Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill

Debate between Toby Perkins and Heather Wheeler

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

I welcome the reassurance that the Minister has just given us, but the fact is that different local authorities understand the current legislation and their responsibilities to people fleeing domestic violence in different ways, so what possible harm would it do to include amendment 1 so that there would be no cause for any misunderstanding in future?

[Mrs Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to entice me down a road that I will not go down. This is parliamentary legislative drafting, and there should be no reason whatsoever for local authorities to misunderstand the situation, which will obviously also be made clear in guidance. However, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say it again. We will be issuing guidance to assist local authorities to implement the fixed-term tenancy provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. To manage concerns, we can certainly look to ensure that it explains the provisions in this Bill as well, including making it absolutely clear that it applies where the victim is seeking to be re-housed in a different local authority district from the one in which her existing tenancy is situated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

Again, I stress that this Bill is England-only, but there are such opportunities. There is a local housing rate and then there are discretionary housing payments that can be made above that.

I come to amendment 3, the final amendment. I fully understand the motivation behind this amendment, which would extend the Bill to housing association landlords—this was the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I believe. However, as I said in Committee, we have some fundamental concerns about this amendment. First and foremost, local authorities and housing associations are very different entities. Housing associations are private, not-for-profit organisations which make a significant contribution to affordable housing supply. I am sure Members will agree that we all want to see more affordable homes built. It is therefore vital that housing associations remain in the private sector, so that they can borrow funding free of public sector spending guidelines, to build the affordable housing we so greatly need. For that reason, we must avoid imposing any unnecessary control that might risk reversing—

[Toby Perkins]

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying. It very much stands at odds with the Conservative party policy announced in the run-up to the general election, when it was going to impose right to buy on housing associations. How is it that the Conservative party is so happy to remove thousands of houses from the social rental sector when it comes to right to buy, but when it comes to legislation to protect domestic violence victims, suddenly the Conservatives feel that the private sector should not be touched?

[Mrs Wheeler]

Clearly, what the hon. Gentleman is discussing is outside the scope of this Bill, but we are talking about a voluntary pilot that is starting in the west midlands and we will see where that takes us.

Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Toby Perkins and Heather Wheeler

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning Solace, which has a very good reputation across London. It is quite right that it should get a namecheck in this place.

The Bill will do two things. First, it will ensure that if victims of domestic abuse who have a lifetime social tenancy need to flee their current home to escape abuse, they will be granted a new tenancy and retain their lifetime tenancy in their new social home. It will also apply to lifetime tenants who, having fled their homes, may be considered to have lost their security of tenure, or may have lost their lifetime tenancy altogether before they are rehoused. The Bill will specifically protect all lifetime social tenants in such circumstances, whether they have a secure local authority tenancy, or an assured tenancy with a private registered provider of social housing —a housing association.

Secondly, the Bill will ensure that victims of domestic abuse who are joint lifetime tenants and want to remain in their home after the abuser has left or has been removed can be granted a new lifetime tenancy after the joint tenancy has ended. We have Baroness Lister of Burtersett to thank for her persistence in ensuring that the Bill should be extended to apply to that situation as well. The provisions will apply to all local authorities in England, and not only when the tenant is a victim of domestic abuse, but when a member of the household, such as a child, has suffered domestic abuse. The definition of domestic abuse has deliberately been drawn widely to apply not just to those who have suffered physical abuse and violence, but to victims of psychological, sexual, financial and emotional abuse.

The Bill delivers on a commitment the Government made to the House during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. We committed to ensuring that when local authorities move to fixed-term tenancies, the regulations that specify when they may grant a further lifetime tenancy would make that mandatory for victims of domestic abuse. Primary legislation is necessary for us to deliver on that commitment, and I am very pleased to be introducing it today.

I should make it clear that the Bill does not create a new requirement for local authorities to rehouse lifetime tenants who are the victims of domestic abuse, and does not require local authorities to grant a further tenancy to victims in their own homes after the perpetrator has left. However, it ensures that when a lifetime tenant is rehoused in those circumstances, or when a victim is granted a new tenancy in his or her home after the previous tenancy has ended, the victim does not lose security of tenure. The purpose is to remove an impediment that could prevent victims from leaving their abusive situations, or from taking steps to secure their safety in their current social homes. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting victims of domestic abuse.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

That support for victims of domestic violence is incredibly important. Will the Minister say a little more about allocations policy, which seems to be applied very inconsistently in different local authority areas? If a victim of domestic violence moves from one area to a hostel in another local authority area, should that local authority have a responsibility for the tenant who is fleeing domestic violence?

[Mrs Wheeler]

The average stay in a hostel or refuge can be up to four and a half or five months, so a local connection is created. Most local authorities that deal on a workaday basis with people who need to be rehoused from refuges take the view that domestic abuse is one of the highest priorities when it comes to the reallocation of premises. I think that there needs to be a full and frank discussion about which is the best place for a family to move to, and the best place may be where the family have been for the last four and a half months.

[Toby Perkins]

It is true that some local authorities take the view that the Minister describes, but would it not be better if central Government made the rules clear? Allowing people who are fleeing domestic violence to stay in hostels for an extended length of time simply in order to develop a local connection is the wrong approach. Do the Government plan to put in statute the rights of victims of domestic violence in respect of future allocations?

[Mrs Wheeler]

That is a very good question, but I do not think there is the problem that the hon. Gentleman thinks there is. I have certainly never known that to be the case.

As I have said, the Government are absolutely committed to supporting victims of domestic abuse, which is why we have invested £33.5 million in supporting them since 2014. However, we want to go further. We are carrying out a fundamental review of the commissioning and funding of domestic abuse services, which will conclude this summer. I look forward to updating the House on its progress later in the year. We will also announce details of further significant funding for domestic abuse services as early as possible in the new financial year. It will be open to all local areas to bid for a share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Wheeler]

No, I will not—I have to move on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) brought up the matter of domestic violence as a priority for Essex police. I am very grateful for that. Councils have been given large amounts to help them to support people in this regard, and training on domestic abuse has been provided from that funding pot.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) mentioned GPs charging for letters. The provision of notes or letters as evidence falls outside a GP’s NHS contract, so a fee can currently be charged. This issue was raised in the Lords, as we heard, and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth has already written to the Department of Health and Social Care about it. While we await a response, it is important to note that GP contract negotiations for 2018-19 are still ongoing and negotiations for the 2019-20 contract begin in April. We look forward to receiving the details of that response.

We have had a very good debate. There is cross-party support for the Bill. I am grateful to everybody who has been involved in the debate and hope that I have dealt with the points that have been raised. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to discussing it further during its later stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Fire Services (Derbyshire)

Debate between Toby Perkins and Heather Wheeler

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

Of course, and that entirely reinforces the statistic to which I was alluding.

We know that Derbyshire fire authority—indeed, all services in Derbyshire—are operating in the most extreme and difficult financial circumstances imaginable. The Minister represents a Department that we could argue—in fact, I would argue—has been the most cowardly in the whole Government. Of all the big spending Departments, it is the one that devolves most of its funding, and meanwhile it has taken the largest share of cuts. At a time when other departmental budgets have been squeezed, Department for Communities and Local Government budgets have been crushed, passing tough choices of austerity to council leaders and fire authorities around the country. It has been left to council leaders to decide whether to cut libraries or social care, whether to leave potholes in the road or cut community safety budgets, and for fire chiefs to decide whether to cut back on firefighters or reduce fire prevention work.

I find it nauseating to hear the Secretary of State praised by the Chancellor for agreeing to take on the largest cuts when he faces so few of the tough decisions and leaves others to face the petitions and campaigns against closures and service reductions.

Let us look at what that means for Derbyshire fire authority, which has delivered £3 million in efficiency measures from a programme started in 2010. The authority faced a 40% reduction in funding between 2011 and 2015-16 to a 24/7 service that will have 60 full-time firefighters on duty at any one time. We must scrutinise the changes proposed to the fire service by Derbyshire’s “Fit to respond” document in that appalling context.

The true architects of those cuts are the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who has chosen that cuts to the fire authority should outstrip the cuts faced by almost any other public service budget. They could have made different choices, but they chose to reduce the tax bill of £1 million earners and to waste billions with their botched Royal Mail privatisation. Their £3 billion NHS reorganisation has resulted in service levels falling while budgets remain constant. I could go on.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

To return to the fire and rescue service, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the document would have more merit if it were based on correct statistics? It mis-estimates the future growth of the south Derbyshire district by at least 6,000 houses and takes no account of future industrial growth, which is why I object to the proposals—they are not based on facts.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. It is important that we consider it in the broader context of the report, which has many other flaws that I will describe.

It is important to focus on the context of the choices the Government have made because we hear so often from them that their policies are based on the financial situation they inherited. Policy is all about choices and they will have to answer for theirs when the day comes.

The impact on Derbyshire is stark. The report states that the service will deliver “less for less”. The Derbyshire Fire Brigades Union believes that the

“proposals can in no way give the service to the same level of resilience”

it currently has. Currently, a fire engine will be at a life-risk incident within 10 minutes three quarters of the time. A fire engine will be at an incident deemed as most vulnerable in more than 80% of cases. The plans mean that that will drop to 66%. Last year, the service responded to 565 life-risk incidents. Under the plans, at about a third of such incidents—about 190 incidents—there will not be a fire engine within 10 minutes. Can hon. Members imagine lives in danger and a one in three chance of the engine failing to turn up within 10 minutes?

The campaigns are starting up across Derbyshire to send the strongest message imaginable to the fire authority about the views of people in Derbyshire. In Staveley, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), people are campaigning to save the station, which was built just three years ago. I received an e-mail today from Catherine Atkinson about the campaign that she and people in Long Eaton are waging to halt the closure of their station. People in Chesterfield are mystified and concerned about the plans for our town.

I was a councillor for the Rother ward in Chesterfield in 2009 when the old Whittington Moor fire station was closed and the new one was built at the Donkins roundabout, at a cost of £4.5 million. We were told that it was a better venue for the service, closer to the motorway and to the area that had the most fires. When the Chesterfield retained unit was disbanded, the public were assured that they would still be provided for by the two fire engines at Staveley and back-up from Dronfield and Clay Cross. Under the new plans, Dronfield and Staveley will disappear. To allow the service to respond to those closures, the brand new fire station will be moved a mile back up the road—I am not making this up—to Whittington Moor, precisely where the original station was. The fire authority tells us that it wants to spend £4.3 million replacing the £4.5 million station that still has its first coat of paint. Unsurprisingly, it will take a hit on the resale value. It estimates that the used fire station might get them £1 million, but who wants a used fire station? That might be optimistic.

Where do these plans come from? Council papers show that a variety of tough decisions were ducked by Derbyshire county council in the dying embers of its first Tory administration for 28 years. It left the council sitting on a financial time bomb and left the tough choices until after the election.

Was the consultation always designed to lead to the report? It was certainly ready at the first meeting of the new Derbyshire fire authority and presented as the solution to the funding crisis it faced. The fire authority quotes as its justification the response to the 2012-13 consultation launched by the Conservative fire authority shortly before the historic and huge Labour victory in Derbyshire in 2013. This masterpiece of push polling included the question:

“If the service continues to face restrictions on its budget would you support the principle of matching the service’s resources to the level of risk in each area?”

Unsurprisingly, 80% of the public responded to that extremely leading question by saying yes. That is the sort of question we expect in a Liberal Democrat Focus survey questionnaire, not in the Derbyshire fire authority’s proposals. For the authority to then consider that to be a valid reason to go ahead with these actions is ludicrous. Maybe if it had asked, “Do you support us digging into the reserves to spend £4.3 million on a new station to replace the £4.5 million station we built just four years ago and move back to precisely where we were before we started this nonsense?” we might have got a different response.

Frankly, I do not care where the report came from. I only care where it goes now. It is not just Chesterfield and north Derbyshire that have a major problem. The Ascot Drive fire station had a £3 million refurbishment in March 2012—that will be closed. Buxton fire station was opened in 2011 at a cost of £3.5 million—that will go. Ilkeston was opened in only 2009—that will go. The merger of the three stations in Derby will cost £1 million. It has been stated that the overall outcome of building a new station and closing three will be cost neutral, but at what cost to the service?