Clause 4
Licensing Regulations
10.34am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities ()
I beg to move amendment 1, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
“(4A) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection
(4)(c) includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate
the district of every local housing authority in England.”
This amendment confirms that licensing regulations under clause
4(1) or (3) may provide for the Secretary of State to designate
the district of every local housing authority in England for the
purposes of the regulations.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Governmentamendment 2, in clause 5, page 5, line 41, at end
insert—
“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the
needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the
conduct of such assessments;”.
This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or
(3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include
conditions relating to needs assessments.
Government amendment 3, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out
paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) each local housing authority in England,
(aa) each social services authority in England,”.
This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England
and social services authorities in England for the Local
Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of
State must consult before making licensing regulations under
clause 4(1) or (3).
We have already heard earlier in the Bill’s passage that there is
a real risk of rogue providers changing location in order to
avoid regulation. I am determined to put a stop to the
exploitation of vulnerable people through the provision of
poor-quality supported housing. For the rogues this is a
lucrative activity, which is incentive enough for them to move
location in order to avoid impending regulation.
The Bill currently provides that licensing regulations may
include provision under which the Secretary of State may
designate the district of “a” local housing authority as subject
to licensing. The amendment clarifies that such provision
includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate every
district in England as subject to licensing, which means that the
Secretary of State could introduce universal local licensing by
exercising a power to be conferred by the licensing regulations
of clause 4 to designate every local housing authority district
in England. It is important that this is set out clearly as an
option. The licensing regulations must still make provision for a
local housing authority to self-designate, and may require a
local housing authority to do so if conditions are met.
I tabled amendment 1 because the Government need to be able to
reset the system. We must be able to put a stop to providers
simply moving to areas without a licensing scheme and setting up
there. With universal local licensing, we could prevent a
landlord who had failed a “fit and proper person” test in an area
with a licensing scheme from simply relocating to an area without
licensing, and thus potentially protect vulnerable residents. If
universal local licensing is pursued—and I consider it to be an
option—that will mean that all residents of supported housing,
wherever they are in England, can take comfort from the fact that
the national supported housings standards will be enforced, and
action will be taken should a provider not meet them. That option
must be available to the Secretary of State.
I want to reassure Members that the Government will consult on
the detail of the licensing regime, as is required in the Bill.
That, of course, includes consulting on the duty set out in
clause 6 relating to the method of enforcing the national
supported housing standards, and the effectiveness of the
licensing regime. We remain determined that the regime should be
light-touch in order to avoid overburdening good providers and
local authorities, but also robust enough to force out those
running supported housing for the wrong reasons. We will keep the
licensing scheme under review to ensure that it is working as was
intended. I hope that Members will agree to our making this
change.
Let me now deal with Government amendment 2. I know that the hon.
Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) cannot be present
today because of future commitments, and he sent me his
apologies. I am grateful to him for tabling a similar amendment
in Committee, and I am pleased to be able to bring it back to the
House today. In Committee he spoke of his concerns about how
residents could access supported housing, and expressed
particular concern about the problems experienced by residents
who were mixed together inappropriately, as well as the increased
advertising of supported housing provision on websites such as
Gumtree and Zoopla. On the latter point, I can offer some
reassurance. I recently met representatives of Gumtree, at their
request, to discuss the practice by some supported housing
providers of placing advertisements on its website. Gumtree, I am
glad to say, has already started to crack down on these
inappropriate advertisements and has expressed its willingness to
continue to work with the Government on this matter. Members will
know that Gumtree is not the only service that can enable rogue
landlords to advertise poor-quality supported housing. The
Government will work with these services to find solutions, and
my amendment will also help.
In the report on exempt accommodation, the Levelling Up, Housing
and Communities Committee also raised the issue of access routes
into supported housing. I am well aware that residents are
finding their way into supported housing through a variety of
routes, including websites, as I mentioned earlier, where
landlords purport to be providing supported housing but are, in
fact, perpetuating the abuse that we are here to tackle. At best,
placing someone in supported housing without testing its
suitability will mean that the right outcomes will not be
achieved and the person will not be able to move on into
independent living, if that is appropriate. At worst, failing to
assess the residents’ needs is a clear indicator that genuine
support is simply not being delivered at all, and that is not
acceptable.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I are in agreement
that it is vital that the resident’s support needs are assessed,
so that they can be given the right support in the right
accommodation. Once these arrangements are in place, we would
expect assessments to be carried out in advance of a resident
moving into the accommodation, but, in some circumstances, we
recognise that that may not be possible. None the less, all
supported housing residents must have the confidence that they
are living in the right place with the support that they need.
Amendment 2 proposed by the Government delivers on that by adding
to the list of conditions that may be attached to a supported
housing licence at clause 5(3) conditions requiring the carrying
out of assessments of the needs of residents, or potential
residents, including in relation to the conduct of those needs
assessments. The fine details will, of course, be subject to
consultation, but this amendment demonstrates the importance that
the House places on proper support being given to supported
housing residents, tailored to their individual need. I hope
Members agree with me on that.
Amendment 3 is more of a technical amendment. I am grateful to my
hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East () for proposing this amendment in Committee and I am
pleased to be able to return with it today. The amendment seeks
to amend clause 6, following a request from the Local Government
Association to be removed as a statutory consultee. The Bill
includes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult on
a number of issues related to the measures in the Bill. As I have
said in earlier debates, it is very important to me that we
carefully test these measures for unintended consequences before
implementation. As determined as I am to drive out poor provision
and drive up standards in supported housing, I am equally
determined to ensure that good providers can continue to support
the vulnerable people who need these vital services.
The Local Government Association asked to be replaced as a
statutory consultee by local authorities. Local authorities—or to
use the language of the Bill, local housing authorities and
social service authorities—will deliver many of the measures in
the Bill. It is right that we seek their views before making
regulations. In line with that request, the amendment removes the
Local Government Association from the list of statutory
consultees in clause 6 and replaces them with local housing
authorities and social services authorities in England. The
effect of the amendment is that the Secretary of State will have
an obligation to consult local housing authorities and social
service authorities on the design of the licensing regime before
making regulations. I hope that hon. Members will agree with this
amendment also.
10.45am
(Harrow East) (Con)
At this stage, I will confine my remarks to the three amendments
tabled; I will have more to say on Third Reading. The amendments
stem from the very healthy cross-party debate we had in Committee
on four amendments that were tabled at that stage.
The first amendment, as the Minister has outlined, relates to
clarification in the Bill, and it has my full support. The clear
point is that it allows the Secretary of State
“to designate the district of every local housing authority in
England”
for the purposes of the regulations. That confirms that licensing
regulations may be provided by every local authority in England,
as opposed to only a few; while possibly only a few will require
such measures now, this is a rapidly growing market and we must
ensure that the legislation is future-proofed and that rogue
landlords are held to account throughout the country rather than,
as the Minister rightly says, moving from one area to
another.
I ask the Minister, when we look at the regulations that will
underpin this legislation, to look at grouping local authorities
together to form a licensing regime, rather than relying on
relatively small district housing authorities, which may only
have one or two units within their area and will therefore find
it overbearing to have that regulation and a whole bureaucratic
structure just within that area.
(Cities of London and
Westminster) (Con)
I welcome this Bill and, having served on the Bill Committee, I
am aware of its importance. I welcome my hon. Friend’s point
about grouping councils together and I highly recommend the
Minister looking at that. I was responsible for bringing
children’s services together with Hammersmith and Fulham and
Kensington and Chelsea when I was children’s services lead at
Westminster Council, so I know how important it is that we ensure
that local authorities, where possible, can work together, not
only to be more cost-effective, but to provide a better
service.
There are also several advantages beyond those my hon. Friend
mentions. Providers that provide across more than one district
housing authority will then have one set of regulations to abide
by rather than, potentially, a number of different ones. That was
the original intent of the Bill: to ensure that we deal with the
rogue landlords and encourage the good providers to carry on with
the excellent work they do. We also need to ensure that no one
can slip through the net as a rogue provider, so I am glad the
Minister has put forward that proposal.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, various different
providers are exploiting the system via internet and other social
media activities. I recommend her taking a look at a new set-up
called RoomMatch, which I believe is just about to be released,
and which enables users to look at what providers are
providing—both the quality of accommodation and the support
provided—to assist those placing vulnerable people in those types
of accommodation. At the same time, the people going into that
type of accommodation can view it virtually before they get
anywhere near it.
The amendment will prevent unlawful providers that have had
regulations imposed as a result of the Bill by the local
authority in which they operate from simply upping sticks and
moving to a nearby authority that does not have regulations, and
then continuing to exploit vulnerable tenants for vast quantities
of money while still providing a shamefully inadequate level of
care. That is the big challenge. Unfortunately, I have had
experience of seeing some of that; it is truly dreadful what we
put certain vulnerable people through. Allowing providers to set
up somewhere else and continue to exploit people would leave the
purpose of the Bill unachieved. I am delighted that the amendment
has been tabled; I think it will prevent the worst-case
scenario.
It may seem unlikely to some people that the aforementioned case
could take place, but I have visited numerous examples of such
supported housing. The set-up is extremely quick, and there are
low start-up costs, so rogues can set up very quickly and far too
easily. They do not need to obtain planning permission, because
of the permitted development rights they acquire when providing
supported accommodation. Consequently, they can immediately start
up and falsely advertise the property on social media networks as
good quality with a high level of care. Residents promptly apply,
particularly because there is currently a limited amount of
affordable housing in the private market.
Almost immediately, tenants are found, and the high rent payments
start coming in. To be clear, this is an industry that, when
abused, pulls in huge profit margins, so it is completely within
the rogue landlord’s interest to set up in another district, even
if it is only for a year, before the housing authority introduces
regulations. I welcome this amendment, which will send the
strongest possible signal to those who wish to abuse vulnerable
tenants.
Amendment 2 will enable the licensing regulations under clause 4
to include in the list of conditions attached to a licence
requirements related to the needs assessment of those looking to
enter exempt accommodation and supported housing accommodation,
and it has my complete support. I commend the excellent report
that the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee did on
this. Its Chairman, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr
Betts), tabled the amendment in Committee, and I am glad that the
Minister agreed to look at it further and refine it to make sure
it was fit for purpose. I am glad that she has agreed to adopt
the amendment, and I thank her and the hon. Member for Sheffield
South East for their contributions and advice relating to it.
I emphasise that good providers have nothing to fear. I have been
to many supported housing units where the first thing they do is
conduct a needs assessment of the individuals. If a provider is
possibly taking someone for two years, they need to assess their
needs, so that they can provide the right level of support. It is
a scandal that many rogue providers provide no support
whatsoever. This amendment is extremely welcome. It has support
from Members on both sides of the House and has been broadly
welcomed and accepted by local authorities, housing providers and
charitable bodies across the sector, which is incredibly
reassuring.
At present, the Bill stipulates that the conditions that may be
attached to a licence include conditions relating to the standard
of accommodation; conditions relating to the use of
accommodation; conditions relating to the provision of care,
support or supervision; and conditions requiring compliance with
national supported housing standards, when we eventually publish
them. Amendment 2 will add to that:
“conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the
needs of residents… and relating to the conduct of such
assessments”.
Fundamentally, this means that residents of supported
accommodation must have an initial assessment of the level of
their needs, to ensure that they have access to the correct
amount of care and appropriate care relating to their specific
complex needs. As we are all aware, every case is unique, and no
two individuals will have exactly the same requirements. I am
confident that this amendment will help residents to receive the
best care—helping them eventually to stand on their own two feet,
rebuild their lives and probably enter the private housing market
in future. Local authorities can be held responsible for
initiating these assessments and ensuring enforcement by all
supported housing providers in their districts. The amendment
will ensure that every local authority carries that forward and
achieves the best outcome for residents.
Amendment 3 stems from discussions with the Local Government
Association; I declare an interest, as a vice-president of the
LGA. The LGA is the body that was previously named, which meant
that it was consulted on all aspects of licensing regulations.
However, as a localist, I believe it is right that local housing
authorities and social services authorities are the ones
consulted, so that each authority can have its views taken into
account by Ministers when decisions are made. Stipulating the LGA
as a consultee risked local authorities, as delivery partners,
not having the primary opportunity to consult on elements that
they will consequently be responsible for enforcing, so amending
the Bill in this way is clearly the right way forward. I am
pleased that the Local Government Association is highly
supportive of the amendment. It has assured me and other local
authorities that it will continue to work with colleagues and
officials across central Government, other local authorities and
accommodation providers to support the future consultation on the
Bill. As this will be the case, it has been explicitly named, as
per the amendment. The amendment is extremely welcome; it
clarifies a point, and I endorse it completely.
I am thankful to the Minister for honouring her pledges in
Committee by tabling the amendments, which I wholeheartedly
support.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 5
Further provision about licensing regulations
Amendment made: 2, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the
needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the
conduct of such assessments;”.—(.)
This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or
(3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include
conditions relating to needs assessments.
Clause 6
Consultation
Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and
insert—
“(a) each local housing authority in England,
(aa) each social services authority in England,”.—(.)
This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England
and social services authorities in England for the Local
Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of
State must consult before making licensing regulations under
clause 4(1) or (3).
Third Reading
10.55am
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When we are considering opportunities for private Members’ Bills
and when we are drawn in the lottery for them, it is important
that we consider what we are going to take forward. I am very
conscious that I have met many Members who have been in this
House for more than 20 years and have never been drawn in the
ballot, and this is my second opportunity to propose a private
Member’s Bill. [Interruption.] Members have to enter the ballot
if they want to succeed.
My experience in 2016 with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017
was a key pointer, because Members have the choice of taking a
Bill that the Government would like them to take, developing a
Bill that the Government completely oppose and going down in
flames, or developing their own. In both cases when I have been
drawn, I have chosen the latter. That is not the easy route by
any means, but when I had the opportunity to propose a private
Member’s Bill, I wanted to make sure that I helped vulnerable
people who cannot speak for themselves. That is why the
Homelessness Reduction Act, the single biggest reform in housing
for more than 40 years, came about.
This new Bill, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill,
deals with the vulnerable people who should be assisted as a
result of the Homelessness Reduction Act. Both that Act and this
Bill stem from reports published by Select Committees on which I
have had the honour of serving: we have provided the evidence
base and have almost carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on the
Bills before we propose them.
I am pleased to speak to this Bill once more as it reaches Third
Reading, and I am encouraged by the journey thus far. We have
engaged in meaningful and constructive debate, leading to the
fine-tuned edits that we have just made on Report. The main
message of the Bill, however, remains the same: we want to
prevent vulnerable tenants from being exploited by rogue
landlords. My central message to the good providers out
there—there are some brilliant organisations that help vulnerable
people—is that they have nothing to fear from the new
legislation. It is the rogues we are after—those who exploit
vulnerable people.
As the cost of living crisis continues to affect residents across
the country, the need for supported accommodation is growing
rapidly. It is therefore vital that we regulate the market now,
before many more vulnerable people are subjected to the horrors
that are far too often demonstrated. Once again, I take the
opportunity to recommend that individuals read the report of the
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which is
available from the Vote Office and other good bookshops: it is a
right riveting read. That report highlighted the extent to which
tenants were abused, forced and manipulated into damaging
practices, whether it be prostitution, substance abuse or
discouragement from work—I could go on. People are exploited in
an unacceptable way.
The main reason that people are referred to supported housing is
to receive the constructive support they need to transition back
to normality, yet far too often, those people go backwards as a
consequence of damaging malpractice. It is an issue that is
popping up in more and more constituencies all over England,
highlighting the need for prompt regulation. The sheer volume of
money that landlords can make in this corrupt practice is so huge
that once others learn of it, they jump on the bandwagon. It is a
licence to print masses of money very quickly.
I would like to say that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old
Southwark (), who has just given a personal
statement, has been extremely supportive on the all-party
parliamentary group for ending homelessness, and I hope we can
welcome him back to helping in that regard.
As I was saying before the personal statement, the problem we are
experiencing now in many parts of the country is rogue landlords
jumping on the bandwagon with the ability literally to print
money and exploit vulnerable tenants. The Select Committee report
that I referred to highlighted that in many cases, the profit
margins are even greater than illegal drug dealing, emphasising
that the amount of housing benefit being taken from the public
purse shows a clear abuse of the position.
I thank all Members who took part in the Bill Committee. It was
an honour to have such an informed, esteemed and engaged group of
people to ensure that any potential amendments were debated and
considered in depth, taking into account any possible
consequences that may arise, because we must look at the
unintended consequences that may result from legislation. They
were specifically: my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London
and Westminster (), the hon. Members for
Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Liverpool, West Derby
(), my hon. Friend the Member for
Dover (Mrs Elphicke), the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington
(Mrs Hamilton) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (), my hon. Friend the Member for
Walsall North (), the hon. Member for
Birmingham, Selly Oak (), my hon. Friend the Member
for South West Hertfordshire (), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (), my hon. Friend the Member
for Cheadle () and last, but by no means
least, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield
(). In addition, my hon.
Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) and the hon. Member
for Twickenham () were not able to make the
Committee, but their support was appreciated none the less. The
comments, counsel and guidance from the Committee on the Bill
were incredibly useful to ensure that all the amendments proposed
were appropriate and complemented the Bill’s intentions.
Further, the Committee understood from the outset my vision for
the Bill, which is that it is crucial that we drive out the rogue
landlords and not hinder the brilliant work done by thousands of
organisations across this country, who provide supported housing
for those who really need it. I also thank the amazing Clerks in
the Public Bill Office for the hard work they have put in to make
all this possible. Anne-Marie Griffiths in particular has been on
hand to direct the practicalities throughout the process, which
has been integral in getting to Third Reading.
On the topic of thanks, I take the opportunity to thank everyone
who has been involved in drafting, giving evidence, advising and
collaborating on my Bill. It has been a busy 10 months since the
private Member’s Bill ballot was announced. I am wondering what
exactly I will do with my extra time once the Bill goes through
its final stages. However, the development of the regulations and
the consultations required will, I am sure, keep me actively
involved.
I met a variety of providers to ensure that those providing a
positive service in the sector will not be compromised as a
result of the regulation. I have been overwhelmed by the number
of providers that genuinely put the needs of tenants first to
support and assist them in rebuilding their lives. I have hosted
many webinars organised by Homeless Link, Crisis, the London
Assembly, the National Housing Federation, the Local Government
Association and Birmingham City Council, which provided me with
an opportunity to hear directly from large-scale, small-scale and
chain providers. That has been invaluable to get a much more
detailed perspective and to resolve any anxieties they may retain
about the introduction of this regulation.
Additionally, we have co-operated with and listened to many local
authorities across England on the concerns and practicalities
they envisage. That has helped to steer the conversation so that
the regulation is clear and the appropriate guidance and
standards will be available for an efficient licensing scheme to
be created by local authorities. As the Bill hopefully moves on
to the other place, and then begins enactment in the Department,
I have assured all bodies that I will continue to hold them to
account and ensure that no unintended consequences are caused or
extra unnecessary burdens placed on highly principled
providers.
Creating the Bill has been a lengthy and frequently uphill
challenge, but it has enabled me to work with some incredible
people coming together with one main goal. Some of them I was
familiar with from my work in the housing sector and on my
previous private Member’s Bill, which became the Homelessness
Reduction Act 2017. Others I have met through this process, and
their contributions have shaped the Bill enormously to this
point. Crisis, the homelessness charity, has been integral at
every stage, providing invaluable support and guidance at all
hours of the day and night. Most notably, Jasmine Basran and
Sarah Rowe have worked extensively on the policy and logistical
aspects of the Bill, providing briefings, advice and counsel, as
well as partaking in an unthinkable number of meetings that have
taken place over the past nine months.
When I was first drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I
approached Crisis informing it I was contemplating the regulation
of the exempt accommodation sector. Helpfully, it agreed that
this was a beneficial Bill in vital demand and therefore agreed
to help draft it, for which I am extremely grateful. Emily
Batchelor, Beth Exworth and Martine Martin, who used to be my
parliamentary assistant, have also provided enormous support in
arranging press releases and briefings to colleagues across the
House on the Bill, and in providing secretariat resources for the
all-party group for ending homelessness, which I chair jointly
with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (). I have no doubt we
will continue these conversations long into the future, to
safeguard and review the impact of the Bill on the sector.
Justin Bates from Landmark Chambers was instrumental in drafting
the Bill, with his expertise on housing, property and local
government law; having edited the erudite “Encyclopaedia of
Housing Law and Practice”, there is little Justin has not learned
about the subject, and his knowledge of it has been crucial in
drafting the text of the Bill. He astutely pulled together our
vision to create a thorough and comprehensive Bill, which I am
proud has made it to Third Reading, albeit with assistance from
the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I hope
it can go through the other place and receive Royal Assent
without difficulties or complications.
As the House is aware, during this process we have had the
advantage of working with three separate Ministers with the
portfolio for housing and homelessness: my hon. Friend the Member
for Walsall North, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle
(), who is in his place,
and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington () have all been influential
in shaping the Bill, in several different ways and several
different directions, and allowing it to reach this point. Their
guidance, recommendations and flexibility throughout the last six
months are hugely appreciated.
I have no doubt that those afflicted by homelessness can trust
that their views will continue to be represented fervently and
ardently by the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for
Kensington, in her relatively new role, and I appreciate the
commitments she gave at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading and
the amendments she has tabled to aid the Bill. I am confident
that, as has been expanded upon, these three amendments will
strengthen the Bill’s intentions.
Departmental officials have been a great help in drafting the
Bill; they have engaged in countless meetings and conversations
with my team and representatives of Crisis, supporting and
advising Ministers efficiently on issues affecting the sector. I
have also had the pleasure of meeting several direct witnesses of
supported housing. Many colleagues in the Chamber today will have
listened to Wayne and Ian, both from Crisis Skylight Birmingham,
at the “Regulate the Rogues” briefing that took place just before
Second Reading. Wayne and Ian both displayed admirable courage
and openness when describing their experience of living in
supported housing. I am sure we can all agree that sharing such
tough times publicly in front of a large group of
strangers—telling stories of pure exploitation and deceit—is no
easy feat, and I thank them greatly for their vital
contributions, which have helped spread awareness of the need to
implement regulation and helped engender support for my Bill.
I want to thank the Whips team, as well, for bearing with us
during the process; organising a Friday full of debates in the
aftermath of a parliamentary away day is no mean feat, as I am
sure they will agree, particularly with coach drivers and
traffic. Finally, I thank my parliamentary assistant Hattie
Shoosmith for all her work in organising meetings and drafting
speeches and articles.
Regardless of how seasoned and experienced a Back Bencher is,
watching their Bill go through its final stages in the Commons is
a truly extraordinary moment. It puts into perspective the
intensity of the journey and the impact the Bill will hopefully
have when on the statute book. I am, however, especially mindful
that this has been possible only thanks to my luck—although I am
sure I have questioned on several occasions whether it was good
or bad luck—in Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and
Means, drawing ball number 56 from her glass bowl. However, what
matters is how we follow up on that luck.
I hope that the hard work of everyone who has been involved up to
this point will be championed in the other place. It is an
anxious part of the process for an hon. Member who can only watch
from afar, but I am extremely grateful that my good friend , who no doubt is in the Gallery
today, will be a strong advocate for and custodian of the
Bill.
The regulation that the Bill seeks to introduce will be a crucial
step in supporting people who are in a compromised situation,
whether that is because of substance abuse, domestic violence or
leaving prison, or for any other reason. It will give them access
to sufficient accommodation and a level of care that will aid
their road to normalisation and to standing on their own two
feet. It is therefore crucial that there be no complications or
amendments in the other place that would hinder the Bill’s
progression and allow rogue landlords to continue exploiting the
public purse and risking the safety of their tenants.
I thank hon. Members for listening and look forward to hearing
their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
11.15am
Mr (South West Hertfordshire)
(Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East () for his excellent Bill, on which I was lucky enough
to speak on Second Reading in November. I commend the Minister
for her foresight in tabling the Government amendments to which
we agreed on Report just now; I hope the whole House agrees that
they are an additional benefit. The Bill’s intention has the
potential to be misinterpreted, so let us be clear: it is there
to protect people in supported accommodation and to support the
most vulnerable members of society.
In South West Hertfordshire, we have good housing providers and
we provide the right support. There are 136 units of supported
housing provided by private registered providers in Three Rivers
and 2,541 units of supported housing in Dacorum, of which 536 are
provided by private registered providers and the rest by the
district council. Unfortunately, there are loopholes in the
current system that have been open to exploitation. There is
evidence that unscrupulous landlords have been capitalising on
those loopholes; I have had numerous pieces of correspondence
from constituents saying that people are claiming uncapped
housing benefits to make a profit.
The Bill will create a minimum standard for type and condition of
premises, as well as for the care and support provided. There has
been a clear correlation between high concentrations of exempt
accommodation and antisocial behaviour and crime. Poor quality of
housing—with every room, including communal areas, being turned
into a bedroom to make a greater profit for the provider—has led
to organised criminal gangs and increased levels of vermin and
rubbish, with knock-on consequences for neighbours and for the
community as a whole. That creates a risk that local support for
these types of dwellings will be undermined.
Lack of data is a really important point that we have debated
before in this Chamber. Some 153,700 households in Great Britain
were housed in exempt accommodation in May 2021, but the lack of
data means that the problem could be much more widespread than
even that figure suggests. In some areas of the country, the
number of people living in exempt accommodation has doubled in
just a few years. That shows the urgency of the issue. Demand is
growing and will continue to grow, so we really need to get a
handle on this.
I am conscious that several excellent colleagues wish to speak,
so I will shorten my comments and end with a point about
taxpayers’ money. There is no publicly available data on
Government expenditure on exempt accommodation. As we all know,
the Government have no money—the money belongs to taxpayers—so we
always need to think about value for money. We cannot just throw
money at the issue. It is more than possible that the Government
may need to spend even more, but we need a better understanding
of the issue, and that will be driven by increased data. In the
current economic climate, we need to be a lot more conscious of
saving the pennies and the pounds.
11.19am
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend once again
the hon. Member for Harrow East () for introducing this extremely important Bill, and
congratulate him on piloting it through Committee to its Third
Reading today. Let me take the opportunity, as he did, to thank
again all those who have contributed to the development and
drafting of the Bill, including Justin Bates, Joe Thomas, Sam
Lister, the team at Crisis and, we must not forget, the hon.
Member for Walsall North ().
The Opposition regret how long we have had to wait for
legislation to address exploitation and profiteering at the hands
of rogue exempt accommodation operators, and the fact that
progress in this area has been dependent on the ongoing success
of the hon. Member for Harrow East in the private Member’s Bill
ballot. We have been clear since the Bill was published that we
support the measures in it, as a means to enhance local authority
oversight of supported housing and enable local authorities to
drive up standards in their areas. As we have long argued, a
robust framework of national standards for the sector is
essential. There is an open and shut case for better regulating
the eligibility for—and therefore access to—exempt benefit claims
at local level.
That said, our position has always been that the Bill could be
strengthened in important ways. As the House may recall, we made
a number of specific suggestions to that end on Second Reading.
They included new planning powers to allow local authorities to
proactively manage their local supported housing markets;
enhanced provisions for national monitoring and oversight;
augmenting the list of new banning order offences; and
establishing evaluation and improvement notice procedures, so
that local authorities can drive up standards without
implementing a full licensing regime. We remain of the view that
those suggestions have merit, and we believe that they will need
to be revisited if the Bill fails to deliver in the way that we
all hope it will.
We welcome the three Government amendments that have been
incorporated into the Bill, particularly amendment 2, which was
initially pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield
South East (Mr Betts) in Committee. As the Minister made clear,
the amendment provides for conditions relating to needs
assessments to be attached to a licence. We believe that the
three amendments improve the legislation and we support them.
However, although the Bill has undoubtedly been strengthened by
their incorporation, there remain a number of important issues
that we feel still need to be resolved, and I want to take the
opportunity to speak briefly to three of them.
The first relates to methods of enforcing new national standards
short of licensing. As hon. Members will know, although the Bill
places a duty on all local authorities to publish a supported
housing strategy, it does not require them all to implement a
licensing scheme as a means of enforcing the new national
supported housing standards that it introduces. On balance, we
agree that the adoption of licensing of supported exempt
accommodation should be optional. However, the fact that it will
be gives rise to the possibility not only that local authorities
with large amounts of badly run exempt accommodation could
ultimately choose not to license, but that local authorities with
limited resources or only one or two problematic providers will
not be in a position to introduce licensing schemes and will
therefore be unable to properly enforce new national
standards.
We appreciate fully that the Government intend to consult on this
matter under the duties set out in clause 6, but we urge
Ministers to agree in principle now that there is a strong case
for providing for a range of different enforcement options, in
terms both of their strength and to whom they apply. In
particular, we encourage the Minister to give serious
consideration to giving local authorities powers analogous to
those in part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, which provides for the
housing health and safety rating system, hazard awareness notices
and improvement notice procedures. As the Minister will know,
outside large urban areas, most local authorities have only a
handful of officers—if that—in their private rented sector teams.
We need to ensure that there is a suite of options short of
licensing that will allow smaller authorities to bear down on the
problem.
The second issue relates to local authority resourcing. The Bill
will place additional requirements on local authorities to carry
out reviews of supported exempt accommodation in their districts
and to publish supported housing strategies. In addition,
authorities that believe it necessary to adopt licensing schemes
and are in a position to do so will face additional costs as a
result. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that a new burdens
assessment will be made, but he seemed to imply that it would
relate only to setting up supported housing strategies and the
initial set-up of licensing schemes. We are therefore concerned
that local authorities, ultimately, may not receive any support
for ongoing costs, particularly in relation to licensing schemes.
We would welcome some assurance from the Minister that the net
additional cost of any new burdens arising from the Bill will be
fully and properly funded and, if not, how the Government believe
the ongoing costs can be made self-financing.
The third and final issue relates to the regulation of
non-profit-making providers who let some properties at
below-market rents, while letting others at market rents that are
eligible for housing benefit support without coming within the
scope of consumer regulation. We raised that matter at Committee
stage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, because it is a
regulatory loophole that is being exploited by unscrupulous
exempt accommodation providers, and this Bill contains no obvious
provisions to close it. Indeed, our fear is that once the Bill
receives Royal Assent, rogue providers of supported exempt
accommodation will be incentivised to exploit the loophole in
question further, as it will be one of the few that remain. We
believe that the loophole can be successfully closed using the
framework provided by the Bill, perhaps by using regulation to
introduce passporting powers in respect of licensing schemes so
that only those providers with a double-compliant grade could be
automatically passported. I urge the Minister to give the matter
further consideration and would be more than happy to engage with
her on it.
Those specific concerns aside, we very much welcome the fact that
the Bill will complete its passage today. It is not a panacea,
but it will undoubtedly help to put rogue exempt accommodation
operators out of business and better enable local authorities to
drive up supported housing standards in their areas. In doing so,
as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, it will improve the
lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society and
bring relief to communities struggling to cope with the impact of
concentrated numbers of badly run exempt accommodation
properties. We recognise that today is a significant, important
step forward and we are very pleased to give the Bill our
support.
11.25am
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
I appreciate that many Members wish to speak, so I will keep my
remarks brief. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
for Harrow East (), who is a veteran in being successful in private
Members’ Bills ballots. I have long watched him. I used him as an
example when I was in the classroom teaching sixth-form A-level
politics students and he put through the House the Homelessness
Reduction Bill, now the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. That is
a fantastic piece of legislation, and it demonstrates the power
that Back Benchers have to influence Government policy, engaging
with all sides of the House to bring forward positive change. He
deserves enormous credit for his incredible work to be a strong
voice for, in many cases, the voiceless in our society.
I could not agree more on the importance of this Bill. We have
really good providers in Stoke-on-Trent, whether Concrete or
Brighter Futures. The latter charitable organisation is currently
being supported by the Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, raising
money to help people who have come out of prison, or who are
recovering from alcohol and drug addiction and so on, to get set
up in a home and rebuild their lives. They are fantastic examples
of organisations that have, and will have, nothing to fear from
this Bill, because they are fine examples of what a good landlord
should be doing. It is absolutely correct that the only people
who will loudly moan and groan about it are the rogue landlords
who seek to profiteer off the back of hardship and misery,
seeking to take advantage of the defenceless who they know will
not have a strong voice.
I introduced my own private Members’ Bill to increase fines on
rogue and absent landlords under section 215 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, because of the degradation of the
Price and Kensington Teapot Works by a rogue landlord, who
allowed fires to be set up on site and used it as a dumping site.
That important grade II* listed building in Longport is now
rotting and is sadly probably damaged beyond repair. I thank the
Minister and the team from the Department for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities for adopting my proposed legislation into
the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is currently going
through the House—I am lucky to be able to piggy-back off the
back of Government legislation to get my own private Member’s
Bill through the House.
On the scheme, I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for
Greenwich and Woolwich (), in his concern about
the cost of implementation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council is the
second poorest in terms of what it brings in through council tax.
Some 94% of our properties are band A to D, so when we put up
council tax by 1% it brings in £900,000, whereas a council in
Surrey would bring in £13 million. It will therefore be really
important to find the funds to ensure that we deliver the scheme.
That financial support will have to come from the taxpayer via
the Government to ensure it can be enforced. Stoke-on- Trent will
have a higher than average use of that kind of supported
accommodation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council has tried schemes,
such as the landlord accreditation scheme in Portland Street in
the Etruria and Hanley ward, which I represent, but sadly it was
a voluntary scheme that only good landlords signed up to and took
part in. Rogue landlords avoided it. That meant we did not really
get the benefit of holding them to account.
I am very supportive of the universal local licensing scheme. We
absolutely should be looking to hold landlords to account. They
have the great honour of owning these properties, so it is only
right that they look after the tenants who currently pay such
extortionately high rents. Sadly, we are not building as many
homes as I would like, to increase home ownership and drive down
cost in the rental market.
The licensing regulations and, most importantly, the support
package that have come forward are essential. As the Minister
outlined perfectly in her speech, vulnerable people should be
assessed before they move into a property and a tailored plan
should be designed for them. These people are stakeholders in our
society and they need that support to ensure that they get back
on the ladder and do not have to rely on friends and families for
support when they have their own lives to be concerned about.
We also have to make sure that we find such houses in appropriate
places so that we are not clumping or clustering vulnerable
people together. Sadly, that will attract levels of antisocial
behaviour and will increase the presence of vile drug gangs or
county lines gangs, as has happened especially in Stoke-on-Trent
North, who try to push their filth on the streets around those
who are vulnerable. We need to make sure that we do all we can in
that regard to have a properly regulated licensing scheme. Once
again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East
on his fantastic Bill.
11.30am
(Sedgefield) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow
East () for bringing this important issue into the
spotlight. It will be no surprise that I am pleased to endorse
the Bill’s provisions and I am pleased that it has received
cross-party support.
Let us keep in mind why the system exists. Simply, it
acknowledges that the cost of managing shared supported
accommodation can be higher than the average and that
not-for-profit organisations’ supported housing services may be
unviable if benefit levels are limited using the same rules as
for mainstream private renting. What we have witnessed recently,
however, is a minority of investors looking to maximise returns
using the higher rents permitted by the exempt housing benefit
schemes. In simple terms, unscrupulous agencies are now
exploiting gaps in the regulatory regime to claim higher benefit
levels while providing minimal levels of support, which often
results in poor housing conditions and ineffective care and
support for vulnerable residents. We cannot allow those practices
to continue.
In the same way, however, I have concerns about absentee
landlords in part of my Sedgefield constituency, who exploit the
lower property costs in the north and do not look after their
properties to the extent that they should for the tenants or for
the local residents. Typically, they exploit the same cohort of
vulnerable residents who we are talking about today.
Durham County Council has a registered landlords scheme that
attempts to address failing landlords. I encourage it to urgently
focus on the worst offenders, because too often it goes for the
easy target of the good landlords. Landlords such as me want
those people out—we want the worst offenders to be threatened—to
ensure that we have the right accommodation for people. I have
given a few specific cases to the council, such as places in
Ferryhill and Station Town, where good streets are being
undermined by the degradation of one property that pulls the
whole area down. I would appreciate the council’s focus on that,
because those absentee landlords just do not care.
That being said, when delivered well, exempt accommodation not
only plays a useful role in providing good-quality transitional
accommodation and support for people as they move on from
homelessness, but often serves as a vital progenitor of social
rehabilitation through the accommodation of some of society’s
most marginalised groups. They include prison leavers, people
leaving national asylum seeker services, people fleeing domestic
abuse and others whose homelessness is compounded by factors such
as substance dependence or mental health needs.
To that end, the crux of my contribution is to emphasise the
urgent need for further investigation to quantify the scale and
profile of exempt provision and the extent to which providers in
any area are considered problematic. If the Bill is the first in
an inevitable sequence of legislative proposals, we as
legislators must be in full possession of quantifiable data. That
is the only way to legislate effectively and responsibly as we
crack down on the problem.
Regardless of the scale and the minor gaps in national data,
however, it is clear that swift action is needed to safeguard the
interests of those whose life chances are already being damaged
by poor-quality exempt provision and to prevent further
escalation of the problem. I commend the Bill.
11.34am
(Hastings and Rye)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading of this important Bill
put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (). Supported living—supported housing—gives some of
the most vulnerable people in our communities a safe haven. It
offers them the most choice and control over their lives, and a
chance to live a life like everyone else around them. Supported
living can have an enormous positive impact on an individual’s
quality of life—from their physical and mental health to their
engagement with the community.
In 2020, the Government announced the national statement of
expectations for supported housing, setting out their vision for
ways of working in the sector and recommendations for standards
in accommodation. This was an important step in establishing what
good supported housing looks like and how it can be achieved.
Most supported housing providers deliver high-quality
accommodation and go above and beyond minimum standards. However,
it is vital not only that all supported housing is of high
quality, but that the people who need the support have the
accommodation that meets their needs and allows them to
thrive—the right support in the right place—and that the
vulnerable are protected from unscrupulous people who seek to
take advantage of them. There is no one-size-fits-all approach,
but best practice also involves collaboration across housing,
health, commissioners, providers and the third sector.
We have some fantastic supported housing organisations across
beautiful Hastings and Rye—Aspens comes to mind, as well as
Support 4 Independent Living. East Sussex County Council works
really hard through its supported accommodation team to support
providers who have houses, flats, or self-contained bedsits to
provide accommodation, and assist tenants referred by adult
social care services, and I am sure that the team would welcome
this Bill. We have a very high level of need for supported
housing services not only in Hastings and Rye, but across east
Sussex, and local authority funding needs to better reflect this
high need and I ask the Minister to consider that.
I note and welcome the Government’s amendments, further
clarifying the licensing powers included in the Bill. This is a
Bill that will help some of the most vulnerable in our society
and I wish it well as it progresses through the House.
11.37am
It is a pleasure to speak briefly on Third Reading. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East () on introducing this important Bill, and I thank him
for his tireless efforts. This crucial Bill is key to stopping
the exploitation of vulnerable people by rogue landlords
operating poor-quality supported housing. I am determined to put
an end to this abuse of the system.
In parts of the country there has been a growth in accommodation
with little or even no support being provided, but where
landlords are charging extortionate levels of rent, paid for
through housing benefit. That is an abuse of the system and it
puts people who should be receiving support at risk. The
Government had already set out our intention to regulate the
supported housing sector, and my hon. Friend’s Bill will bring in
that much-needed regulation.
Let me be clear: we will do what we have to do to get ahead and
stay ahead of rogue providers and make sure that supported
housing is of good quality for all residents. These vulnerable
people have often already reached a crisis point and it is
crucial that they get the support that they need and deserve to
help rebuild their lives.
The Bill will ensure that supported housing is of good quality
for the residents living in it and, as my hon. Friend the Member
for South West Hertfordshire () said, also good value for money for the taxpayer.
The Government have committed to acting as quickly as possible.
To that end, I shall repeat the commitment that I made on Second
Reading to make regulations for the licensing scheme within 18
months of the Bill’s passing. In reply to the shadow Minister’s
question, let me confirm that there will be a new burdens
assessment. We envisage that over time the licensing scheme will
become self-funding, but there will be a proper new burdens
assessment, and we would expect the set-up of the scheme to be
included in that.
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East
for introducing this important Bill. I also thank the charity
Crisis, and my predecessors in this role—my right hon. Friend the
Member for Pendle (), who is present, and my
hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (). I thank all the members of
the Select Committee, and all those who served on the Bill
Committee, many of whom are here today. Finally, I thank all my
officials who have helped me with the Bill, including Darrell
Smith, Emma Stubbs, Sarah Carpenter, Richard Loftman and Cathy
Page, our legal adviser Melissa Spurling, and my private
secretary, Ed Culliney.
11.40am
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the
Members who have spoken today, including my hon. Friends the
Members for South West Hertfordshire (), for Stoke-on-Trent North (), for Sedgefield () and for Hastings and Rye
(), as well as the Opposition
spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (), whom I thank for his
constructive support throughout the Bill’s passage, and, of
course, my hon. Friend the Minister.
Thousands of organisations up and down the country do a brilliant
job in helping vulnerable people. They have nothing to fear from
this Bill, and we must keep emphasising that. Unfortunately,
however, a growing number of rogue landlords are seeking to
exploit the fact that vulnerable people need additional support
and therefore have access to additional housing benefit and other
additional benefits. It is right for them to have that access
because they are vulnerable and need to rebuild their lives, but
unfortunately an increasing number of rogues are seeking to
exploit our generosity in helping them, so as the Bill leaves
this House the message must be loud and clear: the time in which
the rogue landlords have been able to exploit those vulnerable
people is rapidly coming to an end.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her work, and for setting
out her stall today with the regulations that we need to
introduce and the consultations that are needed to ensure that we
get those regulations right. Housing authorities throughout the
country will need to consider setting up licensing arrangements,
and they should start to think now about what they will need to
do.
This is a proud moment for me. Having worked on the Bill for 10
months, I leave it in the excellent hands of my good friend
, who I am sure will ferry it
safely through the other place towards Royal Assent and the
statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
