Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince
That is exactly why we spend more than £5 billion a year on childcare and early years, including: the offer for disadvantaged two-year-olds; the offer of 15 and 30 hours for three and four-year-olds, which is worth about £6,000 per child to parents; the universal credit offer, which is worth up to 85% of childcare costs; the tax-free childcare; and the holiday activities and food programme. Of course we take this issue incredibly seriously.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
For families with young children, soaring childcare costs are a huge pressure on the cost of living. A quarter of households earning between £20,000 and £30,000 a year are paying more than £100 a week for childcare. The Government’s only response so far has been a proposed cut to staff to child ratios in early years settings. Parents have not asked for that, and 98% of providers believe that it will do nothing to cut costs for parents and could reduce the quality of care. Will the Minister set out why he believes that asking parents to pay more for less is a remotely adequate response to the rising cost of living?
Will Quince
Over the summer, we will consult on moving to the Scottish staff to child ratios for two-year-olds—from a ratio of one to four compared with one to five. I want all parents and carers to receive value for money, and more families to benefit from affordable, flexible and quality childcare. Such changes would help settings to deliver that by handing them more autonomy and flexibility. However—this is important—my priority continues to be to provide safe and high-quality early years provision for our very youngest children; as I have said before, I will not compromise on those things.
Helen Hayes
More than half of families with two-year-olds do not access any formal early years education or childcare at all, while a shocking 65% of eligible two-year-olds are not receiving the full free entitlement. Early years education makes a huge difference to children’s development and can have a lifelong impact by mitigating disadvantage. What is the Minister doing to increase the pitifully low uptake of free places for two-year-olds?
Will Quince
The hon lady is absolutely right that take-up of the two-year-old disadvantage offer is much lower than we want it to be. In truth, take-up of the universal credit childcare offer is lower than we want it to be and take-up of the tax-free childcare offer is lower than we want it to be. Throughout the House, we all have a duty to promote those offers more widely, and I certainly understand that the House will.
Independent Review of Children’s Social Care
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement today. Labour welcomes the report of the independent review of children’s social care. I would like to add my thanks to Josh MacAlister and his team for their hard work and commitment. I also want to pay tribute to the social workers, support workers, foster carers, children’s home staff, youth workers and everyone else who strives day in, day out to provide safety, support and stability to children who are in need or whose own families are unable to care for them. Their work is vital, it makes a huge difference, and it often goes unrecognised. At the top of my mind today are the group of care leavers I hosted in Parliament earlier this year. They were articulate, thoughtful and kind. All had been through experiences that no child should have to endure, and they all deserved far better than the current system had been able to deliver.
I welcome the review’s conclusion that a total reset of children’s social care is needed. That conclusion is a terrible indictment of the extent to which this Government have been failing children for more than a decade. During those 12 years, we have seen the number of children living in poverty rise to 4.3 million. That is a key causal factor underpinning the Government’s failure of children: the unbearable pressure on families increases the risk of abuse and neglect. We have also seen the number of looked-after children increase continually, up by a quarter since 2010; the number of section 47 inquiries, when a local authority has cause to suspect that a child is in need, has gone up by 78% since 2011; half of all children’s services departments have been rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement”; vacancy and turnover rates for children’s social workers are increasing; and outcomes for care-experienced children and young people are worsening. In the meantime, the 10 biggest private providers of children’s homes and private foster care placements made a jaw-dropping £300 million in profits last year.
We welcome the review’s clear statement that providing care for children should not be based on profit—it should not. The law recognises childhood as lasting until the age of 18, and it is shocking that the Government have continued to allow children to be placed in unregistered children’s homes and other completely unsuitable accommodation. We welcome the review’s conclusion that the use of unregistered placements for 16 and 17-year-olds must stop, and stop now.
At the heart of the Government’s failure is the erosion of early help and family support, which is demonstrated no more starkly than by the 1,300 Sure Start centres that have closed since 2010. We welcome the review’s focus on restoring early help to families so that many more children can be supported to remain and to thrive with their own family, on supporting kinship carers and on seeking to ensure that every looked-after child can build lifelong links with extended family members.
Although the Minister reannounced a series of policies today, there is nothing here that will deliver the transformation in children’s social care that the review demands. Successive piecemeal announcements are yet further indication of what the review describes as
“a lack of national direction about the purpose of children’s social care”.
The Minister does not seem to grasp the depth of change that the review requires, at scale, across the whole country.
Will the Minister commit to a firm date for publication of a comprehensive response to the review and a detailed implementation plan? Does he expect that there will be a need for legislation? How does this square with the Queen’s Speech voted on last week, from which children’s social care was completely absent? How will today’s announcement of early help investment in a handful of additional places ensure that early help services are available in every single area of the country, so that every family who need help can be supported?
What representations is the Minister making to the Treasury in response to the review? Will he commit, as the review demands, to an end to profiteering in children’s social care? How will he ensure that the voices and experiences of children are always at the heart of children’s social care? How will he guarantee that the workforce, who are the backbone of children’s social care, are fully engaged and involved as the reforms are implemented? Finally, how will he ensure that, as the reforms are implemented, the framework of accountability for decisions made by the state about the care of children is strengthened?
This review sets out the urgent need for the Government to put children first and to stop poverty, mental illness, substance misuse, domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other adverse childhood experiences becoming the defining experience of a child’s whole life, so that every child can thrive. Labour will always put children first. We did so in government, and we will do so again. This review represents an opportunity to deliver the total reset that is needed in children’s social care. It is an opportunity that must not be missed, and we will hold the Government to account every single day on the framework of support and the outcomes for our most vulnerable children.
Will Quince
The hon. Lady asks a lot of questions, and I genuinely mean it when I say that I want to have as much of a cross-party approach as possible in tackling this issue and delivering the review.
I thank the hon. Lady for her largely constructive comments, and I thank her for the tone in which she referred to the review. We all want to act on the review to bring about the change we all want to see. Although I completely understand why she wants to talk about the past, we have to be honest with ourselves that, despite years of real-terms funding increases to children’s social care, too many children and young people have been failed and let down, and are still being failed and let down, by the system. System reform is decades overdue, so I hope she will understand why I want to focus on the future and how we will look to implement the review.
The hon. Lady rightly pushes me on implementation, which is key. The Secretary of State and I are determined that this will not be just another report gathering dust on a shelf in Whitehall—this is far too important. That is why I am establishing an implementation board with sector experts to drive the change that we want and need to see. An implementation plan will be delivered by the end of this year.
Finally, the hon. Lady should not, in any way, doubt my personal determination to implement many of the review’s recommendations. Many colleagues who look at my Instagram feed say I have the best job in Government, and to some extent they are right, but what they do not see is that every weekend I read the serious incident notification report detailing all the children who have been killed, murdered, abused or neglected, or who have taken their own life, during the previous week. It is a harrowing read. I know that no legislation, process, procedure or review—however good it is—can prevent evil, and I cannot promise that there will not be further cases like Arthur, Star, Victoria, Daniel or Peter. However, with this most excellent review—it really is excellent—we have a plan, a road map, and an opportunity that we must and will grasp to ensure that such cases are as rare as they are tragic.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and all the work he does in this area. It is so very important that at the heart of the SEND review, we have early identification and early support, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this important agenda.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Government’s own figures show that almost 50% of children with additional needs are waiting longer than five months for an education, health and care plan. One in five requests is refused and 95% of those decisions are overturned by the tribunal. Families fighting for support were promised that the SEND review would help, but two and a half years on, they are still waiting, while children are being systematically let down by this Government. What assurance can the Minister provide that the SEND review will deliver timely support for families and an end to fighting at tribunals?
Will Quince
First, let me say that in the next financial year, high-needs funding for children and young people with complex needs is increasing by £1 billion to more than £9.1 billion. That is an unprecedented increase of 13%, and it comes on top of the £1.5 billion increase over the past two years, but that is just the finances. Over and above the £2.6 billion we are investing in capital, the SEND review will answer many of the questions that the hon. Lady rightly poses, and she just has to wait a handful more days.
Early Years Educators
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is right that there are significant issues within the SEND system, which is why we have the SEND review. There are local authorities with significant pressure on their budgets. We are putting more money into the high-needs budget—about 10%, year on year—but we are conscious that money alone will not solve the issue. That is why we have the SEND review. I am working at pace on that as we speak. The SEND review will conclude and we will launch a Green Paper and a consultation by the end of March, so within the first quarter of the year. The hon. Lady’s point is well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) mentioned people leaving the profession. I will come back to that point, because it is really important. Recruitment and retention are key. I hear her call about the pilots in Cornwall and I will certainly look into that; I am always keen to visit Cornwall, whenever possible, so I will bear that in mind.
My hon. Friend also mentioned a largely female workforce, which is something I want to address. I want to see more men working in early years settings. It is really important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester referenced, the Government want families to stay together wherever possible. Where they do not, there is not necessarily a male role model in the household, so it is really important in education settings that there are good male role models for children to look up to. We have the Pulse survey, which monitors the private, voluntary and independent sector. We meet with the sector regularly to keep on top of these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) mentioned ratios, which I will come on to very briefly. I assure him that local authorities can retain only 5% of the funding allocated; they have to pass the rest on. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) referenced the whole-child approach, the first 1,001 days and family hubs. I recognise that he welcomes the £300 million investment that the Government are making in this area.
Numerous hon. Members mentioned funding. I agree that high-quality childcare supports children’s learning and development and prepares young people for school, as well as having a huge impact on later outcomes. That is why the sector is working really hard to support children and their parents. It is also why the Government have spent more than £3.5 billion in each of the last three years on early education entitlements, and we will continue to support families with their childcare costs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester rightly pointed out, we announced additional funding of £160 million for 2022-23, £180 million the year after and £170 million the year after that, compared to the current year. That is for local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers and reflects the cost pressures that are anticipated and the changes in the number of eligible children.
So what does that mean? For 2022-23, we will increase the hourly funding rates for all local authorities—by 21p an hour for the disadvantage entitlement for two-year-olds in the vast majority of areas and by 17p an hour for the entitlement for three and four-year-olds.
I want to come on to the point about recruitment and retention, because they are really important.
Will Quince
If the hon. Lady will give me time, I will come back to that point if I can.
Recruitment and retention are really important. Early years provision in 2021 was delivered by an estimated 328,000 staff. The majority of providers work to the required staff to child ratios for each age group, with some providers reporting that their ratios are more generous than the statutory minimum. We recognise that recruitment and retention are key issues for the sector, and local authorities are reporting significant pressures on providers. Importantly, we are working with the sector to build our understanding of the situation and how we might better support providers. We have commissioned qualitative research interviews on the theme of the early years workforce and a survey on the impact that covid is having on the workforce. We are working closely with the sector to identify some of those issues.
To aid recruitment and retention, we have also invested £153 million in programmes to support workforce developments as part of the £180 million package that I referenced. However, I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said about the pressures and the questions he rightly raised about salary and how that impacts on recruitment. I will continue to listen to him, the all-party parliamentary group and the sector.
On ratios, the statutory framework for early years foundation stage sets out the staff to child ratios to help ensure that there is adequate staffing to meet the needs of, and to safeguard, children. They assume that the youngest children are the most vulnerable—I think that is the right approach—and need the greatest number of staff, but providers may need more staff where other needs are identified—for example, special educational needs. The Government are committed to working with the sector to support covid recovery, as well as on the broader concerns.
I want to clarify that there is a difference in ratios between England and Scotland, and I will look at that closely, but I assure all those who have raised the issue of ratios that I will always take an evidence-based approach. I will be very careful and considered in the way that I approach this and I will always put at the heart of this issue the needs of children and young people and the safeguarding of children. I will of course work with the APPG.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) referenced military-style childcare planning. I very much recognise that myself. Childcare costs and pressures are acute for many families. They are the second highest cost only to their mortgage or rent. We recognise that and it is something I am looking at that closely as part of my portfolio. I am interested to hear about her work on the universal credit offer. At the moment, the take-up for that is, frankly, too low.
With regard to maintained nursery schools, the points were well made and I echo the comments made about the late Member for Birmingham Erdington, Jack Dromey, who was a passionate advocate in this area. He last raised this with me just before Christmas and his voice will be sorely missed. The funding rate for maintained nursery schools will increase by 3.5% next year. That gives them the long-term certainty that they asked for. However, I recognise that they have some unique characteristics, such as a headteacher and a special educational needs co-ordinator, so I am looking at this closely and I will raise this with the Treasury.
Finally, I will touch again on SEND, which is absolutely a passion of mine. As part of the SEND review, we have to get early identification and early action at the heart of that. The earlier we identify the need, the better the support we can put in place, giving parents confidence, but most importantly, providing better outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs.
To close, I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for the support he has given this agenda today and to all those who have contributed to the debate. The steps we have taken underline the importance of early education and the role of educators in that sector. The Government have made a substantial financial commitment that will in decades to come provide the workforce with the skills and expertise to ensure that no child is left behind. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend, the APPG and the sector to progress these issues further.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will tell her exactly what we are doing. We have increased the high needs funding budget by £750 million a year for each of the previous three years. The spending review of 2021 provides a further £1.6 billion to that budget, an extra £2.6 billion in capital funding, an extra £42 million—but the hon. Lady is right: it is not just about money. That is why we have the comprehensive SEND review, which will report in the first quarter of next year.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The past two years have been incredibly difficult for children with special educational needs and disability. While the Government continue to delay the publication of the long-awaited SEND review, families are suffering now. Some 15,000 children with an education, health and care plan are still waiting to receive the provision specified in their plan, and more than 40% of plans are not issued within the statutory 20-week period.
Can I press the Minister again? Families up and down the country with children with SEND are losing confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver. What is the Minister doing now to support children with SEND and their families who are suffering while this Government continue to let them down?
Will Quince
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. I agree with her that the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on young people with SEND and their families, and we are committed to helping pupils, including those with SEND, to make up for lost learning. We have provided additional uplifts for those who attend specialist settings; we have invested that extra £42 million. I accept that the SEND review is taking longer than we wanted it to, but it is a priority for me and for the Government, and there will be a report in the first quarter of next year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Department has an ongoing positive relationship with a range of food bank providers. It has regularly engaged with them throughout the coronavirus pandemic and will continue to do so. We quickly introduced welfare changes worth an additional £9.3 billion, and worked closely with other Government Departments on the cross-Government taskforce on food and other essential supplies. Further to my earlier answer, the hon. Lady will have to wait for future fiscal events where benefit rates are set.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The gap between local housing allowance rates and average rents for a two-bed property in Southwark is now over £1,000 a month, and raising the local housing allowance in line with the consumer prices index will do almost nothing to close the gap. By continuing to ignore the issue, the Secretary of State is continuing to contribute to entirely unnecessary homelessness. If the Government are serious about ending homelessness, will the Secretary of State urge her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use this week’s Budget to re-link the LHA to the bottom third of rents?
Will Quince
As the Secretary of State said a moment ago, local housing allowance rates are not intended to meet all rents in all areas. The LHA is designed to ensure a fair balance between supporting vulnerable people to meet their housing costs and public spending. From April 2020, LHA rates will be increased by inflation, but I join the Secretary of State in urging the Mayor of London to do far more in terms of supply.
Homelessness
Debate between Will Quince and Helen Hayes(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I want specifically to talk about rough sleeping, and he raises a point about wider homelessness. I have no doubt that colleagues across the Chamber will speak more widely about homelessness, but I want to talk about rough sleeping, which does not necessarily fall into the category of families. It tends predominantly to involve young single men and young single women.
We do not have to look too widely across the world to see that Housing First is working and helping rough sleepers with the most complex needs.
Helen Hayes
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Housing First, in that it is a well-proven approach to addressing the complex needs of rough sleepers. Does he therefore agree that three pilot schemes, none of them in London, represent a paltry approach from this Government to a practice that we know works and that should be funded to address this urgent crisis?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady, with whom I worked on the Homelessness Reduction Act, makes a good point. If she bears with me, she might like what I will have to say in just a few moments.
In my view, the Housing First approach is a common-sense approach. Think about it: how can we provide the support services needed to help rough sleepers with their mental health, drug or alcohol issues when the support workers never know from day to day where they can find those individuals? How do we address the general and mental health problems that are all too common with rough sleepers when they are under extraordinary pressure and physical strain from living on the streets?
Like the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), I am pleased the Government have launched the pilots, but I think that it is time to go further and faster. I believe that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wants to go further. He is committed to tackling the issue and is determined that the Government will halve rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminate it entirely by 2027. But I want him to be bold and radical. If this was the first time that such a project had been undertaken, I would understand being hesitant about moving faster and the desire to evaluate how the pilots work, but they already exist in the UK and are used across the world. We should implement Housing First across the country as a priority. At the very least—and I look to the Minister on this—let us have a timetable for the full roll-out of Housing First programmes across England.
Most importantly, we must ensure that the programmes are fully linked up with local support services that are given the funding they need to help those sleeping rough with their mental health problems or addictions. Of course, that will involve spending money, but in my view that is a short-term cost. The study by the University of York and the Centre for Housing Policy found that Housing First programmes cost between £26 and £40 an hour, yet the potential savings are estimated to be as high as £15,000 per person per year if we include reductions in use across the NHS and in our police and courts services. So this is not only the right thing to do, but will save the taxpayer money.
Homelessness and rough sleeping in particular often have many complex underlying issues, which means that addressing them will require more than one solution. The Government have already made good progress on tackling homelessness, whether through the Homelessness Reduction Act—it was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee, and I am delighted that it has become an Act of Parliament and will be implemented in April—
Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)
Debate between Will Quince and Helen HayesWednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 View all Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 January 2017 - (18 Jan 2017)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on yesterday’s long-awaited announcement of funding for the Bill. The first thing to say is that the lateness of the announcement combined with its lack of detail is somewhat at odds with the cross-party spirit in which the Bill is being brought forward. All members of the Committee want major reform of homelessness legislation, so that it has a transformative impact on homelessness, but Opposition Members have always been clear that the Bill’s success will depend on the Government’s commitment to resourcing the new burdens in the Bill realistically and properly.
I am concerned about several aspects of yesterday’s announcement. I want to put those concerns on record, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them. First, the Government must publish more detail on the formula and the assumptions used to calculate the funding commitment. How does that commitment relate to local authorities’ estimates of costs? The briefing states that it does relate to them, but does not say how. What are the assumed activities that it will fund?
A number of the Bill’s clauses change the way that local authorities will work with applicants who find themselves homeless, but the funding announcement does not make explicit the nature of the activities that the money is expected to fund. The briefing talks about an increase in cases, but does not say how local authorities’ activities will differ under the new prevention duty. It is based on the assumption that practice will change and that local authorities’ workload will increase, but I am simply not sure how that detail has been worked through. How do the new activities that local authorities will undertake under the new prevention duty relate to an increase in applicants, who may come forward earlier in the process? How are those two dynamics flushed out in calculating the funding? How does the funding commitment take into account regional variance in cost and, in particular, the much higher costs faced by London boroughs?
From what I can tell from the detail behind the announcement, there appears to be an assumption that most of the additional money will be spent on administration and officer costs, not costs related to, for example, supplementing somebody’s rental payments in order to sustain their tenancy during a period in which they are working through a benefit sanction. We need to understand that, because local authorities need to understand how the funding can be applied practically, and whether it is enough to make the difference we want.
It is important that the Government publish the distribution of funding across the country, by local authority, as soon as possible. On the face of it, if the funding is evenly spread, which I do not think it will be, £300,000 will be allocated per council area. If that is the distribution, or if the distribution looks anything like that, that is of great concern to me. It is significantly less than the sum—possibly considerably more than £1 million—allocated to the London Borough of Southwark under the trailblazers programme. That sum was presumably what the Government believed Southwark needed to undertake that work as a trailblazer. We need to understand how the distribution will work across the country and how it will relate to local authorities’ calculations about their additional costs.
Finally, it is of some concern that the Government’s announcement shows funding for two years, but none at all for the third year. While the Bill is clearly intended to reduce costs and homelessness, the desperate shortage of genuinely affordable housing, in London in particular, and the need for other measures—such as, in my view, tenure reform of the private rented sector—to help to reduce homelessness, it is at least possible, if not probable, that the reduction in costs and homelessness will not be entirely achieved within the first two years.
Without a commitment to looking again at funding beyond the first two years, and to fund local authorities as needed beyond that period, this really does not look like a long-term commitment from the Government to sorting out homelessness; it looks like a headline announcement to tick a box that says that the Government have fulfilled their pledge to fund the new burdens in the Bill. I am concerned that, having received the announcement very late in the day, we are left without time to consult properly with local authorities at a detailed, fine-grain, local level, or to scrutinise properly the level of funding, what it will fund and how local authorities have worked that through. Without that, I am concerned that this funding commitment simply lacks credibility. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm the funding arrangements beyond the first two years, and to come back with the further detail I have requested.
The lateness of the announcement, combined with the announcement we will receive and further amendments to the Bill on Report, somewhat undermine effective scrutiny of the Bill. Scrutiny, particularly of a Bill that commands cross-party support, is about strengthening legislation and making it as good and effective as possible. It is an important process from which the Government have nothing to fear. I regret that we have received this information so late in the day that the Committee, members of which have such a significant amount and depth of knowledge of homelessness and the process in the Bill, has not had the opportunity to scrutinise and debate it in greater depth. I therefore hope that the Minister will provide additional information as soon as possible, and that on Report we will have an opportunity to debate and scrutinise the clause with the benefit of further input from local authorities.
I represent two local authorities, Lambeth and Southwark, which are at the forefront of the intensification of the problem of homelessness. They are both under extreme pressure from the growth of homelessness in recent years, and are both doing the best they can on this significant set of challenges. Both authorities welcome the principle and intention behind the Bill, but they cannot be expected to work miracles. They need the Government to put the resources into officer time, and the funding necessary to mitigate and prevent homelessness properly within existing arrangements; into the provision of more genuinely affordable housing; and, perhaps more importantly than anything else in the very short term, into the reform of the private rented sector, so that authorities do not feel the pressure of successive no-fault evictions under the section 21 process presenting at their door.
Will Quince
I support clause 1. Extending the period for those threatened with homelessness from 28 to 56 days is one of the Bill’s core elements, and it will make the biggest difference.
I very much welcome the clear definition of tenants as homeless once a valid section 21 notice has expired. I have been one of the largest critics of local councils that routinely dish out the advice to stay in a property until the bailiffs arrive. I have had numerous people come to my constituency surgeries who have reached crisis. They went to the council at the first available opportunity, when they knew they were getting into difficulty—they were getting into rent arrears or had complex needs, as the Minister pointed out earlier, or problems such as relationship breakdown—and their landlord was looking to end the tenancy, but they were told at that point by the local authority, “Stay in the property. Come back to us when you’re in crisis—the point at which the bailiffs are knocking on your door.” I have raised concerns about that for numerous reasons. Apart from the financial pressure it puts on that family, there is a huge social cost to them as well. I have two young children, and I cannot imagine what that is like.
I had a call recently from a constituent who told me that the bailiffs were at the door, and because she would not let them in, they smashed the window and tried to encourage and coax the children to open the door while she was not looking. That will stay with those children forever. If local councils are giving out this advice, it is disgraceful.