Homelessness Reduction Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

As a sponsor of this vital Bill, I am proud to support it. It is the first major reform of homelessness legislation for 40 years, and it is an opportunity to make a fundamental difference to the lives of thousands of people in England. I thank Members on both sides of the House who have taken time away from their constituencies to support the Bill. We are engaged in a very special process, which I hope will lead to genuine reform.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for choosing to progress this private Member’s Bill, and for his commitment to it. He heard the same evidence as the other members of the Communities and Local Government Committee, and it is entirely to his credit that, as a member of the governing party, he chose not to turn a blind eye and defend the status quo, but to champion vigorously the need for change. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who, as Chair of the Committee, led the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the Committee Clerks and specialists, whose work contributed to an inquiry that was innovative and rigorous, and that was directly and extensively informed by the experience of those who are, or have been, homeless, and those who seek to support them.

Finally, I pay tribute to Crisis, Shelter, St Mungo’s and Homeless Link for the work they do every day to support growing numbers of homeless people, and for the research and evidence that they have provided to underpin this Bill. I mention Crisis in particular, whose mystery shopper research and No One Turned Away campaign helped to expose the inadequacies of the current homelessness legislation.

As a relatively new Opposition Back Bencher, I have found Select Committee work rewarding because it is evidence-based scrutiny. The evidence on homelessness is incontrovertible. Homelessness is increasing, and the current system is not fit for purpose and cannot cope.

This Bill takes that scrutiny a stage further and provides the opportunity to change the law based on the evidence we have received. The prelegislative scrutiny by the Select Committee has strengthened the Bill and allowed the views and concerns of a wide range of stakeholders in this legislation, including councils—my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) raised many of those concerns—to be listened to and understood, and it has enabled the Bill to address some of these concerns. It is a better Bill as a consequence.

It is fitting that we are debating this Bill almost 50 years to the day since the first broadcast of “Cathy Come Home”, which exposed the harsh cruelties of the post-war housing crisis; that coincided with the launch of Shelter and eventually led to the passage of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. That Act created the statutory duty to house people in priority need and to advise those who do not meet the criteria.

The need for this Bill can be summed up by the experience of my constituent, Ros. She is a 69-year-old widow who lived in a privately rented flat for many years. Served with a section 21 notice out of the blue, she was unable to find anywhere else affordable to rent in the local area, and approached her local council for help. Ros came to see me, and I wrote to the council in support of her claim that she was being made homeless through no fault of her own. To my horror and to Ros’s great distress, the current law determined that her age alone did not make her vulnerable, and that the council did not have any duty to house her. She waited for the bailiffs to arrive and then approached the council again. The council gave her a list of organisations that she could call who might be able to provide accommodation. All of them required a referral from the council if Ros was to access the accommodation.

The council acted entirely within the current legislative framework, and in the face of crippling demand on its resources, it had no other choice. Ros spent several months sofa surfing, in great anxiety and uncertainty, before moving into sheltered housing, where I am pleased to say she is now settled. Ros’s situation left me deeply uncomfortable. Her homelessness was absolutely no fault of her own. She could have been my mother or my aunt. In the same circumstances, I would have expected help to be available for one of my relatives, yet there was no obligation to help, which seems too harsh. If the council had a prevention duty, Ros could have been helped before the bailiffs arrived. The sheltered housing, for which she was eligible in any event, might have been found earlier, and her transition could have been managed without the level of anxiety she suffered.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I am afraid that I am not taking interventions because so many other Members want to contribute.

The housing crisis in the UK is unprecedented since the post-war period. Over the past five years, there has been a significant increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness. The number of people sleeping rough has doubled since 2010, the number of people accepted by councils as being owed the main homelessness duty increased by 26% between 2009-10 and 2014-15, and the number of people receiving prevention and relief support was up by 33% in the same period. The ending of a private tenancy is now the single biggest cause of new homelessness applications.

The majority of single homeless applicants are not covered by the current homelessness legislation; for them, councils need to provide only basic advice and information. However, there is little detail in the current legislation on how that should be provided, and there is no minimum quality for the information provided. In 2014, Crisis’s mystery shopper exercise found that in 50 of 87 cases, people received inadequate or insufficient help.

Many councils provide a very good service, and I pay tribute to the councils I represent, including Southwark Council, which has recently been recognised as a trailblazer for its prevention work. However, the variability between, and sometimes within, councils is not acceptable. Our Select Committee inquiry heard evidence from several witnesses who had been homeless, including Daisy-May Hudson, who has made a powerful film called “Half Way” about her family’s experience of homelessness. The evidence showed that far too many people feel that when they approach their council for help, they end up feeling like an inconvenience, judged for their circumstances and stripped of their dignity.

There is a strong rationale for a system based on priority need, but in the context of a housing crisis, having priority need as the only criterion means that too many people go unsupported, with harsh consequences. The Homelessness Reduction Bill seeks to ensure that help and support for homeless people is established on a fairer footing, and that the focus of councils’ work on homelessness shifts to prevention. Prevention is important because the costs of homelessness are so high. Recent Crisis research has shown that failing to tackle homelessness early costs the taxpayer between £3,000 and £18,000 for every person in the first year alone. The Government have estimated that the annual gross cost of homelessness to the state is up to £1 billion. Much of that cost is borne by councils through the scandalous costs of nightly-rate temporary accommodation. Ensuring that everything that can be done to maintain someone in their own home is done, or helping people to manage a transition to another stable home, should reduce local authority costs.

The Bill introduces a new prevention duty and a new duty to provide an applicant with 56 days’ help to find alternative suitable accommodation. It broadens the range of people who will be helped, and it makes the help more meaningful. Of course, additional obligations cannot simply be passed on to councils without the resources to fulfil them. I am pleased that the Government support the Bill, but the Bill introduces new burdens on local authorities. The Government must therefore make good on their support by granting local authorities the resources to deliver these new obligations. It is important that we see an announcement in the autumn statement that gives local authorities comfort on this point. We need to be absolutely clear that councils will be funded to meet the new duties.

Finally, we cannot debate the law as it affects homeless people without mentioning the wider housing crisis. We will not solve the scandal of homelessness by creating a new legal framework if the Government’s wider housing policy continues to contribute directly to making the crisis worse. Although I welcome the cross-party commitment to this principled reform of homelessness legislation, I call on the Government: to change their approach to housing more widely; to fund the building of the council homes we urgently need; to stop the forced sale of precious council homes; to reform the private rented sector to give more security of tenure; and to reform the benefits system so that people do not become homeless because the local housing allowance cap on housing benefit does not come close to covering their rent.

In the face of the evidence I have seen in my constituency and in the Select Committee inquiry, we cannot wait for all these measures to be in place before we reform homelessness legislation; the Government must back up their commitment to this legislation with resources. I urge colleagues to support this principled reform, which has the capacity to make support for homeless people fairer and more meaningful, and to enable far more people to be helped when they most need it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Brevity will help as well.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

All those are challenges right across Departments. I was pleased to receive a letter from the Prime Minister recently in which she indicated that homelessness is an issue right across Government, not just a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government. The crux of the matter is the advice duty in clause 2. Without proper advice offered at an early stage, people risk becoming homeless. We need to do more, through this Bill, to improve that situation.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am pleased to see this clause in the Bill. I particularly welcome the emphasis that runs throughout the Bill on shifting resources into prevention, so that we stop as many as people as possible becoming homeless in the first place.

The Bill will drive a change in culture and we need legislation to drive that change in many local authorities. The culture that prevails has come about because the existing requirements on local authorities, as well as the pressure of resources, force councils into a position in which they support the people they have to support. Resources are not currently available to support all the people councils have to support, and it is necessarily the case that many people fall outside the scope of local authority support. I agree entirely that local authorities should have the flexibility to devise and design services at local level that are appropriate to the needs that present themselves.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole indicated that he does not believe the provision of advice services constitutes a set of new burdens on local authorities, but we delude ourselves if we think the provision of meaningful advice does not constitute a series of resourcing requirements that result in a set of new burdens on local authorities. It is important that the Committee acknowledges what we mean and the implications of the clause for local authorities. We should ensure that the clause can be effective in delivering the outcomes that we all want.

I am a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. I too heard and saw the evidence that that Committee received during the homelessness inquiry. We saw evidence of local authorities being unable to support many people presenting as homeless in two different categories. We saw evidence of very poor practice—that came through strongly from the Crisis mystery shopper exercise. Some local authorities were simply not interested in helping or advising anybody they did not have to advise. In some cases, even people eligible for support were not receiving support of any kind of quality or meaningfulness. We also saw overwhelming evidence that the systems that exist to support homeless people in local authorities are at breaking point—they are overwhelmed.

The problem faced by many local authorities is to do with the wider housing crisis that we face in this country. We saw evidence of advice that was not up to date, as other hon. Members have said. Referral to third-party organisations that are already overstretched is a common form of advice. Local authorities are saying, “Go and see the local advice agency, go to the local law centre, go to the citizens advice bureau.” Residents turning up to those places find that they have to wait in a long queue and that they cannot get an appointment immediately, and then find that those agencies are not in a position to provide meaningful advice because the housing that people ultimately need is simply not available. We saw evidence that advice was being provided for people to contact organisations that could and should be able to provide alternative housing, but which themselves had been forced to increase their threshold for accessing their support.

I have an example of a constituent who was given a list of organisations that she could telephone who would provide alternative housing because that was what she needed. She phoned them. As a single person, she was not considered to be in priority need, and every one of those organisations required a nomination from a local authority in order to access their services. Such advice is not in any way meaningful.

I want to ensure that we introduce clause 2, and that it will result in the provision of meaningful advice to people seeking support from local authorities. The provision of meaningful advice is to a large degree about the provision of meaningful options. I can say to my constituent, “I advise you to contact your local authority to seek their support with housing.” The local authority will say, “We simply do not have any social housing available and we have a list of many thousands of people already waiting for that housing.” That is not meaningful advice for me to provide to my constituent. We need to focus on the issue of meaningfulness.

Two things are important in ensuring that we deliver: first, we need to be clear that, in introducing a new duty, it cannot be acceptable for a local authority to discharge their duty, and to be considered to have discharged their duty, by providing advice that is poor quality or out of date, or not the best possible advice that can be provided. I flag up to Government Members the need for the provision of detailed guidance to accompany the Bill to make it clear to local authorities what constitutes the discharge of their duty to provide advice. The guidance would also make it clear that the Government will not stand for the continued practice of passing the buck to external agencies who cannot themselves provide that advice, resulting in a situation in which people are not meaningfully helped. Detailed guidance is important.

Secondly, we need to locate the clause firmly within the wider debate about the expansion of housing provision, including social housing, and the expansion of support for advice and support agencies that people need when they are at risk of becoming homeless. I wish to assert my view that the clause imposes new burdens on local authorities, and I would like a response from the Government on the question of what resources will be made available to enable those new burdens to be met. Otherwise we give ourselves a pat on the back in this House that we have enacted something that talks about the provision of advice. If the measure does not make the necessary difference on the ground, we have failed and we will be held to account. With those remarks, I am pleased to support the clause.

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

It is a pleasure to be involved in the debate on clause 2, which in many ways is at the heart of the Bill. If we get clause 2 right, we will have made a big difference in reducing homelessness. Following on from comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, the point I wish to make is that it is about ensuring that good practice is enshrined. As other hon. Members have said, good practice is not always followed.

On behalf of the vulnerable, and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on complex needs and dual diagnosis, I welcome the Bill and the duty to provide advisory services. Those groups of people often miss out and do not properly access the advice that they need. If they could access advice earlier at a preventive stage, it could prevent greater complexity, greater cost and crisis management.

I recognise that the Bill enshrines good practice and codes of guidance, as has been said. However, if properly applied, the Bill also places an additional burden on statutory services. If one looks at the example of the Bill, one sees the burden applies not least to persons leaving hospital. St Mungo’s has been particularly active in highlighting the scandal that 70% of homeless people who are in hospital are then discharged on to the streets. That must end, and the Bill must help it to end. Local authorities including mine in Enfield sign charters, but it is one thing to sign up to a charter and another to ensure that there is a link between health, social care and housing—that needs to happen and often does not—to ensure that support and advice is provided at the point when people need it most on leaving hospital. That is why it is welcome to see that explicitly included in the Bill. Frankly, it is neglectful that that does not happen and we need that statutory duty and provision.

I welcome, through the good endeavours of the Select Committee, the addition of victims of abuse and domestic violence. I pay tribute to Agenda, which is a charity representing the interests of women and girls at risk. I understand that it gave evidence to the Select Committee and made the point that the reality is, sadly, that the victims of abuse are not getting the proper advice that they need, which we will know from our constituency case work.

Indeed, in my surgery on Saturday, a victim of domestic violence came to me and said that she needed desperately to move from her house with her young child. Recently, her shed had been burned down by her abuser and her car had been vandalised. She went to Enfield Council to seek advice and was met, sadly, with indifference. I recognise that within Enfield Council there are some excellent housing officers, and in many ways they are overstretched, but she was met with a yawn and someone saying, “Well, we can’t help everyone.” That attitude towards my constituent in a state of absolute vulnerability is shameful and must end, which the Bill will help to do. She has simply been told, “We will get back to you in 10 days,” but then there is another 10 days and another 10 days. She has not heard anything from the council in terms of meaningful advice. The Bill and the clause will help.

May I draw attention to one detail? Within the draft Bill and what would have been the new section 179, people with a learning disability were included as a group, although the provision was not limited to them. That is not included in the Bill before the Committee. Hon. Members will know from experience that those with learning difficulties and disabilities are particularly vulnerable and have problems accessing meaningful advice. They may not fall within priority need or appear at first communication to do so, but because of their learning disabilities they may not be able to communicate those needs properly. There is therefore a need for specific and meaningful advice for them. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the Minister to help me to provide reassurance that the category of

“persons suffering from a mental illness or impairment”

properly includes people with learning disabilities and that, in practical terms, they will receive the meaningful advice they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I will turn the point around and say that the objective of the Bill is either to pay lip service to a problem or it is designed to tackle a problem. When individuals in housing need, owed duties by the state, present themselves, they will receive advice and assistance. That point was made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in relation to the list in clause 2. That is not an exhaustive list, though it could be quite onerous. We will later consider, under clause 10, the way that other public authorities should assist local authorities in discharging their duty, and that is the other side of the equation. I will not say anything more on that because I am conscious of the time. I will simply say that if we are going to look at the different approach that local authorities need to take, we should be as comprehensive as possible.

If I may be allowed two sentences, I think they will evolve neatly into talking on clause stand part. I am conscious that, as we will probably find in every clause, there are caveats from homelessness charities that the proposed legislation does not go far enough and caveats from local authorities that it places undue burdens. The AHAS does not see the need for a plan that it believes would be extremely onerous in the bureaucracy, the drawing up, the modifying and the review of that. Shelter would say that there is no statutory right to a review on the plan and that that itself should be reviewed. I think we have probably got it about right. There is a need for a plan. I do not accept what local authorities say on that point. I am conscious of the example that the LGA gave in relation to this. It used the example of Stoke-on-Trent Council, which believes that the administrative costs around prevention work will require four more homelessness officers at about £35,000 a year each, just in relation to dealing with those issues.

I will stop there, Mr Chope, by urging support for the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. We are, a little bit, creating a wish list and talking in a vacuum until the Minister makes clear what resources he intends to provide.

[Helen Hayes]

I wish to speak briefly in support of amendment 1, which arises directly from evidence we heard in the Communities and Local Government Committee, as the Chairman of that Committee has already said. It also speaks directly to the experiences of my constituents and some of the most devastating cases in my time as a Member of this House and, before that, as a local councillor.

As Members well know, homelessness is one of the most devastating circumstances that can befall someone in the UK today. In such challenging circumstances, people will often hang on to every little bit of stability that they can, in particular for their children. Which of us would not do that? My local authorities do everything possible to place people in borough when they have to provide families with temporary accommodation. When they place people outside the borough, they do everything they can to find accommodation in neighbouring boroughs, so people do not have to travel long distances.

The first of two cases that I particularly recall involved a family placed in temporary accommodation in Edmonton who were travelling with their children to primary school in Dulwich every day. That is a very long distance, by any stretch of the imagination. The train would have been the quickest way to make the journey, but they could not afford that, because they were a family facing homelessness. They had to leave their temporary accommodation in Edmonton at 5.30 every morning to travel with their children to my constituency for school, because they were part of a stable school community and knew that their children were receiving good support there.

More recently, a family living in temporary accommodation —a hostel in Dulwich—were travelling every day to Leytonstone with their daughter to attend primary school. Similarly, because they were a family in destitution and without any money, mum was sitting on a park bench in Leytonstone for the duration of the school day before collecting her daughter and travelling back to Dulwich. Such circumstances are devastating.

The other sets of circumstances covered by the amendment are, straightforwardly, invest-to-save provisions. I can recall countless constituents who have come to my surgeries to tell me that the local authority is suggesting that they move to accommodation further away, but they are fearful of what that would mean in terms of loss of support from their family and community networks. Furthermore, most often, they are constituents with mental health difficulties. As we know, and it seemed self-evident when I was talking to them, if they were forced to move from their support networks, their families and the people they rely on to maintain some stability in their lives, there would be additional costs. Not only would those individuals be much more likely to be forced into a crisis, but there would be additional costs to the NHS and to social services arising from people being moved away from their informal networks of support.

The final set of circumstances covered by the amendment involves people who are in employment. We all applaud anyone facing homelessness who manages to sustain their employment. That is a difficult enough thing to achieve in the best of circumstances, but if as a consequence of homelessness people are forced to move a long distance from their employment, so that they could not afford the travel costs or time, the burden would become unsustainable. That, too, would be a false economy. The state should be doing everything to ensure that, where possible, employment can be sustained.

For those reasons, I hope that the promoter and the Government will accept the amendment, because the matters that it covers are so important that they should be on the face of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

On amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, local housing authorities must already have regard to the significance of any disruption that would be caused by the location of the accommodation to the employment, caring responsibilities or education of the person or members of the person’s household under article 2 of the Suitability of Accommodation (England) Order 2012. I therefore do not agree that an amendment to repeat that point is necessary.

To expand on that and to reassure the hon. Gentleman, local authorities must by law take account of the factors included in a suitability order. If an authority acts illegally, as he pointed out, households would have redress by review and on appeal. My Department intervened in a Supreme Court case on just this point to ensure that the order and the guidance are followed.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Tomlinson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman gave the game away when he stood up and said he could not quite work out why he had tabled the amendments. It is always helpful to have those indications at the outset of a speech. When I looked at the amendments last night, I found I was scratching my head trying to work out what difference they would make. The hon. Gentleman’s explanatory statement asserts:

“The local authority should decide what steps it should take, subject to the normal rules of public law and judicial review.”

With respect, it would have to do that in any event. The amendments would not make a difference one way or the other.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the form of words he has come up with is more common than what is in the Bill. Like him, I have come across housing cases in a court setting. In my view, it makes no odds whether the provision says “reasonable steps” or “such steps as it considers reasonable.” In any event, the local authority would have to follow the normal rules of public law and judicial review. I have enjoyed this close examination of the difference—or lack thereof—between the wordings, but there is precious little between the two.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

I shall briefly express my support for clause 4—

[The Chair]

Order. We are discussing the specific amendments. I shall tell the hon. Lady when we get to the stand part debate.

[Helen Hayes]

I apologise, Mr Chope; I thought we had moved on. I am happy to reserve my remarks until then.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith for highlighting an important issue. It is essential that authorities are able to make objective judgments on what constitutes a reasonable step. I reassure him that the current formulation will have the same effect as his amendment.

Under the measure as currently drafted, the authority must already consider what steps it is reasonable to take, taking account of all relevant factors. The existing reference to reasonableness brings in an objective standard, which is based on what steps a reasonable authority in the actual authority’s position would take in relation to that particular applicant, with all the characteristics, abilities and so on of that applicant. I hear what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about his hopes and aspirations that may one day be fulfilled by the Government’s accepting one of his amendments. I do not wish to dash his hopes and aspirations but, as he feared, I urge him to withdraw the amendment for the reasons I have mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I welcome the clause. As the promoter says, it is an important departure from current practice in law, if not necessarily from practice; the best local authorities have taken prevention duties seriously over a period of time. We are looking to codify that and make it consistent across the piece.

We should not underestimate the significance of this change. I do not intend to say a great deal in welcoming and explaining the reasons for the clause, as they are self-evident and have been previously debated. My colleagues may wish to add to that. Suffice it for me to say that this ought to be a virtuous circle. In the examples given by the promoter, or in any other examples, if homelessness can be prevented by negotiation with a landlord, with advice and support, or possibly with finance—we will perhaps come back to that later—somebody can be kept in their home, and provided that that is a reasonable and decent home, that is more likely to be suitable and will retain the links of locality, family, community and so forth. That is clearly desirable and is also likely to be cheaper than having to deal with homelessness, not just because of the distress to the individual and their family, but also because of the additional cost burden that falls on the housing authority. For that reason, I think that this is one of the two most significant provisions in the Bill.

Let me raise a couple of concerns, which the Minister may wish to respond to. My first point is that prevention is nothing new and that local authorities have done that over time. Yesterday, however, I received—I am sure other Members did too—the publication produced by Shelter for its 50th anniversary, and this section caught my eye:

“Homelessness acceptances fell sharply from 2003 to the end of 2009. Analysis shows that a large part of this was due to local authorities placing greater emphasis on homeless prevention, alongside increased funding for support services.

Homelessness acceptances started to increase from 2010. Local authorities still favour an approach that starts with preventing and relieving homelessness. However, such activities have become harder.”

That is the reality of the environment in which we now live.

We should not go into this wearing rose-coloured glasses, thinking that if we pass this legislation—as I hope we will—our job will be done. The Bill will create the duty, but the Local Government Association tells us—in an estimation only, although I know that the Minister is working with the LGA on this—that some London boroughs anticipate an average increase of 266% in the number of people coming to them for assistance as a consequence of the clause. That is a huge increase in work, predominantly from non-priority cases.

An important thing about the clause is that it is as much about priority as non-priority cases, but I have a concern—which we might discuss with clause 5—that existing duties on priority homeless already place such stress on local authorities that any massive additional burden will not only prove difficult in itself to deal with, but have that knock-on effect. The sort of priority homeless cases mentioned by both Opposition and Conservative Members, in particular of families with school-age children being sent many miles away, put in unsuitable accommodation or simply not being dealt with and therefore staying in emergency accommodation for a long time, will increase as a consequence of what we are doing in the Bill. We have to go into it with our eyes open.

My further point is about the legislation in Wales being prayed in aid of such an approach. We can all admire and learn from what the Welsh Government have done, but I make the point that, first, the Welsh legislation is different, because it is part of an overall strategy; it goes further than simply imposing a duty. Secondly—this was said by someone else last week, but it bears repetition—fewer people in total present as homeless to Welsh authorities than do to the London Borough of Lambeth alone. The hon. Member for Harrow East, the promoter of the Bill, made that point, so he is well aware of it, but it gives an idea of the magnitude of the task and of the responsibility that we are putting on local authorities, particularly those that are already under high levels of stress.

That does not in any way weaken my support for the Bill or the clause, but again our eyes must be open about the difficulties and the burden of responsibility that we will place on local authorities.

[Helen Hayes]

Thank you, Mr Chope, for your patience with my lack of attention to the procedure this morning.

I will speak briefly in support of the clause, which is one of the most significant measures in the Bill. It is at the heart of what we are seeking to do through the Bill. It is significant because it will shift the emphasis of local authority practice to prevention, not to the exclusion of their duties to assist people who have actually become homeless, but to make the work to support those facing homelessness more effective.

The measure addresses much of the evidence we heard in the Select Committee. It also speaks to some of the most harrowing cases that I have seen and continue to see in my constituency, which are those involving people facing certain homelessness. They are on a route that in law and legal practice can only lead to them becoming homeless, and yet they are told to wait until the bailiffs turn up and they are actually homeless before seeking help and support from the local authority.

Only last night, I was reviewing a case in my constituency and thought how useful this new prevention duty would be. The case concerns a family who are unlikely to be helped until they face the trauma of homelessness under the current legislation. In the Select Committee we looked at the evidence, and it found that the current statutory framework to support people facing homelessness is not fit for purpose. This new duty is one way in which we can make it fit for purpose.

A shift to prevention is about culture change within local authorities, but in certain circumstances it also has the potential to save local authorities money. Additional duties may increase the costs that local authorities face. However, in some cases the local authority ends up picking up the scandalous costs of nightly rate temporary accommodation if it waits until someone has become homeless before accepting a duty. Where those circumstances can be prevented and someone can be enabled to remain in their own home—perhaps by the local authority paying that rent for a short period, where the rent is lower than the scandalous costs of nightly rate temporary accommodation—there is potential for a focus on prevention to result in more efficient use of resources.

We cannot escape the fact that the current tools at local authorities’ disposal to undertake prevention are extremely limited. That is because we face a lack of supply of affordable housing in this country and because of the unregulated state of the private rented sector. We cannot escape the fact that the single biggest cause of new homelessness cases is the ending of a tenancy in the private rented sector. Until we address that, local authorities’ power to intervene to prevent homelessness for people living in the private rented sector is sorely limited. While the new duty is very important and significant in changing culture and practice within local authorities, I hope the Minister will reflect on the current limitations on the tools at local authorities’ disposal genuinely to prevent homelessness with the maximum possible effect.

We need to see a substantial reform of the private rented sector, longer forms of tenure introduced as standard and limits introduced on rent increases within the terms of a current tenancy. We also need reform of the section 21 process. There is provision in law for landlords who need their property returned to them for genuine reasons to do so without the section 21 provisions. I see in my constituency time and again the irresponsible and unethical use of section 21 notices, which causes instability for families and evicts people who have done no wrong—they have not failed to pay their rent or done anything to breach the terms of their tenancy, but they are simply made homeless so that the landlord can charge more rent to the next tenant. That practice is irresponsible and widespread, and the Government need to intervene outwith the bounds of this legislation to stop it.

I am fully supportive of the change in culture, practice and emphasis towards prevention. If we prevent some of the harshest consequences of homelessness, it will prevent many families from facing homelessness in the first place. That is the right thing to do. The Government need to take seriously the question of resourcing for local authorities in terms of front-line staff and additional burdens. They also need to look very carefully at the wider situation, because we have a private rented sector that is not fit for purpose for the many people who live in it.

[Mrs Drummond]

Like the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, I think this clause is the crux of the Bill. Preventing homelessness in the first place will save local authorities money in the long run. I particularly welcome the measure that provides an assessment and personalised plan. Extending the duty to 56 days gives both parties more time to sort out issues that quite often are relatively simple, such as housing benefit or debt advice. I know that many hon. Members have had constituents in their surgeries, such as the one just mentioned by the hon. Lady, who are terrified that they will be made homeless. I hope that the clause will help.

I recently dealt with two families at risk of homelessness, including an armed forces family. The mental health impact was visible. I think that 28 days was too short a period, and that the clause will prevent more people from becoming homeless.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

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

[Mr Jones]

That is something the hon. Lady needs to speak to her local authority about. I would need to see more details to comment further on that.

Both the prevention and relief duties, in conjunction with clauses 3 and 7, place an element of responsibility on the households themselves. They will be required to take their own reasonable steps to assist the relief of their homelessness. Requiring co-operation in that way means that, if an applicant deliberately or unreasonably refuses to co-operate, the duty can come to end. How that will work will be explained when we discuss clause 7.

A crucial difference between the prevention duty and the relief duty is that authorities may determine whether an applicant has a local connection with their district. If it is demonstrated that an applicant has a local connection with another district, a referral can take place. A relief duty provides another level of support and assistance for those households not in priority need that have become homeless. It is an important addition to the safety net and I welcome its inclusion in the Bill.

I will respond to some of the other issues raised. Taking your guidance, Mr Chope, I will not go as wide as some of those points. I see that I am receiving your endorsement to that approach, and I will try to follow that advice.

With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith on funding, he will not be surprised to hear me say again that the Bill will be funded. We are dealing with and speaking carefully to the Local Government Association and local authorities to make sure that we get the funding right. He will also note that there is a long-standing new burdens doctrine that we have to follow in that regard. I entirely accept what he says about this burden not being a situation that a local authority currently has to bear as such, and we are therefore approaching the funding to it on that basis. However, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, although this is not a duty that generally exists at the moment, there will ultimately be benefits to local authorities upstream, in terms of savings that can be made further down the line.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned temporary accommodation. I know that is an important issue in London. As he will know, we are devolving the temporary accommodation management fee, which will give local authorities a far better way to plan for temporary accommodation. I can also say to him that I have been disturbed by some of the stories I have heard about the approach that has been taken to securing temporary accommodation, in which local authorities have effectively been outbidding each other in certain cases. That is a real cause for concern, and I am trying to instigate work with London Councils to try to overcome that particular issue.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned tenancy length. The average length of an assured shorthold tenancy is actually four years, but I understand what he says about 12-month tenancies. I discussed that at considerable length with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and we came to the conclusion that, if we try to be too prescriptive on 12-month tenancies, it would cause a particularly difficult issue in places such as London, where a lot of landlords may not be willing to grant an assured shorthold tenancy for that length of time. However, what we are doing here does not preclude granting 12-month assured shorthold tenancies. We are trying to encourage landlords to engage with us and to take up the model tenancy agreement, which advocates a longer length of tenancy.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It may be the case that the average length of actual tenancy turns out to be four years. However, does the Minister accept that, within those four years, if the specified length of tenancy is one year, those tenants are nevertheless living with a lack of security and the uncertainty that the landlord could, if they choose, evict that tenant at will or bring the tenancy to an end? That lack of security is the issue as much as what happens in practice in terms of the average length of tenancy.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady may be leading me down a road that makes me incur the wrath of the Chairman. There is certainly a balance to be struck between people having certainty and people having somewhere to live. The challenge is, if we try to mandate very long tenancies on private landlords, we may soon find that we do not have the supply of private rented accommodation that we need.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fifth sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

I am pleased to support the clause, which will require public authorities to notify a local housing authority of people they think are or may be homeless or at risk of becoming so. Many vulnerable people do not know where to turn to. The clause makes it clear that there is a duty to refer on all public services, and it allows local authorities to innovate and create a workable solution.

In Portsmouth, the local council works closely with local charities such as the Roberts Centre, which works closely with vulnerable families to put them on the right track by helping them to budget, to learn how to keep a home and to pay rent. I want to raise awareness also of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Community Rehabilitation Company, which identifies service personnel in the court system and assigns them a caseworker. The caseworker follows them through the process and through prison and is there at the gate when they come out to look after them, including by organising accommodation, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, is a big issue for offenders. Perhaps the Prison Service can learn from that project. We hope to see it throughout the country, because it is working incredibly well in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Those are examples of why we should not over-prescribe. I hope good practice such as that will be shared throughout the country.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Chope. May I extend my best wishes to you and to the rest of the Committee for 2017?

I welcome the clause and the duty that it places on anyone working at the frontline in the public sector to take account of the risk of homelessness and to behave responsibly in order that people who are at risk of homelessness can get access to the support that they need. However, I want to flag some complexity in relation to the implementation of parts of the clause, and to make a plea for the Minister to consider additional guidance when the Bill becomes an Act.

The complexity arises in particular in relation to proposed new section 213B of the Housing Act 1996. Subsection (3)(b) states:

“If the person…identifies a local housing authority in England to which the person would like the notification to be made”.

In my experience, there is a lot of complexity around the question of which housing authority should pick up the responsibility for people who are at risk of homelessness. I want to flag just three examples of where I have known that to be the case and where there is some concern.

The first example involves people of no fixed abode who have a mental health crisis and find themselves being held under the Mental Health Act 1983, and who are taken to a place of safety. In my area of London, the place-of-safety provision for five boroughs is being consolidated on to a single premises in the London Borough of Southwark. The health authority involved has worked with the local authorities on protocols for discharge, but there is great concern that, under the clause, someone who has reached crisis point and been admitted to hospital but who has no local authority that has clear housing responsibility for them may be discharged again and again into the same local authority. That local authority already has very significant housing pressure on it. Guidance and protocols need to be put in place so that the additional burden of people with very high levels of need does not fall automatically on one local authority. There should be a firm responsibility on other local authorities to help out in those circumstances. That is worthy of further consideration.

The second issue relates to ex-offenders, who have been discussed. People in prison often lose their tenancy or home. They may also lose connection with friends and family as a consequence of their incarceration. People who are released from prison often use their £40 to buy a train ticket—that train ticket is often to a place a long way from London. I know from work that I have done in the past that coastal towns, for example, often have very high concentrations of ex-offenders living in a very small area. There is no necessary reason why an area should have to pick up responsibility for high numbers of ex-offenders simply because the cost of private housing there is low.

My main concern is that that outcome is not necessarily in the interest of getting those ex-offenders back on track and enabling them to make a fresh start. Advice on the protocols that should apply to the housing authorities that should pick up responsibility for ex-offenders on release from prison would be welcome and helpful. It would help to achieve the kind of outcomes that we want as a consequence of introducing the clause.

My final point concerns a situation I have seen time and again as a local councillor and Member of Parliament: a dispute between local authorities over which should take responsibility for somebody—it might be somebody whose last permanent address was in one local authority but they have been sofa-surfing with family members for a time in another. The family might have broken up. The resident might be arguing that they need to be a distance from where they used to live due to domestic violence or other reasons.

Whatever the reason, there is a dispute between local authorities over which should take responsibility and it is the individual who ends up suffering and falling between the cracks. The clause would provide too much scope for those poor outcomes that either place undue pressure on local authorities that are already under great pressure, or it could mean that individuals are not easily able to access the support they need. There is too much scope for that if the clause is left as it is without further additional guidance on the protocols that need to apply in practice. I ask the Minister to take that into account in his response and to pick it up as the Bill progresses.

[Michael Tomlinson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Chope, for the first time in 2017. I welcome the clause and support it as drafted. I believe there is an opportunity to rise to the good practice that appears in Westminster and elsewhere and raise the standard across the whole country. We all like to think there is good practice in our areas. I have three local authorities in my constituency: Purbeck East, Dorset and Poole, and Dorset County Council. I strongly believe the duty to refer will encourage other authorities to follow suit.

I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster North that the duty to refer is not the complete answer. That is absolutely right. It is not the complete answer but it is a good step along the way and will help to show what proper good practice should be.

Every hon. Member who has spoken so far has mentioned prisons. Perhaps that shows the important link between release from prison and the streets. It is no different on the streets of Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset from in Westminster, London and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South mentioned what is happening in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The Footprints Project operates in Dorset, Hampshire and Somerset. It is a charitable organisation that helps ex-offenders in a through-the-gate service, offering mentoring and help to get into work.

I believe the clause provides an opportunity to work with local authorities and charitable organisations. Charities are already performing good works in preventing reoffending and trying to get people on the straight and narrow. There is a great opportunity for local authorities to work more closely together. I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East speak of local authorities choosing to outsource some of those services and work closely alongside charitable organisations that are doing a good job, which can only be a good thing.

Hospitals have not been mentioned as much as prisons. I will return to what will be in the regulations in due course, but we all hate the term “bed blocking”. It is a completely inappropriate term for unfortunate people who find themselves in hospital through no fault of their own and have nowhere to go. I strongly believe that the duty to refer will help in that regard. Perhaps the Committee could come up with a better phrase for “bed blocking” because it is very distasteful indeed. I strongly believe that the clause, with a duty to refer and co-operate with hospitals, other organisations and local authorities, will help in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I rise to support clause 11. As discussed, it seeks to create a basic standard in the form of a code of practice. That will ensure that local housing authorities have guidance on how to deliver homelessness prevention functions. The guidance will offer councils a reference to check against, to ensure that the level of service offered is equal to the best currently seen in the UK.

The clause speaks to the essence of what we have been talking about over the last few weeks. Up and down the country, services are being provided at a different level. Those people who are deemed vulnerable but not in priority need are often those who fall between the gaps and do not receive the service that they should. We have all agreed on that, which is why the clause is so important: it seeks to ensure that those people receive the best service throughout the UK, and indeed, to end the existing postcode lottery.

In many ways, the clause is not only about improving and equalising services, but about giving local housing authorities more guidance and steering—although it will not replace the existing code of guidance. It will enable the Secretary of State and all of us to raise the standards of homelessness support services across the country, so that the minimum level of service—equal to what is currently the best—is delivered. That minimum level will be one of the Bill’s supreme achievements.

[Helen Hayes]

I, too, support the introduction of a code of practice. Does the hon. Lady agree that the capacity of local authorities to implement good practice depends not only on a code of practice, but on the resourcing they need to deliver a meaningful service? If so, does she therefore, with me, await with eager anticipation the Government’s committing to properly resourcing local authorities to implement meaningful support for homeless people?

[Michelle Donelan]

The entirety of the Bill depends on resource, which is why it is crucial that the Government have already dedicated and allocated funds to it. It is important to remember that some councils are currently offering this level of service; if one council can do it, surely it is only right that every council should do it. It is also wrong that a postcode lottery exists in the UK, and that taxpayers paying the same tax throughout the country experience a different level of service from one another.

It is also crucial to consult and work with stakeholders to develop the code of practice. The clause seeks to equalise standards, as well as to ensure joined-up and collaborative working, and I therefore support it.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of studies have been done around this issue, and that is where the figure of 3% comes from. As Members of this House—I am not, personally, a residential landlord but I know other Members who are—it is easy for us not to understand the challenges of being a residential landlord. The last thing we want to do is drive residential landlords out of the market so that we have less rental property for the people who we are trying to help to access good accommodation.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I am concerned by the number of references Government Members have made to how small the number of rogue landlords is. The 3% refers to the definition of rogue landlords from the data that the Government have. My experience is that there are very many more landlords who, although they might not fall into that category—nevertheless, 3% is a lot of landlords—of the most unscrupulous, are not as responsible and rigorous as they might be and do not provide tenants with the right level of service. This requirement is about local authorities being able to check that repairs that should have been done, have been done and that the property is in a fit state to move in to. Consistently this morning, the comments from Government Members have undermined the nature of the problem and the extent of the challenge that my constituents face.

[Mr Jones]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but my understanding of what I have heard this morning is that Government Members, including myself, are extremely concerned to make sure that people who are vulnerable have the right accommodation and are supported in accessing it. The hon. Lady was on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee in late 2015, before the Bill became an Act in 2016, so she will know that local authorities now have a real incentive to tackle rogue landlords. If that legislation leads to our identifying more rogue landlords because they are genuinely rogue, so be it. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, the action plan must be realistic and achievable, but the principle is very important. I am pleased that clause 7 also sets out for local authorities what to do if a homeless applicant deliberately and unreasonably refuses to co-operate or follow the actions in their personal action plan. If someone is deemed to be unreasonably refusing to co-operate, written warnings will be issued and the authority can take action. It is helpful and appropriate that this will not affect anyone who does not co-operate because of mental health issues or other complex needs. Having a plan is halfway to solving the problem, so the clause is a helpful part of the Bill, and I welcome it.

[Helen Hayes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I want to put on the record my disappointment that we are not able to debate amendments to the clause in Committee. The judgments and the balance of responsibilities involved in the clause are among the most complex and sensitive of any aspects of the Bill. We should have the opportunity to consider the balance of responsibilities and judgments in full in Committee with the wording that is likely to make it into the Bill.

The case that the hon. Member for Harrow East described of a person who simply sits back and does nothing about their circumstances is indeed clear cut, but in my experience such cases are extremely rare. Much more common are cases that involve judgments around the location and type of property. Those judgments involve issues about which many of us, if we had the misfortune to find ourselves homeless, would also feel strongly. People who find themselves homeless often feel, quite rightly, a strong sense of injustice and a high level of distress around their circumstances. They want things to be put right in such a way that they can imagine rebuilding their life in acceptable circumstances. Judgments as to what somebody would regard as a suitable offer of accommodation are therefore necessarily very difficult and sensitive.

The Bill also seeks to bring about a change in homelessness culture and practice in local authorities. In its inquiry, the Communities and Local Government Committee certainly saw evidence of gatekeeping practices in some local authorities. It was common practice for them to look for minimal reasons to discharge the duty; we have to get rid of such practices.

The change in culture, the complexity of the judgments, the balance of responsibilities and the definitions of reasonableness and suitability that will apply to cases are sensitive and complicated matters and should not be left for us to consider in full on Report. I look forward to debating them further on Report, but I want to put on the record at this stage my disappointment that the Government have left this matter so late.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

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

The funding announcement, which the Minister promised throughout our proceedings, is important. I welcome the announcement yesterday, but I press him to announce additional news on funding on Report, when the Bill eventually gets there.

[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.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

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

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, and I want to add my tribute to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for taking on this subject and for the diligence and commitment he has shown in seeing the Bill through. I also welcome the process of the Bill. I have been pleased to be closely involved from the beginning, taking part in the inquiry as a member of the Select Committee and also serving on the Bill Committee. This is an excellent example of evidence-based legislation.

The Select Committee saw undeniable evidence that the problem of homelessness is increasing at an exponential rate and that the current system is not working. The Bill will play an important role in setting some of that right. This is a principled reform that will set the basis on which homeless people receive support on the right footing. It is right that local authorities should have a responsibility—and indeed a statutory duty—to intervene earlier when residents are threatened with homelessness, to provide help and support and, wherever possible, to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. This is the compassionate thing to do, and it is what a decent society demands, but it is also the cost-effective thing to do. When someone becomes homeless, the personal cost to them and the many different costs to the public sector rise to a level that we simply cannot afford. Money spent propping people up and dealing with a situation that should never have arisen in the first place is not money well spent.

It is also right that more people should be eligible to receive support than is currently the case, and this legislation will help in that regard. We have all had examples in our constituencies of people, usually single people, who common decency demands should receive support but who are not eligible to receive it under the current system. The Bill will help to address that problem. It is also absolutely the case that the culture of work around support for homeless people should change, as well as the practice. The Select Committee saw evidence of significant levels of gatekeeping by local authorities, and of people being treated in ways that are simply unacceptable. They were made to feel that they were somehow to blame for their predicament or that they were a problem or just a statistic. Witnesses described the dehumanising effects of being in the current system, and it is absolutely right that this legislation seeks to change that.

I support the Bill on its own terms and I believe that it will make a significant difference to the nature of the support that homeless people receive. However, we cannot for one minute kid ourselves that by supporting a piece of legislation that has the words “homelessness reduction” in its title we are solving the problem of the housing crisis in this country. I cannot speak about the Bill without speaking in the same breath about the wider context of the housing crisis. This Government’s record on housing is shameful. Under Labour, rough sleeping fell by 75% in 11 years. Under this Government and the coalition Government, it doubled in just five years and it has gone up again by a further 30% in the last year alone. The number of people in temporary accommodation is rising, and the experience in my constituency is that homelessness is becoming more intractable for those who find themselves in that predicament. Individuals and households are in temporary accommodation for longer and it is much harder for them to secure the affordable accommodation they need. That is about the supply of new homes and, more importantly, of secure, high-quality, genuinely affordable homes.

People face insecurity in the private rented sector, and I urge the Government to take reform of the private rented sector seriously. If someone decides to become a landlord, their primary responsibility should be to their tenant under the terms of the tenancy agreement, but the problem is that far too many people are living under tenancies that are not fit for purpose and do not provide the security that they need. While we wait for new homes to be built, reform of the private rented sector would make a rapid difference to people facing the terrible situation of homelessness. If more people had security in the private rented sector, fewer people would present to our hard-pressed councils’ homelessness departments for help and support. The LHA cap, uncertainty around funding for supported housing, the bedroom tax, the forced sale of council homes and many other aspects of Government housing policy are simply not helping to deliver the secure, affordable homes that we need to solve the problem of homelessness.

Funding for the Bill’s provisions is the second issue that I want to flag up. I welcome the Minister’s assurances about reviewing the funding and how the Bill works in practice. I accept that there are many unknowns about the new burdens that the Bill introduces and that a greater focus on prevention is expected to save councils money, but the Government’s working to date lacks clarity about what councils will be expected to use the funding for. Will it be for additional staffing costs only, or will it enable the provision of additional support to help people bridge a gap if they are finding it difficult to pay their rent for a period of time? Serious doubts exist about whether the funding will be enough.

I am particularly worried on behalf of Lambeth and Southwark Councils about the severe problems and pressure that they face. Some 5,000 children in Lambeth—more than 1,500 households—will spend tonight in temporary accommodation. While the Bill will help the councils to provide more support to families to prevent them from becoming homeless, the system is clogged up to the point of being at a standstill. We all want councils to be provided with sufficient resources to implement the new duties in a way that enables them to be effective. I hope that the Government will use this process of developing legislation in a private Member’s Bill on the basis of evidence through the Select Committee process as a precedent for their approach to housing in the future. They should look at the evidence of where the current system is simply not working and take decisive action on the wider contributors to our housing crisis.

I end by once again offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrow East. I thank Crisis and the other homelessness charities that provided input and supported the Bill. I also thank the Minister for his support and for seeing the Bill through. Finally, I thank my Front-Bench colleagues and the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for their excellent contributions and for scrutinising and pressing the Government on this most important issue.