Highlighting the ‘utterly shameful’ state of children in temporary accommodation

And it raises issues ranging from the increasingly theoretical six-week legal limit families with children can be placed in bed and breakfasts (B&Bs), to the use of multi-occupancy hostels that have the same shared kitchens and bathrooms but do not count as B&Bs, to inadequate procedures for out-of-area placements.

To focus on just one of the knock-on effects, last week the Children’s Commissioner published research revealing a direct link between the lack of a permanent home and a child’s performance at school. The more times a child moves home while at school, the worse they do in their GCSEs.

Looking at the exam results of children who moved between Reception and Year 11, the research found that 65% of those who lived in one home achieved five GCSE passes, including English and maths.

That proportion fell in pretty much a straight line to 50% for children with three moves, 29% with eight moves and just 11% with 10 moves.

“When you consider that almost 17,000 families with children have been in temporary accommodation for more than five years and 60% of those in London have been there for two years or more, the direct costs to the children themselves are obvious”

These results are shocking, if not entirely surprising, given conditions in temporary accommodation and B&Bs, what can be lengthy journeys to and from school, and the psychological impact of so much insecurity.

When you consider that almost 17,000 families with children have been in temporary accommodation for more than five years and 60% of those in London have been there for two years or more, the direct costs to the children themselves are obvious. But there are wider costs to society, too, of tens of thousands of children not achieving their full potential.

The big question, of course, is what can be done to fix the crisis. It’s one with extra urgency ahead of the Spending Review in June.

In the short term, the answer has to include improving the quality and safety of temporary accommodation.

The HCLG Committee makes a series of recommendations on this, including formalised monitoring and notifications of out-of-area placements, updates to the code of guidance, emphasising safeguarding risks, and limits on the use of ‘non self-contained accommodation’, not just B&Bs.

The MPs also call for more support for local authorities to acquire their own temporary accommodation, possibly including Section 106 stock that housing associations are reluctant to buy.

In the medium term, the government is promising answers in a homelessness strategy that will follow the Spending Review.

But the MPs express frustration at a lack of information from the Inter-Ministerial Group on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping.

So far, it has not published any minutes or progress updates, and it only met twice between November, when it was announced, and February, when the committee heard evidence. Unpromisingly, the Treasury missed the first meeting.

“The committee says the government must ensure that ‘a substantial proportion’ of the 1.5 million new homes it has pledged over the parliament are ‘social and genuinely affordable housing’”

The committee calls for more information, published updates on the group’s work and for the strategy to be published by July, before the summer recess.

But it stops short of recommending what should be in the strategy. There is no call for targets for reducing the number of families in temporary accommodation in general, or for the elimination of B&B use for those with children (as was achieved under a Labour government 20 years ago).

A pre-condition for both must be action to address issues that are increasing the number of homeless families needing temporary accommodation in the first place.

On this, the committee highlights “compelling evidence” that the renewed freeze in Local Housing Allowance is “a false economy” that will lead to more families losing their homes and yet more costs for local authorities. It warns that the impacts could be compounded by cuts in disability benefits.

But, again, it stops short of a firm recommendation to undo the freeze, instead calling for the inter-ministerial group to evaluate the link between welfare reforms and homelessness.

The long-term solution to the temporary accommodation crisis has to be more permanent social homes. Without this, we are accepting that temporary has become semi-permanent.

Here, the committee says the government must ensure that “a substantial proportion” of the 1.5 million new homes it has pledged over the parliament are “social and genuinely affordable housing”. It adds that the upcoming long-term housing strategy must set out how the target will be achieved by tenure.

Surprisingly, though, there is no mention of the need for 90,000 social rent homes a year, a number the committee repeatedly endorsed in previous reports, including when it had a Conservative majority.

Perhaps this is the committee treading softly and using its influence behind the scenes ahead of the Spending Review, homelessness strategy and long-term housing strategy, but sooner rather than later, the government will have to decide where it stands.

Jules Birch, columnist, Inside Housing