20/07/2016 House of Commons

Alter. Urgent question, Mr Andy Burnham. I would like to ask the

Home Secretary if she would clarify questions last week on calls for

public enquiry into policing at the Orgreave coking plant in 1984. Last

week, my honourable friend, the Advocate General for Scotland and

said a question on whether the government had decided whether there

will be an enquiry into police actions during the Orgreave minor's

clash in 1984. He explained the previous Home Secretary had been

considering the Orgreave truth and justice campaign submission and the

Independent Police Complaints Commission is working with the CPS

to see whether material from the Orgreave incident is relevant to the

Hillsborough enquiry and whether criminal proceedings will be brought

as a result. The government takes all allegations of police misconduct

seriously and then Home Secretary considered the analysis in detail.

Can tell him I have written to the campaign secretary, Barbara Jackson,

to say I will be happy to meet her and the campaign after the summer

recess. I would also be happy to meet the right honourable gentleman

to discuss this case, because I know it is something he feels strongly

about. It is one of the most important issues and I will consider

the fact very carefully over the summer. I hope to come to a decision

as quickly as possible following that. I promised the Hillsborough

families the truth about the 20 year cover-up. They won't have it until

we also know what happened after Orgreave. A year ago, the IPCC found

senior others as gave all statements, exaggerating violence

from minors to distract from their own use of force, some would say

brutality. So the force that would wrongly blamed Liverpool supporters,

tried to do the same against the miners, five years before. The then

Home Secretary promised a public enquiry because the miners strike

caused deep scars, when in the words of a former Chief Constable, the

police were used as an army of occupation. The campaign has

submitted an application and it was an unexpected announcement last week

it would now be substantially delayed. The Advocate general's

words with ease, the IPCC told Home Office officials if it announced any

action to set up an enquiry relating to Orgreave, it would have an impact

on the Hillsborough investigation. But the deputy chair of the IPCC

says I would like to clarify the IPCC has not taken any position on

whether there should be a public enquiry. It is a decision entirely

for the Home Secretary. I welcome her offer to meet, but it won't

build the right climate if she does not correct the misleading

impression given to Parliament that the IPCC had advised against the

establishment enquiry at this time. Does she accept there is no reason

enquiry should be delayed and in similar situations it is commonplace

for protections to be put in place to manage any risks. Can she see why

the government's actions look like a Home Office manoeuvre to shunt a

controversial issue into the long grass. And this was announced as the

former Home Secretary stood on the steps of Downing Street, Singh to

fight injustice. May be people remember another former Prime

Minister quoting Francis of Assisi on the steps of Downing Street. Will

the Home Secretary do the right thing and restore damaged mistrust

in people who have waited 30 years for the truth and order a public

enquiry into Orgreave? The right honourable gentleman will no this

government has not been slow in looking at historical cases. There

have been Labour governments and Conservative governments since 1984,

but it is this government taking the campaign very seriously. I will not

resile from that, I have told the campaign I will look at the evidence

I have. They submitted it at the end of last year. It is a substantial

file. It is because I take it so seriously that I am not going to

rush. It would be a mistake to do it today. What I'm going to do is look

at it over the summer and meet with the campaign group in September and

reach a decision after that. But he should not allow anybody to think

this means I do not take it seriously. We take it very seriously

on this side of the House and will reach a proper conclusion when I

have looked at all of the evidence. Serve Eric Pickles. The future of

South Yorkshire Police is clearly linked to this. These allegations

are historic, but if you bring them together with more contemporary

problems, it seems to be forced that is dysfunctional. She must look at

the future function of South Yorkshire Police, its management are

not shy away from any fundamental reorganisation. The honourable

gentleman will not be surprised, my right honourable friend will not be

surprised to hear we are doing exactly that. He draws an important

point to our attention and it is that issued the IPCC is looking at.

But I can reassure this House, my right honourable friend and the

right honourable gentleman, the work of the IPCC will not delay the work

I will be doing looking at this particular case. The 1980s was quite

a shocking time in politics. Difficult time to be going up, I

know other members of that will disagree, growing up under Mrs

Thatcher. It was a distressing period for many others. What

happened in Orgreave was one of the most shocking examples of all.

Liberty said there was a riot that day, but it was a police riot.

Michael Mansfield QC said it was the worst example of a mass frame up in

this country, this century. And Alan Billings of South Yorkshire Police

said the police were dangerously close that day to being used as an

instrument of the. They colour the UK Government to go

farther and look at Orgreave. Order. I am grateful, but I am afraid she

has exceeded her time. Order. We are grateful. We really must establish

principal that a time limit is a time limit on a you Tube. I do not

want to single her out, but it was too long. Forgive me. -- UQ. I

understand the point, it is about the crossover of police behaviour on

the Hillsborough and Orgreave incidents. She raises an important

point and is right that there are serious allegations to be addressed

and that is what the IPCC will be looking at. We will also be making

sure that the incident particularly Orgreave on the area she has raised

but carefully examined. Thank you. Can we also be assured by my

honourable friend that any investigation that takes place will

hear evidence from police officers that were allegedly injured by

missiles whilst doing their duty in allowing people to lawfully go to

work. He is right. This cannot be a one-sided enquiry for investigation.

I will make sure that we will look at both sides of this. But I must

tell him that there are some serious allegations to be considered. One of

the things that occurred in the Hillsborough enquiry was the ability

of my honourable friend and other people to expose the fight that the

police were right and similar things about similar incidents. The South

Yorkshire Police, as has already been explained, they did exactly the

same Orgreave. I went there. And I saw for myself. And it was one-way

traffic by the police. And then the same statements over and over again.

Written for each of these different minors. So I hope she's not going to

be hanging about very long with this. There was a promise made and

the last Home Secretary made the link between the two. Let's have

some justice for Orgreave. -- the miners. He is right to ask for truth

and justice. That is why a contact the -- I contacted the campaign

leader to ensure we have a meeting in September. I am not hanging

around on this. This is one of the most important items in my in tray.

And I will look at the thing he raised today. I welcome her to her

new position and I welcome the urgent question from the gentleman.

I back up what he has just said and I have said before at the end of the

Hillsborough verdict that the South Yorkshire Police does a disservice

to the hard-working officers who put themselves on the front line. I

appreciate that my right honourable friend is taking time over the

summer to consider it. Can I also ask her to consider reorganising the

police and remove the name South Yorkshire Police? I will tell my

friend that has been new leadership that will address issues within

South Yorkshire and the incoming Chief Constable will have in place a

long-term package of support, comprising a number of subject

experts. They are aware of the damage that has been done and that

may be one of the issues they consider. What I think is most

important is to have clear leadership to deal with the legacy

of difficulties. I welcome the Home Secretary to her new position and I

wish her well. It is not unreasonable for her to want to take

time in the second stanza is to consider this. But this is not going

to go away. While this might relate specifically to South Yorkshire, it

has implications for the credibility of policing right across the

country. Does she accept that this is something which is wholly

exceptional and will need a wholly exceptional resolution? He makes an

important point. The point I made earlier about historical cases

doesn't make it feel like there is a series of issues and allegations

that need dealing with. And I hope he will take some comfort from the

fact that this government and the former Home Secretary have a

reputation for not shying away and for addressing these issues. And I

will make sure that we will continue to have that reputation. My father

was a messed Midlands policeman in the 1980s and spent some days

policing at Orgreave. -- West Midlands policeman. Where there is

police malpractice, it must be dealt with effectively. Does the Home

Secretary recognise the concerns of many serving and retired police

officers at what they perceive as a political campaign with a

predetermined outcome? He raises an important point and the answer to

that is why I will take my time to come to what I feel will be a fair

answer. I will look at all the information. Nothing has been

prejudged. There are serious allegations that have been made, but

I will look at both sides. There is a strong thread between Orgreave and

Hillsborough. There is a parallel with Shrewsbury as well. The only

way we can disprove political motivation is to have a full

independent enquiry. Get on with it and just do it. I thank the

honourable gentleman for his view, but I would repeat that it would be

the wrong thing to do for me too, just get on with it. I want to look

at the evidence. This has to be driven by evidence. The campaign has

spent six months pulling together a substantial package and body of

evidence. I will not ignore the work that they have done. I would take a

careful look at all of it. I'm really concerned at the language

being used already by the Right Honourable Lady with regards to the

Orgreave incident. In the dispatch box, she just classified the

incident as "A minor's clash." But she likes to clarify those words? --

the miners clash. What I think is important is to make sure that we

look at all the evidence. What I have had a look at all the evidence,

I will have the opportunity to come back and describe it as what it

really was when we reached a conclusion. Orgreave is in my

constituency and I still have people come to my surgery in tears reliving

the horror when they went that their families to peacefully picket. The

violent abuse they suffered, the via media campaign afterwards, please

will be Home Secretary give them justice and peace by having a public

enquiry. The honourable lady makes a passionate case and she always does

when she campaigns. And this is why I spoke to the campaign group, my

office did this morning. I will be seeing them in September. I do

appreciate the level of distress and hurt and historic anger that is part

of this case, which is why will take it very seriously. I bought the

campaign with my honourable friend down to see the Home Secretary over

one year ago. It was therefore unexpected and unwelcome to hear

that after all this, she was still waiting for the investigation is to

be concluded. The Shadow Home Secretary raised an important

question. Will they correct the record now. And when will she make a

decision? I do recognise this has been a long time in coming. The

incident was in 1984. The then Home Secretary met with the campaign

group in July last year. Six months later, they came with the evidence.

So we have had it since the end of last year. I have decided I will

look at this. It is substantial. I will look at it over the summer and

I will look at it -- will meet with the campaign group in September. I

will come to a decision as soon as I can after that. Does the Home

Secretary recognise that Orgreave is a scandalous episode that we will

not get to the bottom off, unless we get to the top of it? It is in that

light that many people are suspicious of any possible denial of

an enquiry. I would say that I know about the concerns he refers to,

when he refers to the top of it. That is what the IPCC focuses on.

Looking at the connection with Orgreave and Hillsborough. So I will

not shy away from looking carefully at wherever there are links or where

ever there has been wrongdoing. When Orgreave happened, -- while it

happened a while ago, there are still problems with the police. May

I thank for setting up a review. Will she now commit to support the

IPCC in implementing the issues that the pier review identified. And will

she have a look at the issues that the pier review has raised. I thank

him for raising that important question. He is right. We hope there

will be progress and we will be following it under Dai Jones very

carefully. My colleague the police minister has already said he will be

going to see them over the summer. So we take very seriously the

improvements they have said they will make. The Home Secretary has

said she is going to make a decision in the autumn. As chair of the

all-party group on the Hillsborough disaster and on behalf of my

colleagues, we spent many hours talking with her predecessor and the

IPCC to understand the consequences. Can I ask her if she will commit to

speak to the Prime Minister and learned those lessons and commit to

meeting extensively with members of this house to discuss the event at

Orgreave? I can give the honourable later that commitment. I have

already said I will meet with the gentleman who raised this question.

And also any other colleagues, I will meet with them to make sure I

am informed and up-to-date by this whole issue and the campaign that

has happened so far. I think it is important that not all police

officers are tarred with the same brush at Orgreave. I have spoken

with those who did not cooperate. How does she suggests I feel that

evidence into her? I am grateful for him raising that. It is an issue

being raised by my friend here in reference to his father. We must

make sure that not everybody is tarred. I will be delighted to

receive from him any information that would help to reach a decision

and be part of the enquiry that I'm looking at in September. Border.

Presentation of Bill. -- order. Where is he? He's not here. Better

late than never. UK International trade and investment agreement

ratification Bill. What day? Friday the 28th of October 2000 and 16.

Thank you. Presentation of Bill. -- October 2000 and 16. -- October 20

16. Friday the 2nd of November 2000 and 16. Thank you. Order. We come

now to the ten minute rule motion. Caroline Lucas.

I beg to move leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the

Secretary of State to introduce proportional representation. Reduce

the voting age to 16 in all voting in the UK and referenda. I am

introducing this bill today because our electoral system is broken and

we need to address some of the reasons why. As a country, we pride

ourselves on strong commitment to democracy, but the majority of votes

up and down the land simply do not count. Power is held by a small

minority and the voting system upholds the status quo. We may be on

the path to leaving the EU, but those who were promised they would

be given back control simply will not have it without having

meaningful electoral reform. The currents on representative voting

system is doing long-term damage. It manifests itself in phenomena like

the widespread lack of trust and faith in public servants and the

growth of what some have called with already and overtones post-truth

politics. Too many constituents are disillusioned, disaffected and

disengaged and continuing to deny them a voice in decisions that

affect us all, perpetuate the problems. That is exactly what

happens under our first past the post voting system. A system where

votes are not all equal because unless you live in one of the small

number, heavily targeted marginal seats, your vote doesn't count. The

electoral reform Society has described the 2015 general election

as, the most disproportionate in electoral history. With this

government elected on just 24% of the eligible voter. First past the

post has a long record of failing to deliver governments but command

genuine majority support. In 1997, Labour gained 43.2% of the total

votes, but 163% of seats at Westminster. The combined number of

votes for the Tories and Lib Dems represented 47.5% of the total

votes, 4% more than Labour. But between them they got 32% of the

seats available at Westminster. Not since 1931 has a Prime Minister won

a majority of the vote to match his or her majority in the Commons.

First past the post creates seats so safe, some incumbents are so relaxed

as to be almost horizontal. This complacency is matched by

disillusionment amongst voters. How does it engage people in the

political process if large numbers are driven to vote tactically,

rather than voting for what they want, since so many campaign

leaflets are always reminding us, this party cannot win in this area.

It is an interesting fact, MPs in save seeds were twice as likely than

those with the smallest majorities, to be found abusing the expenses

system. In the 1950s, people either voted Labour or Conservative. But

the proportion of people voting for the two main parties have fallen

from 97% down to 67%. Members of the big three, and 2015 they got 24.9%,

nearly a quarter, the biggest share since 1945. People voted differently

now. We urgently need a voting system that is updated to reflect

that. My bill would introduce proportional voting system. There

are two main systems, one is the additional member system because it

retains the constituency link that most MPs value enormously. But I

have deliberately not specified which system because it is the

principle I am seeking to establish at this stage. All voting systems

have advantages and drawbacks, but none so mind-bending the public

cannot cope with their complexities, despite the many detractors of PR

like to claim. They forget the voters manage a PR system for the

London assembly and the transferable vote for European elections. It

demonstrates the lack of respect for voters, that the disproportionate

first past the post system perpetuates. Voters are not stupid.

They know when they are being patronised. It is deeply insulting

to deny them a fair vote on the basis they would not know how to use

it. The voters rejected the alternative vote system in 2011. AV

is not PR. Under PR there is a simple relationship of cause and

effect for the voter. If you vote for a candidate, you increase his or

her chances of getting elected. If you vote for party you increase the

entitlement seats. Then you achieve more representation for your views.

First past the post does not deliver seeds look like votes that have been

cast, but PR does. Winner takes all system, but the Conservatives only

have 24% of the electorate is not sustainable. The Greens quadrupled

their share of the vote nationally to 1.1 million votes in 2015 and got

one seat. Ukip told 3.8 million seats. They just got one seat. The

SNP, who I am glad to call my friends, polled 1.4 million and they

won 56 seats, even they would agree is disproportionate. Which is why

they are here in such force and I welcome that. Changing the voting

system will not necessarily have changed the overall outcome, but

that is not the central point. The main reason for introducing PR is

making every vote count and I believe encouraging more people to

come out to vote because they know their vote matters. It would see an

increase voter turnout. Some people say people aren't interested in

politics, but everyone is interested in the state of their local schools

and whether they have a local hospital. Whatever your take on the

EU referendum, it demonstrates if you give people a say they can be

very political. Citizens who feel they can be genuine agents for

change. I also anticipate under PR would return a parliament which

better reflects modern Britain. Only 29% of MPs are women, it is still

not right when women make up over half of the adult population. Other

minorities are still underrepresented. Under PR, MPs

cannot just rely on the vote of their tribe. They are forced to

reach out across the party divide to the wider electorate. Two more women

and so on. Hopefully that means traditionally excluded groups

standing for election. Proportional representation is about fairness and

that is why my bill puts PR hand-in-hand with weaving 16 and

17-year-olds the vote. 16-year-olds are considered old enough to enter

into marriage, civil partnerships, pay tax and National Insurance,

joined the Armed Forces, a political party or trade union. Surely they

should help elect the MPs that make decisions over these things. 64% of

registered voters went to the polls in the EU referendum, compared to an

estimated 52% in the last general election. Increased awareness of

voter registration, combined with a vote that counts, mean young people

come out in large numbers to voice their opinions. The UK was one of

the first countries in the world to lower the voting age from 21 to 18,

but is trailing behind Brazil, Argentina and Austria. Unless you

live in Scotland, which has blazed the trail with a more inclusive

system by giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the independence

referendum. Those young people need a say on all decisions that affect

their future. We need a quality between 16 and 17-year-olds in

Scotland and the rest of the UK. Mr Speaker, if democracy is about

fairly representing the views of the people, then right now our current

democratic system is failing. Integer, with the government's plans

boundary changes, it could get worse. PR would bring fairness as

well as help tackle some of the reasons why people don't vote, the

idea their vote doesn't make a difference. People opted to take

back control of our democracy, but unless we reform the electoral

system they still have virtually no control over who runs the country or

who represents them in Parliament. Much has been said about the

importance of reversing the alienation and the neglect felt in

parts of our country which this EU referendum result laid bare. I

believe as part of ringing the country back together, electoral

reform and votes at 16 have a key role to play. A way to demonstrate

to people that every vote they cast is important and yes, their voice

does matter and indeed it has been heard. Question is the honourable

member have leave to bring in the bill, Mr John Penrose. This bill

would do two things. Reducing the voting age has been repeatedly

discussed and rejected a sizeable margins in the Commons in the last

12 months. In multiple stages are the local government Bill and the EU

) and Bill. I will go over that same arguments here. The bill would also

change the voting system. While I acknowledge and respect the

honourable lady's energy over this cause, I feel it may harm democracy,

rather than help it, which is is the opposite of what wants to achieve.

We held a referendum on whether to change our voting system in 2011.

Collectively, we voted against change. We decided to keep our tried

and trusted first asked the post system by hefty margin of more than

2-1. The proposed bill that claims to be about improving our democracy

starts with the proposal to ignore a clear democratic decision. The

people have spoken, and by a majority of more than six million

and have decided they want none of it. Some would argue that the 2011

referendum result shouldn't count. It asked the wrong question about

the alternative vote system, which is not technically in proportion

system at all. If only they could be allowed to rerun the poll, slightly

different question somehow, a completely different result could be

achieved. Let's ignore for the moment, Mr Speaker, the concept of

giving way... In exchanges on ten minute rule motions. He should be

aware. Mr John Penrose. I am happy to pick this up with the honourable

gentleman if this helps. Let's ignore the likelihood of a 6 million

vote majority being overturned by a small change in the question.

Consider for a second, dozens of different forms of proportional and

alternative voting system, whether it is open lists, supplementary

votes or transferable votes, every different version has its own

passionate and committed band of dedicated enthusiasts. Some of them

are reputable organisations. Others, lonely obsessives blogging furiously

in the privacy of their parents' spare bedrooms. But whichever, it is

not possible we should ignore the AV referendum result just because it

did not propose precisely their preferred flavour of new voting

system. The fundamentally misses the point. Not only did voters reject

changing our tried and trusted first past the post system, but they will

take a dim view at the prospect of any further referendums in future as

dozens of other organisations due to argue the last poll didn't oppose

their favourite voting system and demand a rerun with a different

question. Even worse, this hill comes at a time when a large

proportion of the population is more concerned about the more recent EU

referendum, where there was a narrow, although still decisive,

majority vote. I am not alone in getting hundreds of e-mails from

people who don't like the results of the EU vote and loudly demanding a

rerun. A vote in parliament, lawsuit, anything to change the

results. I telling people they can ignore the results of the even more

decisive AV referendum in 2011, this bill would encourage people to think

they can ignore the results of the EU referendum, telling people do

they stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly enough, drags

it might not actually mean Brexiter at all. Our democracy is already

fragile with trust in politics, politicians and election turnout

already low. I cannot think of anything more calculated to stoke

the fires of anti-political anger, than acting as if the will of the

people, clearly expressed in just one, but two separate referendums on

different issues, might not be drastically binding or sovereign at

all. So please, enough already. This bill ignores the expressed will of

Parliament which has rejected lowering the voting age many times

and it ignores a thumping referendum verdict against changing the voting

system in 2011 as well. We are about to abolish a layer of proportionally

representative is of MEPs will EDU. Now is not the time to replace them

with something else. The people have spoken and although I understand and

respect, the answer is not to her liking, I urged her pleas, respect

its democratic power and leave the issue alone for a long, long time.

Order. The question is the honourable member have leave to

bring in the bill. As many as are of the opinion say "aye". To the

contrary, "no". Division. Clear the lobby.

The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the

bill. The tellers for the ayes. Tellers for the know is that Craig

-- noes. Border. Order. -- order. The ayes to

the right, 74. The noes to the left, 81. The ayes to the right, 74. The

noes to the left, 81. So the noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock.

Order. We now come to the motion in the name of the Leader of the

Opposition on reductions in housing benefit for people in supported

housing. To move the motion, I call Mr Graham Morris. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. Before I move the motion in my name and in the names of my

friends, could I take the opportunity to welcome the member

for Ashford to his post and the members of his team? Mr Speaker, six

months ago, my right honourable friend led an Opposition Day debate

on the government's decision to cap housing benefit support for

vulnerable people in specialist housing. The decision will affect

elderly citizens, Armed Forces veterans, those with disabilities,

people with learning difficulties, and people with mental health

problems. It will hit homeless people and it will jeopardise the

safety of people fleeing domestic violence. Following pressure from

the benches on this side of the house, and I might say concerns also

raised by members on the government's side, and there was a

very interesting debate that was led by the honourable member for Waveney

last week. There are concerns that are shared by members of the

government party and there has been quite a campaign mounted across the

country by community groups and housing providers. I was pleased

that the Minister agreed to delay the implementation of the cap. But I

must press ministers now to go one step further. They must reverse

their decision to slash housing benefit for a huge range of

vulnerable people living in supported housing. And I would ask

this question, of ministers and members of the government party,

what kind of country would we be in if we abandon the most vulnerable in

our society? What kind of message will it send, not just to the

country and to vulnerable people, but to observers around the world

about the priorities of this government? What credibility would

be left for the outgoing Prime Minister with his repeated assertion

that the government would not balance the books on the backs of

the poorest? Unless they reversed this destructive decision, that will

be precisely what they are doing. I am willing to give way to the right

honourable gentleman, if he is prepared to say he is going to

reverse the decision and make an announcement that we are all hoping

for. Mike... -- my... It would be a damning legacy for the former Prime

Minister and a broken promise for those who could least afford it. But

the decision isn't just detrimental to the most vulnerable members of

society. If we are looking at it in financial terms, it makes no sense

either. I will give way. I thank him for giving way. Would he not agree

with me that it has become more difficult for people to get housing

benefit, in some instances, it might not be adequate?

I am grateful to my honourable friend. Indeed, that is the case.

The groups I originally listed, these are some of the most

vulnerable groups in society, they are people that should be protected

and are people that require supported housing. If the government

continues on its course, some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable

people will be further disadvantaged and the actual cost to the taxpayer,

to the Exchequer will be more. It doesn't make financial sense and

leaves the providers of supported housing in an invidious position. I

know housing providers, because I have met many of them, breathed a

collective sigh of relief when a decision to support was delayed

pending a review, but they are left in a precarious addition with this

hanging over the services they provide. As my right honourable

friend, the member for Wentworth pointed out in a debate in this

House on the 27th of January, unless the government reverses this

pernicious proposal, 156,000 units of existing supported and sheltered

housing may have to close. I will give way. I am grateful. I have

received a letter from the new Charter Housing group that operates

social housing in the tame side part of my constituency. They hit the

nail on the head in this letter, where they say as a result, they

will not have the income to sustain the provision of supported housing.

Then they will inevitably see the closure of some schemes. Many of the

supported and sheltered schemes in tame side become financially

unviable. Isn't that exactly what is going to happen up and down the

country if these cuts continue? I am grateful to my honourable friend for

making that point in a concise way. A member of the government party

from his position is saying, they don't know. But it is absolutely

clear and the point I am trying to make is the housing providers need

certainty of their income stream before they can plan for new

provision. It is a reasonable point and not beyond the understanding of

ministers with a financial background. I will give way. Is in

not true it is important to do this review with housing benefit is being

rolled into universal credit and this scaremongering there is going

to be cuts, people don't actually know what the outcome is going to

be. Let's have a constructive discussion during this review and

give certainty to the sector. I do thank the honourable lady for the

intervention, but I must, with respect, point out the decisions of

government must be based around evidence. It would be sensible

before embarking upon a plan and a policy to look at that evidence

objectively and scientifically. If the honourable lady wanted expert

opinion, I am happy to give that" the Chief Executive of the National

Housing Federation, David all, who met with the then Housing Minister

on the 18th of December last year. This is an expert in the field, he

said the impact of the local housing cap will be stark and make it

difficult for any housing associations to develop new

supported housing. He also said providers across the country will be

forced to close schemes. There is plenty of evidence of that island I

am sure honourable members on both sides of the House have had

representations from housing associations and housing providers,

and indeed... I will give way. I am grateful. He does accept he

understands there is a research project looking at this evidence but

the conflicts in this motion on his order Pater, says the government

intends to cut housing benefit for vulnerable people. It is pure

scaremongering. It is a matter of fact and it is a chicken and egg.

Surely you review the evidence before you announce a decision and

then put it on hold. The review, I believe, was started in 2015,

perhaps the Minister can correct me. Why are we still were baiting --

waiting for the results of the review. Why did the Chancellor make

a statement which had huge implications for some of the most

vulnerable people living in supported housing, without looking

at the evidence first. I will give way this once. I do hope in his

speech he will talk about the period of the 20 years prior to this review

weather had me review under the many years under the Labour government,

when no review happened, how housing benefit was being spent. During the

last debate, they didn't know how much money was being spent, whether

it was effective. Isn't the government right to conduct this

review and then come forward with those proposals and he is

scaremongering. I do think we have to deal with the position we now

find ourselves in. Demand for supported housing has changed and

increased dramatically. There is a million people relying on food

banks, which certainly wasn't the case ten years ago. We have a

problem now with people suffering from mental health problems and

learning difficulties. We know we have got a debt to our armed

services personnel, the veterans, many of whom have post-traumatic

stress disorder and need supported living. There are new factors we

need to take account of. But surely it is the job of the government to

commission the studies. My honourable friend, my right

honourable friend and in the other place, the Noble Lord Beauchamp of

Newcastle, has tabled a whole series of questions I got the answer that

the ministers don't know. It is an indictment of ministers who are

supposed to compile evidence -based on decisions. Just looking at the

advice of professionals, the National Housing Federation estimate

a staggering 80% of the total existing plans new build... The

honourable member is shaking his head. . Won't be built. It means in

practical terms, 9270 specialist homes... I will tell you why it is

because the honourable gentleman is chuntering, he is sceptical. The

reason is, the reason is, the reason is they need certainty and without

certainty they cannot proceed. Often raising the funding for these

schemes... I can see the Minister nodding in agreement, they need

certainty in going to the market to fund these schemes and where there

is uncertainty, they cannot raise the funding. And they cannot, as a

reasonable organisations, they cannot reasonably go on to build the

supported housing units. Everyone in the House has agreed that we need

them. There is another fact, this means there is a knock-on effect in

the construction industry and jobs that would have been created won't

now happen. It is an important sector, which should be growing it,

not allowing it to contract. At a time when house-building outside of

London remains in the doldrums, this will be another set back for the

industry and the economy. How on earth can ministers expect supported

housing providers in this sector to continue? And indeed, when ministers

note spending cuts and other policy decisions have already hit people

living in supported schemes, in supported housing schemes. Supported

housing provides vital help for tens of people -- tens of thousands of

people across this country. They play a crucial role in providing

safe and secure homes with support for people to live independently and

for others to get their lives back on track. As I mentioned, it

includes supporting ex-service men and women to find a stable home,

including those suffering from post-traumatic troubles, mental

health, as well as physical disability needs. Can I remind the

House that we have an Armed Forces covenant and that sets out the

relationship between the nation, the government and the Armed Forces. It

recognises the nation as a whole and this House in particular has a moral

obligation, debt of honour to the members of the Armed Forces and

their families. It establishes how they should be treated and how we

should expect to treat them. But Madam Deputy Speaker, if ministers

don't do a U-turn today, I am an eternal optimist, I am a Sunderland

supporter... We have escaped four times! If we don't get a U-turn

today, they will be breaking the covenant with our veterans and those

who have given so much in service to their country. In addition to

ex-service men and women, many older people rely on supported housing to

maintain their independence. These are elderly citizens who have worked

all their lives, paid taxes, only to find in the autumn of their lives,

the government is turning their back on them. Personally, I think it is

morally indefensible and a betrayal of a generation that gave us the

welfare state and the National health service. Victims of domestic

violence, I know it is a particular issue some of my honourable friends

are going to speak about later in the debate, but this is another

important group. Over a period of time, I know a number of members,

not just on our side, but on the government side, have raised

concerns about the closure of homes for victims of domestic violence. I

understand dirty for at least such establishments have closed. I am

advised by housing associations in my own region, all eight are at risk

from closure, including the one in my constituency, if this... I will

give way. I thank the honourable gentleman. He is talking about

domestic violence refuges. Isn't it true this government committed ?40

million in the Autumn Statement for services for those suffering

domestic violence, tripling the funding from the past four years.

Doesn't he welcomed that? I will in a moment, but can I quickly answer

that and then I will quickly take a couple of interventions. I do

welcome the government's commitment for those, the problem for that

specific support. The problem is, the hostels, the establishments, the

places of safety are disappearing. We need places of safety mostly for

women, but also for some men, who have potentially suffered violence,

some of whom have suffered threats of death. If, in the meantime, if

these establishments close, I think it would be a terrible indictment on

the government if that is allowed to happen. I will give way. I wonder if

my honourable friend realises the money allocated by the government,

the 40 million that is yet to be allocated and the 10 million which

was the gift before the election, the bid is written to allocate that

money to refuge, were put in with sustainability plans based on

housing benefit at the current rate it is and the government signed off

on every single one of those plans. Then dishonestly, went back on it. I

am grateful for that intervention and it is very instructive. I will

give way. I'm grateful, but I'm sure he will agree with the concerns

expressed to me by many agencies that arrangements for abuse

sufferers under the age of 35, when they are moving out of refuges, may

put a big tins at risk. I completely agree. This is a very real concern

that doesn't just affect the constituencies of honourable members

on this side of the House, but the constituencies of honourable members

on all sides of the House. I shudder to think of what the consequences

could be if these facilities are allowed to close. It would be a

simple matter for the Minister to come to the dispatch box and

announce they will do a U-turn in relation to supported housing. I

think the whole House and the country would breathe a collect a

sigh of relief. Homeless people, another group are an additional

defenceless and vulnerable group, who can and do benefit from

supported housing. Supported housing for homeless people with complex and

portable needs, such as mental health problems, the supported

housing can help them make the transition from life on the streets

into a settled home. It can help them with education, training, life

skills and normal Sosa lies Asian. It helps homeless people in

desperate circumstances to stabilise their lives and assist them into

employment and a stable future. In short, it brings dignity back into

homeless people's lives and enables them to fully participate into

society again. It can provide huge savings for the criminal justice

system. There has already been a rise in

rough sleeping since the coalition came to power in 2010. I think this

has been caused by a number of factors. Not least the impact of

rising rents, cuts to benefit allowances, particularly affecting

younger people, and reduction of services that local authorities can

offer. I think unless the government has a rethink in relation to be

housing benefit system we are considering today, we will see a

further rise in homelessness. And the inherent cost to the Treasury

and society mustn't be pushed to one side. Our ministers -- our ministers

seriously suggesting that this country cannot provide vital

assistance to homeless people? I've heard government ministers waxing

lyrically about the importance of mental health provision and I

absolutely agree with them. I think it should be a priority and they

have said it must be given a higher priority. That people are

significant mental health needs are often have to utilise supported

housing. A point that was made by the member for Waverley in the

German debate in order to stabilise their lives and live more

independently. If their rhetoric means anything, ministers must not

proceed with these plans. Also, people with learning disabilities

also need supported housing. I must declare an interest, because I have

an association with different associations. The previous Minister

may take up these points. So if they are serious about helping people

with learning disabilities and difficulties and exercise choice and

control over their lives, they cannot possibly implement these

cuts. I will give way. I thank him. I remember that meeting. It was that

meeting that made it so clear why this review cannot be rushed. There

are so many unique and different challenges that have to be supported

through supported housing. It is right and proper that the government

does not rush, but crucially make sure that the support remains in

place. One of the speakers from the YMCA has said they have welcomed the

action to protect supported housing. We cannot rush this, because buses

were mistakes will happen. I thank him for his intervention. -- that is

where mistakes will happen. But I must say surely it is a basic

principle that we compiled the evidence and look at it and make an

assessment before we decide? But the government have announced this and

that is what has introduced the uncertainty. That is why schemes

have been cancelled and housing providers are giving notice of their

intention to close facilities. So I think there is a basic principle

that needs to be applied. Does it really need to take 19 months to

have an impact study on which the government can basic policy? I'm

going to make a little progress. I know that lots of vulnerable and

right honourable members want to contribute and I do not want to

stifle their contributions. -- honourable. Can I remind the

Minister that the government's own agency, the home communities agency

has a net positive financial benefit of around ?640 million for the UK

taxpayer every year. So, rather than cutting provision for supported

housing, the government should be looking at expanding it and

improving it. The National Housing Federation have already calculated

there is a current shortfall of 15,640 supported housing places. So

there is already considerable pressure on the sector. I did

mention some of the reasons earlier. Local authorities and housing

associations, charities and other providers in the sector really want

to deliver the supported housing the people of this country need.

Delivering this ambition is being made virtually impossible, because

the government and made the operating environment so uncertain.

Incredibly, in last year 's Autumn Statement, the then Chancellor, who

introduced the cap on housing benefit to local housing allowance

did this about the government actually knowing the impact it would

have. And my right honourable friend highlighted this point when he spoke

last January. And he pointed out, before the debate, he had asked

ministers for evidence about the impact of the decision, specifically

he had asked the Minister for Housing and planning. I suspect...

The Minister says "Not me". Perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps it was one of

his colleagues. He asked how many elderly people would be affected. He

asked how many women fleeing from domestic violence would be affected

and young people with mental health problems and people leaving care and

the Minister was not able to provide an answer. -- and people with mental

health problems. So if he does not know, how can we expect them to make

a decision? It is absolutely vital that we have this information at

hand and make an informed decision. If they do not know what a profound

impact on their decision is going to have an providers and people who

depend on the services, and it seems they still do not know, unless they

are not answering questions,. To be fair, ministers did commissioned a

review, that was back in January 2000 and 15. Even though the review

hadn't reported on its findings at the time of the last Autumn

Statement, the Chancellor piled on regardless. Six months ago, eye was

assured it would be ready earlier this year. So did they know what the

impact of their decision would be when the Chancellor included it in

his Autumn Statement? They did not know at the impact of their decision

would be when the issue was debated, that's for sure, in this house six

months ago. So it begs the question, what is happening and when will we

know? When it comes to making policy, these ministers are old

hands at making policy in an evidence free zone. The use of

evidence to develop policy seems to be an alien concept to government

and I would have thought it would be the natural order of things. It is

something of a travesty. Although the evidence review seems to have

ground to a halt, ministers cannot claim to be completely ignorant.

After all, the providers of supported housing have made their

feelings known. Teams will have met with charities and providers. We

have met with them regularly and they have made their views plain.

One said that housing providers will be forced to close. And he explained

why rent in supported housing a higher. He pointed out the

uncertainty of the future approach and how it is leading to

underdevelopment or cancellations. And also delays in investment and

development. I will give way. He is the most generous. He mentioned an

evidence free zone, but so far all I have noted is continuous references

to the national how did -- National Housing Federation. There are more

voices than that. Isn't this about taking on those voices in discussing

and gathering information. So it is not an evidence free zone. I am

grateful to the Minister. I'm sorry... I'm sure it is a matter of

time. Terribly confusing. I am grateful. I'm grateful for the

member. He is right. A plethora of housing providers. I have had

evidence from many. Various Housing associations, the National Housing

Federation itself. Pardon? Women's eight. And they have all raised

concerns about supported housing in particular sectors. -- Women's Aid.

I haven't listed supporting members, but there is a thread that brings

together. Before he finishes that long list, can I remind him that the

YMCA are desperately concerned about these proposals and I think we

should place on record that concern. I cannot believe anyone in this

house wishes to destroy all the good work they have undertaken. I am

grateful to him for pointing that out. What an important role they

play in providing supported accommodation for young people,

particularly for people who are leaving care for people in the

younger age bracket. So I do think it is important that we look at the

evidence. I do not think the sums add up. I know that ministers seem

to be drawn to an evidence free policy area. Surely it must be

obvious to them that a local discretionary scheme will not work.

Previously, ministers have said that discretionary schemes can assist to

mitigate. But that does not alleviate the uncertainty. Providers

of supported housing need certainty in the rent stream to fund the cost

of managing the schemes and service their own charges for developing

them in the first place. I think any reasonable person would know that

you cannot rely on a fluctuating income stream to service the cost of

a home. So if they do persist with this ham-fisted plan, listening

supported housing schemes will close. New supported schemes will be

cancelled and some of the most honourable people will be left to

fend for themselves. -- listed supported housing schemes. The new

Prime Minister talked about the Conservative Party being the nasty

party. She said she wanted a party that works for everyone. The

government has an opportunity today to prove that the Prime Minister

meant what she said seven days ago. If the newly appointed ministers

refuse to listen to reason and proceed with these callous cuts,

they will demonstrate that the Conservatives have not really

changed. And they deserve the nasty label. I commend this to the house.

The question is as on the order paper. Mr Damian Green. Thank you.

It is an unexpected pleasure to be back at this spot box. And can I

also thank the honourable gentleman for his welcome to me and my new

ministerial team. And can I say at the outset that I understand the

concerns that he has expressed from members on all sides in this debate

and previous debates. This is clearly a hugely important issue and

is a hugely sensitive issue and is a hugely difficult issue. Which is why

I welcome this debate today. Can I start... Before I want to move on to

the principles that I will implement when taking this decision, I will

respond to a couple of points from the man from the Labour Party. I do

agree with him that it relieves pressure on other public services.

It does perform a hugely important job. Can I also say that is

precisely why I am considering very carefully the costs and benefits of

supported housing as a whole. He asked the two things in his

speech. First of all he asked me to change the policy now. Secondly, he

asked us to take the evidence first and then take a decision. I can

either take one of his pieces of advice, or the other piece of

advice. I cannot take both. So I am going to take his second piece of

advice, look at the evidence first and then take a decision. That is

the rational way to make policy. He mentioned various representations he

had received, particularly from the National Housing Federation. I am

happy to assure him, the Minister for local government and one of the

ministers at the DWP, Lord Freud, met David or last week to discuss

the precise details we need to get right to make sure we get this point

correct. I welcome him to his post. On the question of the evidence

review, is he aware from his briefings this was started in

December 20 14th, so when will it be concluded? I will, as he will expect

as an experienced member, becoming to that during the course of my

speech. Because, it is, as I have said, complex, and getting it right

is very, very important. Let me start by setting of the principles

on which I will operate in this area. It is a great pleasure to

welcome my honourable friend to the dispatch box. He has mentioned David

or but there are other organisations who have concerns and different

views on the subject. Will he commit to maintain the dialogue as he goes

through the evidence? Absolutely, I will. I am just about coming up to

the sixth Day anniversary of my occupation of this post so I

apologise if I have not taken all the representations as yet, but I

and my ministers are trying hard to do so. Everyone on all sides of the

House knows the housing sector provides important support for

individuals across the country. It supports those with learning

difficulties, allows them to live as independently as possible and

provides a safe refuge for those escaping from domestic violence. It

helps ex-offenders for a successful transition back into mainstream

society and supports those who have experienced homelessness. The sector

helps to transform lives and allows people to live as independently as

possible, move into work and to be safe, healthy and happy. It is a

very important sector. All others, as constituency members have this

kind of support being provided. I visited the porch light project

which helps vulnerable people get housing, with mental health issues,

education and employment. Vital work is done. From my previous experience

in government I have seen the values of the sector within the criminal

justice system. A stable and supportive housing environment can

be the key to reducing reoffending. Accommodation is provided for people

who have been bailed by the courts are released on home detention

curfew after they have served a prison sentence. The service reduces

unnecessary imprisonment and the negative effects it has on family

life, unemployment and housing. It helps deter people from reoffending.

I will give way. Thank you. I welcome him to his place. We have

had a discussion about this with carers and they have told me they

understand it is the first review to take place in 20 years and the total

bill for housing benefit in this country is 25 billion pounds. It is

right we take our time and explore all the options and try to come to

the best resolution. I think my honourable friend is exactly right

and the representations he has received is a very wise one. It is a

huge sum of money being spent. It is important to spend it in the right

way, not just the taxpayer, but to make sure we are spending that

benefit in the way that helps these particularly vulnerable groups the

most. I think this government has a strong record in supportive housing.

We found many hostels and refuges were treated as supported, exempt

accommodation although they didn't fit the technical definition. We

regularised the position and protected their income streams. We

exempted supported housing from the benefit cap. We have continued to

meet housing costs for you burn of -- universal credit claimants who

housing benefit. It is important so they don't have to adapt processes

to accommodate the new arrangements while we work towards a new funding

model for all parts of the sector. I am prepared to listen carefully to

the concerns of the supported housing sector regarding the

application allowance rates. Evidence of the flexibility with

which I will approach this, the honourable gentleman, who spoke

previously and others may notice there is written statements down on

the order papers today about welfare reform which doodles with changes I

am making and flexibility is I am introducing into the universal

credit regime. I hope people will take that as a sign I am prepared to

be as flexible as possible in making sure these vital welfare policies

actually work. But this particular issue is high on my list of

priorities. I'm keen to ensure the decisions I make don't unduly affect

the sustainability of revision, the commissioning of new services, or

the individuals who receive support. It is of course, worth noting at

this point, the local housing allowance cap in any case, won't

affect any benefit recipient until April 20 18. My department is

working hard with colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local

Government to resolve the issue. It is better to get it right than rush

to make a decision. To answer directly the point of the right

honourable gentleman, I expect to make an announcement on the way

forward in the early autumn. We are going to spend the summer looking at

the evidence and I will make an announcement in the early autumn. I

will give way. I am grateful for that confirmation, although we have

heard devious commitment and timescales come and go, but we look

forward to hearing from the Secretary of State and holding him

to that. Can I correct something he said earlier? It will be April 20

17th when new tenancies will be affected in 2018. These changes come

into effect before April 2018 and affect people from April 20 17th

onwards. Which is why it is important and urgent he gets to

grips with this problem. In cash terms, nobody will be changing their

payments until April 2018, so that is what I was referring to. But I

expect to make an announcement in the early autumn and I hope it will

provide the certainty, that quite reasonably the sector is demanding.

Of course we understand there are higher costs associated with

providing supported housing. I recognise the potential impact this

policy could have on the sector and its ability to support vulnerable

people. I am also aware this needs to be considered, not just on its

own, but alongside other policies that affect the whole sector,

including the 1% annual rent reduction for social sector tenants

in England. Returning to the timing point, the Minister for welfare

reform announced an exemption for this particular sector for one year,

which I hope has provided some Shorrocks for providers that while

we complete the evidence review, they will know that nothing is going

to happen precipitately and indeed, this exemption and a similar

deferral to the 1% reduction has been welcomed by the sector

generally and in particular by the much quoted National Housing

Federation. Indeed, what I said when the deferral was announced, their

chief executive said, we are pleased the government is listening to our

concerns and has delayed the application of the cap. It is also

welcome that there will be a full strategic review into how these

services are funded and we will contribute fully to that review. I'm

grateful to the National Housing Federation for making that

commitment. They are still doing so and will continue to do so until we

find a solution. Because we require a solution that is flexible enough

to meet the needs of service users and providers while it remains

affordable for the taxpayer and delivers value for money. We have

been working with and listening to, not just the supportive housing

providers and the umbrella bodies, not just the NHS but also the local

Government Association and also local and individual authorities and

local commissioners as well as those who represent the vulnerable groups

who live in supportive housing and of course we have consulted the

Welsh and Scottish Government is about implications for them. This

extensive dialogue has been crucial to shape our thinking on this

important issue. I want to continue this exchange of information and

ideas. I will give way. I am grateful and welcome him to his

place. As part of that solution will he look at the perceived barrier

there preventing people getting back into work you will benefit from this

kind of accommodation. The people I have met in these local facilities

do feel ?250 a week in their effective cost for this

accommodation, they cannot earn enough to be able to pay that amount

of accommodation cost. My honourable friend makes a profound point, not

just about this area but in essence, huge amounts of the work this

department that actually enabling people who are not in work, to get

back to work in some form, is not only the best thing for the public

purse, it is absolutely and most importantly, almost always the best

thing for them as well. Particularly with many of the people in the

vulnerable groups we are talking about this afternoon, it will be

especially valuable. So making sure the solution we come to contributes

to that is an absolutely vital step forward. I will give way. I am

grateful and I want to add my voice to the chorus of greetings. He has

mentioned consultation with Cardiff and Edinburgh. In Northern Ireland

we do get forgotten. Does this legislation have any relevance for

Northern Ireland? My understanding is it is completely devolved in

Northern Ireland, but if I have misled the House and in particular,

the honourable gentleman, I will write to him to correct myself on

that. It is conceivable when my honourable friend winds of the

debate, she might be wiser and better informed than I am on that

particular issue. It has been known to happen, I know Junior ministers

at the end of the debate are much better informed than the Secretary

of State at the start of the debate. My department has commissioned an

evidence review to look at the shape, scale and cost of the sector.

The reform of the funding model was something already being considered

as worth doing on its own merits, long before the policy was announced

at the last Autumn Statement. The point has been made, this is the

first full review of this particular provision for 20 years. So, it does

seem that getting it right is important. The review is, as I've

said, in its final stages and has provided some valuable insights,

which I look forward to sharing with the House once those findings have

been confirmed and tested. What the evidence review, the discussions

with the sector and the policy review undertaken by government has

made clear to me, is that in order to fulfil our obligations to those

people who rely on this accommodation and support, we must

ensure for things. First, it must be funded appropriately in order to

continue to support vulnerable people and sustain this vital

sector. Secondly, it must deliver value for money for both the

taxpayer and the individual being supported by the accommodation.

Thirdly, it must ensure those living in supported housing are receiving

high-quality outcomes, focused care and support. And fourthly, we must

ensure costs are controlled. We cannot let the welfare bill get out

of control. It is important only those individuals who truly require

this provision are able to access it and division matches genuine local

need. It is clear to me from the work undertaken so far that while

the sector is delivering exemplary services and support in many places,

the current system doesn't deliver on all of those objectives. So there

are genuine problems that need to be addressed. And the reformed model we

will produce later this year, needs to do more to ensure value for

money. And demonstrated by the providers. Also, more focus on the

quality of provision and the individual outcomes from those who

obtain this provision, this seems to be a very important next step

forward for this sector. I will give way.

I want if you would like to rephrase that. There is outcome state are

better than any government department has been doing for the

last ten years in my experience. If local government, or even national

government, was ever expected to get quantitative or qualitative data I

had to get in refuge, you would fall apart immediately.

Order, order. I wouldn't fall apart, neither would the chair. I'm quite

sure the honourable lady knew where she was directing her remarks.

Secretary of State. I am happy to be reassured that under no

circumstances would I envisage you would ever fall apart. The

honourable lady makes a profound point. It is often the case that the

voluntary sector provides services better than the state either at

local or national level. And indeed, it is one of the Central purposes of

many of the policies of this government, that we should harness

the energy and ability and innovation of the voluntary sector,

precisely to provide services which might otherwise be provided less

well by the state. The point I was making is that, on the evidence I've

seen so far, while it is true that some of the provision is absolutely

excellent, it's also true that some provision falls well short of that,

so actually establishing if some of that is contributed to by the way

that the sector is supported is a sensible thing for government to try

to do. Because what we want to do is build on the examples of what's

already happening, to ensure there is more consistency in quality and

value for money across the country. I think there is nothing that would

divide anyone in this house on that. So I do understand the urgency of

the matter today. I can, as I have done, commit to making an

announcement early in the autumn which will set out the Government's

views on what that future funding solution should look like. It will

also set out our plans for working with the sector and the other key

stakeholders to ensure a safe transition to the new model.

Can I thank my right honourable friend to giving way. Can he also

consider we might want to look at the cost of utility bills, when

supporting people who are living in supported housing? That is part of

the whole benefit story as well. I think my honourable friend makes a

good point, and certainly that will be fed into the review of the

evidence that we are now coming to the end of. And so, between now and

then I will continue to work with colleagues across Whitehall and with

the sector to make sure we get right the details that underpins the

objectives that I've just set out. And by doing so, we will ensure the

reforms that are effective and proportionate and by working

constructively with the sector I believe we will come to a solution

that is workable, deliverable and most important of all, provides the

best support possible to the most vulnerable people in our society.

That is why I welcome this debate. I think it is a perfectly reasonable

and sensible debate for the opposition to call. I'm keen to hear

views across the House and from those in the sector, who I know will

be urging members on all sides to raise their concerns in this debate.

The sector is very diverse and its needs are very broad, so the more

input and thought which goes into developing a solution, the better

the outcomes for all. We need to get this right. I'm determined to get

this right and we will get this right. So I invite the House to

reject the motion before it today. Order, it will be obvious to the

House there are a great many people who wish to contribute to this

afternoon's bait and limited time available. After the spokesman for

the Scottish National party has spoken there will be a limit of five

minutes on backbench speeches. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The

SNP will continue to give him a hard time as much as we can do. I'm very

glad to be able to respond to this debate on behalf of the SNP and

supported housing providers and clients in Scotland, who are deeply

worried about what the future holds. Supported housing projects provide a

range of people with vital support which saves this government money in

hospital beds, prisons and resolving homelessness. As was made clear in

the adjournment debate last week, provision is under threat by the

continued uncertainty over this policy. I am appalled that the

people supported by this sector are being put at risk by lackadaisical,

speak now figure it out later attitudes. Supporting housing covers

a load of hosing types including hostels, sheltered housing, these

schemes are designed to meet the needs of particular client groups,

such as people with mental health issues, learning or physical

disabilities, victims, women at risk of domestic violence, service

veterans, teenage parents and older people. On the 13th of June

communities local government committee held evidence from the

directive of working age benefits and the committee quite

categorically that the intention is to publish the evidence review and

policy conclusions before the summer recess. Over a month from them has

now passed and we are not any clear on this. The Secretary of State says

autumn, I would remind him that govern 's Autumn Statement last year

ended up appearing in November. I want to know more clarity on when

this will actually come forward. I appreciate this work is very complex

but the Government has had a long time now to figure this out. I am

confident many housing sector members said what they require and

this review has taken to long. Otto Prcic government -- I hope the

Government addresses this. This is the Scottish Federation of Housing

associations told me that the proposals for the capping of housing

benefits of social housing including phone supported housing as it stands

as a catastrophic effect. They are not mincing words. They warn should

the cap precede most social housing will be shut down. Future

development will be cancelled or mothballed and tenants of supported

families will find it hard to plan for the future. If the services go,

there are a few options for people who rely on these services. We are

limited in Scotland on what we can do with the cap. We have spent in

the region of ?100 million mitigating the bedroom tax until we

get to the point where we can abolish it. Scottish Parliament does

not extend to changing the rules on social housing. As he can expect,

the Scottish Government have condemned this layer and

uncertainty. In February we called end this unexpected state of

uncertainty. I would like to provide similar strange and is of the types

of services currently at risk. The blue triangle project in Glasgow

provides housing for those at risk. They said they valued that advice in

the project was one man told me his family situation has deteriorated,

he found himself on the streets. Even with a crowd who thought were

his friends, woke up in the street having been assaulted and robbed and

felt incredibly vulnerable. If it was not for the service provided by

blue triangle he fears he would not have survived this experience. The

service is not cheap. The young people they deal with need help and

support to develop their skills and get their lives back on track. The

flats are based in the city centre, which is very important, in terms of

making the service easy to access, but that costs blue triangle a lot

in terms of accommodation. The building needs to be kept safe and

secure and flats need to be refurbished often to give the

tenants feel of self-worth. This is put at risk by continued

uncertainty. This shared accommodation in Glasgow for under

35 series ?68 and ?25 but rent for the accommodation that Blue Traingle

provide this ?345 a week, a ?273 shortfall. Over a year this result

in a gap of ?355,000. For the young people who have nowhere else to go,

this service is absolutely vital. The Government wants to put... Would

leave them unable to afford accommodation of their own to move

on into. Another service in Bridgeton is a vital one in my

constituency. It supports men coming out of prison, homelessness and a

range of other circumstances. When I went recently I was met by Donald

who recently suffered a stroke. He lived there ten months and is

excited by taking on a supported tenant in a scatter flat. This is a

seamless service which allows people to move when they are ready to and

when they feel a little and continuous support. I don't know

where Donald would have gone if it wasn't for the Arch. The pride he

had, and what they staff had assisted him to overcome, his face

shone with pride with what he had achieved through the help and

support of the service. Donald and others like you need to know what

the future is that this kind of supported accommodation. It is also

important to note he was able to stay there until he felt able to

move on. That is very, very important. If you move people on

before they are ready, those people will fail and end up back through

some other system costing us all more money. Women fleeing from

domestic violence also need to know that the life-saving refuge services

provided by women's aid organisations across the UK will

continue to be available. The member for Birmingham Yardley has been in

the chamber and out she is going to speak on this later on from her own

expertise. The services don't often shout about what they do,

understandably there is a lot of secrecy and privacy to protect the

women and children they support. But if they did not exist, women and

children would be in situations of grave danger. In a letter to the

Minister for welfare reform, women's aid indicated it will have a

devastating impact. Scottish women's aid have given some examples of the

impact the cap will have for them. In one rural areas the cap would

result in an annual loss of ?5,800 for a two bedroom refuge flat. In an

urban area of the loss of one-bedroom flat ?7,100. In another

semiurban area the cost is ?11,600 per year. In each case the financial

cost will be multiplied by the number of refuge spaces available.

It is absolutely clear that these losses will make these services are

unsustainable and they will close. I also wish to highlight another

paragraph directly from Scottish women's aid's letter to Lord Freud

concerning under 35s accommodation. The proposed introduction of the

under 35s shared accommodation rate to social housing is also places

women under the age of 35 that much greater risk of further abuse. If

women under the age of 35 are unable to access refuge accommodation or

move into their own tenancy because of restriction on their entitlement

to housing benefit, this effectively prevents them from leaving an

abusive partner. In 2014-15 26-30 -year-old age group had the highest

incidence rate of domestic abuse recorded by the police in Scotland.

Women in this age group clearly have a significant need for domestic

abuse support services, including refuge accommodation. Madam Deputy

Speaker, it seems clear to me this government has very little

understanding of the impact its policies have on women, particularly

women suffering domestic violence. These policies in addition to the

two child policy and the single household payment on universal

credit. These limit women's option and put them at risk. The statement

today by the Secretary of State gives me no reassurance that these

aspects of the vulnerability of women from the welfare system have

been addressed. I seek further clarity and further detail from

ministers on this. In Scotland, refugees are subject to limited

organisations and local housing associations and funded by local and

national government. They are a crucial part of Scotland's equally

safe strategy to protect women and girls. This UK Government is

undermining the significant work. We have a minister now who claims to be

a feminist, she needs to take note and let her heartless minister

unaccountable to this house... I know she does a huge amount of

very important work in this area, but remember we have trebled the

funding for women's refuges. ?870 million in this Parliament has been

delivered with the flexibility, working with the police, social

services to provide support. This government gives with one hand and

takes away with the other. That is not good enough. It has made

absolutely clear by women's organisations that these payments

are not enough to guarantee the certainty and future of the

services. They are discretionary. They are discretionary, that means

they are not part of the funding package, they are at the discretion

of those providing that payment. That is not good enough and there

needs to be greater certainty on that.

As I was saying, this government needs to make sure the

infrastructure to protect women and children is not dismantled under

this feminist new Prime Minister. Under her watch, the services must

guaranteed with a sound, solid future because women's lives depend

on it. I am still not reassured the language of the minister at the

dispatch box last Tuesday, he said we must make sure funding for

supported housing is a fishing, workable and sustainable, so it

provides a secure and quality service and makes the best use of

the money available. In needs to be focused, accountable and planned.

This suggests to me and elements of a box ticking exercise and I would

caution the varied support needs amongst those accessing supported

accommodation. We must reflect that in whatever outcome we have from

this review. A woman with children fleeing from a life of abuse and

control does not have the same needs as an elderly man moving into

sheltered accommodation or a young person recovering from a stroke. We

must be mindful of the needs of each person we're looking at. When we are

talking about outcomes, it cannot be that they just move on after six

months or happen specifically. We are dealing as I mentioned Donald

earlier, people have complex needs and must be allowed to stay in that

accommodation until such time they are able to move on. If they are

unable to move on and we push them out before time, those people end up

on the streets or in prison, or very, very vulnerable indeed. I

would urge this government to take the widest possible interpretation

for value for money. I am deeply concerned by the changes proposed. I

have only scratched the surface of the cap. When you look at elderly

accommodation for services for learning and physical impairments,

also ex-services personnel, without these services, those who depend on

them and the support they provide will be exceptionally vulnerable.

Attending to their needs could mean hospital stays costing over ?500 a

night. Risen, over ?194,000 a year. -- prison. And also the loss of

potential. They can live life with a great degree of independence when

they received the right support and accommodation. We need to think long

and invest in the services and investing event did spend.

Supportive accommodation can turn lives around. The government must

recognise this and ensure the future of supported accommodation. Thank

you. I'm grateful to speak in this important debate which follows on

from the adjournment debate which I led last Thursday. It rides an

opportunity to re-emphasise to the work and pension is department is

the vital importance of putting supported housing on a long-term

footing. It is essential we do this, so as not to let down a very

vulnerable group of people, whether they are elderly, young, have a

physical disability, suffered domestic violence or face mental

health challenges. Credit is due to the government for carrying out the

first evidence -based review of the sector for 20 years and consulting

far and lies. I have welcomed the fact they have accepted those for a

need for long term sustainable solution and not just a short-term

sticking plaster and they will work with and listen to stakeholders in

order to develop a viable and sustainable funding gene. My

intention is to be helpful and not hostile, but I have to say the feed

back I am receiving is that those involved in supported housing are

very worried about the future. The whole sector is in limbo and there

is a policy vacuum that must be filled. The one-year exemption for

supported housing from the 1% reduction for social housing

landlords and the one-year delay in applying the local housing allowance

cap in supported housing provides some breathing space, but the clock

is ticking down to April 2017 when this grace period expires. It is

important to have new policies in place before them, to remove worries

about the viability of existing schemes, but act as a catalyst for

attracting much-needed, new investment into the sector. Over the

past three months I have received representations, had meetings and

visited a wide variety of organisations, national and local,

all very concerned about the future of the sector. The depth and breadth

of this story emphasises the importance of putting in place a

sustainable framework as soon as possible. The prospect of the local

housing allowance cap being applied to residents in supported housing

after the one-year delay, is causing considerable unease and concern. The

cap undermines several pieces of legislation introduced in recent

years, including specified accommodation and also the transform

in care programme. In framing their proposals, it is vital the

government have in mind, the needs of those charities, housing

associations and social investors, both already active and doing great

work in this sector and those looking to get involved. There is an

enormous amount of goodwill and capital waiting in the wings for a

framework to be put in place that will enable these social

entrepreneurs to step up to the plate and carry out projects that

will bring great and if it's too many. Madam Deputy Speaker I shall

be voting with the government this afternoon, as I believe it is fair

to give a new team a chance to come up with a just and sustainable

long-term strategy. I sense from what the Secretary of State has

said, there is a real determination and desire to do this. There is a

lot of work for them to do, but a lot of good ideas have been put

forward, including from the National Housing Federation. As have the home

group. The latter have identified the need for a new funding mechanism

to be designed in such a way, it can be run by devolved administrations.

I urge the government to consider these proposals very carefully and I

look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State when he returns

to the dispatch box in the autumn, with his recommendations for this

chamber to both consider and debate. It is vital Madam Deputy Speaker, we

get this right. We know it to a very vulnerable group of people, that we

do so. Thank you. The honourable gentleman came to my Westminster

Hall debate on this subject in March, when the reports the

government has offered was imminent. Marge was the first time we were

going to get this. He held his own adjournment debate on this topic

here on the floor of the House last week, which I attended. It is not

for want of raising the issue that we remain where we are today. I

would like to welcome my honourable friend, the member for Easington to

his new responsibilities. I want to thank him for the way in which he

has set out the Labour Party's case which is what Labour Party's

debating time. I welcome the new Secretary of State to his new

responsibilities. I think the worst thing I can say about him is I do

have confidence in him and I want to welcome the way he responded to the

questions raised by my honourable friend in this debate today. In

particular, I want to thank him very much for recognising firmly from the

government dispatch box, the knock-on effects in this policy

area, that the introduction of the cap, if it is to be done, and I

accept the government has postponed it for a year to pause for further

reflection, but the impact on departments like the Department for

Justice, which he knows well, the Home Office and the police service

and indeed, the Ambulance Service and the national health service, a

very profound. This is a point, just like every point that has been made

in this debate, has been made in the last few months, it is this point

that has profound consequences. Because the interventions that flow

from the police, having to pick somebody up because they are

incapable of looking after themselves, somebody being lonely

and bewildered without a home because they will not be supported

within it, it may be picked up by the health service. But the health

service can offer no long-term solution to what is a social care

problem. It seems to me the secretary of state is at the head of

the difficult demarcation dispute, as to who should pay for the care

element that is implicit in social housing, where the housing benefit

certainly covers the housing element, but it also covers an

element of care. I understand the point he made about public funds and

making sure what is done is value for the public purse. I have no

quarrel with that, it is perfectly right the government should always

have a care for the quality of spend public money is. But I have to say

in the debates on this topic I have attended, not a single conservative,

Scottish Nationalists or Labour member has raised an example of

fashionable tax eating or anything that gets even close to that. The

projects we have visited, and they are projects, as we have heard, but

do with elderly care who need the care element, drug and alcohol

problems and just aren't managing on the very difficult path to

rehabilitation, that they are trying to pursue. Children and young people

who have care needs and should not be abandoned just to the outside

world. People with physical and even more mental disabilities, who can

get by in the world with a bit of care and help on direction. People

with learning disabilities. People who are estranged and having

difficulty in resettling into modern life. Homeless people, who need

assistance in taking up and finding their way through, maybe even

through education and training schemes, also funded by his

department and the employment opportunities his department works

so hard to try get people into. Members from all across the House

have raised the plight of women fleeing violence, terrified, needing

somewhere they believe is safe for them. Physically safe for them.

Accommodation. I'm sure the housing benefit can provide the housing

element of that. But in all humanity there is a need for care, support

and for somebody to say when they fleeing violence, we are on your

side and we are here to help you. That is the case that I hope the

Minister can respond to over the next few months. Justin Tomlinson.

May I pay tribute to the fantastic new team that will be responding to

this debate and I pay tribute to the shadow Foreign Minister, I met him

in a former role and he did demonstrate a real concern in this

area and a proactive way up putting forward a powerful case for

something I very much hope this government will continue to listen

to. I welcome the tone of the new Secretary of State in how he

responded. This is a complex area. We are talking about some of the

most vulnerable people in society. Instinctively we want certainty. It

is a very powerful argument, if we can provide certainty today, there

will be much rejoicing. Sometimes we can be too quick. This is such a

complex and complicated issue. I have visited many, many different

organisations, charities and providers who do a wonderful job.

Each and everyone are unique in how they tackle the challenges they are

presented with to provide the level of support and opportunities. We

cannot rush this, we have to get a ride. Otherwise, to unintended

consequences, some of the most vulnerable people in society will

pay the consequences. I am encourage the team we have will engage with

those stakeholders and many of those stakeholders have a huge amount of

experience, have experienced policy teams and will come in and spell out

the best way to do that. Why not rushing this decision they can shape

and influence what this government can do. It is not unreasonable to

wait until the autumn to get further details. As a government we do have

a proud record in this area. We spend about 50 billion pounds

supporting those with disabilities and long-term health conditions. 200

people a week have got into work and come off housing benefit, then a

fitting from the growing economy and rising wages. Change it to the

housing benefit rules are saving approximately ?2 billion a year.

Over a million social sector tenants would benefit from the 1% reduction

in rent and they cannot be forgotten in this discussion. In temporary

housing, people typically spend several months left. We have seen

the waiting list go from 1.7 to 1.2 million. I remember the anger in

this chamber in the urgent question I faced in many debates, but all too