Clause 16 - Duty of local housing authority to formulate a homelessness strategy
Homes Bill
Public Bill Committees, 25 January 2001, 10:30 am
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 101, page 10, line 4, at beginning insert
`In conjunction with its strategic partners'.
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
With this we take the following amendments: No. 88, in page 10, line 4, after `authority', insert
`and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives; landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies (``strategic partners'').'.
No. 102, in page 10, line 8, at end insert
`( ) For the purpose of this Bill strategic partners shall include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies (``strategic partners'').'.
No. 64, in page 10, line 12, at end insert
`( ) The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall give such assistance in connection with the exercise of the power under subsection (1) as the authority may reasonably require.'.
No. 98, in page 10, line 20, at end insert
`(4A) The authority shall maintain a list of those organisations which are its strategic partners, which it may modify from time to time.'.
No. 65, in page 10, line 25, at end insert
`( ) The registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority shall take the homelessness strategy for the district of a local housing authority into account in the exercise of their functions in relation to that district.'.
No. 66, in clause 17, page 10, line 34, after `authorities', insert
`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority'.
No. 89, clause 18, page 11, line 10, after `authority', insert
`and its strategic partners'.
No. 68, clause 18, page 11, line 29, after `organisation', insert
`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority'.
No. 71, clause 19, page 12, line 17, at end insert
```registered social landlord'' has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996'.
New clause 10—Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies—
`( ).—(1) Section 213 (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.
After subsection (1) there is inserted—
``( ) Where a local housing authority request a registered social landlord or a housing action trust to assist them in the discharge of their functions under this part, the landlord to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.''
(2) In subsection (2)(a) the words ``a registered social landlord or housing action trust'' shall cease to have effect.''.'
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
It is me again, Mr. Stevenson.
We now move to part II of the Bill. I sure that while many members of the Committee are fascinated by the important issues in part I, they would agree that part II is equally important deserves the same degree of serious consideration that we have given to part I.
As the person moving the first amendment to part II, I could steal the Minister's thunder by giving a tour d'horizon of the first section of part II , as the Minister's hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), has done on previous occasions. However, knowing that the Minister for Housing and Planning will be keen to do that himself, I shall forbear. I hope that, having read the Bill in detail, members of the Committee will be well aware of the context of the amendments. In simple terms, the amendments pick up a point I raised on Second Reading. It is noted in the Official Report that the Minister nodded at my remarks about the second ghost at the feast, namely, the absence of any mention of registered social landlords in the clause.
The Committee will be aware of the importance of registered social landlords and the vital part they play in the provision of affordable housing. More importantly, the Committee will be aware that that importance is growing daily. Between 1997 and 1998, the number of RSL homes doubled to more than 1 million, while the total number of local authority dwellings fell by more than 1 million. Since 1998, more than 400,000 homes have been transferred from 100 local authorities to RSLs. In the housing Green Paper, the Government indicated that they would support a transfer programme of up to a further 200,000 local authority homes each year.
It is also worth reflecting on the role that RSLs play in meeting the specific requirements of local authorities. To give an example, last year, 1999-2000, local authorities nominated 16,459 homeless households for housing in properties owned by registered social landlords. In much of the country, the vast majority of local authorities have transferred their properties to registered social landlords through the voluntary transfer scheme. Equally important is the fact that they have contracted with registered social landlords to carry out a number of their functions, not least the handling of parts of housing registers and of the local authorities' homeless services. That brief summary makes it clear that in many parts of the country, registered social landlords play a crucial part in dealing with the issue of homelessness. My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset, has already conducted a voluntary transfer. The entire provision of affordable housing is in the hands of a number of registered social landlords, and the local authority has but a very small number of properties available to it.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that clear and specific reference is made to registered social landlords on the face of the Bill. The Minister will say that there are already references to voluntary organisations and that the registered social landlords fit within that group. In the past he has used argument A, the list argument, with great effect and the Committee has generally been ready to accept that there is disadvantage in adding baubles to the Christmas tree—adding a list of additional items to an existing list; the Minister's argument has always been the absence of some organisation from an expanded list would appear be significant. However, this is one occasion on which the absence of reference to the registered social landlords—the largest providers of social housing—is an indication that the Government have misunderstood the role of registered social landlords. The omission of RSLs from the short list that includes social services means that people will draw an inference that I suspect the Minister would not like to be drawn.
Putting registered social landlords on the face of the Bill is not enough. We have to make clear the role that we want such landlords to play. It is vital that they are involved directly in drawing up the homelessness strategy required under the first part of part II. In later amendments, I will suggest that, by itself, the drawing up of a homelessness strategy is inadequate and that that such a strategy needs to be part of a wider housing strategy. For now, it is vital that we set out a firm requirement whereby registered social landlords are directly involved in the drawing up of such a strategy, be it a homelessness strategy or a wider homelessness and housing strategy, as I would prefer.
Amendment No. 65 reflects my belief that, in their actions, RSLs should have regard to or take into account the local authority homelessness strategy. I suspect that the Minister will argue that the nature and status of RSLs makes it impossible to introduce such a provision. I have taken fairly detailed advice on that matter and I am now convinced that that argument is sound and that amendment No. 65 is probably inappropriate; therefore, I shall not press it.
None the less, I hope that, rather than spend time repeating my comments, the Minister will make it clear that his Department intends to provide clear guidance to registered social landlords regarding the importance of taking local authority strategies into account wherever possible. I do not ask that they be required to act contrary to their trust deeds or whatever system they operate under, but as long as such restrictions do not apply, RSLs should take local strategies into account.
I am trying to be brief and could go into much greater detail later if the Committee required it. I hope that the broad principles of the amendments are clear. I will not speak to each amendment; I shall respond to any questions later.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Stevenson. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 88, 98 and 89. It is a curious feature of our deliberations that, although the Liberal Democrat amendment is a rather belated affair and narrower than our own more thought-through amendments, it is the first in the group and the lead amendment for debate. That is the way in which our procedures are organised.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
That is always a blessing.
We have now changed gear into part II of the Bill. We leave behind the pleasures and conundrums of seller's packs and move on to homelessness and housing. I appreciate that some Government Members regarded the consideration of part I as a chore, irrelevant to them and their constituents. Perhaps they will brighten up now and give the Committee the benefit of their views. They have, at least, tabled some amendments.
I shall start with broader points about part II, which might save time later on. We are debating the issues in the context of a series of Government failures—failure to tackle homelessness; to build more social housing; to tackle empty properties; and now the problem of a record number of asylum seekers competing for the same accommodation.
The Bill has been a long time coming. The Minister for Housing and Planning—and Labour in opposition for 18 years—has spent considerable time thinking about housing issues. Yet here we are presented with a Bill that, if we are lucky, might just sneak on to the statute book before the election. It is too early to say whether yesterday's events—not yesterday's happy event, which has warmed the cockles of our hearts, but the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
I thought that you were talking about Liverpool's win.
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
Order. The amendments deal with who should be consulted and our debate should not range too wide of that.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. The failure to deliver on the pledge to license HMOs is another matter.
The hon. Member for Bath has, for once, got it right. We are debating housing in circumstances that are shifting beneath our feet as we speak. The Conservative policy, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, was large-scale voluntary transfers, and the present Government have adopted it with alacrity—currently there are about 200,000 transfers. I hasten to add that it has not been endorsed in all quarters. Early-day motion 190 has been signed by Labour Members who want to ensure that
further privatisation is halted to allow a proper debate including allowing local authorities to borrow directly and the long-term cost and other consequences of council housing privatisation.
Clearly, Conservative policy has not met unqualified agreement among Labour Members, and early-day motion 233, signed by 23 Labour Members, also criticises some aspects of Government policy.
Amendment No. 88 is the main amendment in this group. It goes further than the Liberal Democrat amendment and discusses strategic partners, which would include
registered social landlords and housing co-operatives; landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority...members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and relevant bodies.
We might also have included homeless people in the amendments, as previous briefings have made the point that they are perhaps the most important people to consult on how a strategy is to be developed and to evolve.
The Conservatives party has always sought to encourage the widest possible range of housing tenure. In previous incarnations, the Labour party has always sought to promote social housing, and to offer a lack of choice to potential tenants. We have always sought to have a wide range of housing, including the private rented sector, social housing and the right to buy. As I have said—I make no apology for repeating it—it is a tribute to successive Conservative Governments, with no help from successive Labour Oppositions, that 69 per cent. of people in this country own their own home. It will continue to be part of any Conservative manifesto in future elections to try to extend home ownership and the right to buy even further.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the starter home initiative, which the Government recently announced. It will involve expenditure of £250 million in order to increase opportunities for low-cost home ownership. Will he give a commitment to the Committee that an incoming Conservative Government would honour that pledge in full?
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
I do not want to risk your ire, Mr Stevenson, but we consider that the Government initiative is pretty paltry in light of the need. We are looking at homesteading policy, and other policies, to try to encourage home ownership in a substantial way. This Government have made it more difficult for people to apply the right to buy. The Conservatives wish to apply the right to buy across the board, to housing associations as well.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the purpose of elections is to allow the electorate to have a choice? It may be true that this Government got into power by promising not to alter the policy of its predecessors, but I hope that my party will not seek power by saying that it will not alter the policies of this Government. If both parties do that, there is no point in having an election is there Mr Stevenson?
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
Order. I recognise that it might be the time of the year, but I urge hon. Members to return to the amendments.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
Absolutely right Mr Stevenson. The Conservative party—and no doubt the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—is currently developing its proposals for the election manifesto, whenever that might be required.
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)
Given the hon. Gentleman's commitment about extending the right to buy to people in housing association property and that the present homelessness crisis, which we have had for a number of years, is closely linked to the supply of accommodation, is he also giving a commitment that a Conservative Government would ensure that there was a replacement of stock to at least the same level as that lost through right to buy?
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
That could not have been a more eloquent example of what I call Old Labour thinking—a denial of choice. Surveys have consistently shown that the great majority of people aspire to owning their own home. For some people that aspiration will never be achievable. We have always sought to make it as achievable as possible for most people.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
In a moment.
In answering the hon. Lady's intervention, I want to refer to an extremely thought-provoking article published in Housing Today of 11 January 2001,written by Mr. Mike Morris, chief executive of the William Sutton Trust. I am sure that those who take an interest in housing will know that this is the William Sutton Trust's centenary year. Mr. Morris makes a number of significant points about what he calls the need to integrate the housing market. He says that, overall, the social rented sector is declining and refers to a number of other forces that are all pressing to what he calls greater integration. He says that all new local authority lettings should become assured tenancies preserving existing tenant's right to buy. He also says:
This, coupled with perhaps an extension of the right to acquire under statutory purchase grant rules to the whole of the sector would help integrate social rented housing, leading to greater acceptance by tomorrows' customers.
Does the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) disagree with Mr. Morris?
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)
As I have a large William Sutton estate in my constituency, I would be interested to know how the Opposition, and Mr. Morris with whom I will discuss this, will also accommodate the needs of severely overcrowded families in that stock who are desperate for a transfer to more acceptable accommodation and who cannot realistically exercise the right to buy.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
I would be more prepared to take lessons from Labour Members about dealing with homelessness if, as we discussed on Second Reading, homelessness had not been increasing under this Government.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North and I did have an exchange on Second Reading about the reasons for the problems in London. As we know, priority homelessness is at its highest level since 1996. The figure for total priority acceptances in 1997- 98 was 102,650. In 1999-2000 the comparable figure was 105,520. Under the present Government, 3,000 more people were homeless and in urgent need.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
Will the hon. Gentleman please confirm that the figures he has given are incorrect? The correct figure for the last financial year, the year ending March 1997, during which the Opposition were in power, was 110,000 homeless applicants accepted by local authorities. The latest 12-month figure, under this Government, is 108,000. As I said on Second Reading debate, it is too high, but it is simply untrue to claim that the number of homeless households is higher now than when the Opposition were in power.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
The Minister might like to clamber down from this rather high horse. We had a similar exchange on Second Reading. He is not able to challenge the figures I have given because they come from his own Department—I have the document from the Department. For the Minister to try to rely on another measure of homelessness to achieve a 2,000 reduction, does not strike me as a very good legacy of four years of Labour Government, let alone 18 years of Opposition.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour/Co-operative)
I went to the trouble of checking the figures in my local authority. Between 1981 and 1997, 9,000 properties were lost to the social sector. During that period only 5,000 new properties were built. At present, Enfield has 2,400 people in temporary accommodation and over 1,000 in bed and breakfast accommodation. If the hon. Gentleman is going to extend the right to buy to other parts of the social sector and if we are not to have a massive increase in homelessness, does that not require the building of more accommodation in the socially rented sector?
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I wonder whether you can give me some advice. When I introduced this string of amendments, I said that I hoped that it would be convenient for the Committee if I stuck very narrowly to the issues raised in the new clauses. Furthermore, I thought that I was being particularly generous by not going through the amendments one by one and in detail. I hoped that we could get on to the principle and hear what the Minister had to say.
Quite understandably, Mr. Stevenson, you have allowed the hon. Member for Eastbourne to have a much wider debate than I had expected. When we reach clause stand part, will you rule that we have already had a sufficiently wide debate? If so, may I raise now some of the points that I wished to make under a clause stand part debate?
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
That is a very important point. In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to make his position clear and he was brief. I have allowed a wide-ranging debate on the amendments and have twice called for Members to return to the purpose of the amendments. I intended not to allow a clause stand part debate, but if the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye again, I would certainly allow him to speak.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I entirely accept your ruling, but may I seek your guidance on a matter of factual inaccuracy? The hon. Member for Eastbourne has given the Committee figures that I have every reason to believe are incorrect and on which I have challenged him. I have the official figures and I believe that the Committee should have the benefit of hearing them and not being misled. Would it be acceptable to cover that issue before we return to the main priorities of the debate?
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
Like any member of the Committee, the Minister will have an opportunity to return to that point and to make points clear to the Committee.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
Before I return to the clause, I shall deal with the intervention by the hon. Member for Edmonton, of which I have not lost sight, and the two points of order. It may assist you to know, Mr. Stevenson, that we envisage a clause stand part debate, not least because it appears on the selection list. If I have spoken more widely than you anticipated, I apologise, but I did so partly as a result of relentless provocation from other members of the Committee.
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt again, but we need to clear up this matter. I referred to my intention not to call a stand part debate on clause 16. However, there will have to be a debate on new clause 17, so there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to speak. We cannot have it both ways by having one wide-ranging debate and then another. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that point.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
Exactly, Mr. Stevenson. I shall deal with the intervention and wind up my remarks on the narrower point as quickly as I can.
The issue raised by the Minister's point of order is not new; it arose on Second Reading. My figures were taken from those published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. If the Minister is saying that those figures are misleading, I entirely agree that that is a serious matter. Let us be clear about what he is saying.
To finish that point and partly in answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Edmonton, we know that the problem in London is particularly bad, because it has the highest homelessness figures for 20 years: 48,000 households are in temporary accommodation, including 6,000 in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The hon. Gentleman talked about properties lost to the social sector, which shows the mindset that is really behind the problem. I hope that we can discuss in more detail the excellent article by Mr. Morris of the William Sutton Trust, who says that, overall, the social rented sector is declining. That factor must lie behind every point that we discuss under part II. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to remove the right to buy from council tenants, because that is the inevitable logic of what he says. Perhaps we can return to those issues in the stand part debate.
We find it strange that the Government seek to leave it to local government on its own to conduct homelessness reviews and to draw up homelessness strategies. Although under clause 17(1)(c) councils are asked to consider the work of other organisations, only in clause 18(8) are they asked to work jointly with them. Even then they are asked only to consult such bodies ``as they consider appropriate''. We hear a lot from the Government about strategic partnerships. In reality however, and this touches on the points made by the hon. Member for Bath, more and more councils will not be housing providers at all. They will not have a single unit of council housing. Under the provision, they will still produce the strategy and it is nonsense that they may not have to involve other partners.
Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)
May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the best practice that is going on in Labour authorities such as mine? We set up Bolton Community Homes Ltd more than five years ago and it works in close partnership with the local authority, which still manages a considerable number of its own houses, and leading RSLs who are operating in the town. There is a joint waiting list and collaboration on strategy and all housing-plus initiatives. Some Labour authorities have already adopted the best practice that the hon. Gentleman recommends to the Committee.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Clearly, the best authorities will be doing that anyway. This is really an attempt to ensure that it happens across the board. The best authorities will not need to be told by the Committee or anyone else.
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, acknowledge that not all authorities follow best practice. Indeed, where a transfer took place before the Housing Act 1996, it is perfectly possible for the relationship between the local authority and the registered social landlord to have changed significantly so that they no longer have to follow the allocations procedure of the local authority. Some authorities do not now have that close working relationship.
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is correct. He and I are on the same wavelength. We simply wish to see the practice applied across the board and it is difficult to see how the Minister could not see the force of putting this in the Bill.
We want to amend the Bill to ensure that all organisations that have any role to play in a local authority's housing sector are full partners in the drafting of the homelessness strategy. The Local Government Association allocations and homelessness task group, no less, published a document not long ago called ``No Place Like Home''. It says:
There are many examples of existing good practice in closer joint working and co-ordination between agencies. However, effective implementation remains patchy on the ground.''
It continues:
The development of local protocols involving statutory and voluntary agencies should be further encouraged.
Without going into the sort of detail appropriate to a stand part debate, organisations like the LGA, on a cross-party basis, and Shelter support the amendments.
We are keen to point out that the rather diverse list of strategic partners should have a role. Local authorities should give similar thought to that matter, which is the thrust of amendment No. 98. We are keen to ensure that users, as well as providers and enablers, have a say in their local homelessness strategy. To that end, we support amendment No. 69, which refers, among other things, to tenants' groups. Our amendment No. 95 would ensure that all local people have a say.
The points have been well made by the hon. Member for Bath. We take the same view as the Liberal Democrats, but actually go further. It would be encouraging to all the organisations and bodies that we list if they were written into the Bill. It is plain common sense.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
Is it in order to make some remarks now on the relationship between social services and housing providers, Mr. Stevenson? If there is not to be a stand part debate, I am not sure when I will find an opportunity to do so.
Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
I hope that I made it clear that the wide-ranging debate on the amendments will obviate the need for a clause stand part debate. It is my intention to deal with new clause 17 separately, which will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to comment on social services.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.
This is what I would call an ``Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all'' set of amendments. There is always a temptation to try to write into the Bill a long list of interested parties, but when one notes the interchangeability of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments, one clearly detects the diligent scribblings of Shelter, the National Housing Federation, RICS and other interested parties. I do not want to be derogatory, but I have a feeling that a hymn sheet has been provided and people are singing from it.
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in identifying those organisations, but he will be pleased to note that I did not use a single word from the hymn sheet. Should he test me, however, I may revert to the hymn sheet for an answer.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
That is typical of Liberal Democrats. They just improvise around work that someone else has done.
There is nothing wrong with the amendments. My attitude to them is like that to some of my daughters' boyfriends: I can see nothing particularly against or in favour of them. I hesitate to say any more about the boyfriends, in case I get into trouble.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
Would the right hon. Gentleman give any room in his house to the amendments?
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
At the risk of irritating someone, I have to say that one has to give a fair amount of room in one's house to one's daughters' boyfriends.
The amendments are tautologous in the sense that strategies cannot be developed without strategic partners. They are designed to bind a local authority to do what it is inescapable for a local authority to do in any case. That does not make them wrong, because it is important that we find out what the Minister means by ``strategy'', which is one of his wonderful words. It conjures up all sorts of wholesome ideas of joined-upness and people thinking together, but the truth is that a strategy can be full of holes. One can put anything on a piece of paper and call it a strategy, when it could just as well be called a series of ad hoc initiatives. Whether it works depends not on its name but on how it is implemented and whether people talk to each other to get the thing done.
The hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rightly highlighted the importance of registered social landlords and housing associations, and especially those that sprang from the 1996 Act, which allowed the formation of housing companies, which was a change, in that local authorities could retain a stakeholding, whereas previous legislation required the transfer to be moved entirely beyond the ambit of local authorities. The great acceleration of transfers followed that piece of legislation.
Birmingham has been circling around a transfer proposal, with a certain amount of agonising, but all its inquiries tend to suggest that there is not really an alternative to a stock transfer. Transfers of between 25,000 and 35,000 houses are becoming quite common. Birmingham, with 94,000 houses, and Glasgow, at roughly the same figure, are the two largest housing providers in the United Kingdom.
It is equally true that a lot of smaller authorities now feel that they cannot escape doing the same. District councils in my constituency include Craven, which covers one of the smallest areas in the country, and Harrogate , which is one of the largest in terms of population. Both are now actively pursuing the idea of stock transfer for precisely the same reason: that the need to spend is outpacing the capability to do so. Even if stock is in relatively good condition, the prospect is that it will deteriorate, not improve, as the years pass, so the maths dictate that transfer is probably the best way to raise the funds needed to make the jump forward and close that gap. At some stage, I expect to be lobbying Ministers on behalf of both of those authorities, one of which is controlled by the Conservatives and the other by the Liberal Democrats, to find a place for them on the programme.
RSLs are now too big to ignore. Home Housing is the largest in the country—larger than all but a handful of local authority providers. The body that I think used to be called North British has followed the fashionable mania for changing its name and is now called Homes for People, or some similarly pathetic name that lacks a certain intellectual toughness. As far as I am aware Bradford and Northern still retains that name, which has a solid ring and indicates vaguely what the organisation does, unlike names like Relate—we have not had the faintest idea of what it does since it changed its name—or, indeed, the Post Office. Registered social landlords, formerly housing associations, have now taken over as the locomotives of the provision and development of social housing. The funding now obviously comes from the private sector and enables the market to be developed.
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but it may be helpful to put it on the record that all the indications are that, by 2004, registered social landlords will have the majority of properties in the sector.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for echoing what I said in an article in The Guardian about a year ago. I realise that writing in The Guardian might be yet another of the faults attributed to me, but never mind—one tries to find someone who is sympathetic and who will pay.
It is true to say that we are witnessing the death of council housing in its classical form. New forms of tenure and new forms of landlord are emerging, and council housing in the old post-war sense is not going to be around for the next generation. We should all rejoice, because what is coming into being is better. The ability to bring in funding from the private sector and the ability to give people more choice are benefits. We should not get stuck on a particular concept and a particular label, because it is so easy for that sort of housing to be stigmatised.
At one time, it was a shorthand election law that the occupants of a privately owned house voted Tory and the tenants of a council house voted Labour. That is no longer true. Some of my best votes come from council houses, and people who live in a really smart private house probably vote Liberal Democrat. The whole electoral arithmetic has been overthrown. The right to buy had something to do with that, but it is certainly not the beginning and end of the story.
We should consider what are the necessary elements of a homelessness strategy. Many local authorities, irrespective of their political colour, will have most of the elements of a strategy in place, but they may not be assembled in the single document that can be labelled ``strategy''. Harrogate council in my constituency provides a good example, because it encompasses a large urban centre in Harrogate town itself and a wide urban hinterland. Harrogate's experience shows that there is less than meets the eye in part II, because it demands a lot of things that are already being done. I am in favour of a large part of part II but it is not ground-breaking; it only pulls together what most local authorities do already.
Harrogate covers a population of 160,000; it is big for a district authority, being spread over a large rural area, including a chunk of the Pennines, as well as the centre of Harrogate. Harrogate itself is characterised by two things; extremely high house prices, because it is a desirable part of the world, and a large pool of low-paid labour. Its industries, hotels, tourism, conference centres and restaurants typically employ people at the bottom end of the earning scale. One thinks of Harrogate as one of those pukka, Oscar Wildey places—like a south coast resort—but in fact it has much poverty, as well as a serious drugs problem.
Harrogate also has a significant homelessness problem, with more than 1,000 presentations a year, but only about 150 acceptances—about 15 or 16 per cent. That happens not because it tells the applicants to push off but because of its strategy of trying to ensure that people are caught before they are declared homeless and have to be housed. The emphasis is on prevention—which underlies what everyone is trying to do—by such measures as negotiations with a landlord or, when necessary or appropriate, with a building society, getting people on housing association waiting lists before they have to be declared homeless, and identifying people susceptible to becoming homeless and ensuring that they have access to the necessary advice.
The authority also maximises affordable housing by attracting capital finance, and tries to target homeless people into it. The town also has good-quality temporary accommodation, particularly in self-contained flats. In such places as Harrogate the two-year limit on temporary accommodation is not a constraint. I doubt that anyone has ever spent two years in temporary accommodation there, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the mechanisms that are in place. That is even less of a problem in big northern cities where there is surplus housing stock. London and some of the south-east present a wholly different picture because of the economic, population and immigration pressures there. Harrogate also leases homes from private landlords. About 45 houses are leased through schemes with the Housing Corporation or housing associations that buy or lease accommodation.
Harrogate should outline all those elements in a document. The strategy is in place, even it if it is not described as a strategy. Housing strategies already exist, because local authorities must do a housing investment programme presentation. We are producing 10-year programmes, and any local authority contemplating a transfer must produce a business plan, which is also in a sense a housing strategy—we will come later to the integration of a housing and homelessness strategy. That requirement is in a sense tautologous because for a homelessness strategy to exist, a housing strategy must be in place. Any local authority that does not see a relationship between the two must be singularly lacking in gumption, as we say in north Yorkshire.
The amendments are important because they give the Government an opportunity to describe the components of a strategy. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Minister will be able to repeat argument A, that if we include all those matters in the Bill there is always a chance that something gets left out that subsequently turns out to be significant, or that the requirements will in any case be met without having to be stated. In this case, I think that that is probably right. We must at some stage trust that people will use common sense. The Minister must tell us how he sees the strategy working and what he thinks are the elements of the strategy, so that local authorities know whether he has spotted something that they, with many years of practice in the field, have not. I look forward to speaking later on the relationship with social services, which is another important matter.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
This has been an important debate to begin our consideration of part II, which deals with homelessness. Since 1977, homelessness legislation has provided a valuable and important safety net for families with dependent children and other vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own. That epoch-making legislation was introduced as a private Member's Bill by a Liberal Member, Stephen Ross, with the support of the then Labour Government, and it has more than stood the test of time. There are provisions to strengthen that safety net later in the Bill.
We must consider at the outset the causes and experience of homelessness, which can be profoundly disrupting, traumatic and damaging. It is vital to ensure that those who suffer homelessness get the help that they need. That is a fundamental responsibility of any civilised society, and we are determined to ensure that there is a safety net to provide that help.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, the Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.