Joint committee takes evidence on supported housing

The Work & Pensions and Communities & Local Government Committees today held the final evidence session of their joint enquiry on supported housing. 

Witnesses were:

• Marcus Jones MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Local Government)
• John Hall, Deputy Director Housing Support, Department for Communities and Local Government 
• Caroline Nokes MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery
• Peter Searle, Director, Working Age Benefits, Department for Work and Pensions



The LGA was not mentioned, other than in passing.

The ministers confirmed there would be a green paper in the “late spring”, but neither could expand on the date. The government’s response to the consultation would be made in the autumn.

Responding to Kevin Hollinrake, who asked why the funding mechanism has been changed, Caroline Nokes said the government wanted clarity and transparency with oversight.

Marcus Jones said the government was looking carefully at submissions. There was a need for reform in relation to funding, particularly with the advent of universal credit.

The consultation had brought up a number of concerns in relation to the longevity of the ring-fence and wether funding would keep up with future need.

Clive Betts asked, recognising the proposals had changed from their original form, if the minister could explain why the local housing rate was chosen as a basis for funding supported housing.

Caroline Nokes it was necessary to have a system that was flexible enough to cater for different needs.

Mr Betts asked if there was any connection at all between local housing rates and the cost of supported housing. He contended that there was no connection to local housing rates. That was a fundamental problem.

Marcus Jones said there was a read-across in relation to rental values in relation to the cost of developing certain accommodation. There was an additional cost for supported housing. In terms of the model put forward, that core cost was reflected in the LHA rate. And there would be a top-up for additional costs.

Mr Betts argued that the Treasury and DWP needed to make cost savings to the benefits budget. “They applied it to rented housing and supported housing got caught up without CLG being informed.” The reality was that the need for top-ups would be far greater in some parts of the country than others. Marcus Jones agreed.

Caroline Nokes said the government was conscious of the huge disparities in the types of accommodation and between regions. It was necessary to find a model that would work throughout the country.

Karen Buck said local authorities were being asked to administer the top-up element at the very moment that authorities’ capacity had been significantly reduced. She asked what representations
local authorities had made about their ability to administer the top-up and what the government was doing to support them.

Marcus Jones replied: “We have to look carefully to make sure we get the allocation of the top-up right. Unsurprisingly, as local government does, they are making representations. We are confident local government is able to take on this new role. In line with the new burdens doctrine, we would expect to have to fund local government to undertake that. That was made clear in September.”

Karen Buck asked for more specific assurances that the system would work. Marcus Jones said the green paper would provide more detail about how the model would work.

John Hall explained that at this stage of the process it was not possible to give much more detail. He said CLG had deliberately pitched the structure at a high level and this could only be done in consultation with the sector. “We set up a task group, chaired by a member of the LGA, to look at the roles and responsibilities of local government. We need to digest that and see what they say and we hope to be able to say more on that in the autumn when we publish the responses to the consultation.”

Regarding ring-fencing, Marcus Jones said the government was considering the balance between mandating local authorities to do certain things and giving them flexibility, bearing in mind a lot of authorities already commissioned supported housing themselves. The government was also considering the need to put statutory obligations in place to go alongside the ring-fence.

Karen Buck said one of the issues of concern was that the flow of people into some services, especially regarding domestic abuse, crossed boroughs. With top-up funding, there was a risk that local authorities would seek to meet the needs of their own populations, which would operate against necessary flows of people between areas.

Marcus Jones said the government was looking at short-term accommodation differently to long-term accommodation.

Melanie Onn asked how local providers were going to deliver if they couldn’t secure the funding. Marcus Jones said the government was looking at that issue carefully. “We are aware of the significant challenge and are mindful we have to bring forward a degree of certainty.”

Replying to Mary Robinson, Marcus Jones said the government was looking carefully at the definition of short-term accommodation.

Answering a question by James Cartilidge, Caroline Nokes said the plan was to run a ‘shadow year.’ So by April 2018 there would be a new system operating in parallel with the current system.

Marcus Jones said additional flexibility had been provided to local authorities for social care. Authorities would have access to over£9 billion of additional funding.

Richard Graham asked the financing of the new system. Marcus Marcus Jones said it was planned to be cost-neutral.

Further questions revolved around universal credit; helping people get into work and supported housing for young people.

The full report of the committee's hearing will be sent as soon as possible.