19/01/2018 House of Commons

Next don't that is extraordinarily

considerate.

I would like to make a further

statement on the parole board

decision to release John Worboys. I

know the victims have suffered

considerable trauma. The prospect of

the release of this man is deeply

concerning to them, to members of

this House and to members of the

wider public. I believe I omit to

those victims and the public to

consider all the options open to me

as Secretary of State for Justice. I

took the step of seeking legal

advice from specialist leading

counsel to establish whether there

were grounds to challenge this

decision in the courts and to ask

the courts to stop the release of

Worboys before the decision was

reconsidered. Let me set out my

approach to judicial review in

general. There should not be a

challenge that has no reasonable

prospect of success. It is right

that public bodies can be held to

account for their actions through

due process of law and specifically

judicial review. There has been

significant public debate about the

possible basis for a legal challenge

in a case such as this. It has been

speculated that there are two

grounds open to me to challenge such

a decision. The decision was one

that nobody could reasonably have

taken, or that there were

considerable procedural failings in

the way that that decision was

taken. The bar for a judicial review

to succeed is very high. The test

for deciding if a decision is

unreasonable is not simply that the

decision maker, in this case the

parole board, could have made an

alternative decision, but that no

reasonable person would have come to

the same conclusion on the facts

upper case. Similarly, on procedure,

it would be necessary to identify

failing to follow that process by

the parole board that would have had

a material impact on the decision.

Having taken considered an expert

legal advice, I have decided that it

would not be appropriate for me as

Secretary of State to proceed with

such a case. Honourable members will

appreciate that I can go further and

expose details of the legal advice I

have been given. I know this will

disappoint the victims in this case

and members of this House. Given the

crimes for which he has been

convicted, on a personal level,

candidly, I share those concerns. I

have taken a close personal interest

in this case since assuming office

as the Secretary of State for

Justice. I believe it is important

that all the victims have clarity as

soon as possible, which is why I am

before the House today. I can

reassure the House and the public

that Worboys will not be released

until his licence conditions have

been finalised. I understand that

contact with victims has taken place

this week, and further meetings

about his release will take place

next week. This will have given

those victims the opportunity to

make representations to the parole

board as to the conditions to which

Worboys should be subject on

release. Let me be absolutely clear,

Worboys will not be released until

their representations have been

properly considered and his licence

conditions are in place. Indeed,

last week, I asked for assurances

that the views of victims were being

taken into account and that robust

licensing conditions would be put in

place to manage his risk. I am aware

that some third parties have

indicated that they are seeking to

bring legal proceedings themselves,

and that correspondence has been

served on me as Secretary of State

as a potential interested party to

any litigation. I fully support the

right of victims to take their own

legal advice and to challenge the

decision. The approach I'm taking

does not mean that others who may

have significant interest in the

case are precluded from taking

action. Each case depends on the

circumstances of each individual

ringing a claim. And that is one of

the reason I do not intend to save

more on this matter. I would not

want to prejudice any legal

challenges by commenting further on

the facts of the particular case or

the legal advice I have received. I

will be taking advice on how my

department should consequently

engage in any proceedings, but it

would not be appropriate to comment

further at this stage. It is vitally

important that the public and

victims have confidence in the

justice system that is there to

serve them. This case has exposed

some issues with the parole process

as a whole. I have already indicated

that aspects of the parole process

more generally should be examined.

In my statement on the 9th of

January, I said my department would

review the case for transparency in

the review parole board decisions,

how victims are communicated with,

and how they are appropriately

engaged in that process. I now

believe that review should go

further. I have therefore expanded

the terms of reference of the review

to consider guidance in practice on

parole board decision making. I have

published these today and have

placed a copy in the catlike house

library. I have expanded the review

to consider whether there should be

a mechanism to allow parole

decisions to be reconsidered, and

how that might best be achieved

whilst retaining the independence of

the decision-making process. This

review remains a priority for me and

the Government. Despite the

significant expansion of the terms

of reference, I intend to complete

that review before Easter. I also

acknowledge the concerns that the

victim contact scheme operated by

the National probation service may

not have worked as well as it should

have in this particular case. It is

right that as well as looking at the

process around parole decisions for

all cases that we consider whether

existing processes were followed in

this instance. I have therefore ask

Dame Glenna Stacey, Her Majesty's

Chief Inspector of probation, to

conduct a rapid fact-finding

exercise to find out whether the

existing processes, policies and so

forth were adequately followed by

the parole board in this case. Her

findings will inform the wider

review. Mr Speaker, as I have said,

I know members of the House are

concerned about this case and how we

deal with the release of offenders.

I hope this has reassured all

members of the thorough and careful

consideration I have made this

difficult case, and that we are now

giving serious and urgent

consideration to ways in which the

process can be improved that

reassures not only the victims of

these terrible crimes but the wider

public.

Thank you very much, Mr

Speaker. I thank the Secretary of

State for prior sight of his

statement. Two weeks ago it was

announced that John Worboys would be

released from prison. In those two

weeks, it has been absolutely clear,

the victims of the vile crimes

committed by Worboys feel that our

criminal justice as has let them

down. Our system must ensure that it

has the victims of crime at its

core. When it fails to do so, it

affects not just the direct victims

themselves but risks undermining

wider public trust in our justice

system. As Labour has reiterated

since the news of the release of

John Worboys was announced, it is

important that the Secretary of

State does everything in his

power... Many will be disappointed

by today's news. It is understood

that legal advice can't be shared,

and the minister does not want to

prejudice other cases being brought.

But today's news makes the need for

changes in the parole board even

more pressing. The current rules

permit either the Secretary of State

for victims to bring judicial

review. Many will have seen that

they are doing and that they have

attracted much public support for

their fundraising for this. Judicial

review is a key tool for every

citizen to be able to challenge

unjust or unlawful decisions by the

state or other public bodies. Cuts

to legal aid have undermined the

ability of many to pursue judicial

review. I would request that the

Government today use its review into

this to see how it can support

judicial review. Any judicial review

would look at whether the parole

board decision was taken properly.

If not, it would go back to the

parole board to look at this again.

As it stands, the current rules mean

that we would not know the reasons

for any subsequent parole board

decision. As we have repeatedly said

on the side of the Us, there is no

need to debate whether there is a

case for greater transparency. It

should be a practical review that

looks at how to ensure the public is

informed of the reasons behind

parole board decisions. Just as the

public is clear about court

judgments, it needs to beat able to

be clear about decisions of the

parole board. Greater transparency

has widespread support, so we

welcome the widening of the review

announced today, and especially a

mechanism to allow parole board

decisions to be reconsidered whilst

retaining its independence. People

were shocked that some of the

victims found out about the decision

of the release of Mr Worboys through

the media. Labour has said from the

outset that it is totally

unacceptable and very concerning

that someone not given the

opportunity to participate in the

parole board hearing, as is their

right. The victim contact scheme is

responsible for informing victims of

significant changes in the case,

including parole board hearing. This

is managed by the National probation

service, which has experienced

significant difficulties, especially

case overload, since the reform to

probation services in 2014. Labour

had called in this House for the

Government to look into the failings

in the MPS and victim contact

scheme, so it is a step forward that

the minister has now asked Dame

Glenys Stacey to conduct a

fact-finding exercise into the role

of the MPS. He needs to also ensure

that this answers the questions

being asked on whether his

Government's wholly negative changes

to the probation service contributed

to failings, and how he plans to

address them. It is clear that

concerns are not limited to the

decisions or indeed the functioning

of the parole board. Labour has

repeatedly stated that the Worboys

case raises so many serious

questions that anything less than an

independent end to end review of the

handling of the case from the first

report to the police of an attack

right through to the parole board

hearing would let down the victims

and the wider public. Labour has

repeatedly called for this wider

enquiry but it is not clear why the

Secretary of State for Justice has

repeatedly refused this demand. It

is reasonable and rational, and it

would help build public trust. I

hope that he would take this

opportunity to reassure this House

that he will undertake this end to

end review.

Can I thank the

honourable gentleman for his

questions. In the context of wanting

to ensure that the victims' position

is supported, I think he was right

to focus on the areas he did. And

I'm grateful for his not pressing

need further on the facts or legal

advice. In terms of the matter is

that he raised, it is right that the

victims are treated with concern,

with sympathy, and that all due

processes are followed. In terms of

this particular case, I think we

need to have a proper understanding

of precisely what happened and

whether the support was provided in

the way that it should have been.

That's why I'm pleased that Dave is

-- Dame Glenys Stacey is undertaking

a fact-finding mission. I understand

the need for greater transparency in

parole board decisions. I know that

one of the things that frustrates

victims is the sense that they don't

get to know what is happening and

the reasons why the parole board has

reached the decision that it has

reached. Equally, I think it can be

a frustration for the parole board

that they are not able to articulate

the reasons why they have reached a

particular decision. I share that in

sick. I think we need to look

carefully at this, but I think we

need to move swiftly on this matter,

which is what I intend to do. In

terms of an end to end review, my

focus has been on these issues

transparency and victim support. I

think they are the immediate issues

in front of us. I recognise that

there is a debate about the original

investigation. There is a debate

about how these IPP sentences

operated, though they have been

abolished. It is important to focus

in terms of our reviews on how these

matters are dealt with, as a

priority.

It is very clear, Mr

Speaker, and may I wish you a happy

birthday, that my right honourable

friend the Lord Chancellor has

applied himself to what is a very

serious and troubling case with the

greatest scrupulousness and care,

and he is to be commended for having

applied a difficult legal test of

what is ultimately a legal decision.

Will he agree a political decision

that could be made as soon as

possible is to change the parole

Board balls to the them to give

reasons for their decisions

Krachunov Parole Board rules. And

will be a great reassurance to

victim is and the public.

That is a good point. It is right

that we fully understand the full

implications of greater transparency

within the Parole Board. It is not

my desire we find a position whereby

as a matter of course offenders,

where the Parole Board is taking a

particular firm line because on the

evidence somebody should not be

released, but we need to understand

the full implications.

There is a case for much better

transparency.

Can I welcome this statement and the

decision to widen the remit of the

review. Has he be informed if the

CPS and police are reviewing the

other serious allegations against

John Warboys and if there is any

chance of further chances being

brought against him before he is

released? This is the question

victim want answered.

-- victim is. That is a matter for

the CPS and Metropolitan Police and

I don't think there is anything I

can say to inform the House on that.

I should declare during my 17 years

in the Treasury Solicitor Department

I acted for the Secretary of State

and Parole Board and sometimes both

together.

I commend this detailed work on this

case and would ask him to reassure

us not only will the views of

statutory victim is be taken into

account but the wider group of

victim is known to the authorities.

There are different systems in place

for the statutory victim is versus

others but in this case where there

are a large number of people who are

victim is but not in respect of the

fit Coates convictions that John

Warboys had, we need to ensure the

system works them as well.

Following his previous statement

this month, I raised the importance

of competence in our justice system

and my fear is the decision not to

judicially review this will not give

reassurance. He has talked about

greater transparency but I want to

press him on the point the

honourable member for Bromley has

made, will he commit to changing the

statutory balls so decisions are

open not just in this case but

future cases?

-- statutory rules. The intention is

to look at increasing transparency.

I will come back to the House with

more detailed proposals.

Can I urge

him to write to the CPS and ask them

to undertake a review. It may be the

public interest test was not

satisfied because there was an

indeterminate sentence and the

change in circumstances may mean

that test is now satisfied the cases

that were not prosecuted.

Could he give that undertaking?

In

terms of accountability for

decisions on prosecutions, that is

not an area which is under my

responsibility. But I very much

understand and sympathise with the

point made, and I know this is an

issue which the Attorney General is

focused.

Will he be looking at how the CPS

and police deal with cases where

there are, where it comes to light

their further victims in cases of

serious like this? John Warboys was

convicted of sexual assaults on 12

women but there are over 85 others

who came forward afterwards and that

needs to be looked at for similar

events where that might occur.

This is a fair point on the record.

I refer to my earlier answer.

Clearly in terms of whether there is

a public interest case to bring

further prosecutions, no doubt that

is something both the police and CPS

will want to consider.

It is essential we recognise and

respect the independence of our

legal system but also recognised the

public are disappointed and angry

with the Parole Board decision. Does

he agree by opening up the decisions

and making them more transparent,

even if the public still disagree,

they will have an understanding how

that decision was reached?

That is a very good point. The

direction that as a society we have

gone in has generally been towards

greater transparency. As Professor

Nick Hardwick who was one of the

first to make this point, there is a

case in this context of the Parole

Board as well.

Whilst we understand the desire not

to prejudice possible actions, in

his previous letter in January a

public letter, he states the victims

were not contacted until October. He

knows the concern it is not just

about updating them but involving

them in decisions. Can he give an

assurance participation will be

looked at and he will publish the

date when contact was made?

This is what will be investigated

and I have no doubt it will be made

public in her conclusions. It is

important victims are involved. In

this case, they are involved in

terms of making representations on

licensing conditions. It is

appropriate due weight is given to

this.

My constituents believe the best way

to protect the public is for violent

offenders to be kept behind bars and

they take the honourable view if an

offender is sentenced to a term of

imprisonment they should serve that

in prison in full before being

released.

Given this is a statement about the

transparency of the Parole Board

decisions, who and how is held to

account in the Parole Board if those

released early reoffend?

In terms of the numbers of

re-offences, those numbers are put

into the public domain. That is one

of the tests of the effectiveness of

the Parole Board. It is clearly a

priority for all of us that people

who are dangerous are not released.

The test for a Parole Board in the

context of one of these IAPP

business is an assessment of their

risk to the public.

The Shadow Minister is right, this

case raises wider issues from the

offence being committed to the

process of parole. Can he tell us

when he will bring forward the Bill

promised in 2015?

What I can say is I am receiving

advice on what we can do to make

progress on this matter. I hope to

update the House in due course. I

agree victims the vitally important

in the system.

Thank you for the detailed

estimation for the decision. I

welcome his comments on further

transparency which will increase

public confidence and the confidence

of victims in the system. How soon

does he anticipate changes can be

made?

The review even though it has been

broadened and we are looking more

widely not just at transparency but

whether there should be opportunity

for the Parole Board to look again

at decisions, that review will

report by Easter, depending on what

it recommends will determine the

timing but I am keen to make

progress as quickly as possible.

Can I welcome the extension of the

review announced today but I do

think there are serious questions

about the way police and the CPS

operated in this. I don't think it

is satisfactory to leave it to the

police and CPS.

There is a Home Office minister

that, I want to know what the Home

Office and Attorney General office

under -- Are doing to look at the

early stages as to whether this man

should be charged with further

offences?

I know the Home Secretary and

Attorney General had been very

focused on this case. What I would

say is my focus has been on the

immediate issues and that does

relate to the consideration of

judicial review but also issues of

transparency and support for victim

is. Of course, there are questions

that do need to be asked about how

the system which this Government has

abolished, how that operated in

terms of whether it met the test of

honesty and sentencing.

That is for another day.

Recognising

the importance of the independence

of the judiciary but considering in

this case the crimes, the victims

public concern, can he assured he

has looked into all the options in

this case?

Yes, I can give that assurance and

without dwelling on the details of

the reasons I have set out before,

given very long, close and serious

consideration to my options.

He is rightly concentrating on the

issue of transparency in his remarks

but he referred to the fact there

are some victims court in legal

proceedings because legal aid has

been severely restricted. Would he

please look again at the

availability of civil legal aid for

judicial review?

In the context of legal aid

generally she will be aware there is

currently a review on that.

It is reassuring the Lord Chancellor

despite only being imposed a short

time has sought to get behind the

Viktor of this terrible case. Can I

push him on the point about legal

aid. He mentioned he supports the

rights of the victim is to pursue

their own case. Will there be

discretion from the legal aid agency

to provide funding for them to do

so?

First, in terms of the action

brought, that may be brought by

victims on this, I want to be

careful in my remarks.

Just because I am not taking action

does not mean others cannot because

these legal cases can depend upon

precisely what the position they are

in. It is the case legal aid

generally remains available for

advice, assistance and

representation in relation to

judicial review. And that would

include decisions of the Parole

Board where there is sufficient

benefit to the individual.

We all respect the independence of

the judiciary but there needs to

come transparency.

Will he agreed the outcome of this

review must be greater transparency

in terms of Parole Board decisions?

Is

I'm grateful to my honourable

friend for his question. The

direction we are moving in this

towards greater transparency. There

are some details we need to master

and fully understand, but I think

the direction of travel is clear.

Can I welcome the extended review

which the Justice Secretary just

announced. But would he confirmed to

the House that it will include a

very detailed assessment of the

decision-making processes that the

parole board go through, with

particular reference to expert

reports from people like Doctor

Jackie Chrissie Arty in this case,

which are at the heart of these

decisions, to make sure that they

are suitable to give the expert

advice that they give?

Clearly, this

is going to be a broad review in

terms of how the parole board works.

So, clearly, in terms of considering

how it operates, the importance of

particular expert evidence is going

to be part of that process.

I also

might welcome the Lord Chancellor's

statement and the decision to expand

the review. He will of course be

aware that this is not the first

such case, and I would just to his

attention the case of a serial child

exploitation offender released after

a 20 year sentence only five years

after his trial. His victims felt

the victim contact scheme let them

down. Will he consider this case as

part of his expanded review?

In

terms of generally looking at how

the victim contact scheme works, I

would certainly be interested to

receive more information from my

honourable friend, but certainly, if

there are other examples where

questions have been raised, then

that is clearly something the review

will need to take into account.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On that same

note, I welcome the Secretary of

State's response to what is a

sensitive and emotive issue. It

highlights that they need to listen

to victims is so important. Could

the Minister give assurances that

this will be looked at? Is it fit

for purpose? And was it adequately

followed by the parole board?

In

terms of how the victim contact

scheme worked in this particular

case, you know, frankly, there

are... There are different views

that have been put to me. There is

conflicting evidence, and that is

why I think it is absolutely right

that we have that review by Dame

Glenys Stacey, so that we can

properly understand what happens

here, and therefore what lessons can

be learned from it.

I welcome the

Justice Secretary's commitment to a

broader review and appreciate that

he has set himself a pretty

aggressive timeline for this, so if

the end result is generally going to

be better reflection of the views of

victims, can he assure me that the

review itself will engage the

victims?

Yes, I think it is

absolutely essential that victims

are engaged in this process.

I think

that all members across this House

recognise and appreciate my right

honourable friend's candour with the

house, but for the sake of all

victims, will he make sure that all

appropriate and measured steps are

taken to make sure he's never put in

this position again?

I think the

most important thing is not my

position but the position of

victims, and clearly, we need to

ensure that victims have a system

which they have faith in. Sometimes

these can be difficult challenges in

terms of making sure that where

there are large numbers of victims,

that their voices properly heard.

Victims, I think, are entitled to

have their voices heard, and we have

to make sure we have a system that

works for them.

I am most grateful

to the Secretary of State for the

statement and two colleagues for

the... The house will now returned

to the homes fitness for habitation

bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is

good to be back debating the bill

again and to follow the honourable

member for Wells and good

contributions from members from both

sides. Can I welcome the Minister to

her new post and to the dispatch box

for the first time today. I am glad

to see her first outing is on this

important bill. She came to this

post from the whip's office, of

course, so if any of her colleagues

at the back play, she is the ideal

woman to sort them out. Can I give

the warmest welcome and strongest

congratulations to my honourable

friend, the member for Westminster

North. Her speech, I think, showed

just why and how she is one of the

House's best experts and strongest

voices on housing. This is her bill.

It is not a hand-out bill from the

Government, not a bill from outside

organisations, and over a long

period, my honourable friend has put

together the case and the content

for this bill, and she has built the

coalition of support behind this

bill. From the residential landlords

Association to Citizen's Advice and

the chartered Institute of

environmental health. I should make

special mention of Shelter who made

the call for this change in their

report four years ago, Safe And

Decent Homes. And I would like to

thank the Government for its

backing. I'm sure ministers will do

all they can to make sure it

progresses through the Lords and

onto the statute books. I have to

say from the Labour side, this is

something of Groundhog Day,

especially for my honourable friend.

Three years ago, she brought a

similar bill to the House which the

Government blocked. Two years ago,

from our front and led by my

honourable friend the member for

errors and Thamesmead, the same

changes were proposed and the

Government voted them down. The

Secretary of State and the Prime

Minister voted against that change

on that day. So, today's

Conservative change of mind is

important, and it is significant. It

is important because this bill is

important. It gives all tenants,

Private, counsel, housing

association, the right to take

action in the courts if their

landlord fails to let them keep a

property fit for human habitation,

fit for people to live in. That

means homes safe from fire, homes

with adequate heating, homes free of

vermin, constant condensation or

mould. This is so basic. And in this

day and age, it's extraordinary that

currently landlords have no such

obligation to their tenants, and in

practice, tenants can often do

nothing about such serious hazards

that affect their health and their

safety. This bill is important also

because it deals with a really big

problem is: Desperately bad,

indefensible standards that are

widespread. Over 1 million rented

properties which are home to 2.5

million people have these downright

dangerous category one hazards.

Nearly 800,000 households are

private renteders. A further 244,000

live in council or housing

association properties. New Labour

analysis from the data of the

English Housing service released

yesterday shows that almost 700,000

children are growing up in homes

that are plagued by damp, mould,

dangerous electrics or extreme cold,

with all the cost is to their health

and welfare that my honourable

friend and others from both sides

have spelt out to the House so far.

Councils can of course act. They can

act to help private or housing

association tenants, but half of all

councils last year served just one

or no enforcement notices. One

especially active London council

served almost half of all the

notices nationally last year. In

Stephen Battersby's report, that

council wasn't identified, but I

suspect it's not unconnected with my

honourable friend. My own counsel in

Rotherham has over the last year

trebled the number of inspections

they carry out under the Housing

health and safety ratings system.

721 last year found in half those

properties a category one hazards,

and they prosecuted six, but only

six, of the landlords. Can I offer

the Minister perhaps four questions

to work on alongside the passage of

this bill? First, will she make a

commitment to increase funding for

local council enforcement, as both

sides have called for so far in this

debate, to help reverse the deep

Government cuts to the council since

2010? Second, will she confirmed

that legal aid will be available for

tenants taking action to get their

landlord to do the work needed? And

will she extend legal aid to help

tenants claim damages? Fourth,

during the housing and planning

Bill, we from the Labour front bench

force the Government to change the

bill to make regular electrical

safety checks mandatory? That has

been lawful to years Daniil when

will it be implemented? The breadth

of support for this bill is both a

tribute to my honourable friend, but

is also telling, especially from the

residential landlords Association

and the National landlords

Association. The large majority of

landlords take their

responsibilities seriously and they

make sure problems for their tenants

are sorted out promptly. This bill

reinforces what landlords should

already be doing. And I'm glad to

say, it follows similar legislation

already in place in Wales through

their 2016 renting homes act. I said

this bill was both important and

significant. It is a policy and

political landmark to have

Conservative ministers backed a

Labour bill to tighten regulation to

help people who rent. It was a

former housing chairman and Tory

vice party chairman who opposed this

change, saying, it will result in

unnecessary regulation and cost the

landlords. This was part of the

prevailing conservative approach to

market regulation, based on the in

the miss two out, one in rule.

Conservative backing for this bill

is welcome and a significant shift.

I will, of course.

Thank you. I'm

really grateful to my honourable

friend forgiving way. He is making a

powerful statement. Does he agree

with me that the Government should

be very grateful to my honourable

friend for bringing forward this

bill again and giving the Government

an opportunity to overturn their

previous opposition to the measures

in this bill which he has just

outlined, including through the

passage of the Housing and planning

act? And will he join me in pressing

the Government to implement the

measures in this bill very quickly?

Because their resistance to these

measures previously has meant there

has been a delay for tenants in

getting the protection they very

much need.

My honourable friend is

right. I hope the Minister will

acknowledge the opportunity that

this gives the Government. I would

rather this was a Government bill

that also went further to make the

private rented market more fair. My

honourable friend is right: There is

too long history of legislation

being passed with implementation

liking. So she makes a really

important point for the Minister

later on. I mentioned this was a

welcome and significant shift. It

shows Labour's winning the arguments

and forcing Government to change

policy. It shows the ministers are

coming to terms with the hard

reality of our first minority-owned

Government in 38 years. With no

domestic policy programme, because

it isn't covered by their deal with

the DUP. If the Government wants to

act... So, if the Government wants

to act beyond Brexit, only policies

which can command some support from

beyond its own ranks will stick. So,

this bill is important as a first

step is to deal with failures in a

market the Prime Minister herself

describes as broken. But more is

needed. And alongside the

Government's backing for this bill,

either for urge it to rethink its

refusal to help people who rent in

other ways. I urge it to consider

backing the Labour plans for longer

tendencies, controls on rent, more

freedom for councils to license

private landlords.

And finally, my honourable friend,

when she introduced the bill, said

that everyone should have a right to

a safe, warm, comfortable home. She

is so right and we will give this

bill its strongest possible support.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan.

It is a

pleasure to follow the Member for

Wentworth and congratulations, the

honourable member for Westminster

North, who has worked so closely to

Government to bring this build a

strong cross-party support position

so that we can all really stand up

for what it refers to. I refer the

House to my entry in the register

members' interests as a private

landlord. As a landlord myself, this

bill has my wholehearted support

because it changes the status quo by

empowering tenants to take action

with legal backbone if their

landlord is failing them and their

family. This bill empowers those

living in both social housing and

private rented accommodation to take

charge of taking on their landlord

to enforce housing standards for

their home, which have fallen below

standard, and which make their home

unfit to live in, due to serious and

immediate risks to those residents'

health and safety. This bill is an

excellent example of something which

I believe we should try to use more

often than we do. That is the

velocity of nudge politics. I am

genuinely hopeful that because this

bill means that a tenant can compel

a landlord to fix those housing

failures, the vast majority of those

landlords will start to discover the

satisfaction of proactive property

maintenance. Mr Speaker, everyone

deserves a decent and safe home to

live in. Every child should be able

to grow up in a home free from damp,

and the reality is that it can be

both old and new properties which

fail to be properly ventilated,

thereby leaving children in

conditions which aggravate or create

skin and breathing health

difficulties. My constituency

Berwick-upon-Tweed extends over a

vast area of North Northumberland,

the most beautiful rural

constituencies, but consists of over

150 villages, many of which are

told, stone built cottages as the

backbone of the housing stock. These

bring their own challenges to meet

modern heating standards but many of

my local members have shown

creativity and invested in

sustainable and renewable heating

methods which have given their

tenants are greatly improved day to

day living experience. Many

landlords of these old stone

properties have invested in their

properties, as my honourable friend

the Member for rugby mentioned

earlier, a good landlord knows and

act upon their responsibilities to

provide and maintain a good

standard, alongside their right to

collect rents. There, of course,

sadly, some private landlords who

have not been as speedy to make

those long-term improvements in

these old properties, leaving

tenants with rotten window frames

which ensure no amount of eating can

keep their home warm, or with poor

and graded drainage conditions which

mean that health risks which are

entirely avoidable are still in the

mix. One of the frustrations I have

in this are for my constituents with

recently built, indeed, or

refurbished social housing, mostly

in Berwick and in Alec which still

fails to do so. -- Alnwick. I have a

family living in Berwick with a

daughter with respiratory problems

who cannot live with her mother and

sisters in this council property

because ventilation improvements, so

called, simply sealed up the

property and created such dampness

and health problems that the child

cannot spend more than an hour in

the House before suffering an ounce

-- an asthma attack. I have been in

the House several times and each

time I can feel the construction of

my breathing airways because of a

damp air. These so-called

improvements have completely failed

to do what they were asked and we

are continuing to battle on with

them, and the housing association,

who want to fix this, but this is an

example of a poorly installed

investment which needs sorting out,

where the builders who did the work

failed to meet the requirements they

were given. This is a huge

frustration to all of those in the

system but we have to find a way to

fix it. This bill will empower my

Berwick family and an amazing mother

who is fighting for her daughter's

health, and for the right of the

daughter to be able to live with her

mum if they can't find a different

house to move them to, to enforce

those improvements because my local

authority cannot enforce against

themselves. Thousands of tenants in

my constituency are being given

through this bill a new empowerment

to get the renovations they deserve.

A good and reliable water supply,

effective drainage and sanitary

systems, facilities for cooking and

waste disposal. They mitigate and

eliminate file risks -- fire risks,

for those colleagues who have

high-rise blocks, which is

absolutely key part of this bill. We

have the chance to support our

constituents, newly empowered to get

homes delivered that we can all be

proud of.

I am grateful, Madame

Debbie disfigured. Can I draw

attention to my register a members'

interests, and then can I welcome

the honourable lady to her place on

the front bench, a promotion which

she deserve. -- Madam Deputy

Speaker. I fully support this bill

and I want to support my honourable

friend from Westminster for her

absolute persistence in trying to

see these changes put into place. It

is a testament to her dedication and

bid support of so many people and

organisations across the Government

is, I understand, content to allow

this bill to proceed this afternoon.

I want to start by addressing a

development in the regulation of

standards in the private sector that

affects my honourable members have

noticed that my borough of Newham

has been largely successful in its

application for an application to

renew its licensing scheme for

private sector landlords and I am

very wriggled to the previous

minister who took the time to

properly listen to our case and

acted positively upon it. He was in

his seat earlier on this morning and

I had hoped he might stay so that I

could thank him formally and

publicly from these benches but

there is one area in my constituency

that the permission has excluded and

that is the ETA 20 postcode and that

includes much of Stratford. I think

I understand why the previous

minister did that but I also believe

it to be a mistake, because poor

quality housing and abuses by

private sector landlords exist in

each 20, just as they do in every

part of my constituency and of our

country, and the exclusion of each

20 will make it far easier for these

abuses to continue and I'm worried

that it could make E20 more of a

draw for rogue landlords if it is

the only place they can take

advantage of new's high housing

demand whilst avoiding the enhanced

enforcement of the council. I'm

going to get in touch with the

Minister at a later date to offer a

cup of tea and a bun, should you

like it or even something stronger

after dry January is finished so we

can talk this through. While I am

talking to the benches opposite, may

I say to the honourable lady from

Telford, I would really like to

invite her to come to West Ham, have

a look at one of our enforcement

visits, see what a difference it

makes and then maybe I can persuade

her, too, that this is a journey she

might like to take with her front

bench and start to accept that this

is possibly the way forward and we

have got decent cafes in West Ham

and I am happy to take her for a

latter day or a cappuccino or

whatever she might desire in order

to win her support.

I thank the

honourable lady for giving way and I

think it is excellent that we've got

this cross-party debate today and

that we are all working together and

I thank her for her invitation.

Excellent, so my office will be in

touch with hers in order to see if

we can get a date. Enabling local

authorities to take tough action

against rogue landlords is really

important and it can be a real help

in driving up standards. This bill

would tackle the problem at the

route by clarifying, updating and

strengthening the right of tenants

to live in a rental property that is

fit to be called a home. As we have

heard today, a minority of landlords

make huge profits from their

renters, who can live in appalling

conditions and before Christmas, in

this place, I mentioned a case where

a man had been found living in one

metre by two metres space under some

stairs, in a property with 11 other

people and with electrical and fire

hazards to boot. That same in new

Hampden enforcement team -- Newham

enforcement team found, on that very

same day, just to be clear, three

people who were paying £200 a month

for space in an outside shed. As we

heard earlier, for other separate

families have been crammed into the

main house and I believe it will

begin to solve the problem of abuse

to tenants if all landlords, from

the beginning of a tenancy, had a

clear duty to provide basic liveable

conditions for tenants and if this

could be enforced not just by our

councils but by the courts. Every

single one of our constituents

deserves a...

Very briefly, would

she also accept some praise for the

local authority leading the way,

such as Haringey coming on board

with exciting new schemes to crack

down on very poor at landlord

practices.

New council is absolutely

right to take the action they did

and the Government is absolutely

right to supported further, because

only by schemes like this, paid for

by the landlord, making sure that

there is the money there for

enforcement activity to take place

can we ensure that our tenants have

homes that are fit for them, because

every single one of our constituents

deserves to have a workable and

realistic legal address against

landlords whose properties are

dangerous, cold or damp. Giving them

that help will ensure that the

horrifying conditions we have heard

about today will not be allowed to

continue. I am delighted to support

this bill. It is about time it makes

progress and I hope to see that this

afternoon.

Thank you, Madam Deputy

Speaker. It is always a pleasure to

follow the right honourable lady,

the Member for West Ham, and I

particularly want to pay tribute to

the honourable lady, the Member for

Westminster North, who, I have no

doubt, is a doughty campaigner on

behalf of the constituents and who I

have regularly heard raise housing

matters in this chamber. I would

also like to congratulate my

colleague on the front bench for her

promotion to this role. She is a

very good friend of mine, a

colleague who I respect enormously

and who I know will be very

effective in this new role that she

has just started out in. Rather like

in the constituencies of all my

honourable friends and colleagues

opposite, housing is a key issue in

Corby and East Northamptonshire,

tabby M, and we are right at the

forefront of the housing growth

agenda, entirely supportive of the

government's aims and we keep

arguing the case about the need for

infrastructure but it does give a

misleading picture about the

situation locally. We're seeing

thousands of new homes being built

but, rather like an Telford, Corby

is a new town and that means a lot

of our housing stock, both of

housing sector, with housing

associations and in local authority

control, is of a similar age and

that obviously brings quite

considerable challenges with it. And

in the other part of my

constituency, the East Hampton sure

part, we do have, despite the

perception, pockets of deprivation,

so there are housing challenges in

those areas, too, despite on the

face of it some of those areas

looking to be very affluent indeed.

I'm pleased that in my constituency

there is a particular effort going

on at the moment to try and deliver

improvements to the housing stock

and I recently had a very productive

meeting with Corby Borough council

and the housing staff there, when we

went through the forward a plan of

work that has just been through full

council, to deliver a programme of

works to help upgrade quite a chunk

of our housing stock within the

town. Those are very welcome steps.

But I do accept that performance can

be patchy and that some local

authorities - and in some areas, the

situation is others... Ira member

when I was a councillor in

Wellingborough back in the day, and

we were always very careful to

manage our resources. There has been

a lot said in the debate today about

local authority resources. We always

made sure we had a conference of

capital programme in place, housing

was very regularly right at the four

of that, and we were also very

prudent in our reserves to make sure

we had sufficient reserves in place

that were there issues that arose

that needed addressing, that we were

in a position to take the action

when it was required to. As I say,

there are challenges but I am very

pleased that this bill continues to

build upon the steps that have

already been taken. I am also

pleased that it commands cross-party

support because I think on these

issues, they are fundamental. It

doesn't matter how our constituents

vote, Conservative, Labour, Liberal

Democrat, Ukip, all of us and all of

our constituents have concerns about

the issue of housing. I don't think

any member in this House could deny

that that is the case. So to my

mind, this bill strikes the right

balance because it adds an extra

tool in the box on trying to tackle

some of the challenges that we have

seen before us, and all of us see

constituents on a week to week basis

in our care surgeries, raising

issues about the quality of the

housing stock that they live in, but

we must not lose sight of the fact

that there are also many excellent

private rented landlords who do

provide a real service and provide

very good quality provision that is

well managed and that meets the

needs of people in our communities.

I'm pleased that the provisions of

this bill will not adversely affect

them in terms of costs, because I

think it is important that we don't

lead them to feel vilified by the

steps we are taking. I actually see

this bill is an opportunity to

congratulate landlords who do it

right, could provide an excellent

service, who are mindful of the

needs of their tenants, but at the

same time, it offers an opportunity

to level up and make sure that those

who are not providing the sort of

service we would expect and the

quality of stock that we would

expect to put that right and take

the steps necessary, and to have

added an extra tool in the battle of

trying to achieve that. I also have

huge respect for the Shadow

Minister. But I'm slightly

disappointed by the tone of his

remarks, because there have been a

lot of steps taken in the last few

years under this Government that

have helped to progress the housing

agenda and particularly to get to

grips with some of these issues that

we have heard today. Let me allude

to some of those. The extra 12

million for local authorities to

identify and prosecute rogue

landlords, which has led to 70,000

homes inspected, 5000 landlords

facing action or prosecution. We've

seen steps to address retaliatory

action when legitimate complaints

have been made. Surely that is

something we can all welcome and

recognise as a step forward. You are

no longer allowed to serve

open-ended eviction notices, a step

we can all agree on welcome. Further

legislation in 2015 to improve

safety, again, something we should

all be able to welcome. And through

the Housing and planning act, we

have allowed the authorities to

impose civil penalties of up to

30,000 as an alternative to

prosecution, again, a step forward.

As the chairman of the select

committee noted, as of April,

banning orders are no longer...

Sorry, we have banning orders coming

into force. Wheels have a database

of rogue landlords being introduced.

Concrete steps that I would like to

think that every member of this Cows

would welcome. But we mustn't be

complacent, and that is why this

bill is important, because it

continues that journey we have

already embarked on. What we and all

of our constituents would like to

see is improved and better

cross-party working on these big

fundamental challenges that affect

each and every one of us. Because of

this bill and the spirit in which it

is being conducted, I'm pleased that

we are in the position that we find

ourselves today. I also think that

the points that have been raised

around the importance of tenants

having the confidence and support to

enact the provisions of this bill is

very important. I would like to

think that the Minister may have a

few words to say about that when she

sums up. I would be particularly

interested as well to hear about the

engagement we have had with Shelter

and other organisations to make best

use of these provisions, should they

come into force. I am keen to do

everything I can to help support

bringing this bill into law. Just a

couple of finer points, wider but

related, I would argue, nonetheless.

The first one is the issue of best

practice. All of us in our

constituencies see examples of best

practice. One of the things I

thought was interesting about the

Shadow Minister's speech was that he

alluded to some of the best practice

we have seen in London. How can we

best share that? There is no point

having isolated best practice. If we

have local authorities that are

doing it well, and again, I don't

care what political persuasion any

given council is. I have a Labour

council in my constituency and we

have a productive and sensible

working relationship, which my

constituents expect, but it also

helps to get things done. I want us

to better use Best practice that is

identified around the country to

help try and improve outcomes across

the country. I think that where that

can be achieved, we should go after

it. Across all aspects of policy. I

would like to think that ministers

and Government can help in the

dissemination of that information. I

will give way.

I want to extend an

invitation to the honourable

gentleman for back-up of coffee,

cake -- for a cup of coffee.

It

sounds like we will have quite the

outing, because the Minister is

obviously... Is the honourable

member for Telford is lined up to

take part. I look forward to having

a date in the diary for that to

happen. I will definitely hold her

to the cake part of that. On best

practice, important that we roll

that out where we can. A final point

that I want to make is that,

particularly in new towns, we have

this housing stock that is of a

similar age. And most of the housing

stock that is in the private rented

sector and the public sector is that

similar age and has particular

challenges. I want us to what

cross-party on this, but we have to

develop a strategy that means will

be able to have a fundamental

replenishment of that stock in due

course because truth is that that is

all likely to come to a head at the

same time. That is one for another

day.

From behind the facades of

Kensington and in neighbouring

Chelsea come tales of the most

unimaginable squalor. Some members

may know that my move interactive

local politics 12 years ago was

propelled by a five-year legal

battle with my housing association

after a ceiling collapsed after many

complaints, narrowly missing my

young daughter's head by inches and

it was a plaster ceiling. How do we

have around seven excess winter

deaths a year in the richest borough

when cold is a category one has a?

My office is currently asking

constituents who report dampened

mould about their health. So far,

and this will be no surprise to many

of us, every single one has reported

asthma and other breathing problems.

Two constituents I visited recently

had to walk around with nebulisers

dispensing oxygen to show us black

mould. Their lives were in danger.

Kensington and Chelsea Council is

proud of their enforcement record,

but their work and housing is

constrained by funding, staffing and

legal constrictions, as we know.

Since 2015, just the 11 successful

prosecutions have been reported for

disrepair, poor management and lack

of fire precautions. Credit where it

is due, but this is the tip of an

iceberg. Some of these prosecutions

have been widely reported for

improving the external appearance,

with action against landlords not

maintaining their facades, improving

visual matters rather than health

matters. We have difficulty in

pursuing offshore landlords because

we don't even know who they are, and

they are the bane of the property

market. The current framework is

unwieldy, bureaucratic and

time-consuming, with no power of a

local authority landlords. My

honourable friend has it the

proverbial nail on the head with

this bill, which is a far better

standard of workmanship and much I'd

seen. In Kensington and Chelsea, the

council is better at keeping up

appearances, sanitising poverty and

sanitising squalor than it is with

addressing it. As we know, the prime

motivation behind the cladding at

Grenfell Tower was to improve visual

appearance for the conservation

areas nearby. This is detailed in

the planning application and

mentioned several times. We know

what happens when bad landlords,

including local authorities, get

away with ignoring complaints.

Grenfell is a stark reminder of what

the current legal provisions can

lead to, with complaints sidelined,

ignored, ridiculed and in the end is

the subject of cease and desist

letters. Time is up for bad

landlords. Our homes are making our

residents ill, they are responsible

for any deaths, and sometimes even

killed. My daughter survived her

very frightening experience, but

many do not. Some of my neighbours'

daughters did not survive. As a

legacy to the 71 victims and

countless survivors and frightened

neighbours of the Grenfell Tower

fire, and for all those living in

unhealthy homes, I support this bill

unreservedly.

Thank you for calling

me in this debate, and it is a

pleasure to follow the honourable

lady. I am also delighted to support

this bill, and I commend the

honourable member for Westminster

North are bringing forward this

legislation. I worked on the

Homelessness Reduction Act with her.

I would like the start by paying

tribute to Shelter. I think they

have done a fantastic job

campaigning on many of the issues

we're talking about today, and I

think this bill passing second

reading would be testament to all of

their hard work in this area. We

have seen action to help people get

into properties, helped by for those

looking to own, and the budget also

included to rent. The extension of

this must now be making sure that

people are living in properties that

are fit for purpose. The 2015-16

English Housing survey found that

nearly 795,000 homes in the private

rented sector have a category one

hazard, and nearly 245,000 in the

social rented sector. For those

unaware of what that actually means,

a category one hasn't in the housing

health and safety rating system is

one which is defined as a serious

and immediate risk to a person's

health and safety. The phrase health

and safety might cause a few eyes to

roll, but we are talking about

really serious things - asbestos,

mould and damp, carbon monoxide and

the products of fuel combustion.

What if I said that this represents

6% of properties in the social

rented sector? How about if I said

it represented 17% of properties in

the private rented sector? Just

think about that for a moment. There

is nearly a one in five chance that

a property is one of our

constituents goes out and rent has a

hazard considered a serious and

immediate risk. This has to change.

The key function of this bill is

providing a meaningful route for

those living in properties which are

not fit for purpose to get necessary

repairs done. We're not seeking to

be disparaging about landlords. The

vast overwhelming majority always

try to do the right thing by their

tenants and take swift action to

resolve any faults or problems with

their properties. If anything, this

majority, tired and fed up of having

their reputations trashed

untarnished by others in this sector

who simply, excuse my language, just

don't give a dam, they do want this

bill to pass. At the moment, tenants

are dependent on the local authority

for action to be taken regarding

property standards. This can be

difficult enough when you are

renting accommodation from a private

landlord, but what about when your

landlord is in fact your own local

authority? I think it is really

important to have a route open to

tenants which ensures that local

authorities don't have conflicting

interests. This bill gives tenants

the right to take their landlord to

court when their property is not fit

for purpose. They will be able to

directly apply for an injunction

compelling their landlord to carry

out necessary repairs, or they will

be able to apply for compensation

from their landlord for their

failure to maintain the property. In

the worst cases, tenants will be

able to provide their own evidence

to the judge rather than, as we do

at the moment, having to rely on an

environmental health officer or

independent surveyor's report. For

local authorities, this also means

that they can focus their resources

on the very worst landlords. There

is always some reluctance from Psalm

about legislating in this area. A

belief that this is a matter best

left resolve between individual

landlords and tenants, but let us be

clear, this isn't about the

Government telling landlords what to

do, it is about levelling the

playing field. If we're being

honest, nor does it introduce

anything new. There are no new

property standards defined by this

bill, no new additional regulation.

We are simply making sure that

additional standards, existing

standards, are being enforced. The

final point I want to raise regards

the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, which

the honourable lady for Kensington

rightly referenced. There is an

enquiry into what happened, and I

don't want to speculate about what

it will find, or who, indeed, is to

blame. However, we have all heard

the stories, harrowing stories, in

fact, of the unsafe conditions. Fire

doors which didn't work, not enough

emergency lighting in stairwells,

inadequate smoke ventilation. A

number of these concerns were

previously raised by tenants who

feel, or felt, that they were being

ignored. We must never have a

situation again where genuine

issues, in particular issues of

safety, are not being tackled by

landlords. When tenants feel unsafe,

then landlords have to take action.

They must listen, no ifs know buts.

This bill empowers tenants so that

when they tell a landlord that the

condition of their property isn't

good enough, then landlords must

take notice. They must resolve it.

This isn't some top-down diktats

will stop it is bottom up

accountability. That is why I'm

pleased to be able to support the

honourable member for Westminster

North's bill at second reading. It

is a welcome and necessary step in

ensuring that every tenant is given

that basic right of living in a home

fit for purpose. Our constituents

deserve nothing less.

Off

This is such an important issue

and, again, I would like to

congratulate my honourable friend

the Member for Westminster North for

securing this debate and all of her

tireless work on this issue. I wish

I could say that all homes in my

constituency of Canterbury are

currently fit for human inhabitation

but I can't. Sometimes it is the

social housing provided for under

behalf of our local authority which

has the highest proliferation of

category one hazards and other

factors put at risk people health

and safety. One example in

Canterbury is a lovely family who

have to me who have three children.

They found themselves homeless in

November after their private

landlords sold their property. Since

then the family have been moved from

pillar to post from one unhealthy,

unsuitable accommodation to the

next. They have been moved five

times in two months. How, in

supposedly affluent Canterbury, in

the supposedly affluent south-east,

can there be so many places unfit

for human habitation? One place

prided by the council to this family

was riddled with bed bugs crawling

everywhere and they had a seriously.

All of their mattresses and other

belongings are now ruined and they

are yet to be compensated. This

family were moved to a house which

had been freshly painted to disguise

a serious mould problem. Now their

children are all exposed to mould

and fun guy growing inside their

home come around their beds, around

their clothes and around their toys.

We all know damp and mould can

worsen conditions like asthma,

eczema and other conditions.

Articles published in the British

Medical Journal show that adults

living in mouldy homes were more

likely to have symptoms such as

fainting, headaches, fevers and

raise anxiety. I wanted to tell you

about that family this morning as

I'm disgusted with the way they have

been treated and how is. I have put

a video of this family's

accommodation on social media.

Please go and see it and I promise

you will be horrified. Any council

which places people in accommodation

such as this should be ashamed.

Will

be honourable lady give way? I thank

her for giving way and I'm saddened

to hear about the way your

constituents have been treated by

the council in Kent, by your own

local authority. Would she agree

with me that not all local

authorities are the same? In my own

Labour led Norwich City Council we

have 15,000 properties and not one

of them has a category one hazards

that you are in, and yet in the

private sector, 14,000 homes, nearly

3000 of them have a category one

hazard and they charge two to three

times as much. Would she acknowledge

that?

Absolutely did I think that is

disgraceful and thank you for

raising that point. Some other

providers in Kent are failing the

public but this is bigger than Kent

and this is a national shame. As we

heard from the honourable member for

Taunton Deane, local authorities

cannot enforce the housing, health

unsafe to rating system against

themselves. Social tenants can often

do very little about poor and

unhealthy accommodation. This bill

is so important as it would stop

cases like the one I've told you

about today and would compel local

authorities to carry out repairs. I

support this bill wholeheartedly.

All social tenants and renters

deserve accommodation which is safe.

The old saying there is no place

like home - well, for many families

in Britain, that is true for all the

wrong reasons. Let's change that

today and make sure all homes fit

for human habitation.

Thank you,

Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I,

Tambay M, thank the Member for

Westminster North for bringing this

very important debate, and I know

how much she has worked on this

issue. I would like to welcome the

Minister, a former whip of mine, to

her seat and give reference to the

member of interests as a private

landlord myself. Madam Deputy

Speaker, everyone, as we've heard

today, is entitled to a clean, safe

and comfortable home. One would have

thought that was given but that we

are discussing this today

illustrates that it quite truly is

not. Home really should be whether

hearties but there have been

long-standing concerns regarding

property standards in both social

and the private rented sector. I was

made particularly aware of this, not

just as my work as a local MP,

because of my involvement on

homelessness reduction bill, so well

brought through this House by the

honourable member for Barrow, Harrow

West. But I supported so many of

those adjournment debates, Madam

Deputy Speaker. You probably also

sat through them with the previous

housing minister, the honourable

member for Croydon, and I heard so

many harrowing cases of rogue

landlords literally forcing people

to live in squalor and making

people's lives hell, so I'm very

pleased that this bill is going to

address some of those issues. I will

quickly give way.

I will be brief

and I thank her for giving way.

Would she accept, given that the

private rented sector is a plethora

of small landladies or landlords

like herself, but actually you can

be a good landlady and it is just a

matter of, we do need good landlord

and landlady is but we need

really good legislation and good

enforcement as well?

I thank you

very much for that intervention. I

will be touching on it later and it

is seriously important. What we

don't want to do is make private

landlords, the good ones, feel as if

we are outlawing them. We need to

help them but we need everyone to

have good standards. Currently in

England, the private rented sector

houses more people than the social

rented sector and this is borne out

in Taunton Deane. Last year, the

English Housing survey found that

40% poems in the private rented

sector had at least one indicator of

poorer housing, and... I'm actually

going to plough on, if you don't

mind because I know colleagues are

gone to want to speak. This is a

pretty poor record and it clearly

demonstrates why there is such a

need for this bill to be brought

forward and I am very pleased to be

giving it my support today and also

very pleased that there is such

cross-party working on this. I'm

often talking to people back in the

constituency and they ask if I work

with other parties, whether we are

always arguing. Clearly, we are not.

On many issues like this, we can

really effectively work together, as

we did on the homelessness reduction

bill. I have mentioned to the

private sector but, of course, it is

not just confined to the private

sector. The social sector is

important, can be, and I don't need

to remind people of the terrible

incidents of the Groenefeld fire

which has brought that into the

microscope. To put a few statistics