Baroness Thornhill (LD)

My Lords, I am not particularly comfortable talking about my own experiences of homelessness, and I am not going to, but the comments we have heard today prove that it can happen to anybody. I am patron of a brilliant charity in Watford, New Hope, where we know that all too well. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for introducing this debate and for his lifelong persistence in keeping homelessness firmly on the agenda. I, too, start from a position of agreement and entirely share his aspirations behind the call for a national strategy. Like all of us, we also share your frustrations. At a time when we have over 100,000 households living in temporary accommodation in England and councils are spending extraordinary sums simply managing the consequences of homelessness, it is entirely right that we look at homes standing empty. The costs are eye-watering. I am not usually one for statistics, because I can never remember them, but some figures are too striking to ignore. We are spending £2.29 billion a year on temporary accommodation, while more than 300,000 homes stand empty. Frankly, that is bonkers. We are paying a fortune to manage housing failure, while leaving one of the most obvious solutions gathering dust. We are also reliably informed that for the public investment needed to deliver one new-build home, we could apparently bring 5.6 empty homes back into use. If any investor were offered that return on their money, they would snap it up without a second thought. Why are we not doing it? There is also a human cost. For a family living in temporary accommodation, homelessness is not an abstract policy principle or problem. It is a child travelling miles to school or changing schools. It is a parent trying to hold down a job while living out of a suitcase or losing that job. Families are then cut off from the communities and support that they probably used to rely on. There is a neighbourhood cost, too, and you do not hear much about that. Empty properties become eyesores; they attract vandalism, fly tipping and anti-social value, and they certainly undermine pride in your neighbourhood. So, I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on the destination, but perhaps I disagree a little about the route—perhaps I am more in tune with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. In my former role as an elected mayor and now here, one of the lessons I have learned is that it always looks much simpler from Westminster than it does at the other end of the telescope. Bringing back empty homes sounds relatively simple and wonderful, and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made it feel that way. However, in practice, it does not work like that. When I first entered local government, I assumed an empty home was an empty home, but years later I realised that it came with a back story—complications, all the things the noble Lord has said. Usually on some poor officer’s shelf there is a lever arch file several inches thick, and he is trying to wade through it. Properties can be tied down in probate. Owners cannot be traced. Buildings require extensive repairs and families disagree over inheritance. Councils can spend months and sometimes years untangling legal and practical obstacles before any progress is made, and that is where there is a real will. I am proud to say we took on this agenda and the flats above shops agenda from the noble Lord, Lord Young. One instance comes to mind that really was a lightbulb moment for me. A housing officer spent nearly a year pursuing action against a long-term empty property. I had had a petition and everything about it. Notice had been served, everything had been followed but just as we got a court date, the owner, having been notified of the court date, returned. The utilities were off, the property was virtually uninhabitable, but he went round the neighbours, persuading them that he was going to come back and do it up. The judge was convinced—we were not—and the council’s action ground to a halt. I still remember the look of absolute disbelief and total disappointment on that officer’s face. It was very demoralising. That experience taught me a lesson. The problem is not always lack of powers, as I believe was said; it is often the gap between having the powers and being able to use them effectively. We already have a range of powers, and it might be interesting to see what the noble Baroness feels about how we can beef those up. The problem is that they are slow, complex, resource intensive, and require a lot of evidence-gathering, legal processes and definitely officers’ time. Time is important, when councils are facing immense financial pressure, enforcement teams are often smaller than they once were and capacity is restricted, if there is any capacity at all. At the same time, nobody should pretend that 300,000 empty homes are irrelevant to the housing crisis. We should be careful not to think that one more bit of legislation will do the trick. The noble Lord outlined very practically, I have to say, things we could do. I ask the Minister: first, could we make it easier for councils to identify and contact owners? Far too much time is spent on this. Secondly, could we look at speeding up the probate process, which seems very slow, particularly with homes getting trapped following bereavement? Thirdly, we should perhaps adopt a more use it or lose it approach. I am not advocating confiscation, but where a property has stood empty for years, owners should occupy it, rent it out or sell it, or at least demonstrate that they are making genuine progress towards this. A few nights on a camp bed should not be enough to undo many months of hard enforcement work. But fourthly, we need to help owners who genuinely want to do the right thing. Not every owner is a villain. Some have inherited property they cannot afford to repair, some are elderly, and some are simply overwhelmed by the costs involved. That is why I was interested to read the case studies from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and to learn about the work being undertaken in Greater Manchester. I think the common focus there has been practical delivery, working across a larger patch, and dedicated officers working alongside lease and repair schemes to bring homes back into use and, at the same time, reduce temporary accommodation. What appeals to me about that approach is that it is encouragement and enforcement. It is carrot and stick. Some owners need a helping hand; some, quite frankly, need a firm boot. Good councils know the difference. Empty homes are not the whole answer to homelessness, of course not, but they are part of the answer. I support the noble Lord’s intentions wholeheartedly, but my plea to the Minister is: what can be done now to improve the effectiveness of the powers we already have?