27/01/2017 House of Commons

Order, order! Point of order Mr Burrows. The question is that this

House to sit in Private. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye". To

the contrary, "no". The noes have it, the noes have it. That was

close, that! Sometimes we can do things very swiftly! The clerk will

now proceed to read the orders of the day. Homelessness Reduction Bill

as amended in the public bill committed to be considered. We begin

with new clause one with which it with new clause one with which it

will be convenient to consider new clauses two and three. Mr Andy

Slaughter to move new clause one. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It

really is a pleasure to be opening a series of debates this morning on

this important bill which, if passed, will mark a sea change in

the way that homelessness treated in this country, and this is a rare

creature, a Private members Bill with a hope of success. I should not

tempt fate this only in proceedings! But I cannot see the usual suspect

sitting behind the, said that encourages me already. It has

support from I think all parties, it importantly has Government support,

I suspect we would not have got this far, and indeed we should not forget

the good work that the Select Committee and the chair of the

Select Committee have done in supporting it getting this far. And

of course I pay tribute at this stage to the sponsor of the bill,

who I think now knows more about the intricacies of homelessness law that

he perhaps ever wanted to. There are matters still to be resolved, but I

hope, and I said is advisedly, that all those matters are discussed and

can be resolved this morning, and certainly for my part I don't intend

to go long on this, and although there are certainly important

matters that need to be covered, I hope in the time we have available

this morning that we will be able to complete all stages. Let me begin by

addressing the new clauses and let me be clear from the beginning that

it is not my intention to press clauses two and three to a vote, and

I'm hopeful when the Minister speaks I will hear words that encourage me

not to press new clause one to either. An interesting feature of

this bill has been the constructive discussions that have gone on

outside of committee, of course, not in committee, that would not be

appropriate at all! Outside committee, my last e-mail at about

11pm last night, I appreciate it might have been passed his bedtime

so he might not have had time to respond, but I think we are getting

where we want to go. Having said that, new clause one in particular

does deal with perhaps the central unresolved issue, which relates not

to the content of the bill, we will come onto that in the Government

amendments later on, but the implementation, and in particular

whether the resources the Government has set aside are sufficient. New

clause to back row and three, which I will address in a moment, are also

important because they really are what stands behind this bill, which

is legislation in itself is not going to tackle the homelessness

crisis in this country. To be fair to the sponsor, he has at all stages

that that is the case and indeed the article published this morning

repeats that and I appreciate that, but nevertheless we cannot look at

this bill in a vacuum, we have to look at the surrounding

circumstances and nothing illustrates that better than the

figures that were released two days ago in relation to rough sleeping

which repealed absolutely shocking 16% increase year on year -- which

revealed. There are now more than 4000 people sleeping rough on the

streets of the UK, and that is one person which is one person to many.

What should particularly alarmed this House is the fact that this is

a crisis that does not need to be there. Under the last Labour

Government, rough sleeping fell by three quarters because of direct

Government intervention and coordination not only with the local

authorities but also many homelessness charities who also

stand behind this bill. It is a solvable crisis and the fact that

street homelessness has gone up since 2010, since the coalition and

now the current Government, by over 130% is something which is should

shame the Government. Whereas we are here to Pascual legislation, this

does not get the Government off the hook in relation to that issue. Let

me go back to new clause one before I come onto two and three. One small

note of discord, which is... We could not avoid that, could we?! We

don't want this to become a battle about who is more in favour of this

bill, and I did note in the comments that the sponsor made this morning

in his article that there may be a danger of the bill being delayed

because of the new clauses that we have tabled. There are lots of

confused pots and kettles out there, because the Government I notice have

tabled 21 amendments today, quite complicated amendments, which I

don't think anybody would wish to be seen taken at the report stage. If

they were not able to be on the face of the bill then they should have

been dealt with in committee. I'm hopeful nevertheless that we will be

able to deal with those amendments but I think for the opposition to

take one part of this time to debate some important principles of the

bill is not unreasonable or irrational in any way. I noted that

in the time we spent in committee, the members of the governing party

spoke for 2.5 times the members of the opposition. I will in a moment,

I will in a moment. We all have to sometimes curb our prolixity, even I

have to do that from time to time, but we were very disciplined in

committee. We withdrew a large number of new clauses and amendments

before the Christmas break in order to speed the bill through. I think,

notwithstanding that my colleagues on the bill have huge expertise in

this matter and a lot to say, we were very disciplined about the way

we conducted ourselves. I wish I could say the same for the

opposition, front and back benches, including the honourable gentleman.

I'm grateful for him for giving way. It was a pleasure to serve on the

bill committee with him and I'm delighted to hear that he still is

speaking in favour of this bill, that it still attracts cross-party

support, and he can rely upon my discipline today, and I'm sure that

all colleagues, to ensure this goes through. Excellent! Rousing words,

and I'm sure they will be followed by action and that may be the last

we hear from the honourable gentleman today, I don't know! The

difficulty, I don't want to labour this point, I just said that we were

hopeful, notwithstanding it is an important bill and quite a long bill

for a Private Members Bill, considerably longer than a bill we

are going to be debated next week, which I suspect will take rather

more time! But nevertheless we should be able to get through it in

less time, and it is rational, really, and we know why we are doing

it, because the Government were filibustering in order to keep the

honourable member for North West Durham's bill on boundaries out of

who is delaying and not delaying not

this bill, let's just get on with it now. Let me deal with this point on

money. Right at the beginning of the process, the committee process, the

Minister said, I will hope to tell you before the end of the committee

process how much money there will be, because there was a commitment

from the Government that they would fully fund the additional costs, and

we know there are going to be substantial additional costs to

local authorities under the new burdens, that money has to come from

central Government, and we waited week by week with bated breath to

see what that money would be. At the last moment on the bill, somebody

came forward, and that is not a negligible sum of money, it is about

?48 million spread over two years, but that ?48 million compares with

estimates, I think sensible estimates, by both individual local

authorities and by the collective body of local authorities, the local

government Association and local councils -- London councils as to

what the cost would be. One example, against the 37, 30 ?8 million

prescribed for the first year of implementation of the bill, there is

an estimate by London councils that it will cost about 160 million.

There is a massive disparity in figures there. I think it is right

to say that because we are in new territory with this bill, nobody

really knows what the full cost is going to be, and so the solution

that was lighted upon was, let's have a review at an early stage so

we can see both whether the amounts that have been allocated to the bill

in those two years are sufficient, and perhaps, more controversial,

whether the Government's assertion that after two years there will be

no need for additional funding because the bill will be self

financing, whether that will prove to be true or not, because there is

a huge scepticism, and I disagree with one other thing in the article,

that there is no support for our new clauses. There is total support for

our new clauses, there is an issue about timing and about making sure

the bill completes its stages both here and in the other place, but the

scepticism about the financing of this bill is shared not just by

local government but by the charities who have supported the

bill. And the crucial importance of this is not just that it is only

fair and reasonable and right that local government is properly funded,

because that is what the burdens doctrine says, but that if it does

not work then the bill is not going to work, and it will simply be words

on a piece of paper and we will not see that sea change in addressing

homelessness and, in particular, extending duties of homelessness,

both prevention and cure, to those in priority need to everybody, two

single homeless people and to everybody who present themselves as

homeless. If we are sincere What new clause 1 does, Madame

Deputy Speaker t puts that review on the face of the bill. It simply

says, after we have had time to see the implementation of the provisions

of the bill, that we judge whether that money, and the Government says

it is and everybody else says it isn't, sufficient for the purposes

set out in the bill. The minister has raised one or two procedural

points on this, as to when the provisions of the bill will take

effect and when the appropriate time is to have that review. I'm open to

debate on those matters, but on the principle -- and this is what I

would hope to hear from the minister when he spokes - but on the

principle we have a review t must be when reasonable time or money is

still available to local authorities and it must be in particular cover,

not just whether the bill is succeeding in purposes but whether

the money is enough to cover all costs. I would think the minister

would like to see that happen. They would not want their local authority

to fail and where local authorities have seen cuts nor their budgets

over the last few years, it is not just unfireworks but it is

impossible for local authorities to cover the substantial costs

themselves. -- unfair. The minister says that - or the only

- apart from the clause 13 of this bill, the rest of the clauses,

substantive clause of this bill will not actually take effect until

regulations have taken effect. I appreciate that indeed it is an

entirely reasonable thing to happen because there will be a substantial

period of time to which local authorities have to gear up to these

responsibilities. They will need to recruit staff, train staff, and put

procedures in place and there will be - and often the devil will be in

the details of the guidance produced. I think the minister can

speak for himself but I think he is thinking it could be up for a year

before we see the full implementation of that bill and

clearly until we have implementation, we do not know what

the costs are likely to be and it is a question of what is a reasonable

period of time to see that. We think in claw clause 1 it is between one

and two years. I would say, let's go to the end of that period, the end

of the two-year period but let's make sure we are in a position tow

end of the two-year period and the implementation, to see whether the

money has been sufficient, because that's when the money runs out. And

there is a slight disconnect between the money as announced in the

written ministerial statement last week, which deals with the two

financial years immediately coming up, that is to say, 2017-18, and

2018-19 and what the minister is now saying, which is in fact

theismentation is unlikely to happen until 2018. So either the Government

is giving local authorities upfront front which would be slightly

unusual in my experience or that needs to be corrected. In any event,

two years' money that. Money may be two years' money that. Money may be

insufficient and at the end of that two-year period the money runs out.

. I give way. Can I tell my honourable friend that Newham

Council has looked a at this and think it is going to cost them ?2.5

million in the first year alone toisment this. I'm delighted this

bill is going through, but does he honestly believe this Government is

going to fully compensate the councils for the money they are

going to need to expend? Well I'm one of nature's optimists, Madame

Deputy Speaker. The minister is such a reasonable fellow and I know he is

so kind-hearted I'm sure that he says he wishes to fully fund this.

Unfortunately the Government's record as a whole is not being kind

what theed, particularly to local Government and they do have a bit of

a habit, which we see from the fact of all the cuts made across

Government the biggest cuts are in local government, ie passing the

buck to somebody else by cutting the local government budget and,

therefore, my honourable friend is absolutely right to be sceptical

about this and this is what we want it hear. But we could - there are

many figures floating around. The Newham - Newham council know what

they are talking B they have one of the most pressing needs for housing

in the country. We have some of the poorest communities in the country

and I'm afraid some of the worst housing, particularly in the private

rented sector, so these are matters of real concern, but all we're

asking for in this new clause or a commitment we hope to have from the

minister today is not just that there will be a review but it will

be at the right time and all-encompassing. In one moment I

will give way to both. I mention I mention the role of the Select

Committee. The Select Committee has been key, my honourable friend for

Sheffield South East, as the Chair is an expert on this but he has help

from abled members on both sides. So any process of review should also

involve the Select Committee as well as local authorities themselves. On

the issue of funding, the prevention duties, like you, Enfield also has

the accommodation for poorest people, with the greatest need. We

want obviously this bill but isn't it a reality that good councils are

already embarking on prevention and doing what is in the bill and they

are doing it under the coming settlement and they'll welcome they

will have more money to do what they are already doing now. I think the

best thing to say is it there is a mixed economy of local authorities.

Some do very well. Some have to do very well because of the priors on

them and some do less well and part of the purpose of this bill is to

try to bring everyone up to the same standard. The honourable gentleman's

point cuts both ways. If, for example, Camden Council already

carries out prevention work, with 80% of people who present to them,

if that's right, then the savings that are likely to be made, because

most of the savings as I understand it are going to be by increasing

prevention work, and therefore avoiding the need to find

alternative accommodation or to in other ways fund the cost of

homelessness, then those savings are going to be less. So that's the

problem. The problem, will, after two years, as the Government hoped,

there will be none need to fundk, I don't think anybody believes that,

probably not the Government. I thank high honourable friend for giving

away. It isn't just a probably in London, in Wirral there were over

1,000 prevention and relief cases Wirral council taking action to

prevent homelessness occurring, would the honourable member agree

that any new duties councils have to take on should be fully funded both

now and in the future. My honourable friend is right. This is not just a

problem - it is clearly a greater problem in some areas than others

and the resident for this -- precedent legislation is the

legislation passed by the Labour-run Government of Wales which has be

been successful and we are seeing substantial falls of homelessness in

Wales. Of course there are areas in Wales in which there is a real

crisis, as there are around the rest of the United Kingdom. But, there

are also hotspots and the big cities and London, in particular, are

hotspots and we cannot rely on the example of Wales, for example, to

see that that is what would happen in England. It is still possible, in

many Welsh authorities for accommodation to be made available,

including to those who are not in priority need. In London Boroughs,

and I suspect in my honourable friend's constituency and many

others, that opportunity disappeared years ago and the reverse is true.

We spent sometime in committee talking about the disgraceful

attitude of Westminster Council who are sending their homelessness

homelessness quite literally to Coventry and I'm afraid other

boroughs are doing exactly the same. That's the issue we are grappling

with, madam deputy speaker. I will not labour thep point. We want

assurances which we believe that new clause 1 delivers. That what my

honourable friend rightly says is actually delivered, that there is

full funding of the provisions of this bill for local government. Yes

the Government has made a start. Yes, I think we are going to hear

more today about money, on the basis that some of the amendments the

Government is putting forward will have additional costs. We are

pleased with that so far but I say we must have that funding because

otherwise this bill will fail and local authorities will be in an even

more perilous state. Let me move on briefly, madam deputy speaker to new

clauses 2 and 3. We couldn't table a great deal of

extra new clauses such as this which illustrates what these new clauses

do, because you cannot look at the provisions in this bill in a vacuum.

We all welcome the great convery tracing, as the honourable gentleman

said, on prevention and welcome the new duties on relief that are upon

local authorities, in terms of assisting homeless people who are

not in priority needs, into accommodation. But, the pattern of

homelessness in this country is utterly bleak. And that is a perfect

storm which I'm afraid has derived from the Government's own actions or

inactions. The fist point, which is what is illustrated by new clauses 2

and 3, is the crisis in the private rented sector. The huge inflation in

rents that has occurred over the past few years, has meant that many

private landlords take advantage of the no-fault eviction process under

the 1988 Act, so simply say - you are on benefit and your benefit is

not, I can get more rent somewhere else or simply, I think I want a

different tenant, I don't have to give any reason for it, so off you

go. And that swift process, without

providing the papers are in order, without any argument to the

contrary, means that many, many thousands of people are presenting

themselves to local authorities civilly for that reason. I believe

it is now more than 40% of homelessness homelessness cases are

caused by private sector evictions and all the misery that that brings.

Again, this is not an insoluable problem and what is in these two

clauses would make a significant difference. This is a modest

proposal. It suggests that if there were longer tenancies, three-year

tenancies, and within the period of that tenancy, there were controls

over the level of rent increase, we would not have that th chaotic

market in -- not have that chaotic market.

I will pass over the typo in line 4 of new clause 2 to say this, does he

remember in the bill committee the average length of tenancies were in

fact four years and in his new clause 2 he is merely referring to

three years, does he not accept that there needs to be a billion to

encourage sufficient landlords snore I'm not sure what the honourable

member does when he is not passing over typos. His argument, I'm afraid

works both ways. I think the point he is making,

tenancies if they are longer than three years, what is the problem in

ensuring that is the case? Again, good practice would suggest a good

landlord wants to keep a tenant for a period of time. That gives

stability, continuity, there are no breaks in tenancy or additional fees

involved and that matter but not all landlords are good landlords and

some landlords are playing this lottery game where they think they

can get more money and we've even had local authorities outbidding

each other for tenancies, so desperate are there for that. As I

say, I think what the honourable gentleman illustrates is how modest

this proposal is and how reasonable it is, and when the minister applies

he may want to say what the Government' thinking is along these

lines. It is an not just an issue about homelessness homelessness but

these specific clauses relate to the issue of homelessness homelessness

and they say that would you would achieve the purposes of this Bill,

ie you would put less pressure on local authorities, you would have

less than a need if some land Lords were not acting in the manner they

are. That's the purpose of it. I appreciate given the time

constraints, unless the Government suddenly decides to accept them this

morning, we are unlikely to make progress on them in the course of

this bill but this is something we will return to again and again until

it is resolved. There is an extremely high rate of homelessness

in tooting amongst those aged over 60. I know Wandsworth Council

battles with this greatly Day in day out. Would you agree it is

absolutely unacceptable but we are failing the older members of our

society and people over 60 need to be taken into account? Would the

honourable lady mind asking the honourable gentleman to agree,

rather than asking the chair to agree? Would he agree, because she

doesn't care whether I agree or not? Would my honourable friend agree

that it is outrageous that residents aged 60 and over have to suffer in

this way and that he must do all he can to ensure the Government

addresses this issue. Absolutely, I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

also care about homelessness in tooting. What my honourable friend

illustrates is that we are in new territory. I doubt 20 or 30 years

ago there were big problems, that we would be talking about homelessness

amongst people of pensionable age. It illustrates how deep this goes in

society now that we are worried about not just the groups that were

at risk in the days of Cathy Come Home but people who, at a time in

their life when they deserve and should have security and stability

in that way, and it illustrates that point. I am going to wind up now,

let me just say this, yes, it new clauses two and three illustrate a

clear point that is a part of the problem, alongside that is the issue

of housing supply and the terrible record, I'm afraid, that this

Government has on genuinely affordable housing, on allowing

councils to build and ensure there is specialist housing... Could you

not make it in your own comments? I thank the honourable gentleman for

his forbearance in taking my intervention. Does he not welcome

the record of ?3.15 billion that this Government is providing to the

GLA to provide affordable housing in London, which has been welcomed by

the London man? I welcome everything the London mayor welcomes! But I

think, let's not go off on a tangent other than just to say we were

beginning to make progress towards the end of the last Labour

Government and the best illustration of that is that under the coalition

Government eight out of ten council homes that were completed were

started under the previous Labour Government, so I don't mind him

taking credit, I don't mind him talking about additional building of

affordable homes and social homes, but they need to have their own

record, not to leech off hours. For the last time, I give way. I'm

extremely grateful. The Institute of Housing have estimated a quarter of

the million social homes will be lost as a result of right to buy and

other measures between now and 2020, so whatever assurances are being

given by the benches opposite, the construction of new housing is the

equivalent of turning on the taps whilst leaving the plug out.

Absolutely, and when I mentioned the quality of members on the committee

on my side I was of course particularly referring to my

honourable Friends on the committee. They put my feeble efforts to shame,

but their writ is. Absolutely right, we have a crisis in housing supply,

a crisis in the private rental sector, and we also have, which the

Government is directly responsible for through the benefit caps,

through freezing local housing, through cuts in supporting people,

we have a manufactured crisis of homelessness which we are now seeing

reflected in the figures I quoted earlier. I pay tribute to the

Minister for the work done on this bill, as well as to the sponsor and

the sincere comments made by Government backbenchers during the

course of this bill, but they cannot put their heads in the sand and look

at this bill in isolation from everything else that is happening.

When they have looked at that, they have to change their policy. I'm

sure we are going to get the white paper this year but when it comes we

will be looking for those matters to be dealt with and that is the

purpose of these new clauses, to make sure at this bill functions and

to make sure Government policy as a whole functions in relation to

homelessness, and that is why I would like to hear from the Minister

is not warm support and acceptance of the clauses, at least what he

intends to do in relation to them. The question is that new clause

one... I beg your pardon, de Klerk will read it first. Duty to

undertake a review of the Act. The question is that new clause one B

read a second time. Mr Bob Blackman. Thank you, it is a pleasure to serve

under you as always. It is also a pleasure to follow the honourable

gentleman fat Hammersmith. Before I start, May I draw the House's

attention to my entry in the register of members interests. I

think we should get back to the fact that this bill is about reducing

homelessness, and it is entitled to be Homelessness Reduction Bill. At

some stages during the honourable member's rather link the speech, I

began to wonder if we were moving off onto the whole policy of

housing, and I think we should confine ourselves to this bill,

rather than broadening out to the wider aspects. I accept absolutely

that one person sleeping rough on our streets at any one time is a

disgrace, a national disgrace. I have regularly gone on record, and

equally that we do not know the exact level of homelessness in this

country. So I start from that principle. And of course it is fair

to say that the level of rough sleeping has increased. It is all to

-- also fair to say that the level has increased of homelessness.

However, as the honourable member will well know, the level of

homelessness in this country peaked back in 2002three, I suspect someone

else was actually in charge of Government at that time. And there

was a reduction which took place as a result of both Government

intervention and local authorities taking appropriate action, but

actually no change in legislation. We should remember, Madam Deputy

Speaker, that legislation on this subject has not changed effectively

for 40 years, so we must get back to that particular issue. I would also

draw attention, we will come onto more details about the bill

hopefully when we get to third reading, but I would just a bench

and gently that we spent some 15 hours in the committee debating the

clauses, the 13 clauses in this bill, and there were opportunities

for amendments, and the honourable member for Hammersmith did make

amendments but then withdrew them before we could even debate them,

and therefore the difference between the amendments that my honourable

Friends the Minister is proposing later on and the proposals from the

honourable member for Hammersmith are that the amendments from the

Government's side are as a direct consequence of the debates and

discussions we had in committee and are there to improve the bill and

also to achieve what has happened in terms of discussions with housing

charities, local government bodies, representative bodies, local

government generally, and the landlord associations. So there is a

marked difference between those amendments, and there are 21 of

them, I accept, and the amendments being moved by the honourable member

for Hammersmith. The key on new clause one, and for those of us that

were members of the committee, and I commend my honourable Friends across

the House for their service on the bill committee, when they were

present at the last session they will be aware that the Government

has already given a very firm commitment to review the bill at an

appropriate point after implementation. I would suggest to

my honourable friend the Minister for local government that it would

be helpful if you repeat that commitment today and clarifies it

further so that no one is in any doubt of the willingness of the

Government to accept the fact that we have got funding, and I thank the

Minister for the funding of 48 million over two years. We hope that

that will lead to providing all the funding that local authorities need

to carry out their duties under this new bill which hopefully will become

an Act in the not too distant future. However, as I said at the

beginning of my remarks, we do not know the level of demand that the

local authorities will experience as a result of the new burdens that

they face. What we do know is that many local authorities are already

taking prevention duty already and that funding will be welcome to

those authorities acting in a good and positive way. But the reality is

that we could look at the stats from every local authority in terms of

how many people are turning up for help but we also know that the vast

majority of single homeless people will get turned away by their local

authority without any help or advice. Now, because of the major

change, the massive change not only in the law but the culture of local

authorities, that the numbers of people are likely to increase

especially during the first year... I will indeed give way. What we do

know is that across the House and particularly the Government are

committed wholeheartedly to fulfil what is within the terms of its

responsibilities, which has included financial responsibilities. If

beyond the spending round that we are in there are additional

financial requirements to fulfil the duties in this bill, having taken

account of savings, doesn't he recognise as I do that the

responsibility of that wholehearted commitment will continue? I thank

him for his intervention. Clearly we would expect, I think the whole

house would expect, the Government to recognise that there would be

potentially extra cost pressures on local authorities and, given the

commitment made by the Government, that they will continue to fund that

in the years to come. One of the problems of the amendments proposed

by the honourable member for Hammersmith is it proposes a review

after a fixed period of time, and that will be at. Frankly, I don't

accept that is an acceptable way forward. I want the Government to

continually keep this under review, and I'm sure that the communities

and local of the select Committee and the rest of the committee, who

are joint sponsors of this bill, will ensure that the Minister, or

whoever is the Minister at the time, have their feet kept under fire in

terms of... Long may he reign, of course! But he cannot commit his

successor to the position as yet, but what we do know is that we, as a

Select Committee, will keep this under review and will make sure that

we scrutinise both the level of activity and the funding that

follows. One of the key areas here, as the honourable member for

Hammersmith pointed out, there is a whole range of different activities

that are going to be going on by local authorities, and many of those

will be such that there will be additional funds raised and actually

costs reduced. One of the stats that we have looked at is that London

councils will only say that in 2014-15 the total expenditure on

temporary accommodation is some, was some 611 million. If we can reduce

that figure just by 5% then we will pay for the costs of this bill. So

that is one of the elements, because one of the problems about temporary

accommodation which happens with local authorities is because they

don't take prevention duty early enough yet then one of the problems

that happens is that families and other people end up in temporary

accommodation at the last minute in a crisis, which is very, very

expensive. So if we can reduce that Bill marginally, and 5% is not a

huge amount to seek to reduce, then we pay for the cost of the bill. If

councils across the country achieve the prevention duty, we will prevent

anyone from becoming homeless at all and therefore the cost reduction to

local authorities will be enormous. I accept there will be a peak in the

first year and I think we should all understand and appreciate that. The

Bill committee and select committee spent a considerable time discussing

how much time it would take for councils to prepare for the extra

duties the bill will require. Obviously they are going to need to

recruit and train staff, and change absolutely the culture that exists

within housing departments. So because of that, the bill is drafted

to allow the substantive clauses to commenced only once the preparations

have been completed. It seems to me that the new clauses drafted by the

honourable member for Hammersmith, could therefore put this commitment

to review the act before we have the data and before some of the clauses

have actually even commenced. I'm sure that's not what the honourable

member intended but I would urge him on that basis to reconsider his

amendment. I trust we are going to get a commitment from the minister

on reviews. I'm sure we will hold him to account and clarify that if

we don't get that amount of commitment, but I'm sure we will get

that later this morning. On new clauses 2 and 3 I must commend the

honourable member for his ingenuity in getting them in the scope of this

bill. But since they relate to the private rental sector and not

homelessness duty, I welcome the detail. But what I will say, is we

intervene in markets at our peril. Often we get be unintended

consequences. Can I draw the house's attention tension to some of the

problems going on right now. I'm a great supporter of longer tenancies

and think it has been regularly campaigned for and I would stress it

needs to happen. One of the problems in the market is that mortgage

lenders are very reluctant, indeed, to offer mortgages to landlords who

have having tennants that are longer than six-month ten an si.s I

understand recently a number of mortgage lenders have relaxed their

rules to allow for 12-month tenancies which is a very welcome

move and I would suggest, in the longer term, with the CLG select

committee we will be looking at that and looking to encourage that

process but, to implement such a decision in this bill, would run the

risk of actually reducing the supply of private selected accommodation

and putting up the rents of the people we are trying to help, so

this amendment today in my view is counter-productive. There is the

issue that mortgage lenders right now are insisting on between a 25%

or a 40% deposit for landlords and then insisting that the rent level

is 1.4 times the mortgage payment going out. The reality of that is

landlords are forcing up rents and the lenders are forcing up rents to

private sector landlords. That does not make sense. I think that's

something where Government policy is going to have to intervene. I also

think the issue of rent controls have been tried and failed. The

reality is that if you try and impose rent controls, what happens

is that rents are forced up to start with artificially. The market is

over-burdened with red tape and actually, the supply of rent rented

housing goes down. So, the scone sequence of that is we will actually

contribute to more homelessness than actually reducing it. So, for those

reasons,eddes Madame Deputy Speaker, where we woop end up creating more

homelessness than we've involved I would urge the honourable member to

withdraw his amendments, clearly a matter of policy, clearly that needs

to be debated and discussed. I would concur with him on the one aspect I

have been very clear on from the beginning. My bill, once it becomes

law, will not actually increase the supply of housing, the number of

units in this country. That is a matter for Government policy. I

think that's an area where we need to achieve that. What it will do, is

make sure that the experience of those people that are homeless,

particularly those who are homeless for the first time is such that they

get the help and advice and I'm very concerned that the amendments as

proposed by the honourable member would reduce the supply and make

the, would actually penalise the very people that we are so helping.

So, on those basis, Madame Deputy Speaker, I will look forward to the

minister spopding and also invite the honourable member to withdraw

his amendment. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, I rise to support

new clause 1. As this is my first intervention on this important bill,

it gives me an opportunity to congratulate the honourable member

for Harrow East in bringing it forward. I think he has done so with

great persuasion, and has really performed an important service on

behalf of us all and indeed congratedlations to both

frontbenches for working constructively to bring the bill to

this particular point. I support the bill, Madame Deputy Speaker but as

good as it goes, we will be kidding ourselves today if we will leave

this House, pat ourselves on the back and believe we have done

everything this House could do to tackle what is an unfolding

emergency before our eyes. The reason I have chosen to come to

speak in this debate today is to reflect the rising concern amongst

my constituents in Leigh but a concern that is widely shared across

Greater Manchester that there are visibly increasing numbers of people

huddled in door way across our city region and people will not just walk

on bi. They do not accept it has to be like this. Homelessness and rough

sleeping is not an inevitable fact of life in 2017. We are wealthy

enough as a society to ensure that nobody should spend the night

without a roof over their head. And there needs to be a new urgency on

both sides of the House in bringing forward appropriate action to

address it. And that's the problem f there is with this bill, it is good

as far as it goes but in my view doesn't go anywhere near enough to

tackle the scale of the problem. And actually, it doesn't go cross the

mental response needed. A reality check, figures came out this week,

the minister will be aware of them, that shows a 16% rise in rough

sleeping over the last year. My honourable member in his opening

remarks made reference to that. In the last five or six years, since

2010, rough sleeping across England has doubled. It is going up at an

alarming rate. In Greater Manchester, the problem is even

worse. Across the ten boroughs of Greater Manchester, there has been a

41% increase in rough sleeping in the last year. I would say to the

minister, those figures, according to local officials, don't actually

reflect the full picture. They believe that tonight at least 300

people across Greater Manchester will be out on streets spending the

night there. Now that is simply unacceptable. And I don't hear from

the Government what they are doing about that. What are they doing

about that now to help people find warmth and help them find shelter?

As I say rough sleeping has doubled but this bill won't reverse that and

we need to have our eyes open to that. And that's why I support new

clause 1. Because it is absolutely crucial that there is urgency in

this debate and a clear commitment to review what is happening. Not a -

I take the honourable gentleman's point - but, a committee to review

from a minister at the Despatch Box, we all know that timetables shift,

the Civil Service will say - we'll review it in the autumn. That

becomes the winter and that becomes the spring much that's what happens

we all know that. It is not good enough. This problem is bigger than

that. We need clarity and certainty. There should be a commitment to a

review of how this legislation is working, both in whether it is

reducing homelessness, as the clause says, but, also, whether or not the

funding that the Government has given to councils is adequate. For

the reasons given by my friend, the honourable member for West Ham a

moment ago, I don't believe the funding is adequate. Here is how I

would differ slightly with my own front bench. I would say that this

review should take place within one year. There needs to be more

urgency. I believe that annual review would reveal - firstly, that

while I expect this bill to have a modest but welcome impact on

reducing homelessness, I don't believe it'll go anywhere near

addressing the scale of the problem and secondly, I think that review

will also reveal that the council funding that the Government has

allocated is inadequate. Let us remember, most funding comes next

year. It then reduces sharply in the year after that, then in the third

year there is nothing at all. I don't want to wait to the third year

to find out whether or not this is working, I think it should be

conducted immediately, Madame Deputy Speaker and within 12 months. But we

need to hear much more grft. If they want it tackle homelessness -- from

the Government. If they won't at that tackle homelessness and rough

speaking there needs to be a cross-government response. We

established in a rough sleepers department, when West Africa in

Government. I don't see that level of cross-Government working on this

important issue. But secondly as well as having -- department when in

Government. But secondly, there should be a

clear ambition. What is the Government's am billings on rough

sleeping? I'm in the aware of it. It is going up at an alarming rate.

What are they going to do about it? Will they put it into reverse? Will

they have made the same commitment I have made in Greater Manchester, by

2020 we should work to eradicate rough sleeping. It it is all very

well the minister looking the other way, and turning around and talking

to his colleagues. What is he going to do about rough sleeping now and

in the next few years? What zbft's ambition? -- what is the

Government's ambition? Are they committed to eradicating the

increase and go further and eradicate. I don't want to inject a

partisan note but I am I'm afraid we are doing nobody any favours if we

sit here today and think this is enough this. Bill won't reverse the

cuts to housing benefit that are looming. I will give way. I'm

grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving way. He accepted himself,

he wasn't in the bill committee or he wasn't here at contributing at

second reading. Had he had been he would have seen the cross-party

nature of the bill committee and the proceedings to date. The points he

is making whilst I'm sure are relevant to new clauses 1, 2 and 3,

perhaps don't quite to the point and don't attract the same cross-party

support that has been the nature of this bill to date.

Well, I hear what the honourable gentleman has said and I have given

my support to this bill, so there is cross-party support, he has my

support, the honourable gentleman has my support. Government has my

entitled to come here today to speak entitled to come here today to speak

for those people who will be on the streets of his constituency tonight,

who I know will be on the streets of Greater Manchester tonight. I think

I'm entitled to come here today to give them a voice in this house.

This bill isn't going to change their situation any time soon. I

don't believe it is going to reduce rough sleeping any time soon. So who

is speaking for them? It is not acceptable for this house to be

debating homelessness and do it in a cosy way without facing the reality.

That is the reality, rough sleeping is rising at an alarming mate rate.

I ask the minister what he is doing about this. I this this House and

more importantly those people out on streets, deserve an answer? I am

grateful. Can I ask him to take little regard for comments of the

member opposite because it is correct that in terms of the

provisions and culture underpinning this bill, there was and is a cross

of had party consensus we want to see ittismented. During the

committee stage of the bill and at second reading, virtually all the

direction comments from our side have been the wider con#23r

universal credits, and housing cuts and housing supply, the context in

which homelessness and rough sleeping exists is going this

reverse and it is right we should be drawing attention to that. I'm

gritful to my honourable friend. I believe she's absolutely right. This

bill solely focuses on the duties of local authorities. And we've got to

remember that those local authorities are operating in the

context, at the moment, of massive cuts to their budgets. So, we need

to be honest with ourselves about whether or not they are going to be

able to rise to the extra pressures that this bill places upon them. But

as my you honourable friend says, thisably do nothing to reduce the

cuts to housing benefit coming down the line and many experts believe

will make homelessness and rough sleeping worse. This bill does

nothing to reverse cuts to mental health services that is pushing more

people out on to the streets and it does nothing to reverse the cuts to

social care which is having the same effect or does nothing to build nor

affordable social housing I'm sorry if it injects a note the minister

doesn't like, but tough, he needs to hear that. He needs a better

response that this bill. If he thinks this is t it is not good

enough. This bill is a step in the right direction but that, I'm afraid

is all that it is. In greater Manchester, we are

committing ourselves, between ourselves and our councils, to try

to end rough sleeping. If we can do that at our level, the Government

should at least do something at their level. Madam Deputy Speaker,

in rising to support... I will give way. I am grateful. I am reading the

briefing note from Crisis, the housing charity, and I am quoting

directly, whilst we understand the intention behind these amendments,

we are very worried that there would be further amendments in the House

of Lords leading to ping-pong between the two houses. This could

result in the bill failing to receive Royal assent before the end

of the Parliamentary session, thus of the Parliamentary session, thus

killing the bill. My reading of this is that Crisis

would like the bill to go through without these new amendments. Does

he have maybe B1 that? I have also read the note from Crisis and I

think she will see that they don't believe the funding allocated to the

bill is adequate to meet the obligations that are being faced on

local authorities, nor do they believe that it will do anything to

address those wider issues around housing benefit however, I accept

the point that the honourable lady has just made. I have not come here

today to do anything to disrupt the passage of this bill, I think it

would help everybody to have a commitment to review bit, on the

face of it, so we all know where we stand and there is a degree of

urgency about how this House is addressing this issue. I hear what

the honourable gentleman says and I'm slightly disappointed by his

approach today in relation to the time that he's taking in relation to

the important report stage of this bill. It is as shame he did not come

and make the point he is making at second reading. That said, he asked

me the serious question of what this Government is doing to help with the

important issue of rough sleeping in Manchester, and I would just like to

say to him that we have already announced over ?600,000 for a social

impact plan in Greater Manchester to support entrenched rough sleepers

that have the most complex needs. Does he not welcome that work that

is going to be done by Government and with the Greater Manchester

authority? Every single thing he does to address this problem, I will

welcome, and I welcome that funding, but I do not welcome the alarming

rise in rough sleeping on the streets of Greater Manchester, and

I'm sorry if it is inconvenient to the Minister to hear this but I'm

absolutely clear that it is right to put those concerns to him. I wasn't

going to say another word because I want the bill to go well, but I'm

amazed by the chutzpah of the honourable member opposite moaning

about an excellent speech, relevant and pertinent to the point, on this

bill, given that people on the other side of this House, week after week

after week after week, talk out excellent bills! If the honourable

Minister doesn't mind, I would like to listen to what my honourable

friend has to say because it is pertinent, unlike the dribble

normally mentioned on the other side of the House week after week after

week. I am grateful. The Minister mentions time. If the Government was

making this a priority maybe the Government would be making time to

debate these issues, maybe it would bring forward its own legislature,

as a result of Private Members Bill. as a result of Private Members Bill.

I will welcome anything he does to address this issue but I am not

accepting that there is just a cosy cross-party debate today when the

number of the people sleeping rough on our streets is increasing every

single week. It is a bigger issue, I'm afraid, than just patting

ourselves on the back. More needs to be done, the Government needs to set

out today its ambition to cut Rob sleeping in the next few years, that

is why I am here today. I support this bill fully but let's be honest

about what it is, a modest first step.

I'm interested to follow the honourable gentleman for the,

because if I didn't know that he represented Leigh, I would think he

was representing some position in Manchester! I would also like to

commend my friend from Harrow East for the affected way he has brought

forward this debate and also for introducing such a sympathetic bill

on a compelling subject. One would hope every debate in this place is

worthwhile, but few issues could be more significant than the

legislation we are debating today. A bill which endeavours to make sure

no one has to endure sleeping rough on the streets of England, that no

one has to face the frightening prospect of a lack of a roof over

their head if no-one can put them up, and that no one has to be

subjected to the appalling mental and physical degradation that

accompanies homelessness. It is important to note that homelessness

is not the same as Rob sleeping, which I think the honourable

gentleman opposite perhaps misunderstood -- rough sleeping. But

we must not dismiss the plight of those who, whilst they may not be

sleeping on the street itself, are plagued by anxiety because of that

very real possibility. Britain is a developed nation with a strong

economy and I would be so bold as to say I speak for everyone in this

place when I say it is shameful that so many people in our country are

homeless and that we must do all we can to help them. Seeing somebody

sleeping on the street is of course and agonising thing for us to

witness but is more concerning at this time of year when freezing

weather comes, as we have two face even here in London this week. A

night out on the street becomes even more unbearable than it does as the

best of times. It is not possible to scrutinise this bill effectively

without understanding the complex nature of homelessness and just how

extensive the problem is across this country. Quantifying homelessness is

in itself an extremely difficult task. The way in which it is

recorded berries and even if a unanimous method were agreed and

employed, but numbers might still be underestimated as many people often

sleep out of sight and moving from place to place. Indeed because of

the appalling physical abuse which rough sleepers and in particular

women are subject to, many try to actively leave places where they

could be spotted. Despite that difficulty, Government statistics

show 4134 people slept rough on any one night across England in 2016.

Shockingly that is over double the number recorded in 2010. In London

alone local agencies report 8096 people slept rough throughout 2050

e-16, a 6% rise on the previous year. -- throughout 2015-16. The

rise is shocking since 2010. Does she think I Government is doing

enough to tackle rough sleeping? I thank the right honourable

gentleman. I think this Government is trying to tackle it, it is a

difficult subject, not an easy subject to deal with, and I do think

this Government is tackling it, and by allowing this bill to go through

I think it shows that they are taking it seriously. I am grateful.

One of the issues that both sides of the House need to be aware of is

that many of these people sleeping rough, even if they present to local

authorities, they will find local authorities do not currently have

the powers to help these people. It is not a question of money. Will my

honourable friend agree that the powers being proposed in this bill

will give them the power to intervene. I am pleased my

honourable friend makes that point because I can illustrate it very

clearly. Referring to a cave I had over Christmas, I had to ring the

helpline over Christmas for a family whose house had burnt down, it was

rented, they had four children, and the only thing the local authority,

Derbyshire County Council, were interested, not the fact they were

homeless and would have to come back from their family after Christmas to

homelessness so that they could continue with their jobs and get

their children back into school, was, were the children vulnerable?

Were they being abused? They were not interested in the homelessness,

said this is a clear example where the local authorities really were

not interested, even when I phoned in Christmas Day and several days

after that, we could not get Derbyshire County Council to put

anything in place for these people because their view was, well, they

are not homeless, they are staying with friends in Bournemouth, or

wherever it was, not that they had to come back to get their children

back into school and get their jobs back. I think there are problems at

the moment. As I was saying, homelessness is getting worse and as

such this bill could not come at a more necessary time. Breaking the

numbers down, several groups are at particular risk. In England, women

make up 26% of users of homelessness services but as a group they are

often much more vulnerable. There are high levels of vulnerability

within the female homeless population, mental ill health, drug

and alcohol dependency, experience of sexual abuse and other traumatic

life experiences are all commonplace. Interviews with

homeless women conducted by the fantastic homelessness alleviation

charity-macro two, which was quoted a few moments ago... Does the

honourable lady agree with me that organisations like Crisis backing

this bill shows the Government and my honourable friend has got it

right? Yes, I would agree with my honourable friend. The Government is

getting it right, it is acting, doing things for the benefit of

homeless people in this country. Did somebody else say something? Sorry.

As I said, Crisis show over 20% became homeless to escape violence

from someone they knew, 70% fleeing violence from a partner. I think

this shows that this Government needs this cross-party support which

it is getting, or was getting but it seems perhaps not as strongly as it

was, and that we do need to move forward for this bill to go through

and to go through successfully to the next stage so that it can become

law. I rise to speak specifically on new clause two and three in the name

of the honourable member for Hammersmith. The new clauses I'm

sure our well-intentioned and new clause two 60 of tenants assurance

on the length of their tenure and new clause 36 to give assurances on

rent increases, but I am concerned that rather than help vulnerable

people they will hinder some of the work of this bill as it stands. We

know private landlords are increasingly reluctant to accept

benefit claimants. This is certainly the experience at Portsmouth City

Council. The bill makes efforts to change this, new clause two and

three would frustrate this. Tenants are currently encouraged to remain

until evicted so that they cannot be termed as homeless. This is a

disincentive for landlords to take on cases from local authorities

especially under new clause two which would lock landlords into and

unbreakable three-year period if the outcome of giving notice was to make

the tenant homeless. Dishy agree with me that's the reality is you

are only allowed 50% on mortgage providers for buy to let on

tenancies of over one year, which will cause more problems than it

will fix? That has been discussed earlier today and mortgage lenders

could extend even further, even to three years or beyond, because we do

want long-term tenancies. But at the moment, under clause two, it would

mean landlords are reluctant to take on anyone who could beat authority

help, most of which would be vulnerable people in receipt of

benefits or on low incomes. A report from the landlords Association has

stressed that landlords do not usually evict responsible tenants,

nor do they not want to risk finding bad replacement and the costs of

addiction, nor do they want their house to be tied. What if they

wanted to sell the property or rented themselves? No provision is

made for that in clause two. As a result new clause two could propose

a strong disincentive for landlords to take on any tenant who might call

on the local authorities. New clause three, which seeks to cut rent

increases, would have a similar effect. As I have said, landlords do

not want to give notice unnecessarily and the recent

National Audit Office report this month shows private landlords are

not profiteering. Since 2001-2002, social housing rents have increased

faster than earnings. By contrast in all regions outside London medium

full-time weekly earnings have risen more than private rental prices, or

within one or two percent since 2006. New

clause three would allow provision to be made for London homes only by

setting a The Lovecats. The motivation for this presumably is

because in London rents have gone up by 32%, twice as much as earnings.

This would be a greater disincentive for landlords in London to take

tenants in receipt of housing benefit. The honourable gentleman

seeks to cap Private rent increase at CBI, get CPI would almost always

be lower than the RPI plus 0.5% cap that the last Labour Government felt

reasonable for housing association said the combination of fixed

three-year tenancies and the inability to determine their own

rent means landlords will either refuse to take on social tenants or

be obliged to give notice to get more rent increases. As it stands,

the bill seeks to work with landlords to ease the burdens on

tenants and local authorities. So new clause two and three, despite

Is a I will be brief. I recognise we work and I hope they

Is a I will be brief. I recognise we want to get to the final stages of

this excellent bill by the end of this morning. In terms of the wider

issue, of course this bill is only a partial solution and the committee's

report on homelessness drew attention to the wider issues that

need addressing. We need to build more homes in this country. We

particularly need to build more affordable homes and more affordable

homes to rent. Indeed the committee, specifically recognised that housing

needs vary why in different parts of the country. There are different

housing markets and that needs a different response, particularly in

response of tenure mix. We look forward to the housing white paper

which we understand is coming soon. We hope soon is before the end of

February when ministers will be coming before the committee in

response to our inquiry into the capacity of the house building

industry when we can pursue some of these points further about the

ability to provide the homes that are needed. Particularly from my

point of view, I hope that we do see and the Housing Minister seems to be

indicating this, a move away from the idea that starting homes and

shared ownership can help the housing needs. Hopley we can move in

that direction. Lots has been said about longer term tenancies. In the

last Parliament we supported that and we want to encourage everyone to

tenancies you can get a certainty of tenancies you can get a certainty of

an annual increase, which is different than having an artificial

imposed renting control from outside. Coming to the here and now,

money is absolutely crucially important to the success of this

legislation. I think we are getting a bit confused about the timings of

reviews. I think from a select committee point of view t would seem

to be two years on from to be two years on from

theismentation of the act would be a good time to review whether it is

working and whether the money is enabling it to work at that point.

-- two years on from the implementation of the act.

So I think we could commit to having a review, I hope the minister sees

that as a helpful proposal, we will look at it alongside Government in

reviewing the working of the legislation and the money at that

time. My concern, however, is while there is money in the first year to

help local government with start-up costs the act probably won't be

implemented after regulations have been put in place for about a year.

We have a second year with a limited amount of funding and in funding in

the third year which is probably the second year of actual operation. I

have concerns about that. I can't see there won't be any costs to

local councils, so I think there is a need for a more immediate review

after the act is passed with regard to that third year. Now, if

ministers are looking at potentially quicker, immediate review of the

finances, as soon as the act is passed, I think it will be helpful

and certainly the committee will be ready I think to do an immediate

review on that very limited basis at that time if that would assist in

the process. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker,

its a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman for Sheffield

South East, the Chairman the Select Committee. Now, Madame Deputy

Speaker, many honourable, or the honourable and Right Honourable

colleagues that have spoken in this date have talked a will the about

the whys and where fors of process and who tabled which amendments

where and when and which side is more sankty moanous than the other T

almost springs to mind here. -- snactimonious.

I'm in the going to get into that. This is about outcomes for people

who are homelessness and who have unfortunately become homelessness. I

am able it speak to the two clauses laid out today. New clause 1 would

put on the face of the bill a statutory requirement for the

Secretary of State to review this act, no earlier than one year after

commencement and no litter than two years. And requires that the review,

considering funding for the provisions of the act. The

honourable member will recall that the question of reviewing the costs

of the bill was raised and discussed at length during our deliberations

in committee. But, for the benefit of those who were not there, let me

state my commitment very clearly. I will review the implementation of

the bill, including the resources of it, and how it is working in

practice, concluding no later than two years after commencement of the

substantive clauses of the bill. I will give way in just a moment.

I will also carry out, in the same time frame, a post-implementation

review of the new burdens, to review the robustness of our assessment of

the estimated cost to local authorities and the underlying

assumptions. As part of both reviews, I would welcome the input

and expertees of the CLG select committee and would be very happy to

discuss how they can be involved. The resources and funding

requirements related to these duties will also be considered alongside

all other responsibilities of local authorities, as part of future

spending reviews. I think it is also important to bear in mind that the

provisions of the bill will not be implemented on the day that the bill

gets royal assent, as has been acknowledged by the opposition front

bench. At committee we were very clear that the successful

implementation of the bill will depend on working with local

government to ensure that the resources, guidance and training are

in place before the bill provisions are enacted. For that reason, each

measure in the bill can be commenced independently once local authorities

are ready. Given this is a statutory requirement to review, tied to the

commencement date if the act is unworkable, since the substantive

clause will be commenced at a later date I would also argue that a

statutory requirement is unnecessary given the commitments already in

place and the long-standing new burdens assessment procedures. I

will give way. I would just say to my honourable friend, as he always

does, will he make sure that his Civil Service is completely aligned

with his objective. And secondly, I welcome his commitment to work with

local authorities, I know my local authority Broxbourne would welcome

the chance to discuss these matters with imhad, to make sure this bill

is successful, as I know it is going to be and can I finally thank my

honourable friend for Harrow East for his excellent work over the past

few months, making sure today happens and new legislation comes

into law. My honourable friend mentions an important point about

working with local authorities. And we are actually determined to do

that in the implementation of this bill. He know I have already met

Broxbourne before to discuss these important issues and I would

certainly be keen to do that again. He also mentioned my civil servants

and making sure that their intention is aligned with my own. I can tell

him that the civil servants working on this bill have done an absolutely

excellent job, in very testing circumstances, whilst the Government

has wanted to bring forward legislation. I think we need to

acknowledge that this legislation has been very different, in that it

has been a private member's bill that has been then worked upon by

the select committee as well. That is then not just had that input but

had input from local government association and the housing

charities. So, our civil servants have done a magnificent job of

helping us bring all of those groups together and coming out with a

product that has broad support. On the issue of working with local

authorities, he will know, it was raised in committee, my concerns

about Westminster Council's recent decision to discharge duty to

homeless people mainly outside local authority, and in some cases as far

as the Midlands. His colleague on the front bench. The honourable

member for Croydon South told me on the Sunday politics last week that

Westminster Council was wrong to do this and in the long-run it should

be stopped. I wonder if he can confirm that in the House today and

tell me what he thinks the long run actually means? What I would say to

the honourable lady and we discussed this in some detail in the committee

and I'm not going to go into great detail today but what I would say to

the honourable lady that the law is very clear on placements out of

borough. And we are absolutely certain, as a Government, that we

want that law to be observed and particularly in relation to making

sure that councils look at people's circumstances, things such as where

children go to school, and where people work, before they make any

decisions that may affect a particular family.

I will give way and then I'll make progress I'm grateful to the

minister. Spoke a moment ago about successful implementation and

reviewing that to check it has been achieved. Obviously that's partly

the bureaucracy, if you like, successfully implementing the powers

and money to meet it, so local authorities can discharge the

function but the clause says it is about the fact it actually has on

reducing homelessness. Before he finishes this point, can he tell us

what is the Government's objective? What test is it setting itself with

respect to reduce both rough sleeping and homelessness by 2020,

so we can judge whether or not that has been a success? I would say to

the right honourable gentleman that we have set out a significant

determination to reduce both rough sleeping and homelessness in

general. Nobody should ever have to spend the night on the street. It's

greatable at this point that that is the case and that Government is

absolutely determined to make sure that nobody has to sleep rough. But

I would say to him that it is a complex matter, as I'm sure he is

well awhich are. Some of the things that we are doing will have a

significant impact. So, for example, there is a challenge of getting

people moved on from hostel accommodation, into an intermediate

position before they are able to go into accommodation of their own and

we are bringing forward a sum of ?100 million for move-on

accommodation, which will - there will be a bidding process for, which

will open very shortly. I hope the honourable gentleman, in the spirit

of the way this bill, or the right honourable gentleman, sorry, in the

spirit of this bill will acknowledge that the government is not sitting

on its laurels and it does not see this bill be a the be all and end

all to deal with homelessness and rough sleeping and we take it very

seriously and are doing a whole package of things to try and improve

the situation for people. Madame Deputy Speaker, moving on to new

clause 2, if enacted, this would mean that private sector landlords

would not be able to rely on the no-fault ground for possession,

known as section 21. Within the first three years of a tenancy,

where the termation of the tenancy would result in a tenant becoming

homeless, lands Lords and in many case tennants welcome the

flexibility of the current assured short hold tenancy regime, which

does not lock the parties into long-term commitments and promotes

mobility. Without the certainty that landlords can seek possession,

repossession when required. Perhaps for their own family to live in.

Many would be reluctant to let their own properties. The unwanted outcome

would be landlords withdrawing from the market and this would not help

landlords or indeed tennants. Let me explain further, Madame

Deputy Speaker, that before the assured short hold tenancies were

introduced by the Housing Act in 1988, the private rental market was

in decline. Regulated rents meant that being landlord was simply not

commercially viable for many property owners but since since

1988, the private rented sector has grown steadily, grown from just over

9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. I believe that the current

framework strikes the right balance between the rights of land Lords and

tennants and our efforts should be focussed on encouraging a voluntary

approach to longer tenancies for those who want them. With these

points in mind, I hope the honourable gentleman is going to

follow through on the comments he made at the start of the debate and

withdraw new clause 2. I will give way.

I thank the Minister. It is true that the liberalisation of permitted

development rights has released many more properties for rental and that

is a very good thing. Will he agree with me that pressure in changes of

fiscal policy in buy to let and four incidents in my own area selective

licensing is encouraging more landlords to resist letting

properties, and this proposal put forward by the opposition will

exacerbate that trend? I think the very point he is making I would

agree with, the more regulation is such that we lay on to residential

landlords, the net effect will be that the supply will reduce and many

of our constituents rely on renting private rental sector properties and

we need to therefore be very careful that the balance is right. Madam

Deputy Speaker, finally I would just like to talk about new clause three.

If enacted it would introduce rent controls in private rented sector by

compelling landlords to limit rent rises to no more than once a year

and by no more than inflation in cases where there is a risk of the

tenant becoming homeless as a result of a rent rise. Whilst I understand

the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled, introducing rent

controls is fundamentally the wrong approach and is not borne out by

evidence. Experience from Britain and around the world shows

rent-controlled leads to fewer properties on the market and less

choice were tenants. Returning to the situation that we had in the

1980s when the Private rented sector was in decline would not help

landlords or tenants. The key to improving affordability and choice

but tenants is to build more homes, rather than imposing rent controls.

Our build to rent fund has contracted investment worth ?630

million to deliver over 5600 high-quality homes specifically for

Private rent, our ?3.5 million private rented sector housing

guarantee scheme will increase investment into private sector

housing. We have also established the Private rented sector

affordability working group to explore options to reduce the cost

of the tenant to access and move within the sector. This group is

expected to submit its report to ministers next month. I therefore

urge the House to agree that this amendment is not desirable and as

with new clause two and hopefully new clause one with the commitment

that I have made to the opposition front bench I hope new clauses one,

two and three will indeed be withdrawn. Thank you very much,

Madam Deputy Speaker. Could I quickly thank everybody who has

spoken in this debate. I appreciate all the comments that have been

made. I thank my right honourable friend for Leigh for speaking

passionately about the situation in Manchester and the reminder that

these are problems that go around the country. I said in my opening

remarks that I would not propose new clauses two and three to vote, and I

don't intend to do that. The purpose of being here was to try to elicit

positive comments from the Minister, and we have failed in that respect.

We will return to these matters no doubt at an early date. Eviction by

landlords is the single greatest immediate cause of homelessness and

it does need to be tackled, and we are not living in the world of 1988

now, we are living in a very different and less stable economy

will stop I was disappointed by the minister's rather wholesale

rejection of that issue today, but I hope we will return to this on a

future occasion. More positive, in relation to new clause one, I'm

greatly encouraged by the Minister and thank him for entering into the

spirit of the discussion on that and for the specific words that he used,

that does give us the comfort we were looking for in relation to a

proper and timely and comprehensive review of the finances behind the

bill, and I'm particularly pleased that he said the chairman of the

select committee and Select Committee itself will be engaged in

that process as well as the Government, and I think that is

extremely helpful, given the time pressures, to get these matters

sorted out here rather than in the other place, and I'm sure the other

place will be watching and listening and on that basis I wish to withdraw

clause one. Is it the wish of the House that new clause one is

withdrawn? The question is... Where are we now? OK, sorry. I apologise.

I was waiting for the honourable gentleman... We come now to

Government amendment one with which it will be convenient to consider

Government amendment to -- two to nine. I am grateful for the

opportunity to move these amendments. I shall start with

amendment one. At our last committee session on January 18, I committed

delaying an amendment to clause four to ensure that tenants at risk of

becoming homeless were sufficiently protected and have access to the

required help and support. The committee agreed amendments to

clause one so that it now extends the period an applicant is

threatened with homelessness from 28 to 56 days, and clarifies that an

applicant is threatened with homelessness if they have a valid

section 21 eviction notice that expires in 56 days or less.

Amendment one to clause four extends the prevention duty to cover

instances where a household that has been served with a valid section 21

note still remains in the property after receiving 56 days of help from

the local housing authority under the prevention duty and is still at

risk of becoming homeless, specifically where is valid section

21 notice has already expired or will expire in relation to the only

accommodation the household has available. This amendment ensures

that in such instances the prevention duty will continue to

operate until such time as the local housing authority brings it to an

end for one of the reasons set out in clause four, even if the 56 days

have passed. If I may also address a related question about other ways of

ending a tenancy, raised by a number of honourable members during the

committee's consideration of clause one, particularly my honourable

friend from mid Dorset and North Pole, that clause and this amendment

address the particular need to clarify the status of an applicant

who has been served with a section 21 notice, but obviously people can

be threatened with homelessness in a number of ways, as was pointed out

to the committee, and any eligible applicant who is at risk of being

homeless in 56 days or less will absolutely be entitled to support

under the new prevention duty. I will give way. Does the Minister

agree with me that what we are doing today is absolutely fantastic, to

address this situation, but is he not shocked that the leader of the

Liberal Democrats is on the front page of my local paper today saying

that if a liberal -- if the Liberal Democrats were elected to the

council they would supply more than 1000 new homes to address

homelessness, and yet there is not one of them sitting on the benches

in this chamber? Well, I have been shocked, I would say, to my

honourable friend at how little but there has been from the Liberal

Democrats in regard to this bill. There is not one Liberal Democrat

here at second reading and, as we can see today year, they do not

appear again, so she makes a very good point that whilst at a local

level there maybe some suggestion that they want to address this

important issue, at a national level there doesn't appear to be a massive

amount of interest the Liberal Democrats. One of the concerns that

have been expressed not least by my honourable friend the Member for

Colchester is in terms of councils that seek to ignore statutory

guidance and will only get involved in terms of recognising someone is

homeless when the notice is served. Shelter have expressed concerns

around that in clause one, can the Minister give assurance in terms of

guidance and prevents on duty that councils cannot simply hide and wait

for that notice before they Act on vulnerable households and those at

risk? I can give my honourable friend that reassurance and what I

can also say to him is that the way in which the legislation will work,

it will be in the local authorities' in trust themselves to work more

quickly -- in their interest to work more quickly with people at risk of

becoming homeless and, as we discussed many times at the

committee, this will very much drive a culture change, this legislation

will drive a culture change, so people are helped much further

upstream than they are to date, particularly we are very, very keen

to end the practice of people waiting, all councils seem to

people, just wait for the bailiffs to arrive, then we will try and help

you. We want people to be helped far earlier, we don't want them in a

position where they face a court appearance and ACC J, which will not

help their situation further on in trying to secure further

accommodation -- or face a CCJ. Moving on, the remainder of the

amendments in this group relate to the issues we identified with clause

seven that were, unfortunately, unable to address at an earlier

stage. A key issue we identified was a workable balance between

incentives and protections in cases where an applicant with fuses a

suitable offer of accommodation at the prevention and relief stages. We

have been working closely with the local government sector and with

homelessness charities to resolve this and develop a way forward. I

want to thank all of those who have provided their expertise and

support. We will discuss the core amendments to clause seven in the

next group. This deals with the consequential amendments to clause

is four, five and six. Amendments two and four clarify the

circumstances when the new prevention and relief duties can be

brought to an end by the local housing authority. They would

require not only that a suitable accommodation offer had been turned

down, but also that accommodation would have been available for at

least six months. Clause is four and five insert sections 195, new

sections 195 and 185 he respectably into the housing Act 1996. The set

out the duties owed to those either threatened with homelessness or who

are homeless, both clauses contain provision allowing these duties to

be brought to an end where a number of circumstances apply. Amendments

two and four amend these new sections. I will in just a moment.

Amendments two and four amend these new sections 189 e-macro and 1952 at

knowledge that the grounds the giving notice would not just be a

refusal of suitable accommodation but also on the date the

accommodation was refused there was a reasonable prospect that the

accommodation would not have been available for at least six months,

or such longer period not exceeding 12 months as may be prescribed in

regulations. These amendments are relatively simple and ensure

consistency with provisions elsewhere in the bill. I will give

way. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate The right

honourable member giving way and I don't want to take up much time in

the spirit of the cross-party nature of this, I want to pay credit to my

Council and all councillors in Richmond upon Thames on the work

that has been done. My concern is that every single homeless this case

in my area, in my constituency of Twickenham, is absolutely unique. I

have come across a small number, very small number of cases where the

actual homeless person has refused accommodation that has been suitable

and they have refused it for individual situation, they are not

section of all, but it is to do with mental health. Will the final

accommodation not be a full stop and can the person come back and ask

again for the accommodation? Auto What I will say to my

honourable friend, I certainly agree that there are many local

authorities across the country working very hard to help people who

are homeless and we hope that the provisions in this bill will improve

the situation further. In relation to the particular circumstances she

mentions a person may be in, what I can say to her is there would be a

position where a person could go back to that local authority for a

review. So, certainly there is a safeguard for people in that sense.

Madame Deputy Speaker, amendments, yes I will give wanchts I thank the

minister for giving way. Would he confirm my understanding that the

bill incorporates a particular and special safeguard that is a full

written warning before any duty is then withdrawn, so that is an extra

bit of protection to make sure those that are facing a termination of

duty know what they are getting themselves into? My honourable

friend has been a diligent member of the bill committee and I thank him

for that and he is indeed correct that there is provision within this

bill for, in that sense a final written warning.

We obviously want to make sure that there is an inventive for people to

do the right thing and accept an offer of suitable accommodation but

I think we also need to consider those people where there are

challenges and they do need that final warning to, in some

circumstances, perhaps, make them think again and actually take up the

offer that they have been provided with by the local authority in

question. So sections 3 and 5 insert helpful signposts in clauses 4 and 5

to ensure they are cross-referenced with clause 7. Specifically they

insert references to the clause 7 provisions about the ending the

prevention and relief duties in case whereas an applicant has

deliberately and unreasonably refused to cooperate and to

provisions about ending the relief duty where an applicant has refused

a final accommodation offer or a final part 6 offer. This shrimp

means that the ways in which the prevention and relief duties can be

ended are easier to see and understand when reading those

clauses. Amendment 8, together with amendment

6 and 7 deal with the provision of interim accommodation while a local

housing authority is helping an applicant to secure accommodation

under clause 5. Amendment 6 sets out that where a local housing authority

has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible

for assistance and in priority need, they must secure interim

accommodation. It also sets out how this duty comes to an end. In cases

where the local housing authority, having concluded their inquiries

under the homelessness legislation, conclude that the applicant does not

have a priority need, this duty comes to an end into circumstances.

First, if the local housing authority notifies the applicant

that the relief duty is not owed. Second, if the local housing

authority notifies the applicant that once the relief duty ends, they

will not be owed any further duty to accommodate. Amendment 7 is a

technical amendment to the Housing Act required as a result of

amendment 6 and 8. Where an application has been provided with

interim - where an applicant has been provided with interim

accommodation and refuses a final offer, they may request a review of

the suitability of that offer. Amendment 8 ensures the duty to

secure interim accommodation continues until any review has been

concluded and the decision has been notified to the applicant.

And finally, in this group, I turn to amendment 9. The duties to

applicants under clauses 4 and #5, the prevention and relief duties are

to help the applicants secure accommodation. In some cases this

will entail the local housing authority actually securing this

accommodation directly, rather than helping the applicant by, for

example, providing a deposit guarantee. Amendment 9 provides that

where this is the case, the provisions of sections 206 and 209

of the Housing Act, 1996 apply in the same way, they would, if the

local housing authority secured accommodation under the main

homelessness duty. These sections contain various

provisions about how a local housing authority's housing functions are to

be discharged. For example, how they may secure that accommodation is

available, and how they can require an applicant to pay a reasonable

charge for the accommodation. Provisions also cover the

requirements relating to placements in and out of district, including

notifications to the hosting local housing authority. So, I will leave

it at that in terms of amendments 1 to 9, Madame Deputy Speaker and hope

the House will look on these amendments in the spirit this bill

has been conducted within and look favourably to support the said

amendments. The question is that amendment 1 be

made. Andy Slaughter. Thank you very much, Madame Deputy Speaker, I must

say after the 14 hours and seven sittings of the committee we have

heard about, I saw some alarm when 21 amendments over six pages were

tabled by the Government earlier this week, last week, and read

through them and I have to say on the first reading through was not

much the wiser as to what was happening. However, one perseveres

as one always does with legislation and I must say two things - firstly,

I do appreciate the difficulties that the minister and his sponsor

have had in squaring a circle whereby localp government, landlords

and the homelessness charities all need to be happy about the way the

bill is working, not the principles of the bill, which I think have been

agreed. I take that. And I also, am grateful for the minister giving the