Committee stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Lord WhittyLabour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 113:
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord MawsonCrossbench- Quote
- I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 113B and 113C. A well conducted ballot is widely thought to be the best way to interpret existing transfer legislation. The proposal is now to write the requirement for a transfer ballot more directly into the Bill. The value of ballots is hard to argue with, but it is worth considering wider unintended consequences and what often happens on the ground in housing estates. In east London, we have had nine years of experience of dealing with mandatory stock transfer ballots, nearly all of which we have won with resounding majorities. However, the housing company of which I am a director—I must declare that interest—has experienced appalling delays in the refurbishment of the homes of very vulnerable families; that has resulted from the political knockabout that has so often surrounded the ballot process. Not only have those ballots often undermined public confidence, they have also for many months or even years distracted staff and resident directors from the core task of running a £300 million housing company on behalf of the residents. At Poplar HARCA, we have counted the many hundreds of thousands of pounds that the ballot exercise has cost and have witnessed the confusion created among local residents who have so often felt consulted to death as a result of the process. The amendments are intended to save many housing estates across the country from that unhelpful experience and to leave the decision as to exactly how to test local opinion to those in the local context. There are different mechanisms available now to do that. What works in the London Borough of Newham may be quite different from what works or does not work in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets next door. It all depends on local circumstances. The amendments seek to recognise that fact and to leave it to those in the local context to decide which method of testing local opinion is best for their residents. In some cases, they will choose a stock transfer ballot and that is fine. [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.39 to 3.49 pm.]
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MawsonCrossbench
- Quote
- Before I was interrupted by the Division Bell, I suggested that there are now different ways to test local opinion. In some cases we will choose a stock transfer ballot, and that is fine, but the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was correct to point out that if we do that, it has to be very well run. However, there are practical reasons why it is very difficult to do. Why not let the decision be made locally rather than introduce legislation which dictates that one size fits all? Housing transfers have become an established part of the regeneration scene. However, they are now highly politicised affairs. This means that often the ballot is not just an occasion where the residents assess a scheme and give their view. My experience is that people from all over the country come to these ballots with a particular axe to grind. They have become highly tangled, tortuous affairs full of accusation and acrimony. What happens when a good scheme goes down or is delayed? There are resource issues for housing associations, so it is not just the cost of the ballot itself or the promotional material. To work up an offer, an association will have to invest many hundreds of thousands of pounds to develop a viable scheme for an estate or neighbourhood in need of comprehensive regeneration and redesign. There are unavoidable costs for surveying, master planning, pre-planning application discussions with the planning authority, business planning and financial forecasting. These resources are lost in the case of a negative ballot, however good the scheme and however necessary the regeneration. Where does the money come from? In the end, it comes from the existing tenants’ rent. Then there is the even greater loss of the regeneration resources transfer would bring. For example, in Tower Hamlets, the cost of negative ballots has been estimated at over £600 million of resources for deprived neighbourhoods.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour- Quote
- How much?
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord MawsonCrossbench
- Quote
- I repeat, over £600 million. In many cases the estates are in need of complete remodelling and rebuilding, with a fresh look at how scarce land is being used, but there is now no resource to make that happen. It might be argued that the association takes a known risk, one that it does not have to take. It is also argued that the ballot box gives residents an opportunity to speak. If they have spoken against a scheme, they must live with that choice. If they do not accept a scheme, they will pay the price. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is not the whole story. The voters in a transfer ballot are not the only stakeholders, and the consequences for a wider group of stakeholders must be acknowledged. Hands cannot be washed just because a particular result emerges from the ballot box. There will be a broader impact on the surrounding neighbourhoods where an estate or neighbourhood rejects an investment opportunity. The impact will be wider than the local constituency of voters. We must also consider the even greater impact on welfare costs and taxation—the deprivation tariff. If neighbourhood regeneration does not take place and immovable pockets of deprivation remain, it has an inevitable social cost in terms of lower education attainment, poorer health and higher levels of worklessness. These in themselves are unhappy human outcomes, so the wider cost needs to be understood and taken into account. While independent ballots are rightly seen as important, the voters are not the only stakeholders. Their views are important, but in the longer term they may not turn out to be the most vital. This is not to disparage democratic processes, but to emphasise that there are unignorable wider consequences where no investment takes place and higher social costs are sustained. These overall consequences cannot be avoided and need to be weighed when judgments, sometimes quite difficult political judgments, have to be made. A ballot may seem to be a simple way to test local opinion, but experience shows that it may not tell the whole story, or even enough of the story, about an area. The Government need to reserve a wider range of instruments to ensure that change can take place in circumstances where the cost of no change is too high. Such decisions cannot be taken centrally; they have to be taken in the local context by people who are aware of all the complex needs and realities of an area. The amendments seek to leave the power of decision with local people; I commend them to noble Lords. Finally, the amendments seek to alert the Government to the practical consequences of their present approach; while it is apparently laudable, that restricted approach will, if our experience in east London is anything to go by, ensure that the Government’s policy aspirations will not in many cases be carried through in practice. The budget that they have set aside for improved housing provision will not be spent. I hope that I am wrong, but history may prove otherwise. It might be good in a few years for us all to return to this Room and look at what the practical aspirations were and what actually happened to some of the poorest families in this country.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My noble friend Lord Greaves has put his name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I apologise for my voice. I hope that I will remain more or less intelligible—at least audibly, if not politically—for the rest of the day. My noble friend has kept his cold in Pendle and sends his apologies. He e-mailed me about those amendments—he is obviously in support of them—and said that good councils of course do all the things that are spelt out in the second amendment. He said that the mention of notice boards in subsection (2)(e) of Amendment No. 114 is curiously old-fashioned and that if the council is using its website, opponents should have a right to equal space there. That is probably covered by “other relevant resources”, in any event. My noble friend concludes his note by saying that, “many ballots at present are like an election in Russia (or worse)”. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, am partisan, but I share the view that if there are to be ballots, they should be well conducted.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Dixon-SmithConservative- Quote
- The noble Baroness said the key words. While it is clearly useful to have tenant ballots if only tenants are involved, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, had a point when he said that if a council has made this matter an electoral issue and the election has been clear, and open and everyone understands what is going on, that is a fair process. We do not have to worry about that. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is discussing different circumstances in which, if there is a somewhat unscrupulous council—which is not unknown—it is possible to have a one-sided election. The difficulty is how we establish a system that provides the flexibility that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, rightly asked for and the security that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly asked for. At the moment, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews has the job and the responsibility. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is that he needs to remember that when the country votes in a general election, it gets the result it gets and has to live with it. You cannot complain if you have a ballot purely on a housing issue and you do not get the result you want. You have to live with it, because that is democracy, I am afraid. It may be tough, but democracy needs to be a tough and harsh discipline. It is good that it works.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews)Labour- Quote
- That was an excellent debate. My noble friend Lord Whitty has a lot of passion and experience in this field. We have listened to him carefully regarding the instances he cited. I also listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who described the wider context and implications. He gave a useful account of what is frail in the system. That is why we support the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments, because we can do better than we have done. I do not feel that his prescription is the right one—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, may have been hinting at that—but I have come up with an alternative, which I hope noble Lords will accept.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord WhittyLabour
- Quote
- I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I hope both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will soon recover. Most noble Lords who have contributed to the debate recognise that there is a problem. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has, in one sense, let the cat out of the bag. I did not address the biggest imbalance—that if you vote yes you get the money; if you vote no, you do not. In the old days that used to be known as “treating” and was an electoral offence. However, I will put that to one side. But it demonstrates that the whole operation is in the context of a national policy which both major parties broadly support. It is therefore not sensible that the impact of the national policy and the way in which people are consulted about it should vary significantly from borough to borough and local authority to local authority. I do not accept the need for flexibility in that respect. Even in relation to local authority manifestos, the local authorities are operating within a national policy and, as the Minister said, it is by no means certain that the tenants of the estates in question voted for the majority party when it came to its execution on those particular premises. I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting a road to statutory guidance. It is difficult to see the present guidance being put on a statutory basis but if it enshrines the kinds of principles that I am talking about, statutory guidance would go a considerable way towards cleaning up the balance. It would address the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to in terms of outside interference—on the no side, generally speaking—as well as the imbalance in favour of a yes vote that I was concerned with. That means that this will become a proper, cleaned-up form of democracy, rather than something which is subject to abuse and undermines the whole basis on which our democratic society should be run. I hope that the statutory guidance will be sufficient but I shall keep my powder dry until I see it. I would have preferred that there was at least a linked reference, a passerelle, to the guidance on the face of the Bill. I accept that the Government have moved some way in my direction and therefore at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 113A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.] [Amendments Nos. 113B and 113C not moved.] Clause 293 agreed to. [Amendment No. 114 not moved.] Clauses 294 and 295 agreed to. Clause 296 [Family intervention tenancies: general]:
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114A:
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness Falkner of MargravineCrossbench- Quote
- May I continue for you?
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- You would not be able to read this, but thank you. Shelter, which has promoted these amendments, makes the important point that family intervention tenancies should not be used as a form of punishment for anti-social families. It talks about its experience—I am so sorry; my cough must be really irritating for everyone—in its projects where it has come across very variable standards, and argues for the need to safeguard against that. If the Committee will forgive me, I hope that the amendments will speak for themselves. My explanations are very abbreviated. The third amendment would protect families living in such tenancies from being unfairly evicted. All these amendments are more flexible than those that were tabled in the Commons. I hope therefore that the Minister can assist in responding. I apologise again for my cough, now and for the whole afternoon. I beg to move.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- I have tabled an amendment in this group, but unless my comprehension is completely off key, it is superseded by the government amendment before it, so I shall not move it.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Our sympathies are with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She is being heroic in speaking. I can tell her in response to her amendment that I met the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to discuss the concerns raised by Shelter. The last thing we want is to set up family intervention tenancies to fail because so much depends on the work the family itself is prepared to do, and the effort family members are prepared to put into it. Essentially we want FITs to provide a platform by which families can regain a footing in the community without causing further damage and distress to their neighbours. Any eviction from a FIT due to a family not having been given the level of support it needs in a way that it can use and build on would be a failure on the part of the project, so we are very much at one with Shelter on this. However, the amendments go too far in seeking to address matters beyond tenancy law. I explained to my noble friend that while we could not accept the amendments, we take the notion described as the “thin definition” in behaviour support, and that we intend to see how we can prevent the social situation the noble Lord drew attention to. We have therefore undertaken to look at how we can ensure that family intervention tenancies are used only to aid the delivery of behaviour support services that are intensive in nature. I think that my noble friend has already said that this meets the concerns expressed by her and by Shelter, and I am happy that that is the case. I turn briefly to the other amendments tabled in the group. As the noble Lord said, we have tabled an amendment to achieve the same purpose as his, and indeed our amendment goes a little further. It requires us to take the affirmative route when seeking to vary as well as remove any of the requirements set out in the Bill. In doing this we are responding to a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I turn to Amendment No. 114C. Again I can tell my noble friend Lady Jones that we support the spirit of the amendment in that we want evictions from family intervention tenancies to be rare events. What is encouraging is that the work that has been done so far with intensive support projects suggests that families remain engaged with the support. These are extremely expensive and intensive projects, but they do work. The amendment addresses the nature of the review procedure we are providing. Tenants of a local authority would be entitled to a review where a landlord decides to take possession under a family intervention tenancy. We are taking a power to lay regulations that will make provision for the procedure to be followed in connection with such a review so that landlords and tenants are clear on how such a review should be conducted. Normally, a review of this nature would simply involve the landlord reappraising his decision to take possession in the light of representations made by the tenants or their representatives, but in the case of these tenancies, we think it is sensible—as the amendment also proposes—that the professionals involved in delivering the support programme should feed in their views to inform the landlord’s final decision. I want to make it clear that we would expect the landlord and the support programme to work closely together from the outset. Any decision to take possession would normally be agreed between the two, and if other agencies had an interest in the case, we would want them to be involved as well. A scenario where the landlord seeks repossession against the professional judgment of the support workers is, frankly, most unlikely, so it follows that in the vast majority of cases, any evidence brought forward by support workers at a review would strongly support the landlord’s decision. I am happy to put on the record my view that future regulations should address the issue of the type of evidence that the review should consider, and that that may include evidence from those who may have been providing the tenant with behavioural support services. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will agree that it is unnecessary to highlight this issue in the Bill. The power to make review regulations is already broad enough to allow us to cover the points to which I have referred. Turning briefly to my own amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 114AZA, 114AZB, 114BA and 114BB concern identical provisions, albeit that they apply to the two different types of social landlords, local authorities and RSLs. We want to make sure that families are clear about what a family intervention tenancy is, why it is being proposed that they should accept it and what the consequences might be if they do not abide by its conditions. This is obviously heavily linked to their support programme. Our aim is to make sure that a family will sign such a tenancy only having properly considered their options—they must know, they must agree, and they must be fully informed and fully signed up. Accordingly, provisions require that a family be served a notice before they sign a family intervention tenancy agreement. Clause 296 provides details of our requirements as to what the notice must contain. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has accepted that the negative procedure is appropriate for regulations which add further requirements. However, in recognising the importance of the requirements we wish to fix on the face of the Bill, it wants to make sure that any regulations which seek to remove or amend them should attract the affirmative procedure. It is unlikely that we would want to make regulations to this effect but it is sensible that we take the power that would enable us to do so. We are very happy to accept the committee’s recommendations.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful to the Minister. On the first amendment, I was not entirely clear how ensuring that high-quality services will be available is going to be achieved. Is it the guidance or the practice that will suggest that before the family intervention tenancy is offered there must be certainty that there will be high-quality support services? Have I understood that correctly?
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- That is my understanding. These are carefully designed projects. I am sure my officials will correct me if I am wrong but the Dundee project, for example, was a model for this kind of programme. It involved negotiated arrangements that included all the relevant support services. It was made clear to the family that these services would be involved. We have had a lot of successful practice in designing, communicating and managing this project with the family itself. We are looking again at the definition in the Bill. We will cover these kinds of points in the guidance so that people will be in absolutely no doubt about the right processes and the right relationships that we want to see.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I found the reference to looking again at the definition a little confusing. If the provision was not going to be brought back during the legislative stage, I was not certain how it was going to be dealt with. However, I now understand the approach. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 114AZA and 114AZB:
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 114BA and 114BB:
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114CA:
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 114CB to 114CF:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114CFA:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114CFB:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114CG:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 114CH to 114CJ:
- Time
- 16:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114CK:
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114CL:
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114E:
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BestCrossbench- Quote
- I have sympathy with the amendment. It cannot be right that tenants can lose their home because the local authority has failed to pay housing benefit on their behalf. That seems utterly unfair. Housing associations have served notice using this ground 8 often because, unless they do so, the local authority has not come up with the housing benefit money. Very long delays in the payment of housing benefit have meant that housing associations have used these grounds, not always with any great intention of following them through. This cannot be the way to proceed. It must be right that local authorities pay much more promptly, so that we do not get into this mess. Having this power in the Bill is an offence against justice.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- This is indeed an important issue and I shall update the Committee on where the Government are. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment, which would have two effects. First, it would prevent registered providers of social housing from using ground 8; secondly, it would prevent the court granting possession under ground 8 to any landlord if any of the rent arrears was due to a delay or failure to pay housing benefit, unless the court considered it reasonable to do so. The amendment specifies that this would apply only where the delay or failure to pay housing benefit was not due to a wilful act or omission on the part of the tenant—which would obviously be right. The noble Baroness expressed a range of concerns about ground 8. They are familiar and are well authenticated in terms of the groups and bodies working in the field. As the noble Baroness pointed out, similar views were expressed in the other place during earlier stages of the Bill. We recognise those concerns and the noble Lord, Lord Best, was absolutely right—serving notice in such circumstances is an affront to justice. We are eager to find a way to address those concerns. In April, therefore, following the debate in the other place, we established a stakeholder working group to consider the concerns about ground 8 in more detail, so I can confirm that that has happened. It is required to report back to Ministers in the summer. The groups on it include Shelter, Citizens Advice and the Charted Institute of Housing, which are all familiar at first-hand with the matter, and we appreciate the constructive contribution that they are making. On the wider point, we have seen some improvements on housing benefit performance. Between 2002-03 and 2007-08, the average time taken to process a new claim for housing benefit or council tax benefit fell from 55 to 28 days. It is still not very good, but it is half what it was. The latest figures for the second half of 2007-08 suggest that the improvements continue: it is now, on average, 26 days. I do not defend that, but considering where we were, it is an improvement.
- Time
- 16:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for filling in the many gaps that I left. Of course some local authorities should certainly do better with housing benefit administration but the problem in this instance is that it is the tenants who suffer. The noble Baroness quite rightly balanced her response by referring to the position of the RSL, and I understand that. My amendment seeks to give the court discretion, which should be a protection for the RSL. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment. I am glad to hear about the stakeholder group. I will make the point that a regulatory approach cannot be enforced unless it is so extreme that standards are breached under the new regime. It is unlikely, however, that that would come about. This needs primary legislation. I hope that when the stakeholder group has done its work—assuming that the outcome is acceptance by the Government that there needs to be a change; after all, this has not just come up out of the blue—there will be an opportunity for that legislation. I do not see that it could be done other than through primary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114F:
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- It might seem a little odd to raise the issue with regard to legislation, but it is worth raising. I understand where the amendment has come from, because of the concerns that have been raised by the Housing Law Practitioners Association. As the noble Baroness demonstrated, the key point is that different procedures apply in county courts and the High Court where a landlord seeks to enforce a possession order by asking the court to issue a warrant of possession. This may seem a simple matter to address, but is actually much more complex and involved. What would happen as a result of the amendment is that all warrants of possession would require the court’s permission before issue. That would have a wide and significant effect on all possession cases, not just social housing cases. The noble Baroness has provoked us into taking some interest in this, however, so it was worth doing. If she can allow us more time to look in a bit more detail at the issues and implications that have been raised, I am happy to return to the matter on Report. I hope that will make her feel better.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My cough is subsiding as more commitments are given. I do feel better. I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 312 agreed to.
- Time
- 17:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 114G:
- Time
- 17:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Amendment No. 115A, which was withdrawn, turned out to have exactly the same effect as Amendment No. 115 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which is why I put my name to that one and withdrew the other. As the Minister said, it is rather briefer. I do not feel capable of an analytical critique of these amendments, and am grateful for her offer of the annotated notes. I wonder, though, since this is a matter that the Joint Committee on Human Rights asked to be remedied by the Bill, whether there would be an opportunity—I have no idea what the committee’s timetable is; had the noble Earl been here, he might have been able to tell us—to consider the amendments before the Bill comes to an end. That would be an appropriate way to proceed, since this is something that the committee specifically raised. It brings us back to the old question of whether we should put these changes into the Bill at this stage or wait for some such opportunity. Can the Minister help me on that?
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- The noble Baroness will understand that we have been in close correspondence with the JCHR on these amendments. We advised the committee of an earlier proposal that is under consideration, and we wrote to it some days ago to bring amendments to its attention. We look forward respectfully to its further views on that. We will tell the Committee and the House in the remaining stages what the outcome of our discussions with the committee has been. It is work in progress. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 313 agreed to. [Amendment No. 115A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 115B:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Earl CathcartConservative- Quote
- I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. I believe that most councils treat this very seriously and are doing whatever they can whenever it happens. It would be a very callous council that did not. We have just heard about a lot of amendments about prioritisation. I have no doubt that in some cases that is excellent, but the problem seems to me to be about where all this affordable housing is to put all these priority people and all the rest. The answer is: it is not there. Last year, there were about 1.7 million applications for affordable housing. At Second Reading, I said that I thought that the figure would be nearer 2 million; I think that the National Housing Association about a week or two ago said that it would be somewhere over 2 million. What happens with prioritisation is a leapfrogging effect. Some people get housed because they tick the boxes; if you do not tick the boxes, you do not get housed; end of story. The problem is that we are just not building affordable housing. From those people who are told, “You are not going to get housing for five or 10 years”, there is resentment. They are living in their communities and they find themselves needing a house but they find housing being given to other people coming into their communities while they are not being given a house. That is not being addressed at all. Okay, prioritisation may be one thing, but a huge number of people want to stay in their communities but cannot.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon)Labour- Quote
- A Division has been called. We will resume at 5.49 pm. [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.39 to 5.49 pm.]
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- This is a serious issue and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling us to say a little more about it. I could not agree more with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. We were taken back to the beginning of the Bill by what he said about the need for affordable homes, the investment that is needed and the effort that must be made to achieve those ambitions, particularly for vulnerable people—and we have discussed many different sorts of vulnerability during this Committee. It is important that the context has been framed for us. The issue of domestic violence is extremely serious. As the noble Baroness explained, the principal purpose of the amendment is to bring those who have been subject to domestic violence, or who are at risk of such violence, within the category of persons who will be given priority need under the homelessness legislation. I take my cue from the noble Baroness. She said that she did not think it was necessary to go into the detail of what we mean by domestic violence or its impact on people, their families and the whole community. As I said, the Government take the issue extremely seriously. It is a pernicious and prevalent crime that has devastating personal consequences, and it crosses classes and cultures. It has a major impact on our national economy and the health of our society, as well as on the criminal justice system and statutory services. Domestic violence will affect one in four women and one in six men. On average, two women are killed every week by a current or former male partner. Those statistics are extraordinary. Domestic violence is rarely a one-off incident. More often, it is part of a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour, which is pathological. That is why we are absolutely committed to tackling this nasty, and depressingly prevalent, crime, and we work on many fronts to do that. For example, recent investment in specialist domestic violence courts has been very successful. Outcomes have shown that domestic violence prosecutions rose from 46 per cent in December 2003 to 67 per cent in June 2006. There is a growing culture of intolerance and a feeling that people should not get away with it. I am sure that noble Lords are familiar with the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which included a number of new powers and amendments. My department takes domestic violence extremely seriously; in particular, there is a need to ensure that victims of violence get the help and support that they need. Under current legislation, people who do not have dependent children will have priority need if they are vulnerable as a result of having to leave their home because of violence—not just domestic violence—from another person or because of threats of such violence which are likely to be carried out. Thus, if they have suffered domestic violence, they will already have priority need under this broader violence category. The principle of linking priority need to vulnerability is central to the homelessness legislation and the premise that it is only homeless people with a priority need for whom the local authority should have an obligation to secure accommodation. Other examples of such people include those who are vulnerable as a result of old age or mental disability, and those aged 21 years or over who are vulnerable as a result of having been in care and so on. I cannot stress enough how seriously we take this matter, but we are also aware of a concern that, despite the robust systems in place, in practice not all vulnerable people who have had to leave their homes because of violence may be accepted as being owed the main homelessness duty. Reflecting other debates that we have had this afternoon, we need certain evidence of that so as to be able to make a policy change, because that change would be very wide in its effect. At the moment, we do not have the necessary evidence to make a proper evaluation of the issue. The noble Baroness has already referred to what happened following the debate on a similar amendment in the other place: my colleague Iain Wright committed to an in-depth review to assess in more detail the likely impact, cost and realistic timeframe for implementation and to assess whether other ways of meeting the housing needs of this group could be effective in the context of broader housing reform. The principal aim of that review will be to provide a sound basis for the Government to consider what changes, if any, need to be made to ensure that no one is expected to return to accommodation where they would be at risk of violence. It is a broader issue and we need to look creatively and thoroughly at the options that we have. The noble Baroness asked me where we are with that. Arrangements for commissioning the review are currently under way and I shall be happy to keep her closely informed with more details once the work is more advanced. I cannot add more to that at the moment and I hope that it will be sufficient for now. I reiterate the commitment we have to putting an end as best we can to this abhorrent behaviour.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I am grateful to the Minister for her offer to keep me informed; I shall take advantage of it. I hope that the review will include evidence from members of the refuge movement of their experience of dealing with people—mainly women—in this situation. To answer the point made by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, of course I appreciate the demands on social housing and that not everyone can be a priority. However, the amendment would have the benefit of freeing-up refuge places. Some problems occur—I do not want to refer to “silting up”, which sounds so impersonal and unkind—that are caused by people not being able to move on because they do not have accommodation to go to. Of course, if they were able to move on, that would help others in turn. So there is an answer to the point, which might not be the case with other currently non-priority groups. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is yet in a position to say whether an end date is in view for the review. If there is, perhaps we could hear about it now. If not, I understand that it is work in progress and it is too soon to say.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I shall have to write to the noble Baroness because I do not know how we are going to plan the work as yet and, therefore, I cannot anticipate when we are likely to finish it.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 314 to 316 agreed to.
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness WhitakerLabour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 116:
- Time
- 17:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord AveburyLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I am glad to support the noble Baroness in her amendment. I also declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Gypsies and Travellers. It is curious that we have had this provision in the law regarding mobile homes that come under the 1983 Act for all this time, in spite of the many legal objections to it—not least that of the legal encyclopaedia, Sweet and Maxwell, which says that it is hard to see the purpose of such a comprehensive ouster. As the noble Baroness has explained, that applies not only to the Gypsies and Travellers, who come under these provisions for the first time—and I welcome that as a member of the all-party group—but to all residents of mobile homes. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who has always been such a doughty combater for the rights of people who live in mobile homes—quite rightly, because they have been subject to this clause ever since the 1983 Act. I sincerely hope that the Government will listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and come up with either a solution that meets this particular need or something that restores the jurisdiction of the court over all these cases. I take this opportunity to refer to the situation in Hackney, where, as the Minister may know, Gypsies and Travellers have had some problems because they were displaced from the site they occupied for the needs of the Olympic Games. For a long time there was no proper solution to the question of where they should go. Now there are alternative sites, but another problem has arisen: the people have moved on to sites that are governed under different provisions. Some of them are in bungalows that in Ireland are called “group housing”, where they have facilities for caravans next to the buildings and are no different from anyone else who wants to live in a house or bungalow. I invite the noble Lord to consider whether, even within one borough, it is a satisfactory outcome of the move of the Gypsies and Travellers from the sites they formerly occupied that they will come under different regimes according to the type of dwelling where they live. That may be a subject that we should come back to on another occasion rather than under the clause, but as the issue has been raised with me by the organisation representing Gypsies and Travellers in Hackney, I thought I would take the opportunity of mentioning it. However, I warmly support the noble Baroness in her amendment.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BestCrossbench
- Quote
- I, too, have added my name in support of this amendment. The occupiers of all other homes have recourse to the courts and most also have access to an independent arbitration scheme to sort out disputes with their landlord or superior owner. The tenants of mobile homes on sites must be unique both in having arbitration scheme based on the landlord deciding on who the arbitrator shall be and in not having any recourse to the courts if they are dissatisfied at the end of the process. The Housing Ombudsman is there for disputes involving housing association and social housing tenants, and indeed for some private landlords’ tenants. I hope that, in the review by Sir Bryan Carsberg that came out last week, we shall see similar redress and ombudsman services extended to the tenants of private landlords. People who buy their own homes will have access to the redress and ombudsman scheme that will become compulsory later in the year under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007. However, in all these cases people also have recourse to the courts if dissatisfied with the arbitration proceedings. It is strange that this one group is denied protection either by the independent arbitration system or recourse to the courts. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance that this position will change.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- I am grateful for the opportunity offered by the amendment to take a canter over this particular course. I begin by thanking the Minister, Iain Wright, most sincerely for listening carefully to the voices raised on the issue of dissatisfaction in resolving such disputes over the years. He and his colleagues have taken a major step forward in the consultation paper. But the Committee should be under no illusion that while for us it is an academic exercise and a political discussion, the people involved are sometimes subject to a reign of terror. Their lives are made thankless, so the problem is real and in earnest. Since last September, I have received 125 letters from residents in mobile homes, all of which I have sent on to the Department for Communities and Local Government; the latest batch went off only last week. I have done that because it is ultimately the department that these people have to rely on. Members of the Committee know the situation. It might be thought that people enjoyed the protection of the local council, along with the protection offered by environmental health officers. One would have thought there would be the aid of councillors, Members of Parliament, and advice from the BH&HPA, the NCC and various others. At the end of the day, when there is a serious dispute, very often the elderly, frail or disabled person, who has moved to a mobile home for the last period of their life, is told, “Well, if you are not satisfied you can go to court”. I received a letter this morning in which the Committee will be interested. It states: “Going to court could cost £20,000”— so it could cost an ordinary person £20,000— “and of course is risky, so it is not something to take on lightly. However my feelings are very strong on this matter. Especially that this could have been resolved much sooner, had the PO”— the park owner— “followed the code of practice and initiated arbitration. However, if I prove breach of contract, this of course would have huge implications for all those on the park. In essence it would mean you would have a clearer right to compensation, and possibly the retraction of unfair rules”. The letter continues: “We have a right to enjoy the holiday park and caravan that we pay nearly £3,000 for every year”. I presume that that is the pitch fee. “The definition of a holiday is ‘Leisure time away from work; devoted to rest or pleasure’. Where is our rest and pleasure? When rules are imposed ad hoc, and we are caused greater inconvenience or even loss of facilities. NO! this is definitely not restful and pleasurable experience. Quite the contrary. PO management methods have caused distress, anxiety and alarm. If he feels that he can get away with his behaviour, unchallenged, then what are we to expect next year?”. Many of the illustrations that I have received—there are no details—show that the names of some unscrupulous park owners are as well known inside the department as outside it. Some of them know what the law is, blatantly disregard it and ignore the claims made by councils and so on. They are very defiant. The Minister has seriously to consider—but not in this debate—when these unscrupulous site owners are to be taken on. They are laughing. I have had letters from people who say that they do not think much of the arbitration route because the uneducated and the distressed—the people with a good case—will stand on one side of the court and the owner will be represented by a brief, someone who receives thousands of pounds as a daily fee. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker pointed out, the idea that this is an informal process whereby disputes can be resolved amicably, in a friendly, give-and-take way, is nonsense. These people who are acting criminally by terrorising their parks are quite prepared to spend a lot of money because a lot of money is at stake. I have got no answer as to whether the amendment will be a better way of solving the problem. I am grateful to the Minister and the Ministry for having gone as far as they have. We are in a period of consultation. The stakeholders, in particular, have a responsibility not only to come up with a solution but with the evidence for their solution so that the department can give it serious consideration. I hope that the very least that the Minister will tell my noble friend today is not only that she has been heard but that her points have been taken on board and will be taken into consideration with other aspects. I will say to my all-party group—I declare an interest as the secretary—that the tide has turned and the department, after a long period of cogitation on these matters, is now becoming more militant than it ever was before. However, there is much more work to be done—we are never going to be satisfied—and these villains will always be there. In my view, there are people who should now be in prison awaiting trial. In one case, when the owner did not get his own way, he simply set fire to caravans with people inside them. The case is well known to some Members of the Committee. There are some terrible people about; I do not know the numbers but their names come up time and time again. Bear in mind that we are not talking just about a site owner; it is someone who owns 30 or 40 sites. The villains are making a business out of this, and they are quite unscrupulous. I have got that off my chest. I support the amendment, of course I do, and I know that the Minister and her colleagues understand full well what we are getting at. There are literally thousands of people out there—thousands out of more than 200,000, that is; I am not talking about a majority, or even a sizeable number, but there are many—who thought that they were buying themselves a little bit of paradise, only to find that unfortunately that was not the case, partly due to their not reading the rules and not understanding the situation, but mainly due to villains taking them for a ride. I hope that the Minister can give them some solace.
- Time
- 18:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Lord Bishop of ExeterBishops- Quote
- I support the amendment, which addresses an issue of real concern and, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, of justice to all those mobile home residents on rented sites, of which we have a great many in Devon. Acceptance of the amendment or something very like it would be helpful in addressing those concerns, as it would mean that all such site residents could always take a dispute with their site owner to the county court, should they need to. I suggest that that is preferable to another option that I understand is being proposed in the consultation document produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government: that tenants of mobile parks should have their disputes taken to residential property tribunals. Referral of disputes to such a tribunal may well be an improvement over compulsory arbitration by an arbitrator chosen by the site owner, although I recognise that a particular arbitrator may, in a particular case, make a fair judgment. However, for the majority of site residents that proposal could well be very detrimental. It must be wrong to force residents to argue their own case on complex matters of law before a formal tribunal without the benefit of representation unless they pay for it themselves. My understanding is that legal aid is not available for tribunals. I also believe that DCLG is wrong to claim that residential property tribunals are more informal than courts. Tribunals are formal bodies. The key difference between a tribunal and a court being, as I said, that legal aid is unavailable for representation at a tribunal. Moreover, it is not clear why tenants in similar circumstances should be able to take the matter to court, whereas mobile home site residents would be precluded from that opportunity. I am the bishop of a diocese that, together with its neighbouring diocese of Salisbury, has appointed a full-time chaplain to Gypsies and Travellers, so I am kept well informed of their worries about this matter. I wonder whether the Government have carried out a race equality or human rights impact assessment of the DCLG’s proposals, given that Gypsies and Irish Travellers on non-local authority sites, and that all Gypsies and Travellers on rented sites, are soon going to be affected by virtue of the impact of this measure. It is important to get this provision right. I hope that the amendment will be given the serious consideration it deserves.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- I am grateful to all noble Lords who have entered into the spirit of this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a strong and effective advocate for Gypsy and Traveller issues, as is the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I share their concerns about the potential for abuse to occur in respect of pitch agreements for local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites once the provisions in the Mobile Homes Act apply in respect of such sites when Clause 316 of the Bill is brought into force. However, we would expect local authorities, as public bodies, to act reasonably and responsibly in agreeing the use of arbitration in resolving disputes that may arise with Gypsy and Traveller residents on their sites. If the existing power is abused at all, therefore, it is far more likely to be abused by unscrupulous private site owners than by local authority site owners. My noble friend Lady Whitaker was kind in her comments on reforms to the dispute resolution system under the Mobile Homes Act and referred to our proposal to transfer the jurisdiction of county courts to hear disputes, apart from possession proceedings, to residential property tribunals established under the Housing Act 2004. As part of that proposal, pitch agreements will no longer be able to require the use of arbitration for dispute resolution, so that injustice is particularly dealt with. She was also right to identify the pressing need to reform the current system of dispute resolution under the Mobile Homes Act. That is why the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Assembly are consulting very carefully on reform. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the conclusions that we will draw from that consultation exercise and I heard clearly what the right reverend Prelate said in this regard. There is an interesting debate to be had about the most preferential outcome and the potential costs in court as opposed to the informal but nevertheless proper procedures of a tribunal. The point he made about legal aid is also well understood. Comments have been invited from a wide sector of the community, including from those living, working with and owning homes in this residential sector, because it covers a variety of circumstances of which, of course, Travellers and Gypsies are an important part. No doubt my noble friend will be aware that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Welfare of Park Home Owners has long campaigned for reform in dispute resolution, and our consultation seeks to meet the concerns felt by many in the sector that the current system does not work as well or as fairly and proportionately as it should. We also understand the concern about the imbalance in tribunal proceedings between those who can afford to be legally represented and those who cannot. If such an inequality exists, it manifests itself through the courts as well because the complaint we often hear is that park home residents cannot afford to bring or defend proceedings for fear of having costs awarded against them, and of course not all residents will have access to legal aid funding. But residential property tribunals have a wealth of experience in the field of adjudication in landlord and tenant legislation and it is quite normal for parties to represent themselves at dispute resolution hearings. I say to all contributors to the debate that there is a consultation exercise in progress and I strongly advocate participating in it and making sure that the views which have been voiced today are expressed as part of that formal consultation. I will certainly ensure that those views are passed on. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is reminding me about his question on Hackney.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord AveburyLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I was actually going to ask whether the Minister would ensure that the views that have been expressed today were fed into the consultation.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- I was just saying that as the noble Lord rose to his feet. Of course those views will be fed into the consultation. The noble Lord knows that we have officials here, and we will ensure that those views are carefully noted. There is still some debate to be had and the consultation exercise may well lead to some further reflection. I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question about Hackney. The noble Lord has referred in the past to the case and to the displacement issue at an earlier stage. This is clearly an issue. I need to go and find out the latest position and I will be more than happy to write to him about it.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
- Quote
- Have my noble friend and his colleagues fully taken on board the possible avalanche of matters that might need to be resolved by the new tribunal? I understand that there could be hundreds. The discussion paper talks in terms of 160, based upon experience; there could be more. Is the Minister satisfied that there is a fund of knowledge or expertise available that is waiting to be tapped and used? One of the concerns that has been expressed to me is whether you are going to get what you might call a lay person—someone representing the element of the park home owner—into this nexus. We do not want to find that it is just a professional body doing a professional job; these people really need to have a feel for the issues they are going to look at.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- We are aware that a wide-range of issues could be brought before the tribunal. That is obviously an issue and we have to look at resource allocation. We are talking about an existing body, the remit of which would be widened. It has an existing source of expertise and professionalism that is very valuable. It is certainly respected in the areas that it currently covers. There is a resource issue. My guess is that if that is the eventual outcome and we go with that route, some further thought will have to be given to resourcing the tribunal. I cannot prejudge any of this because we are in the middle of a consultation and we need to listen to many voices and come to a fair view. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity to respond to the point and to all those who have contributed to this short debate. It has been useful to have it during the consultation period and I will ensure that views fairly expressed are passed on.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BestCrossbench
- Quote
- I declare an interest that I should have declared before: I am on the council of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents. In declaring that interest, I commend to the consultation exercise the concept of having an ombudsman and redress scheme, which works so well for the Housing Ombudsman and will work well for estate agents. In fact it already works well for estate agents but it will be compulsory in the future. There are useful parallels there. In both cases, however, it should be remembered that there is always recourse to the courts as well.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WhitakerLabour
- Quote
- I, too, thank all noble Lords Spiritual and Temporal who have taken part in this debate. I thank my noble friend for his kind words. I am not wholly reassured. As the right reverend Prelate said, we still need a race equality and human rights assessment of the consultative document proposals. Let us see what comes out of the consultation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 317 agreed to.
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Baroness WilkinsLabour- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 116A:
- Time
- 18:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BestCrossbench
- Quote
- My name is added to the amendment in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and I am delighted to see her back in the Committee. To have discussed the earlier amendments without her would have been “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark, and we are delighted to have her back for this one. I wish to reinforce one important point that she made. Only one in six wheelchair-standard dwellings is let to a household containing a wheelchair user. That extraordinary statistic means that, when a home that is fully equipped and ready to go for someone who uses a wheelchair becomes vacant, it is being let to someone else. We are not matching the people with the accommodation. A register would achieve that and ensure that everyone knew where those homes were so that they could be filled by people who really needed them. The subject of disability housing registers was first raised, I think, about 12 years ago in Joseph Rowntree Foundation research. They represent an ideal and incredibly important way of saving money and matching people with disabilities with the homes that they need. I strongly support the amendment.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I, too, am very pleased to see the noble Baroness back in her place. We look forward to the debate on Report, because by that time she will have had the advantage of seeing how much support there is around the Chamber for the things she so passionately and powerfully advocates, of which the amendment is an example. I sympathise entirely with the intention behind the amendment. It is obviously vitally that people with disabilities are matched with housing that fits their needs—there is no argument against that—and that they get the priority they deserve for accessible housing. The noble Baroness will know that we are committed to both those aims. I do not want to labour the point because she has already referred to the ageing strategy, but she will also know that we have now, for the first time, a proper programme of adaptation of lifetime homes and building for a lifetime. This will make a difference in being able to count on homes where people with disabilities know they can be properly and safely housed. It will also make it easier to build wheelchair adaptations for later stages of disability, which we cannot do at the moment with our housing stock. So we have made a modest start there. We have also been able to invest more in the disability facilities grant. In a very tight spending round, I was very pleased that we were able to get a significant amount of extra money for that grant because it is incredibly important, not only to elderly people but to children as well. When it comes to making expensive adaptations, it could make all the difference between people being able to stay in their homes or not. There is no question between us that registers can be exceptionally useful. We have to strive in all the ways that we can to put the systems in place which will make it easier in the future for people with disabilities to have access to the homes that they need and that will suit them. It is important, however, that local authorities and other social landlords have better information on, and are able to quantify, their existing stock of accessible housing. That is why the disability quality scheme, which we published in December 2006, is also committed to the development of a National Register Of Social Housing. It has the hopeless acronym of “NROSH”. In addition to collecting basic dwelling attributes, NROSH sets a national standard for measuring accessibility and calls on social housing landlords to produce consistent accessibility to information on each dwelling by April 2010. So we are accumulating and articulating the evidence now. That process, which will take us a long way forward, sits alongside the development of choice-based lettings as a principle. This has been one of the most significant changes in recent years. I agree that choice-based lettings is key to helping disabled people access accommodation that meets their needs. Not least, it gives existing and aspiring social housing tenants more control over where they live. We have also set a target for all local authorities to have adopted a CBL scheme by 2010. Under that approach, landlords should determine the accessibility of a dwelling as it becomes vacant, using the standard criteria developed by NROSH, and ensure that when the vacancy is advertised the advert specifies both the type and level of adaptations and who, in terms of their type or level of disability, is allowed to bid for the property. That will provide a way of prioritising accessible housing for disabled people and will give the local authorities a much more target-specific tool than they have at the moment. That means that people with disabilities can choose housing that meets their individual needs using a standardised classification. To have those two systems converging in that way is an efficient and practical way forward and will get results. Crucially, CBL also already offers a key opportunity to improve information about available accessible housing. It is pleasing—and not really surprising—that some CBL schemes already incorporate an accessible housing register, and the number of accessible housing registers will increase under both the single authority CBL schemes and the growing number of larger CBL schemes that bring together a number of local authorities and housing association partners. That is certainly the way to go because it gives us an ability to move across boundaries, and sometimes homes are much more accessible in a neighbouring borough. We need that flexibility. The noble Baroness spoke about the benefits that had accrued in Cardiff. I was interested in that example; it was new to me and I was taken with it. A London-wide accessible housing register is being developed alongside a pan-London choice and mobility scheme. To help that along, we have made available £168,000 to assist London boroughs and RSLs to implement the London-wide accessible housing register. Our officials in CLG are working closely with those who are taking forward the scheme to ensure that it is consistent with the National Register of Social Housing and that they are mutually supportive. We will watch that very closely, because if that model works we can encourage it through good practice. We also need to develop our knowledge of how accessible housing registers might be made most useful. The Disability Equality Scheme also includes a commitment to examine the role and effectiveness of accessible housing registers within the context of our choice-based lettings policy. Several times in the past few hours I have asked noble Lords to wait for the results of this or that review or inquiry but, once again, I ask the noble Baroness to have a little patience, because building up the evidence base is complicated. We have recently appointed Heriot-Watt University to look at the role and effectiveness of accessible housing registers within CBL policy. That will be part of a wider study of how choice-based lettings impact on vulnerable people. Our aim is to ensure that the researchers are thorough and that the study is an impartial and complete examination of the costs and effectiveness of registers that operate within the context of choice-based lettings. The results should be available early next year. I suggest to my noble friend that it would not be appropriate to take any steps that would tie local authorities’ hands at the moment. We should wait for that evidence and then make a judgment on how we can make the evidence work in terms of policy and practice. We are fully cognisant of the fact that accessible housing registers can be really useful. I am of the opinion, which I share with my honourable friend in another place, that forcing local authorities to compile registers as a matter of routine may not be the best way forward in terms of what is right for their areas, and they should be free to decide for themselves whether a register would best meet their local needs. There are some outstanding examples. Although we will not compel local authorities to compile registers as a matter of routine, we will continue to encourage the adoption of accessible housing registers through, for example, the statutory guidance on choice-based lettings, which will be published shortly. We will also watch closely how the London model is developing. We will support the dissemination of good-practice models and see where they can be grown elsewhere. We will encourage social landlords and assist them in implementing an accessible housing register in that way. We will certainly look very closely at what the Heriot-Watt research produces and take the steps that seem appropriate to get the best results for local authorities in their communities. I am sure that my noble friend will not be entirely happy with that response, but I hope she recognises that it represents progress. It certainly represents a better way of compiling evidence and policymaking than we have had in the past.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness WilkinsLabour
- Quote
- I thank the Minister for that reply, which was much more helpful than I had expected. I thank her also for all the work she has done in furthering accessibility for disabled people, which I know is close to her heart. She has made great progress. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for supporting the amendment. I would like to consult with RADAR, Care and Repair and Habinteg on their reaction. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Time
- 18:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 116AA:
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Dixon-SmithConservative
- Quote
- I have a lot of sympathy with this. Clearly, one does not want to have people living in overcrowded conditions. Unfortunately, the housing market being what it is, it will be a long time before we get away from it. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying that proposed new subsection (4)(a) in Amendment No. 116AB seriously needs to be amended. It refers to, “a person living together with another as husband and wife (whether that other person is of the same sex or the opposite sex)”. Reference to a couple living together I can understand, but more acceptable wording would be “whether they are husband and wife or of the same sex”. The current wording is not acceptable.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- The noble Baroness said that the urge to raise this issue was irresistible, and she is right. In Part 2 we were concerned with the fine detail and with looking at technical issues, whereas in Part 3 we come to broader matters. Our debates today have ranged far and wide over issues that are work-in-progress for my department and others. I am grateful for the opportunity to address this matter, which is why I keep returning so often to what is happening in terms of building the evidence base, policy developments and so forth, rather than outlining immediate reactions in legislation in areas where we want to see improvements. We are perhaps a little inhibited by the state of our own policy developments and knowledge base, and that is true for local authorities as well. This issue is a classic example of it. The noble Baroness is right: the current definition of overcrowding has remained unchanged for far too long but, rather than tackle the definition, we are committed to tackling overcrowding itself. My fundamental point here is that, however much comfort it might give us and those who campaign for better housing, if we were simply to change the definition of the term, that would not bring with it the agency or resources that are needed to make a real difference on the ground. At a time when there is so much cynicism about whether as politicians we can deliver on what we say, this sort of challenge has to be taken seriously. We have to be able to do the things we say we can do, so that people can see and feel a difference, rather than express an aspiration which lends itself to being exposed as not being able to realise what lies behind it. The noble Baroness and I both want to ensure that local authorities have the right tools in place to tackle the issue. We are already committed to an updated standard. In January, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State confirmed the commitment to amend the 1985 Act during consideration of this Bill in Committee in another place, and indeed we have debated many times in this House the impact of overcrowding on the health and well-being of children, not least on their educational prospects and personal health, as well as the risk of dysfunction in family life that goes along with overcrowded conditions. There is no doubt that we are committed to addressing the issue of children in bad housing. However, the real challenge is to ensure that local authorities have the tangible means to do something about it and that they have real solutions to offer. As a first step, we addressed this issue earlier in considering the provision of new supply in the form of affordable housing. Some £8 billion is going into building more homes. The first part of our debates was very much about that and about the contribution that the Homes and Communities Agency can make. We are increasing outputs of new affordable housing to 70,000 by 2010-11, 45,000 of which will be for new social rented homes. We have done what Shelter has urged us to do in this respect: the figures represent an increase of 50 per cent over last year. We also need different sorts of homes, and larger units are needed. When I travel around the country to look at what we are doing in housing market renewal areas, one of the problems is that the housing stock built in the 19th century was for small families. Those terraced houses are totally inadequate for large families that can no longer access large homes. We have to build different sorts of homes. We are increasing the national percentage of social rented homes delivered through the Affordable Housing Programme from 25 to 30 per cent in 2008-09, rising to 33 per cent in 2010-11. That will mean more family-sized homes of three or more bedrooms, which will help. New supply is only one side of the coin: we have to look at making better use of the available stock. We estimate that there are currently about 228,000 overcrowded households in social housing, but also some 445,000 social homes are under-occupied—that is, households with two or more bedrooms than are needed. Local authorities have discretion to give reasonable preference to those households that want to downsize. We are encouraging, not least through example and support, housing authorities to make better use of those flexibilities. That is good customer service because it addresses part of the housing and ageing strategies: we need homes to be appropriate in size for the people who live in them—what they can manage, whatever age they are and whatever they need, whatever age they are and whatever their family conditions. For example, tenants may wish to move closer to family for support, to reduce their rent, and so on. That is good housing management in making best use of stock. We also need to be smarter; local authorities need to be smarter; and we need to find new ways to solve the problem. Therefore, we are helping local authorities to find new ways to solve the problem. That is where the pilot schemes come in. We have put £35 million into pilot schemes in London that are considering underoccupation using the private sector, developing adaptions more effectively. In particular, in the capital, to take the use of the private rented sector, some pilots have been successful in securing accommodation in the private sector for overcrowded households. Since April, the introduction of the local housing allowance has given private renters on lower incomes a greater degree of choice and flexibility in accessing more suitably sized homes in the private sector. Another pilot has been able to increase the quality of life of overcrowded households by making simple adaptions to their existing property if they want to stay where they are. Sometimes what you really need is a bit of help from someone coming from outside who says, “If you take a wall down there, we can make a bit of space here”. It needs some help and intelligence with the pressure points where space becomes a real issue—for example, if children cannot do their homework. That may mean anything from more storage space to additional hand basins, or whatever. We can make a difference even within unpromising circumstances. All that fed into our action plan in CLG, which we published last December. That sets out a number of ways in which social housing providers—both local authorities and RSLs—can manage their existing staff in innovative and proactive ways. That action plan sits alongside the evidence from the pathfinder project, to which the noble Baroness referred. We are investing a further £15 million over the next three years, starting with the 38 pathfinder chains, who between them account for more than half of overcrowded social tenants, so they are really important. Each pathfinder has had £110,000 this year to develop their own action plans based on good advice, good practice and innovative approaches developed by pilots. We have published an advice note setting out the lessons learnt. We are asking the pathfinders to improve the data that they hold on overcrowded households and improve their mapping of underoccupation. On the next steps, wider implementation through the 38 pathfinders of schemes such as those piloted in London will have an immediate effect on securing better accommodation. During the course of the next year we will be seeking data that will enable us to look at the impact these schemes have on providing better housing solutions for overcrowded households. This will also provide the crucial evidence we need on the cost and impact of updating the overcrowding standard. Once we have that evidence, we will be able to devise a phased and manageable move to a new national standard, with authorities well positioned to manage a new definition positively. I hope that the Committee will be reassured that we are committed to ensuring that families who are living in overcrowded conditions have the right advice and support from their local housing providers to enable them to secure more suitably sized accommodation. Local housing authorities need to be able to act to be prepared for a change in the overcrowding standard. I am not complacent; I accept and agree with so much of what the noble Lady said and her entire sentiment. I confirm that the Government are committed to changing the statutory overcrowding standard. I cannot accept the amendment because, as I said, we already have powers to amend the definition of overcrowding by regulation; we have already given a clear commitment to modernising the standard; we have already published an action plan that will go a long way to tackling the problem; and it would be untimely to introduce a new standard without evidence on the cost or impact. Much the same argument applies to her amendments about the bedroom standard and her final amendment. With that response, which I hope is sufficiently full, I hope that she can reassure the people whom she knows who are really concerned about this.
- Time
- 18:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Earl CathcartConservative
- Quote
- I think that the Minister recognises that overcrowding is the result of a lack of sufficient housing. That links in with the earlier debate on priority groups. The reason you have to have priority groups is that you do not have enough housing for everyone, so you have to prioritise. It gets down to the same issue. Although the £8 billion is obviously welcome, and we have talked about this before, it is going to solve only a small part of the problem. There are nearly 2 million applications for social housing, but £8 billion will build about 100,000 homes over the next three years, which is barely sufficient. It all links in to the point about the lack of sufficient affordable housing. Quite what the Government are going to do about that, I do not know; it is their problem. There are better ways of spending the £8 billion—for instance, getting empty homes back into service. The Minister slightly slipped up on one point, in my view. When we talked earlier in Committee, I mentioned that I had been to the dentist, where a receptionist had been talking to another patient about how their children had broken up their marriages and were having to live in their houses. One was saying that their son had to live in a box cupboard with a bed in it, while the other had a daughter with two children who were living on the sofa downstairs. If they were in private housing, how would the Minister’s department get to find out that there was overcrowding there as well? I asked them if they were on the social housing list. They said, “No, there’s absolutely no point in going there because we need our housing now. We need a roof over our head tonight, not in five or 10 years’ time”. There are a lot of people out there who just have not tried to get on to the housing list because they think, “What’s the point? We’re just going to be a gun number at the end. The priority people are going to get the housing, and we will be left in the queue for years”. That may get worse as people get married and cannot afford a house. Last year, first-time buyers accounted for only 300,000 homebuyers, which I think was the lowest figure for many years; before, it was 450,000 or 500,000. Where are they going to go in the next year or two? They are going to need affordable housing, or they will be cramming up with one of their parents. This is a major issue.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- It is a major issue. It reminds me that, if you go back 50 years, rented accommodation was the most usual choice and people lived there for most of their lives—in overcrowded conditions, too. One of the reasons why the house-building programmes of the 1950s and 1960s were so important was that they gave people a home of their own for the first time. The noble Lord is right; it is not just a question of building our way out of lack of affordability or overcrowding, but we need to look at the whole of the housing stock coherently to see what else we can do. That brings us back to our debates on social accessibility. The private rented sector is often the most invisible and often, frankly, the worst served sector because it is managed by market. The review by Julie Rugg of that sector that we have commissioned should look at a whole range of situations, including the extent to which the sector may be soaking up some people in ways that the noble Earl described. However, because we need more supply and mobility across the sector—and that goes for social housing as well—we need people to have aspiration and opportunity to move out of social housing if they so wish and into owner occupation so that we can get more vulnerable people into social housing and away from the very worst of the private rented sector. Essentially, we are aiming to create a vicious circle which is powered by notions of access, equality and affordability. The virtue of having the HCA in place is that we can have that single conversation with people who are responsible for land and with those across the sectors, and we will be able to judge what is effective in relation to them all. Although there is one set of very technical amendments to go, that seems to be what we have been addressing throughout the whole Bill—all these issues relate to each other. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s amendment, which has given us an opportunity to open up our debate.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I think that the Minister is aiming for a virtuous circle, rather than the vicious circle to which she referred—this has been a very long Committee stage. I am grateful for her reply. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the drafting. He will not be surprised if I confess that I did not draft these three or four pages of amendments. My drafting has been much less expert and much shorter. I noticed that phrase this morning and thought, “I know what it means but it could perhaps have been expressed differently”. In regard to a virtuous circle, with the domestic violence amendment I was talking about releasing refuge spaces. As the noble Lord was talking, I wrote down “Release three and four-bedroomed housing” before the Minister said it. I know that that is very much in her mind and that of her department. I am very grateful for her explanation, which was a much more positive take on the issue than I have heard for a very long time. Of course, the solutions will not come overnight. The definition is important. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about trying to avoid cynicism, and the noble Earl made a similar point. The converse of that is setting a target with the aim of working towards it. It is certainly important that the work that is going on now—the piloting or pathfinder, or whatever one calls it—and the action plan do not delay countrywide change. Despite their length, these were probing amendments. They came from Shelter, which I know is involved in the debates and will keep an eagle eye on the work being done. It would be nice to end the Committee stage on a forward-looking note. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 116AB and 116AC not moved.] Clause 318 [Orders and regulations]: [Amendment No. 116B not moved.] [Amendment No. 116C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 116D:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
- Quote
- It was my fault.
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- I should have made it clear that we had tabled government amendments to respond to and indeed to go further than the DPRR Committee recommendations, and as such we did not need to rely on the noble Lord’s amendment. But as a result of the mix-up, we have withdrawn two government amendments that we had intended to move in this group because they would conflict with Amendment No. 110XD. I hope that noble Lords will permit me to rectify the matter at the Report stage. I turn now to Amendment No. 117BZA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. This is a technical amendment which gives effect to a recommendation of the DPRR Committee in respect of the power to make consequential amendments. As I have said, all orders under Clause 319 are subject to the affirmative procedure. This is explicitly required under Clause 318(3)(b). The committee’s view was that this procedure was only appropriate when an Act is amended, and we agree with that. We have already discussed the government amendments which have a similar effect. With that explanation, I hope that I will be forgiven for getting this wrong and that we can move swiftly to conclude the Committee’s proceedings. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 117A not moved.] [Amendment No. 117AA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 117AB to 117AD:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 117B:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendment No. 117BZB:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 117BA to 117ZCA:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- Noble Lords will recall that on the fifth day of our discussions in Grand Committee, I withdrew Amendment No. 97P which included an amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 on the HCA’s local planning authority in response to a request made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not to move it at this stage. Amendment No. 117ZD makes a corresponding amendment to the repeals schedule set out in Schedule 14, so I shall not move the amendment at this stage. [Amendment No. 117ZD not moved.]
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 117ZDA to 118:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Baroness AndrewsLabour
- Quote
- moved Amendments Nos. 118A to 118B:
- Time
- 19:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗