Clause 1 Supported Housing Advisory Panel Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill. Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time, Mr Efford. I thank colleagues from across the House for
agreeing to sit on this Bill Committee and enabling us to
scrutinise the Bill in some detail. The Bill is centred around the
report on exempt accommodation produced by the Select Committee on
Levelling...Request free trial
Clause 1
Supported Housing Advisory Panel
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
(Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time, Mr Efford. I thank colleagues from across the House for
agreeing to sit on this Bill Committee and enabling us to
scrutinise the Bill in some detail.
The Bill is centred around the report on exempt accommodation
produced by the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities. The Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for
Sheffield South East, has agreed to serve on this Committee, and
several other colleagues who sit on that Select Committee are
here.
From the outset, I want to make clear that what we are seeking to
do is to drive out rogue landlords, not hinder the really
brilliant work being done by thousands of organisations across
the country who provide supported housing for vulnerable people.
To achieve that, clause 1 sets out the advice that needs to be
provided to the Secretary of State. It is clear that this is a
complex policy area and we want to make sure that we do not have
unforeseen, inadvertent consequences that inconvenience the good
people who provide an excellent service. I believe the clause is
non-controversial. It requires the Supported Housing Advisory
Panel to be set up; the rest of the provisions are
permissive.
In formulating the Bill, we have sought to detail the sorts of
expertise we believe are required. The panel the Secretary of
State is required to set up will provide information to housing
authorities, social services authorities and so on, so it needs
expertise from people involved in social housing, local housing
authorities and social services, as well as someone who has the
interests of charities at heart and someone who has the interests
of residents at heart, which often gets overlooked. If more
expertise is required, the clause permits the Secretary of State
to appoint to the panel people other than those specific
representatives, but it could well be that someone who is
nominated to the panel is expert in more than one field, so one
representative from each of those areas is not a
requirement.Column 4is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 4](#)
The clause then sets out in some detail what the panel should do
and what advice should be given to the Secretary of State.
Obviously, the main purpose of the panel is to ensure that the
Secretary of State is informed when action is required to be
taken under later clauses. I commend the clause to the Committee
and I look forward to contributions from colleagues.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I
will not refer to your abject failure at the weekend to defeat
Sheffield United in the cup. That would be very unfair of me.
The Chair
It wasn’t me personally!
Mr Betts
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Harrow East, my
honourable Select Committee friend. We worked together closely on
the Bill, as did the whole Select Committee; our report on the
issue was unanimous. We described what we saw,
which—notwithstanding the excellent provision that does exist in
the sector—is a system and a delivery of service that is in many
respects a complete mess. We saw appalling examples of
accommodation that was not fit for purpose, and that the supposed
support in this supported accommodation did not exist, consisting
as it did of a “support worker” opening a door and shouting up
the stairs, “Are you alright, then?” It was absolutely
dreadful.
What was in some ways even worse is that the taxpayer was paying
millions of pounds for this service, although the Department for
Work and Pensions could not actually tell us how much. In the
end, though, the Committee is not asking for more money. We are
saying that the money that is there could be spent an awful lot
better. Delivering to very vulnerable people a better service
than they are currently getting and improving the lives of people
in communities that have been blighted by this are the objectives
we have in mind for the legislation. We do not want to drive out
good providers or close down good accommodation. We want to get
at the rogue providers who operate scams to make millions of
pounds out of housing benefit at the expense of vulnerable people
who are not getting the service they deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities ()
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Efford. I thank all Members who have joined us this morning,
including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, whom I
congratulate on reaching Committee with the Bill. I agree with
both what he said in his introduction and the comments from the
hon. Member for Sheffield South East.
Supported housing is a vital safety net for many people, enabling
them to live independently with some support. There are many
excellent examples of supported housing providing support for
people experiencing homelessness, older people, people with a
disability and those suffering from mental ill health, to name
but a few, but as we are all aware, there are rogue landlords
operating supported housing schemes. Those landlords are
exploiting the vulnerable people they are supposed to be helping.
This is completely unacceptable. We must continue to deliver a
clear message to those providers: their time is up.Column 5is
located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 5](#)
This Bill, which the Government support, includes a range of
measures to drive out rogue providers and drive up the quality of
supported housing. It is a very important measure that comes
after many Government interventions. In October 2020, we
published the national statement of expectations setting out the
Government’s vision for quality supported housing. In the same
month, we launched the pilots, and in March 2022, following the
evaluation of the pilots, we announced our intention to bring
forward regulations. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the
Member for Harrow East has come forward with his Bill. We have
also announced that over the next three years we are expanding
the pilots to 22 new local authorities, with a further £20
million programme of support. The Government are sending a clear
message: we will not tolerate abuse of the supported housing
system. Time is up for rogue landlords.
Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to set up a new
advisory panel and to appoint a chair to the panel through
consulting the members. The new panel will advise on the design
and implementation of the measures in the Bill. It will be able
to take a strategic view of our plans, as well as undertake its
own work related to supported housing. This is an excellent
opportunity to bring together key stakeholders to share their
expertise and to advise the Government. The advisory panel will
give Government direct access to stakeholders and their knowledge
of the sector at a crucial time when we will be consulting on how
best to deliver and implement the measures in the Bill. The panel
will consist of those with an interest from across the supported
housing sector, including but not limited to those who represent
the interests of registered providers, local housing authorities,
charities providing supported housing and residents of supported
housing. I look forward to convening the panel at the earliest
opportunity.
I thank the Minister for her remarks and her support for the Bill
generally. I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East,
the Chair of the Select Committee, for the inquiry we jointly
conducted. This is a very important element of getting the advice
that the Secretary of State will need on policy. The one area
where there was discussion was the appointment of the chair of
this panel, which I think it is important. It is now down to the
Secretary of State to make the appointment, but the chair could
be a member of the panel who already has expertise and is quite
capable. I think enough has been said about this clause, but I
will have more to say as we proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Local supported housing strategies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 builds on the advice to be provided to the Secretary of
State and covers local housing strategies. One of the things we
established during the Select Committee inquiry was, as has been
said by the Chair of the Committee, that it is a bit of a wild
west show out there in terms of how supported accommodation is
provided. There is a lack of regulation Column 6is located
here
[Toggle showing location of Column 6](#)
and scrutiny, and even in local authorities such as Birmingham,
which has introduced its own scheme, the rogue landlords refuse
to comply.
The clause requires local authorities to review the exempt
accommodation in their area, so that we can establish exactly how
much there is out there. One of the problems that has been
encountered as we have had discussions on the progress of the
Bill is the lack of data. This issue is not limited to
Birmingham. It is spreading out all over the country, in some
quite strange places. I know it is the case in, for example,
Scarborough, Blackpool and Southwark.
(Cities of London and
Westminster) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome his Bill. In
a former life I was cabinet member for public protection, and
under that came the environmental health service. I was always
shocked when I got my monthly reports about the shocking housing
conditions in the private rented sector. Does my hon. Friend
agree that this Bill will hopefully do something to give tenants
the confidence to go to local authorities and show that they are
living in dreadful conditions, so that councils can then go after
these landlords? Too often tenants do not feel that they should
go and speak to a councillor or their council, because they fear
being evicted by their landlords.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. One of the
challenges here is that we are talking about some of the most
vulnerable people in society. They may be mentally ill,
physically ill or recovering from drug addiction or a gambling
addiction. They may have left the armed forces or prison. There
are all sorts of reasons why someone would be in supported
accommodation. I will reflect on that as we go through this part
of the Bill.
One of the things we established during the Select Committee
inquiry was that often tenants are scared stiff to speak up for
themselves for fear of being evicted. Rogue landlords will
typically say to people, “If you don’t conform and do what you’re
told, you will be out on the streets. And by the way, the local
housing authority won’t house you, so you could end up rough
sleeping and being very vulnerable.” That is the sort of
intimidation they face.
The clause goes into some detail about making sure that local
authorities review the need in their area, including the type and
extent of accommodation. Without that data, it is very difficult
to exercise any form of control. That is why the clause gives the
local authority a duty to carry out a review and produce a
strategy. It may be that certain areas of the country do not have
a need—I doubt that, but some may claim they have no need for any
supported housing.” None the less, almost all local authorities
will be required to produce a plan and make sure that they
interact with social services and set out what is going to be
provided and to what standards, because no one should be forced
to live in substandard accommodation, particularly people in
these circumstances.
I have had the opportunity of speaking to many providers of
accommodation of this type. They recognise the vulnerability of
people, but often they have no interaction with the local
authority because they provide the services directly. We are
seeking here to make sure Column 7is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 7](#)
that the local authority establishes how much need there is in
its area, and then makes sure that that need is met. Without a
strategy, an overall view cannot be provided.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
I am very supportive of the hon. Gentleman’s aims overall with
the Bill, and with this clause in particular. It is important
that local authorities have an absolutely clear picture of the
need or demand in their area. Does he accept that—this point is
not in the clause, but will have to be entertained if the clause
is to achieve its aims—having identified the need, there has to
be a clear and concerted effort to assist local authorities to
provide suitable accommodation? That suggests that we need some
sort of targets, both on housebuilding and on identifying
appropriate amounts of accommodation in the private sector.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we need to meet the need,
but we first have to establish what the need is. Many local
authorities are working together with not-for-profit providers on
both the social services and other elements to provide the
accommodation required, and making sure that they are working
jointly. Where that process happens, it works very well. What we
are seeking to do is to prevent the position whereby rogue
landlords set up operations and bring people in who are literally
just provided with accommodation and no support whatever—the
Chair of the Select Committee talked about that situation
earlier. Those people are unknown to the local authority as
tenants and are therefore not supported.
That is one of the reasons why this Bill is so important: to
regulate the entirety of the sector. Many organisations have
continued on, happily providing the sort of service that we would
hope to see everyone receive, but unfortunately there is now a
large minority of people who are not providing any form of
service whatever. That is why we need local authorities to
establish the level of need and then, as the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Selly Oak says, to establish how much housing needs
to be provided and what type of housing and facilities are
required, so that that need is met.
(Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I
rise to agree with much of what has been said. We should not
focus the entire debate on what is happening in Birmingham, but I
have experience of what was happening in Birmingham 10 years ago
because I worked for YMCA Birmingham.
We provided exempt supported accommodation. I had a number of
unscrupulous people approach me and have a discussion about how
we could manage accommodation on their behalf. When we told them
how much it would cost to provide the service and what we thought
was a proportionate and appropriate level of support, they were
not interested. They wanted to go somewhere else—to find the
people who were doing the “shout up the stairs” approach, which
the Chair of the Select Committee commented on earlier. That was
10 years ago.
Although I raised some concerns at the time, for various reasons,
partly because of the size of Birmingham’s local authority, it
feels to me that the situation got to a Column 8is located
here
[Toggle showing location of Column 8](#)
point where the local authority was overwhelmed by the amount of
accommodation required. Once that door is opened, and people
realise there is a very lucrative business model here, more and
more people rush in, and it is then very difficult for Birmingham
to stem the flow. I commend the work that Birmingham has done,
partly with money from the Government’s pilot scheme, and the
report of its scrutiny committee, which shows how well the
authority has collectively worked to get a grip on the issue.
9.45am
This is a business model, so if one area, such as Birmingham,
gets a grip on the issue, the business will just be pushed to
other, more vulnerable authorities that naively await to be
overwhelmed themselves. That is why it is critical that we do an
assessment, and that we seek to focus the minds of those in local
authorities on the fact that this problem might be coming their
way.
I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East
that it would be surprising if an area found that it did not have
any need to provide supported accommodation. When it comes to
that accommodation, we often focus on particular vulnerable
groups, perhaps those who are on the edge of rough sleeping, but
there is excellent provision in other areas—for example, for
those with long-term learning difficulties. The provision of
exempt supported accommodation for them, or for elderly people,
is critical, and there is almost certainly a need for it across
the country. Clause 2 will focus people’s minds, and it is
incredibly important.
Under the Bill, local housing authorities will have a duty to
carry out a review of supported housing provision in their
districts and publish a strategy, which will be updated every
five years. The strategies sit outside the enforcement mechanisms
in the Bill, but they will be an equally important part of our
approach. The supported housing oversight pilots demonstrated the
real value of local needs assessments and strategic plans, which
enabled local authorities to better understand what type of
supported provision was being offered in their area, who provided
it and the quality of it. The pilots also showed that strategic
planning helped local authorities to better understand the mix of
residents that providers are accommodating.
The strategies that the Bill will introduce will include an
assessment of the current availability of supported housing in a
local housing authority’s district and an assessment of the
likely future need for supported housing. The strategies will sit
alongside and complement existing strategies, such as those on
domestic abuse. Guidance will be published to ensure that those
are produced in a consistent way that enables a national picture
to be built up. We will incorporate best practice insights from
the pilot local authorities to ensure the strategies are designed
in the most useful and beneficial way. They will help local
authorities to make evidence-based decisions about their support
housing provision. When combined with other elements in the Bill,
they will empower local authorities to take the right decisions
for their areas.
In addition to those local strategies, which will provide useful
information at a local level, the Government also have research
under way. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East will be glad
to hear that we commissioned the research from Sheffield Hallam
University. It will Column 9is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 9](#)
provide an up-to-date estimate of the size and cost of the
supported housing sector across Great Britain, as well as
estimates of future demand. I agree that data on supported
housing needs must be improved, and I heard that message from a
number of Members on Second Reading. Better data will give the
Government and local authorities greater awareness of the
supported housing already being provided, where providers are
operating and the residents that they are housing.
This is perhaps not something that we need to consider in this
Committee, but it was raised at the Select Committee. It is a bit
of an omission on the Government’s part, collectively, that we do
not know, at the press of a button, the number of people and the
cost associated with supported housing. It would be lovely if, at
some point in the not-too-distant future, there were a marker on
Government databases that said, “This is a supported housing
claim.” Then a single authority could at any point ask how many
supported housing claims it has. We would not need extensive
research from Sheffield Hallam and others; we would just press a
button, get a report and know where we were.
I absolutely agree with my predecessor, and I thank him for all
his work on the Bill. I agree that we need better data. I
reassure him that we are working alongside the DWP so that we are
much more in touch with where supported housing is and where
housing benefit is being paid to it.
The DWP has already made changes to the way local authorities
provide housing benefit data on supported housing claims by
including flags in the collection system. That is for new housing
benefit claims, so it will take time for this to work its way
through the system and have data over time.
We are collectively in agreement that data needs to be improved.
The supported housing strategies will be vital in maintaining a
clear picture of supported housing provision and future need
across England. When combined, these improvements in data and the
introduction of strategic plans will help to create a clearer
national picture of the supported housing provision across the
country.
I thank the Minister for setting out the position that the
Government will take. Clearly, as Members have said, the most
important thing here is to gather the data and information and
ensure that we have a strategy for dealing with the type of
appropriate accommodation.
One thing that escaped me during my introduction is that there
are certain aspects—for example, those vulnerable people fleeing
domestic abuse—where we must be cautious about what data is
released and made available. That is one reason why it must be
clear that guidance from the Secretary of State can be issued to
local authorities appropriately. That, of course, would then be a
requirement on a local authority to take certain actions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. Before we move on to clause 3, I should say that we are
nearly 30 minutes into the sitting. We have a hard stop at 11.25
am, and a few amendments Column 10is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 10](#)
need to be debated. We can organise another sitting to complete
the Bill; if that is the will of the Committee, that will
obviously take place. Proper scrutiny must take place, but I
remind the Committee that 11.25 am is a hard stop.
Clause 3
National Supported Housing Standards
Mr Betts
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, at end
insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer powers on
local housing authorities to enforce the National Supported
Housing Standards.
(6) Regulations made under subsection (5) shall be in a form
analogous to Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, with such
modifications, amendments, disapplication or transitional
provisions as the Secretary of State shall consider appropriate
for the purpose of enabling local housing authorities to secure
compliance with the National Supported Housing Standards.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under
subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument
has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of
Parliament.”
This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State the option of
giving local housing authorities the power to introduce a scheme
to enforce the National Supported Housing Standards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
“(5) If, at the end of the period of one year beginning with the
day on which this Act is passed, the power in subsection (1) is
yet to be exercised, the Secretary of State must publish, in such
manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit, a report setting out
the progress that has been made towards doing so.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to explain
why they have not introduced National Supported Housing
Standards, if they have not done so within a year of Royal Assent
of the Act.
Clause stand part.
Mr Betts
Thank you, Mr Efford; I take your strictures to heart. I have two
amendments. The first one recognises the need for standards to be
set down and for a discussion about how that might best be done.
I am happy to hear what the Minister has to say. We all want to
see standards effectively laid down and followed through; the
current lack of standards is a real problem in the sector.
I move on to my second amendment. I am not doubting the good
intentions of the Minister in any way, but we have, of course,
had one or two changes of Minister; by the time we come to
implement this, someone else might be there. I am trying to get
on the record what happens if the powers that may be exercised by
Ministers are not exercised in practice. Is there a mechanism for
whoever the Minister is at the time to report back to Members
about what progress has or has not been made? I would be happy to
hear the Minister’s response.
I should say from the outset that I agree with the thrust of the
amendment, but we need to look at the issue in some detail to
ensure that it reflects exactly what we are seeking to do in the
Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East will
not press Column 11is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 11](#)
this to a vote. We will seek assurances from the Minister about
what can be done to ensure that we enforce these regulations on
local authorities and that we have proper standards.
(Dover) (Con)
The Chair of the Select Committee is right to raise the issue of
how housing standards can be enforced in this important area,
particularly as they affect vulnerable people. I ask the Minister
to consider whether the connection of the financial payment—that
relationship with DWP extra support payments, which my hon.
Friend the Member for Walsall North rightly raised—could be part
of the mechanism. We know that local authorities, even with
resources, have struggled with rogue landlords and to really
enforce housing standards in other ways. I encourage the thinking
about financial as well as enforcement powers.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are a number
of different existing models. Many local authorities pay the rent
through housing benefit for a tenant to live in supported
accommodation. There can then be a discretionary social services
element, provided under a contract by the local authority to the
housing provider, in order to provide support. It is a very
complex area, as my hon. Friend knows. We must get this right;
there could be unforeseen circumstances if we are too
prescriptive at this stage. It may well be that the detail has to
be set out in regulations as the consultation process and the
regulations that follow from the Bill go through. I do not think
it would be sensible at this stage to agree to the amendment. I
trust we will get some assurances from my hon. Friend the
Minister in that respect.
The clause requires appropriate supported housing standards to be
followed, introduced and enforced by the local authority. As my
hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North said—his points were
well made—people should be living in reasonable accommodation
suitable to their needs. That is part and parcel of setting out
what the standards should be. That does not mean the sort of
things we saw in Birmingham, with its scandalous elements: where
a three-bedroom house is suddenly turned into an eight-bedroom
house, with a small kitchen and small living area, and people are
crammed in without any support whatever; where there is no
control over the type of people put into these houses or their
needs; and where someone fleeing domestic violence, a recovering
drug addict, someone who has left prison for sexual offences and
others can all be accommodated within the same unit, without any
consideration of their separate needs and responsibilities. We
need to set the standards out.
Amendment 2 relates to the Secretary of State reporting back. We
look forward to the Minister still being in place by the time we
get the Bill on the statute book, although I notice that here we
have an ex-Minister, who began the process, and another
ex-Minister, who is now my Whip—we have had three Ministers
already, during the course of the Bill’s proceedings. We need to
make sure that we are making progress and that we are
implementing the provisions. I look forward to some warm words, a
firm contribution and a commitment from my hon. Friend the
Minister, to make sure that we Column 12is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 12](#)
get action in this area quickly, expeditiously and appropriately
as well as a commitment that, if we do not get that action,
Ministers will come back and tell us why.
The Chair
I call the Minister.
Thank you. I appreciate the warm words about my longevity.
The Chair
Order. I apologise, Minister; permit me to interrupt. wanted to speak.
Mrs (Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
Thank you, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship—I feel as if I have said that a few times
recently.
It is no secret that Birmingham has a serious problem with exempt
supported accommodation. I absolutely agree with the amendment.
One of my constituents is currently living in a five-bedroom
house where partitions have been put in and the toilet is broken.
For the last four months, rats have been running around the
house. This is happening in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle
Vale. I have heard from other constituents. One woman who came to
my surgery is living in exempt accommodation. She is heavily
pregnant. At the moment, the property has bed bugs and she is
sleeping on the floor. The landlord is doing nothing about
it.
10.00am
Real people are at the heart of this private Member’s Bill. I am
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East
for tabling the amendment. Our constituents are why we want
enforcement of the national supported housing standards. That is
so important. They are why the ability to confer those powers
should be expressly given to the Secretary of State. I am
delighted to support the amendment.
The Chair
I apologise for not calling you, Mrs Hamilton.
Mrs Hamilton
That is okay—
The Chair
Be bolder in catching my eye!
Mrs Hamilton
I am learning, Mr Efford.
I agree with the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for
Harrow East that it is critical that we get this right. The
consultation process is critical to the Bill. We need to avoid
unintended consequences.
I will start with amendment 1, which would enable the Secretary
of State to enforce the supported housing standards in the same
way as housing health and safety is enforced in private housing
currently, if he chose to do so. Under the Bill as drafted, local
housing authorities will have powers to enforce the new national
supported housing standards through a licensing scheme, should
they choose to run one. We will issue guidance to sit alongside
the licensing regime—following the regulations being made—to
ensure that local authorities that choose to run a licensing
scheme do so in a consistent way.
Critically, we will consult, under the duty set out in clause 6,
on the effectiveness of the licensing regime as a method to
enforce the national supported housing Column 13is located
here
[Toggle showing location of Column 13](#)
standards, as well as on additional ways through which to enforce
the standards. The amendment would overlap with the consultation
duty in clause 6 and pre-empt the results of that consultation,
by putting forward a ready-made solution.
I have been clear that the Government’s priority, in deciding on
the detail of implementing the measures set out in the Bill, is
to listen carefully to the concerns of the supported housing
sector and its residents. We all want to avoid any unintended
consequences.
Yesterday I met Kate Henderson and Sue Ramsden from the National
Housing Federation, and it seems to me that there is tremendous
support for the Bill across the housing sector. There is a great
will to work collectively to ensure that there are no unintended
consequences and to drive out the rogue landlords. Has the
Minister had that experience herself with the sector?
Absolutely. I think that the sector is very supportive of what we
are doing with this private Member’s Bill. There is some concern
about unintended consequences, and that is why consultation will
be key.
I would be happy to discuss the amendment further with the hon.
Member for Sheffield South East as an option in the consultation
document, rather than setting it out in the Bill. I urge him to
withdraw his amendment.
Mr Betts
Given that assurance, I will not press my amendment. I look
forward to further consultations on it.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Betts—
I have finished on amendment 1, but I have not got to amendment
2.
The Chair
I beg your pardon. I was trying to move you on—we are nearly 40
minutes in and only on clause 3!
On amendment 2, it is unusual for the Government to be required,
in a Bill, to make progress reports on individual Bill measures
in the way proposed in this amendment. Clearly, there are already
well established methods for holding Government to
account—including by inviting or calling Ministers to one’s
Select Committee. However, there is a requirement in relation to
the licensing regulations—this is in clause 4(2)—for the
Secretary of State to give a progress report if he has not put in
place the licensing regulations after 12 months.
Today, I can give an oral commitment here in Committee that if
that clause is triggered, we will also give an update on the
national supported housing standards at the same time. On that
basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to clause 3 stand part. Clause 3 enables the Secretary of
State to prepare and publish new national supported housing
standards. The standards will cover both the adequacy of the
accommodation and the quality of the care, support or supervision
provided. They will be enforced through the licensing schemes to
ensure that only those who meet the standards will be granted a
licence.Column 14is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 14](#)
To take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover,
our intention is firmly to work with DWP to look to align the
national housing standards with housing benefit. I absolutely
agree with her that we need to cut out the financial incentive
for rogue operators. I reassure her that I had a conversation
yesterday with my opposite number in DWP and we are fully aligned
with those objectives.
Mr Betts
I accept the Minister’s assurances that when producing the report
relating to licensing, as detailed in clause 4(2), she will also
publish an update on progress with national housing standards. On
that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Licensing Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 5, line 45, at end insert—
“(e) conditions relating to the assessment of the needs of
persons who are residents or potential residents of supported
exempt accommodation.”
This amendment sets out that assessing the needs of people who
are residents or potential residents of supported exempt
accommodation is a condition that may be attached to a
licence.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 6, page 6, line 29, leave out
“statutory”.
Amendment 6, in clause 6, page 6, line 38, leave out
“statutory”.
Amendment 7, in clause 6, page 6, line 40, leave out
“statutory”.
Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 7, line 3, leave out
“statutory”.
Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out “the Local
Government Association” and insert “local authorities in
England”.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Clauses 4 to 7 are the heart of the Bill, because clause 4 sets
out the licensing regime that we wish to introduce. The measure
is permissive and will allow local authorities to introduce the
licensing scheme if they so choose. There is a great deal of
detail in the clause, which leads on to the further provision in
clause 5 and the provision in clause 6 about the need to consult,
as the Minister has set out. Consultation is mightily important,
because this is where all the good providers need to give the
Government feedback on how they are operating and what needs to
happen.
I should explain the amendments that I have tabled in respect of
consultation. In the draft Bill, we put the Local Government
Association down as a statutory consultee. Following that, the
LGA came back to us and said, “We don’t want to be a statutory
consultee, but we generally want local authorities to be.” The
Column 15is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 15](#)
LGA does not want to act on behalf of all local authorities
because this is a permissive measure and not all local
authorities will want to introduce a licensing scheme. Therefore,
the amendments are sensible tidying-up amendments. I think our
explanation yesterday may have caused Ministers and officials
some confusion, but I hope that the amendments can be made to
ensure that the legislation is appropriate.
The key is making the licensing scheme, if it is introduced,
common across local authorities. One of the things that has been
brought home to me loud and clear by a number of organisations
that operate across a number of local authorities is that they do
not want a licensing scheme to be different from one authority to
another, so as far as possible it needs to be a common practice
across local authorities. It also needs to be compulsory.
Birmingham Members know that Birmingham tried to introduce a
voluntary scheme; all the good providers signed up, but funnily
enough the rogue landlords said, “Well, we don’t have to, so we
won’t.”
In debates on previous clauses, we talked about the standards to
be provided and the requirements on local authorities and the
Secretary of State, but the heart of the Bill is a licensing
scheme that is fit for purpose and ensures that fit and proper
persons operate in these areas and provide accommodation. We must
ensure that not-for-profit originations are not completely
inconvenienced and that the fees are not so high that
organisations are impoverished and driven out of providing
accommodation in the first place.
Exempt accommodation can be provided only through a
not-for-profit organisation. The scandal at the moment is that
unscrupulous landlords buy a property, expand it to the maximum
possible under permitted development, provide a small living area
and a small bathroom, stack the house with as many people as they
physically can, and then claim housing benefit on an enhanced
basis for vulnerable people. Members might say, “Well, hang on.
That’s a private landlord operating that way,” but what the
private landlord does is set up a not-for-profit organisation
alongside that, to which they lease the property. The
not-for-profit organisation runs the service and provides the
rent to the landlord, but the landlord is also running the
not-for-profit organisation.
That scam has to be dealt with, which is one of the reasons why a
licensing regime needs to be introduced so that we have a
fit-and-proper person test and ensure all the aspects of what
needs to be provided. We must ensure that accommodation is decent
and that the services for vulnerable people are provided in the
way they should be. We cannot have a situation in which
vulnerable people are exploited and almost retained as prisoners
within their own accommodation. That is extremely important.
(Liverpool, West Derby)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I
wholeheartedly agree with this Bill. We have seen on the
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee some of what the
hon. Gentleman has outlined and some of the scandalous places
people are forced to live. The leverage that rogue landlords have
over them is absolutely appalling and at times life-threatening.
Is he talking about landlord licensing only for exempt Column
16is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 16](#)
accommodation, or right across the board? Should private
landlords be part of the landlord licensing scheme? A pilot was
successful in Liverpool, but it has ended.
Generally speaking, licensing schemes for private sector housing
are outside the scope of this Bill. We are looking particularly
at supported housing and exempt accommodation. We have had some
discussions about extending the scope of the Bill to all
supported housing. I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a
very different licensing regime, which of course can be
introduced, but we are concentrating on vulnerable individuals
who are provided with accommodation.
The problem is that exempt accommodation is just that: it is
exempt from all the regulations relating to houses in multiple
occupation and all other aspects, and enhanced housing benefit
can be claimed as a result. There have been some financial
scandals. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby knows,
during the Select Committee inquiry we uncovered a number of
scams; whether we can fix them all in this Bill is another
matter. What we can do—what we are doing—is lay out a whole
series of things. When the Bill was first drafted this section
was a great deal longer. We were convinced—I cannot remember by
which Minister, but one of the three—that we should remove a
large section and put it in regulation, because it is then easier
to change and amend as the market changes.
10.15am
The sort of people we are talking about will look at every
particular avenue to escape the regulation. We need to make it
clear that there is going to be a regulatory regime, that it is
as common as possible throughout the country, and that there will
be further details in regulation after the consultation has taken
place. The licensing regime that the hon. Member for Liverpool,
West Derby referred to is very different; this one is
specifically to deal with this particular challenge, in respect
of which there is currently no regulation at all.
Mr Betts
I will speak to amendment 3 and raise a couple of other issues
relating to the provisions under consideration.
On amendment 3, during our Select Committee inquiry one of the
issues we heard from those concerned was how individuals got into
exempt accommodation and how often people with very different
needs—and sometimes very different but challenging behaviour—get
put together in a completely inappropriate way. The worst
examples were of women fleeing domestic violence being housed in
the same building as people who have been perpetrators of that
violence in the past. We heard about people trying to give up an
addiction who were housed in the same building as people with a
track record of dealing drugs. It was simply not appropriate;
there is no control over who goes where. Gumtree and Facebook
were regular means by which individuals accessed exempt
accommodation. That was not satisfactory.
The standards to be enforced are set out in clause 5(3). Everyone
agrees that licences should cover the standards of accommodation,
as well as the use of the accommodation, the provision of care—or
lack of it in some cases—and compliance with the national
supported housing standards. The one thing the Bill is missing is
the issue of access to that accommodation. That is why I put into
amendment 3 words about,Column 17is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 17](#)
“conditions relating to the assessment of the needs of persons
who are residents or potential residents of supported exempt
accommodation.”
We should take account of people’s needs and ensure that in
future housing people with completely different and often
conflicting needs and lifestyles—such as the perpetrators of
domestic abuse being housed with victims of domestic abuse—simply
cannot happen.
I accept that the wording may not be completely correct. I am
hopeful that the Minister will accept the spirit of what I am
trying to put forward, if not the precise wording. I look forward
to what she has to say.
I have two other points. As the hon. Member for Harrow East said,
of key importance are clauses 4 and 5, on licensing. Clause 2, on
local supported housing strategies, places additional
requirements on local councils. Will the Minister confirm that
those requirements will be considered as new burdens, and that
appropriate discussions will happen with the LGA and councils
about that?
Finally, one of the most appalling things we heard about in our
inquiry was the scams that take place. In the end, we could
improve the accommodation for the same money that has been spent,
had it been spent better. One of the examples we heard was about
the council leader in West Devon. Quite rightly, we have heard a
lot about Birmingham—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,
Selly Oak was the first Member who came to me to say that this
was a major problem that the Select Committee needed to look
at—but we heard from the leader of West Devon about a portfolio
of 12 properties that were sold to a special purpose vehicle for
£6 million. On the same day, they were sold to an offshore
investment company for £18 million. That is a £12 million profit
for a portfolio of properties.
What is happening in many cases is that it is not property
organisations that provide exempt accommodation. Organisations
buy up these properties and rent them to an
organisation—sometimes one they have created themselves as a
subsidiary—that is not for profit. But that not-for-profit
organisation is charged an enormous rent by the profit-making
organisation, and that feeds through into the level of housing
benefit that is eventually paid out on behalf of the occupiers of
exempt accommodation. It is that sort of scam that needs to be
stopped.
I would like to ask the Minister for some assurances, having
looked at the wording in clause 5(5)(b) on
“removing or restricting an entitlement to housing benefit”
and limiting the rent. Will the Minister be looking to stop these
sorts of scams by using the powers set out in the Bill so
far?
I will start with amendment 3, then move on to amendments 5 to 9,
and then I will follow up on the points raised by hon.
Members.
On amendment 3, the Government agree that it is vital that the
needs of supported housing residents are properly assessed so
that they get the help they need, and for supported housing to
deliver the right outcomes. My original intention was to include
the requirement for individual needs assessments in the national
supported housing standards, as that will be a needs assessment
and will cover the accommodation provided and the care and
support package.Column 18is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 18](#)
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has raised an
interesting point, and I agree that putting the measure on the
face of the Bill may have some merit. However, more detail is
needed to flesh out the amendment. It particularly needs to spell
out what the needs assessment covers in more precise language and
how it interacts with care, support and provision. I would be
happy to talk more about the matter with the hon. Gentleman, and
I am happy to consider making changes to be introduced by the
Government on Report. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw
amendment 3.
I understand that amendments 5 to 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the
Member for Harrow East, are technical and are there to remove the
Local Government Association from being named as a statutory
consultee. The Government believe that “statutory” can remain on
the face of the Bill in respect of amendments 5 to 8. I could go
into more detail, but in the interests of time, and as this is a
more technical matter, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the
amendments to delete “statutory”, because we believe that
removing it does not materially affect the duty being placed on
the Secretary of State to consult the named organisations.
On amendment 9, I understand that the Local Government
Association has requested this change. I am happy to support the
removal of its name from the clause, but elsewhere in the Bill we
have referred to “local housing authorities” and “social services
authorities” and I am disinclined to introduce a third term. I
propose to my hon. Friend that we work on an alternative,
including local housing authorities or social services
authorities, and that the Government will table that amendment on
Report.
The Chair
Mr Betts, did you want to speak? I got the impression you did not
want to get up.
Mr Betts
I was hoping to say one or two things and that the Minister might
respond to my points about new burdens and benefits.
I completely forgot; I was trying to rush through the amendments.
My apologies.
First, on new burdens assessments, I confirm that an assessment
will be made and that local authorities will get money for any
new burdens. I anticipate that the new burdens will come about
through setting up the strategies for the five-year period, and
the initial set-up of the licensing scheme.
Secondly, I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East
that we cannot allow the scams to continue. It is an absolute
outrage that public money is going towards rogue landlords when
it should be used more effectively to help vulnerable people in
society. That dovetails with the point, made by my hon. Friend
the Member for Dover, that we need a linkage between housing
benefit and the national supported housing standards. The hon.
Member for Sheffield South East has my word that the Department
for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, working closely with
the Department for Work and Pensions, will look to get rid of the
scams. Clearly, it will take work and require a lot of deep
analysis, but we are determined to look to make that linkage with
the DWP.
Column 19is located here
The Chair
Fortunately, I can allow people to speak more than once, but
whether the Minister will answer questions is not a matter for
the Chair. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has got his
points across. , your body language said to me that you did not want
to get up again.
I was just wary about who else was standing up.
The Chair
You should be in my position!
In relation to the amendments, the most important thing to
remember is that with the vulnerable people we are talking about,
every case is unique; individuals have unique needs. Good
supported housing organisations will provide an initial
assessment of what those needs are so they can build a support
network. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield
South East, the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities Committee, requires that to happen.
At the moment, rogue landlords do not provide any assessment of
needs whatsoever. The only need they are interested in is how
much money they can get from the housing benefit regime. I agree
that we need to look at this in more detail to make sure it is
correct, but it is in the spirit of the Bill and there is a need
to specify that this will be a requirement for providers. They
must assess the needs of the individuals they are responsible for
housing.
Let me turn to my amendments. I accept the Minister’s strictures
to look at tidying up this area. As I have said, the Local
Government Association does not want to be a statutory consultee.
Therefore, we could tidy the wording up a bit in relation to
housing and social services authorities to ensure the language is
consistent. I agree we could do that on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Planning
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 9 stand
part.
10.30am
Clauses 8 and 9 deal with two aspects of the Bill. One prevalent
problem in the planning system is that in local authority areas
there is no control whatever over someone setting up a supported
housing unit. We have had a lot of discussion about whether we
could have some sort of saturation test, so that we do not get
whole ghettos of supported housing units being set up, driving
out other people. We are now looking at whether we will need to
go further, which clause 8 specifically addresses.
If licensing does what we require it to—that is, control the way
in which supported housing is provided across the piece—that will
be fine. However, during the Select Committee inquiry we
established that when a property Column 20is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 20](#)
is purchased for use as supported housing, that should go through
the planning process and the local authority should consider a
planning application for a change of use of that property; I
believe that will be required. That is the only means by which a
local authority can exercise control before the unit is brought
into operation. It would then allow local people and councillors
to have their say, and ensure that we control the number of units
being set up before they are set up, rather than try to deal with
the situation afterwards.
Clause 8 is permissive, so that if we have clear evidence that
the change of use is required to take place through the planning
process, the Secretary of State can introduce that process. It is
not a requirement from day one; my personal feeling is that that
is the best way of controlling the setting up of supported
housing units, but I completely understand the position we have
reached with the Department. There is concern that that
requirement may not be necessary.
Mrs Hamilton
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman: that was the issue in
the area in which I was a councillor prior to becoming an MP.
When HMOs were being set up in the area, we had to go through
planning, but when rogue landlords realised that HMOs needed
planning permission, they switched tack and went for these exempt
supported living accommodations. The problem is that we would
struggle to get the numbers once they had been set up, and the
ghettos are already there in places like Birmingham. I absolutely
agree that the issue needs to be considered, because rogue
landlords have a way of knowing how to get around the rules, and
we need to tighten them up.
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. It is clearly
outrageous that if someone set up an HMO, they would be
regulated, but if they said, “No, this is supported housing and
exempt accommodation”, they would not be. That just cannot be
right, and it is one reason that we have looked at the licensing
regime as a process of enforcing the law. It may work, but my
personal view is that I would much rather see a position where
planning takes place. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to
say, following a review of the operation of the licensing regime,
“We haven’t gone far enough. We must now introduce a position
whereby the change of use requires planning permission.” It is a
warning shot, as it were, and then further powers can be
introduced if necessary.
Clause 9 is an important clause for vulnerable people. At the
moment, landlords routinely say to their vulnerable tenants, “Do
what you’re told or else you’ll be on the streets, and if you go
on the streets, the local authority will deem you to have left a
secure property. Therefore you have made yourself homeless and
they have no duty to house you whatsoever.” It is a threat for
keeping individuals in that situation.
I agree about just how pernicious the impact of this issue is. We
are talking about vulnerable people, and therefore those who are
likely to take that threat of being made homeless very seriously
and so keep quiet and continue to endure dreadful accommodation.
I appreciate that this is not really the purpose of this debate,
but we also see that in social housing generally, where we have
seen some dreadful cases of damp and Column 21is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 21](#)
mould and the landlord continues to expect that rent be paid,
even though the accommodation they are providing is dreadful. We
must absolutely ensure that this issue does not hang as a threat
over vulnerable people.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, this is
one of areas that was a concern when we produced the Bill—that,
in the end, someone could be classified as being intentionally
homeless if they object to the conditions that they are in, or
anything else.
The other aspect that we have not brought out during this process
but needs to be spelled out is that rogue landlords have a direct
incentive for the individuals in their services not to improve
their lot. If they were to have the temerity to actually go and
get a job and get some income, they would be forced out, because
they would no longer be entitled to enhanced housing benefit. We
must address that scandal as well.
The key point is that tenants can be assured that if they have a
complaint to make, they should go ahead and make it and draw to
the attention of the local authorities, or the individuals
operating the licensing regime, that their position is that their
accommodation is not acceptable and needs to be improved. The
landlords should not be holding them literally to ransom.
Clause 9 gives the reassurance that someone can go to their local
authority and leave the premises they are in on the basis of it
not being suitable to their needs—it is damp, mouldy, or in
whatever condition—and that the local authority will then need to
look at their circumstances appropriately. They would then be
dealt with under normal homelessness legislation, so would not be
“intentionally homeless” and would be able to gain support from
the local authority.
I commend these two very important clauses to the Committee.
Mrs Elphicke
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want briefly to explore the new
provision on homelessness, the intent of which I wholeheartedly
support.
The Bill has been introduced with a focus on the outrageous
examples of rogue landlords, who must be dealt with. However, as
we have explored in the Select Committee review, and in my own
experience, some of the more mainstream providers, who we would
otherwise think would be good providers in this space, have had
situations in which they did not provide the right level of
supported care for very vulnerable people. I want to explore with
my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East whether, in respect of
the provision about whether the standard of care support and
supervision is provided, the issue would be in the opinion of the
person to whom the support or care is provided, rather than in
the organisation’s opinion.
Let me give two brief illustrative examples. First, in my prior
life I volunteered with a homeless night shelter. I worked in
homeless support for a number of years. In the Dover Outreach
Centre, which is a fantastic example of this kind of support, in
a number of cases people found themselves back in homelessness
because a respected local organisation that supports drug,
alcohol and other situations found that those people were not
suitable for their programmes and removed them from that
accommodation after incidents of repeated alcohol or Column 22is
located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 22](#)
drug abuse. In such a situation, people need additional support
or other organisations to help them; they are still in need,
still vulnerable and still homeless. I am keen to ensure that the
obligation to support would extend to situations where the
programme that has been provided has not achieved the outcome of
keeping that person from homelessness and has not got them on the
road to being in a home.
My second point is that the son of a constituent of mine recently
committed suicide, having been thrown out of supported exempt
housing—again, in a situation where they had both physical and
mental health needs. It was a complex situation, as is not
unusual, and the case is subject to a coroner’s investigation, so
I will not comment on the detail further, except to say again
that if we are looking to ensure that there is a safety net of
support for people in vulnerable housing and care situations, can
we make sure that the legislation deals with those sorts of
real-life situations, which can occur even in the best organised
supported housing provider?
Let me start with clause 8, which commits the Government to
reviewing the effectiveness of the licensing regulations on the
condition and type of accommodation, and the provision of
support, within three years of our making the regulations.
Following the review, the Secretary of State must consider
whether to introduce a new planning use class for supported
housing.
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the licensing scheme will
be extremely important. We need to keep the measures in the Bill
under review and see whether further measures are necessary to
drive out rogue landlords and drive up the quality of supported
housing.
The hon. Member for Harrow East spoke about the concerns around
saturation when he was outlining the clause. Is not the other
concern that by converting these properties we are destroying
family homes, at the very time when one of the Government’s
priorities is to generate more?
Yes, and that is precisely why we have decided to opt for a local
licensing regime; we strongly feel that local authorities know
their areas best and know where there is need.
Let me turn to the issue of homelessness. I thank my hon. Friend
the Member for Dover for her comments. I send my sympathies to
the family involved. I think that everyone, from all parties in
the House, will agree that if vulnerable people find themselves
in poor-quality supported housing, they should not be afraid to
look for help. Residents should not fear being penalised for
leaving poor-quality supported housing, whether it is poor
because of the accommodation itself or because of the level of
the support provided. The Bill clarifies the position for both
residents and local authorities. The examples that my hon. Friend
gave show the importance of consultation, which is fundamental to
the Bill, because through consultation we will be able to set the
national supported housing standards in such a way that they are
applied fairly to all cases.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover in particular for her
intervention. I give her the assurance that the intention is that
the individuals involved will determine whether they are leaving
a property Column 23is located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 23](#)
under those circumstances. The key is to prevent the local
authority from automatically refusing someone accommodation or
assistance. The Bill dovetails with the Homelessness Reduction
Act 2017, which I piloted through some seven years ago now, to
ensure that local authorities act appropriately when dealing with
people who are homeless through no fault of their own. The whole
point is to make it clear that they are not at fault by
exercising this position. I thank the Minister for making clear
her position on the planning issue. As I have said, my personal
view is that we will require provision going forward, but let us
establish the position.
On local licensing, we need to see a great deal of consistency
across the country in the type of licensing policies that are
implemented, so that national organisations are not having to
cope with different licensing arrangements in different local
authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Sharing of information relating to supported exempt
accommodation
Mr Betts
I beg to move amendment 4 in clause 10, page 8, line 26, at end
insert—
“(8) If, at the end of the period of one year beginning with the
day on which this Act is passed, the power in subsection (1) is
yet to be exercised, the Secretary of State must publish, in such
manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit, a report setting out
the progress that has been made towards doing so.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to explain
why they have not made provision about the sharing of information
relating to supported exempt accommodation, if they have not done
so within a year of Royal Assent of the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 10 and 11
stand part.
Mr Betts
As I said when discussing a previous amendment, I am not doubting
the Minister’s good intentions, but trying to make sure that we
have her on the record. Clearly, the sharing of information, as
in many of these areas, is really important. We know that rogue
landlords and others get around rules because organisations and
authorities have different information. They often cannot share
with each other, let alone do not share with each other.
We have already had reference to the need for DWP and DLUHC to
work closely together and make sure that information about the
payment of benefits is there and available to be shared across
the piece. All I am really asking here is that, if progress is
not made in the way that the Minister clearly intends, could we
have it on the record that a report will be made? Now, the
Minister may well say that it is not usual to put such
commitments on the record. I anticipate the speech that she is
about to give, but can we at least have an assurance that the
intention is that the report will be made? That would satisfy me
and prevent me from having to push the amendment to a vote.
Column 24is located here
Effectively, the purpose behind clause 10 is as I outlined at the
beginning. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable
people in society. The people we are talking about are normally
women, such as those fleeing domestic violence. We are talking
about people that are mentally or physically ill; they may be
recovering from all sorts of addictions. There can be a whole
plethora of reasons why people are in supported housing. Data on
that is sensitive and personal, so we must be very careful about
how that data is shared and with whom it is shared. Often, we are
talking about people who may have moved around from one authority
to another. Essentially, clause 10 sets out the regime that will
operate and the requirement that the Department will introduce
regulations on how this should be handled.
This is going to be one of the most difficult areas of the
regulation that will follow the Bill because it will have to
cover a range of different types of information and of
circumstances under which information can be transferred. It is
absolutely vital to protect vulnerable individuals in society in
this way.
As with amendment 2, which was about a reporting requirement for
housing standards, I am prepared to give a commitment in this
Committee: if we are required to report on licensing regulations
after 12 months, we will include an update on the progress on
information sharing powers. I agree with the hon. Member for
Harrow East that we need to be sensitive about the sharing of
information, given the involvement of people such as domestic
abuse survivors. Information about their current residence is
very sensitive, so, again, consultation is key. We may have to
exempt certain groups, but it is an important clause.
Mr Betts
I was hoping that the Minister would say something about
reporting on progress, or how that might be done in due
course.
I did make a—
The Chair
This will be an intervention, I assume. It is not for hon.
Members to chair me. [Laughter.]
I did make a similar commitment to the one that we gave on the
housing standards. To the extent that we are reporting on the
licensing regulations after 12 months, we will include an update
on the progress of information-sharing powers and on national
housing standards.
The Chair
I feel like I am intruding on your private conversation. Sorry
about having a formal procedure.
Mr Betts
May I finish the conversation?
The Chair
That was an intervention, so you still have the Floor.
Mr Betts
I confirm that I will not press my amendment to a vote, given the
Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.Column 25is
located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 25](#)
Clause 12
Meaning of “supported exempt accommodation”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 13 and 14
stand part.
Clauses 12 to 14 simply adapt the definitions for the Bill. I
think they are uncontroversial and appropriate. Clause 13 is
about other interpretations and clause 14 about the Bill’s
commencement, extent and short title. They are essential clauses,
but not controversial.
I agree with my hon. Friend that clauses 12 to 14 are relatively
straightforward, but I want to make one point about clause 12, on
the meaning of “supported exempt accommodation”. Several
overlapping definitions of supported housing include two in
housing benefit regulations: those for “exempt accommodation” and
for “specified accommodation”. The Bill refers to the broader
supported housing definition—of specified accommodation—as
“supported exempt accommodation”.
Existing evidence points to the issues in supported housing
typically occurring in housing provision that meets the “exempt
accommodation” definition, so that is the current focus of the
licensing scheme regulations. As I stated, there is a risk of
loopholes, so we will consult on whether to expand the licensing
scheme to cover all supported housing. The broader definition of
“supported exempt accommodation” applies to the other elements of
the Bill, including local authority strategic planning,
information sharing and the national supported housing
standards.
I thank the Minister for the information on consultation. This is
a key area. The sort of people we are trying to drive out of
business will use every and any loophole there is, so getting the
exact wording right is vital. I accept completely what my hon.
Friend has said about the consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2
Charter of Rights for residents of supported exempt
accommodation
‘(1) A local housing authority in England must publish a Charter
of Rights for residents of supported exempt accommodation
(“Charter of Rights”).
(2) A Charter of Rights under subsection (1) must be
published—
(a) within three months of the date on which this Act comes into
force, and
(b) annually thereafter.
(3) A Charter of Rights under subsection (1) must contain—
(a) a statement of the rights of residents of supported exempt
accommodation,
(b) a statement of the responsibilities of providers of supported
exempt accommodation,
(c) information about support services for residents of supported
exempted accommodation.
(4) In preparing a Charter, the local housing authority must
consult—
(a) residents of supported exempt accommodation,Column 26is
located here
[Toggle showing location of Column 26](#)
(b) providers of supported exempt accommodation, and
(c) civil society organisations.
(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations require a provider
of supported exempt accommodation to—
(a) ensure that its staff are aware of the Charter of Rights
published by the local housing authority,
(b) provide a copy of the Charter of Rights to every resident in
the supported exempt accommodation it provides,
(c) have regard to the relevant Charter of Rights in exercising
its functions.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under
subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument
has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House
of Parliament.’—(.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Betts
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am moving the new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member
for Blackburn (), who tabled it. I will not
spend long on this, but I promised that I would move it so that
the Minister could respond.
The intention of the new clause is simply to put the needs and
rights of those resident in supported exempt accommodation at the
heart of our debate in Committee. In the end, that is what we are
trying to do: provide better accommodation for people who are
often in desperate and real need. I will not press this to a
vote, but I want the debate to be about how the Minister might
think the issues raised in new clause 2—on having the rights of
residents recognised formally—will be best addressed in the
Bill.
The new clause would require all local authorities in England to
produce a charter of rights for supported housing residents. That
seems to have significant risk of overlap with the national
supported housing standards. For some of the reasons already
outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, for local
authorities each to produce their own charters would be
unhelpful. We need consistency.
I make the point that while individual local authorities will
decide whether they put in place a licensing regime, guidance
will be issued to ensure consistency across the local
authorities. We believe that the national housing standards will
have a more consistent national approach, and an enforcement
mechanism through licensing. We will therefore not support the
new clause.
In answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, vulnerable
people should clearly be at the heart of our concerns. At the
moment, unfortunately, in certain situations rogue landlords are
paid too much Government money, and the Government need value for
money for the taxpayer. Simultaneously, vulnerable residents are
not getting the support that they need. I give the hon. Gentleman
my assurance that vulnerable residents will be a major focus of
our consultation, which will be there to ensure that their needs
are met through the national supported housing standards.
Mr Betts
I accept the Minister’s assurances. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
|
