3The Bill’s impact on homelessness and implications of the Bill
The wider causes of homelessness and the limits of prevention duties
66.We are confident that the Bill will help to reduce levels of homelessness, and will improve the services delivered by councils. However our report on homelessness made a wide range of recommendations and this Bill does not, and cannot, address them all. Nor can legislation effectively tackle the consequences for homelessness of the wider housing market and levels of rent in the private rented sector. We acknowledge and support the view expressed by the Local Government Association:
Legislative change will only deliver on our ambitions if implemented as part of a coherent, workable, long-term national strategy for ending homelessness. A successful strategy would review the impact of national policy on homelessness trends and bring together local housing, health, justice and employment partners. It would also address the increasing gap between household incomes and rising rents and allow councils to protect and build more affordable homes.54
67.We asked Marcus Jones MP, Minister of State for Local Government, about what steps his Department were taking to address wider structural causes of homelessness. Mr Jones highlighted the work of the Ministerial Working Group which was looking at how the different Government Departments could better work together and gathering examples of best practice from across the country. We welcome his confirmation that the NHS is committed to working with DCLG to address the mental health needs of homeless people.55 We reiterate the recommendation from our homelessness inquiry: we have concluded that the scale of homelessness in this country is such that a renewed, cross-Departmental Government strategy is needed. … All Departments need to contribute to the ending of homelessness by subscribing to a common approach.56
Implementation of the Bill
68.As discussed in paragraphs 17–20, we support the introduction of a new Code of Practice for local authorities to ensure consistently high standards across the country. While we found examples of poor service provision, we have also heard about many positive approaches taken by councils. We note the experience of the new legislation in Wales57, which introduced a duty on Welsh local authorities to provide housing advice and assistance to everyone within their area, whether or not they were homeless or threatened with homelessness. Kate Webb from Shelter told us:
there has been a genuine change of culture in Wales … One of the reasons that was successful in the first place is that the way the legislation was developed was very consensual: charities, local authorities and the Welsh Government were all working together. My concern is that, if you try to impose outcomes through purely the legislation or a code of practice, you do not bring local authorities along with you in the way that you need to.58
69.Salford City Council argued for a similar approach with local authorities, as expert practitioners, being involved in the co-production and oversight of the proposed Code of Practice:
We recognise the scale of the change, particularly in terms of reporting requirements and the need to source and commission accommodation provision. Therefore, we would request an appropriate lead-in time, as took place in Wales. This should be a minimum of 6 months, though we believe that 12 months would be more effective. Delivering this Bill effectively will require new commissioning arrangements and in particular a prolonged period of engagement with the voluntary and community sectors.59
70.The evidence we have heard is clear that successful implementation will depend on close co-operation with local authorities. We recommend that the Department makes a commitment to working with local authorities to develop the Code of Practice.
The financial implications of the draft Bill
71.Many local authorities have expressed concern at the cost implications of the draft Bill. Bedford Borough Council for example argue that:
Using a simple extrapolation model based on the Council’s existing footfall and the range of tools currently available to the Council to prevent and relieve homelessness, the Council would see a tripling of its costs incurred in discharging the duties under the draft bill. This would see an additional £1 million of cost to the Council.60
72.In addition, Bedford Borough Council estimates that its staffing levels would need to increase by 50 per cent and that the cost of the ‘Somewhere safe to stay’ 56 day accommodation duty would be a further £1.8 million per annum.61 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea estimated that the Bill would cost £1.22 million to comply with the new duty to assess, £2.37 million for the duty to help secure accommodation and £2,000 gross per applicant under the ‘Somewhere safe to stay’ duty.62 Given the short timescales to prepare evidence for this inquiry, the cost estimates from local authorities are understandably imprecise, but it is clear that the financial implications for local authorities could be significant. We note also the evidence from Lindsay Megson regarding the current funding of homelessness services:
the homelessness prevention grant used to be a named grant for all local authorities and it is now within a line in the business rates retention scheme. Some local authorities, if we are starting at a funding point and the cost to local authorities, do not see any of that grant at all. We surveyed all 365 local authorities about 18 months ago and found that some local authorities get no grant to prevent homelessness, some get all of it, and most get some but not all.63
73.As discussed in paragraphs 24–25, we welcome comments made by Ministers that the Government will help councils meet the financial burden of the new provisions. We also note that the Department hopes to complete a cost estimate of the Bill before Second Reading.64 We expect that the amendments we have recommended to the draft Bill will reduce the costs of implementation. We urge the Department to complete its costing of the Bill before Second Reading and then to work with local authorities to develop a funding model that reflects local demand.
55 Qq 70–75
56 Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session 2016–17, Homelessness, HC 40, para 90
57 The Housing (Wales) Act 2014
58 Q7 [Kate Webb]
61 Ibid paras 5.6–5.8
62 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (HRB21) paras 4.1–4.8
63 Q48 [Lindsay Megson]
64 Qq 867–87
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
13 October 2016