Monthly Report for November 2010
Below is a summary of my work in Parliament and in Southampton for the month of November 2010. Click here to read previous reports.
If you'd like to know more about any of the work I've been doing, or if you think there is another issue you think I should be acting on, you can always contact my office.
Erskine Court
I am delighted to report that the Council has agreed it will not now close Erskine Court. This is after a petition was raised by local residents and questions were raised by Coxford Labour Councillors and myself about the appalling way the initial closure notification was handled. I was due to meet with residents to discuss how to take the campaign against the closure forward – in the event our meeting still went ahead, but instead focused on how we could best protect the rights of residents in Erskine and other sheltered blocks in Southampton in the future. I told residents I would continue to work to make sure Erskine Court was treated fairly and equally by the Council, and that the Tory Cabinet member’s (paraphrased) suggestion that residents were going to have to choose between living in a decent home or losing their home was completely unacceptable.
The Port
The Port of Liverpool has submitted a new application for its docks to be allowed to be service turnaround cruises from its publicly funded liner terminal. The last Labour Government turned down such an application on the basis that it would give the terminal an unfair advantage over Southampton, which constructed a similar terminal with no use of public funds. I have written to the Government to press them to uphold this decision.
HMOs
We had a small victory relating to HMO landlord regulations this month. The Tories had been attempting to scrap Labour’s HMO regulations without any public scrutiny or debate. I was able to table a ‘prayer against’ this move, which was accepted the Parliamentary authorities and which forced the government to defend their position in a Parliamentary debate, held yesterday. Although this does not in itself stop the Tories scrapping these protections, it does force them to attempt to justify to the public and the House why they are tearing up measure that communities across the country have been demanding for a number of years.
The Government is now pushing a very much watered-down version of Labour’s HMO planning regulations. Under the current Labour regulations, HMO landlords are now required to apply for planning permission if they want to change the use of a property from a family home into a large Houses in Multiple Occupation. The Tories are watering down this proposal so that:
- There will be no standing requirement for planning permission to be sought- it will only apply to areas as designated by the Council.
- Planning permission will not have to be sought before the conversion takes place; instead it can be withdrawn retrospectively up to a year later if enough local people object.
- If the Council does choose to retrospectively withdraw planning permission, the landlord would be entitled to seek compensation from the Council due to lost income.
- The cost of managing the planning process will be borne entirely by the Council- rather than at present where the landlord and the Council both share the cost.
Councils therefore face a massive administrative, financial and legal liability if they choose to use these powers to say ‘no’ to powerful landlords. It is a pretty clear case of the Tories paying lip service to the idea of HMO regulation, while completely neutering the powers necessary for such regulation to make any tangible difference in local communities.
Funding for Social Housing
In my last report I talked about how I was working to exposed how the new Tory housing ‘incentives’ scheme would result in money being taken away from Southampton and given to leafier towns with lots of open space and little pre-existing social housing. Further research on the incentives scheme being introduced shows it will be almost impossible for Southampton to be a ‘winner’ in the current way the scheme is constructed. It takes quite some skill for the Tories to have come up with a way of funding social housing that is even worse than the current HRA system, but they do appear to have done so. I will be tabling additional questions in Parliament about this in the next month.
Local Impact of Housing Benefit Changes
As part of this report I am publishing up to date figures for how many people in Southampton are likely to be affected by the Government’s proposed changes to housing benefit:
- 1027 people in Southampton aged between 25-35 will lose the support necessary to stay in a flat, and will instead only receive funding necessary to live in a room in an HMO (the housing sector the government has almost completely deregulated). This equates to 15% of the total number of claimants living in private rented accommodation, and will include carers and vulnerable young people.
- At present levels, 1681 people in Southampton are receiving housing benefit and have been receiving Job Seekers Allowance for over 12 months. They would all receive a 10% cut in their housing benefit under the Tory plans. This equates to 66% of local JSA claimants currently receiving housing benefit. There will be no input from Job Centre Plus based on whether or not a claimant has been actively seeking work before their benefit is cut.
The Tories have also cut the level at which Local Housing Allowance will be paid in the future. Labour had set Local Housing Allowance payments as being in line with median local rents. The Tories have now cut this to the 30th decile of rents in an area- effectively meaning that anyone reliant on LHA to cover their housing costs will have to live in some of the lowest quality housing available in an area. Figures have also now been published on how this will affect people in Southampton. The vast majority of people losing out are families living in people in single or 2-bed homes.
|
Numbers losing |
Average loss (£ weekly) |
||||||
Estimated number of LHA recipients losing or notionally losing |
1-bed |
2-bed |
3-bed |
4-bed |
1-bed |
2-bed |
3-bed |
4-bed |
Southampton |
1,180 |
1,160 |
390 |
40 |
-£7 |
-£11 |
-£9 |
-£21 |
Speeches & Questions
In addition this month, I spoke in the debate about the lack of consultation with local people about the review of Parliamentary boundaries which could, for example, result in a large portion of the Isle of Wight being arbitrarily put in with a Southampton constituency, with no space for people from either the Island or Southampton to object. I also asked questions on:
Other engagements
I attended a Q&A with local residents in St Denys on the climate change negotiations in Cancun.
I spoke at a meeting at Lordshill Church on Friday evening about the continuing problems of illegal motorcycle riding in the area, which I will go into in more detail in my next report.
Alan Whitehead
November 2010