and send a clear signal to providers about our intentions and expectations for supported housing schemes. Also, through a review of the care and support provided at the properties, again through the use of multidisciplinary teams, councils will ensure that people get the support that they need and is appropriate to them. I understand and take the hon. Gentleman’s point about oversight of support and its quality.

Finally, in relation to the delivery of a comprehensive assessment of local need for and supply of supported housing, improved oversight of local provision will empower local areas and enable them to plan strategically to meet current and projected demand. I am pleased to say that, as I have outlined, the hon. Gentleman already has one of the schemes within his local authority, Birmingham City Council. We hope that that will drive up the quality of support, in addition to a focus on managing the antisocial behaviour aspect of supported housing in Birmingham. My officials are working closely with the council to monitor progress and provide support.

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about achieving the best outcomes for the individuals in question, and have taken on board issues that he has raised about the impact, particularly in his constituency. I thank him very much and look forward to engaging and working with him as we progress the measures within Government to improve quality and oversight. I am grateful to have had this debate today.

Question put and agreed to.