Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and David Burrowes

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I am one of nature’s optimists. The Minister is such a reasonable fellow, and so kind-hearted, that I am sure that if he says he wishes to provide the full amount, he means it. Unfortunately, however, the record of the Government as a whole is not one of being particularly kind-hearted, particularly to local government. They have a habit of passing the buck by cutting the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government, as is clear from the fact that local government cuts have been the biggest of all.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is absolutely right to be sceptical. That is indeed what we want to hear. There are many figures floating around, but Newham Council knows what it is talking about, because it has one of the most pressing housing needs in the country, some of the poorest communities in the country, and, I am afraid, some of the worst housing in the country, especially in the private rented sector.

These are matters of real concern. All we are asking for is a commitment from the Minister not just to a review, but to a review that will be undertaken at the right time and will be all-encompassing. As I said earlier, the Select Committee has played a key role—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), is an acknowledged expert, and he has also benefited from the able assistance of Members on both sides—and it, as well as local authorities themselves, should be involved in any review process.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Enfield, like Newham, contains some of the poorest people in the country with the greatest housing need, and obviously we want the Bill to be implemented, but good councils throughout the country are already embarking on the prevention measures specified in the Bill under the current funding settlement, and will welcome the provision of more money to enable them to continue those measures.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think the best thing to say is that there is a mixed economy among local authorities. Some do very well—some have to do very well because of the pressures on them—and others do less well. Part of the Bill’s purpose is to bring them all up to the same standard. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point cuts both ways. If it is true that Camden Council, for example, is already preventing 80% of those who present themselves from becoming homeless, the savings that are likely to be made—most of which, I understand, will result from an increase in prevention work, which will avoid the need to find alternative accommodation or fund the costs of homelessness in other ways—will be less. The Government rather piously hope that after two years there will be no need for funding, but I do not think anyone believes that, including the Government.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and David Burrowes

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister is getting ahead of me. I am dealing simply with quantum now. I will come on to the methodology next and the savings as a third point.

There is an estimated gap of nearly £200 million by the end of the decade in local authorities’ current homelessness provision. If one looks at the fact that London boroughs spent £633 million in the last year for which figures were available—2014-15—on temporary accommodation, including £170 million of their own funds, and the fact that they are already subject to substantial reductions in funding, I am not surprised that they are very concerned about that. That is purely on the issue of quantum.

On the issue of methodology, I am not sure how far it takes us. Although something is better than nothing, I found it a slightly odd way of presenting the background information. I would like to see a full impact assessment. I appreciate that we may need to wait until we know exactly what the Bill is going to do. There may need to be a review of provision—the methodology concedes that—but once we know how the sum is going to be broken down, I would like to know exactly how the Government can justify their claim that this will be new burdens funding and that it will be fully funded.

On the issue of savings, of course we all hope for savings, not only cash savings but savings in human misery, bureaucracy and unnecessary action. I am, however, less sanguine than the Minister about the fact that that will all be resolved in one to two years. In part I say that because much of what the Bill will do is to encourage what we have often heard called a culture, a culture of local authorities doing more by way of prevention. Yet in a lot of the busiest authorities, prevention work is done—in 80% of cases in Camden, for example—so quite a lot is going on, and I am not persuaded that we will see an immediate culture change, or that that culture change will produce savings.

Savings are likely to come by averting homelessness for priority need cases, because that is where the substantial burden of cost comes. At the moment part of the point of the Bill is that a lot of local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously in relation to non-priority need cases. Thereby, if we simply see an increased focus on those cases on which there is not current expenditure, or people being turned away, I do not quite see where the savings are coming from or where the supposition comes that within two years there will be nil cost to local government. To be perfectly honest, I just do not believe it.

We could sit here all afternoon saying, “We think it is”, or, “We think it isn’t”, but surely the sensible course is to have an early review to see whether the LGA’s caution or the Minister’s option is justified.

[Mr Burrowes]

I want to encourage an optimistic view, perhaps even a realistic one. The Welsh choice led to that 69% decrease in the first year. I understand that the assumption in the figures we are discussing is for a 30% decrease in homelessness, but is that not seeking simply to follow the Welsh model, which is a great success? The shadow Minister, however, says that there will be hardly any reduction or savings. He cannot say that. What is his concern with 30%? Is 30% too optimistic? Where would he say there will be reduction?

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and David Burrowes

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman and I have not had the pleasure of serving on the same Committee before, so he will not recognise that I am pulling my punches considerably and have engaged consensus mode for the duration. The Bill’s promoter recognises that because we have been in this position many times before. Yes, my points are party political to the extent that his Government have got so much wrong in the provision of housing supply, particularly for people who need social housing and genuinely affordable housing. That must be addressed, but I have tried to put that in non-party political terms as a fact.

I have gone through, in a short period, a long list of issues that I believe are compounding the housing crisis at the bottom end. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to get up and gainsay that—he might have some other points to make in a sparring way. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is correct that there is not a great deal of point in getting into a long tennis match in Committee, but I want to put on record that we cannot pass the Bill with our eyes closed and say, “Once it exists as statute, everything will be resolved.”

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to restrain himself to consensus mode as far as possible, and that he wants to avoid going into issues for later debates and stand part debates. However, although he gave a poke if not a punch to the Government’s record, the autumn statement takes us in the right direction—it included the housing deal for more than £1 billion with the Mayor of London, providing flexibility of tenure and 2,000 accommodation places for those with complex needs. Those are the people who are particularly affected and who we are concerned about. As part of a wider package, that will help to provide the resources to fulfil the duties in the clause.

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Hammersmith answers that, I think we are in danger of getting away from the specifics of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I support the amendment standing in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee. I had a similar amendment on the duty to co-operate between public bodies and local authorities, which I have not tabled. Both amendments would effectively have done the same thing.

Co-operation is important, but it runs both ways. As the Chair of the Select Committee has indicated, it is important because local authorities cannot achieve the objectives of the Bill on their own. Let me give an example that I came across last Friday: I spent the morning visiting the in-patient mental health unit in my constituency, where I was told that about a third of the beds there are occupied by people who are ready for discharge but have nowhere to go. In many cases those people will be referred to the local authority. The answer to the question of whether that is new is yes, it is relatively new.

I am not criticising local authorities, but the problem is that whereas they might have previously taken something on trust or accepted that they had a prima facie duty for it, they will now be much more scrupulous or detailed in looking at whether that duty is owed simply because of the demand on their services. They will do that across the board, even when dealing with other public authorities. The net effect will simply be to shift the burden from one part of the public sector to another, with the consequence that people either might not get the best care or might prevent others from getting the care that they need.

Accepting the amendment is absolutely crucial to the proper functioning of the Bill. One would hope that the public sector works in a joined-up way, and that Departments work in a joined-up way, but that is not always the case, so we would do well to give any encouragement to that.

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I welcome the intention and principle behind it, particularly because it flows into clause 10; it is just seeing how far it will bite. I particularly welcome the principle of joined-up services—we sometimes get sick of talking about joined-up Government, and it often does not mean that—when dealing with the concerns at the heart of clause 10, which is about trying to ensure that there is better co-ordination and co-operation.

As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I make particular reference to complex needs and to those people facing multiple disadvantage, and to the need to ensure that there is real co-operation. The litmus test of clause 10 is the implications of referrals for those with the most need and facing the most disadvantage. There is a particular impact on health: almost twice as many who use homeless services have long-term physical health problems and mental health diagnoses compared with the general public, and the average age of people who die while homeless is 47, which is scandalous.

That particularly comes into play when dealing with those who come into contact with health services in one form or another. Not least, homeless people might struggle to register with a GP because of not having a permanent address. A vicious cycle goes on where they end up in crisis management and in A&E. It is then a further scandal when the intervention that needs to take place at that stage does not. At the heart of the Bill is the fact that early intervention and preventive duties should not just stem from when people come into contact with the housing department. When they are in contact with the health services, and not least when they end up at A&E, that should lead to an intervention and referral, which leads to the co-operation that we want.

St Mungo’s has been on this case for a long time and has drawn attention to it with the “Homeless Health Matters” campaign. Before the Bill, it sought to have a charter that local authorities signed up to so that co-operation happened on an informal level. I believe that clause 10 takes things a huge step further as regards the statutory duty on referrals. The issue is how much further it explicitly needs to go with a mandatory requirement to co-operate across departments.

I also support the principle behind the amendment because, in many ways, it is already happening across Government—regardless of the cynicism that is around. One only has to look at the issue of violence against women and girls, which is a concern that we all share. If one looks at the national statement of expectations published on 7 December, one sees that it is all about co-operation. That comes from the Home Office and has a welcome two-year fund for refuges and other forms of accommodation. There is also all the extra investment in social impact bonds, in which co-operation is very much inbuilt. There are those with complex needs and the multi-agency approach that is used, although often not well enough. Sometimes these things are based around funding streams, and we need to see that happening across the country. The question is whether the duty to refer will help to ensure that good practice does happen across the country.

To home in on women—who are, sadly, some of the most vulnerable and face complex needs—the national statement of expectations from 7 December says:

“To deliver this, commissioners should…consider whether an individual may have complex needs or suffer from multiple disadvantage and, if so, the services in place to manage these…Commissioners should consider how these detect and respond to women’s experiences”

of violence, and ensure that there are services for them. That has come from the Home Office but plainly interacts across all Departments, and there is that expectation that it be delivered. At the end, the statement talks about how local authority, housing and homelessness policies must take account of sexual violence. That is included in the Bill in relation to the duties on advisory services; it is welcome that domestic violence is included, not least because of the work of the Select Committee.

The question is whether the Bill needs to go further in terms of a mandatory requirement for co-operation, or whether this referral will supplement and complement what is now happening to a much greater extent across Government. There is greater recognition and understanding of complex needs. Many of us have talked over the years about multi-agency approaches and joined-up government until we were blue in the face, but sadly these most vulnerable people are not getting what they need and deserve.

My view, which has been a common thread in discussions on the Bill, is that we need to balance doing what we can to ensure that this is a groundbreaking Bill—as I believe it is—that will help to provide greater support, preventive work and co-operation with whether this amendment will provide additional burdens across Government and have unintended consequences. Although it may provide a mandatory requirement—that, in many ways, is already the intention across Government—it might lead to additional financial burdens, which might lead to additional bureaucracy that might get in the way of the local co-operation between services that we want delivered on the ground. I am not convinced. If there is a proper fulfilment of the duty to refer, which may be wrapped up in guidance, having a mandatory co-operation requirement may provide additional undue financial burdens across Government and create bureaucracy that might, sadly, get in the way of what we want to do, which is to co-operate across services.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and David Burrowes

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

It is clear that they are different offences, but my point is that the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that we should have nothing to do with a mandatory minimum sentence, as a matter of principle. I do not understand the difference between the examples given by the hon. Gentleman when it comes to the principle of mandatory sentencing. He said that people might carry knives for their own protection, but the issue is the same whether a person threatens someone else or whether that person is carrying a knife for the second time. In both cases, a mandatory sentence is applied. It would be necessary to go a considerable way to show exceptional circumstances to avoid a prison sentence.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am puzzling over this as well. The Deputy Prime Minister said this in his article in The Guardian, which is in front of me:

“While minimum sentencing might sound attractive in media headlines there is a serious risk it could undermine the role of the judges, who are best placed to decide on sentencing.”

I cannot see how that differentiates between different offences, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Gentleman may have put his finger on it. Perhaps the issue is the media, and the difference between the headlines of 2011 and those of 2014. Perhaps a differentiation strategy is now more important than an anti-crime strategy. Perhaps a political party is now more concerned about their own interests than about the interests of victims and the public.

Others wish to speak, so I shall not continue for too long, but the fact is that this is not something that has been cooked up on the back of a media issue to make a point. It follows a long campaign, on which I have fought hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North for a number of years. Last year, Joshua Folkes was killed in an awful knife attack in Bowes road in my constituency. The circumstances are still not clear, despite a judicial determination. We do not know what happened, but we do know that knives were present, and that they caused a young person to die. That was unacceptable then, and we must be intolerant of such cases now.

Last year I asked the Prime Minister whether we could please be intolerant towards knife crime, and we have the answer to that today. Yes, we will be intolerant, following a long campaign that has been fought by many. The Mayor joined us in that campaign: in February he organised a meeting bringing together representatives of the Metropolitan police and others, and on 23 April he wrote to the Home Secretary calling for a measure such as this. We certainly have not come to this recently, therefore; we have been there for many years and, on behalf of the victims—the tragic cases of those, like Godwin, who have lost their lives—we must do more. We cannot rest when more people are losing their lives—being cut down in their prime—unnecessarily.

We must do it also because we, certainly on the Conservative Benches, want to stick to our promises. We made a manifesto commitment to ensure there is an expectation that people go to prison for carrying a knife, and we want to continue to honour that, which is what we are doing today. That is why I call on all Members of the House to support new clauses 6 and 7.