14/03/2016 House of Lords


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Surely the real answer, rather than just having these sort of false


states where people certainly get renewed, is to build more housing so


that the very people at the moment of those on the waiting list can


come off the waiting list into social housing. It's actually both.


It's to build more housing and it also to check it and review


intervals, whether the housing that is being provided for say a family,


continues to be that need or perhaps they need something else. But that's


the purpose of it, to just... Perhaps the honourable lady can


assure me here that no family with children of the age where they go to


local schools would ever be asked to leave a council house or council


home under one of these secured tendencies. Can to give assurance to


the House? What I can do, the Gardens will make it absolutely


clear on children of school age, but come on my lords, if a family had


six children and five of those children left home and there was


one, think of every permutation and commendation of family


circumstances, but if of those six children five had left home, there


was only one child left at home then there might be a conversation there


where the family perhaps downsize, within the local area, but the


continuation of the child's education would be paramount. When


is this guide is to be produced? That's a very good question, my


lords. Due to the timeline of guidance I'm a it will all be good


for us by the end of this week. Reassured by some of what she said


there, but actually I do think we need to see this guidance to test


the government on this, because I think for many terms this is a


deeply worrying set of provisions. The interaction between family life


and secure tendencies and people's aspirations when they live in a


local community is very intense. I think it's creating a sense of


insecurity on many of our counsel states. There's a disincentive to


people to invest in their homes, which they do. To not only look


after their homes, but improve their homes. If you are not sure of being


able to stay on, as you see your child getting to be point where he


or she is going to leave school or whatever, or if you're just a couple


living in a house, isn't that likely to result in a decline in the


investment that people make in the homes was that it does huge credit


to many tenants now. My lords, I've seen many different types of social


housing, some which is incredibly well looked after, others which is


not so well looked after at all. It does, living somewhere for a long


time, does provide incentives, but my lords, will some of the biggest


incentives and I will feel a boo going across this House, is when


someone buys their homes. I can tell that someone has bought their home


because those houses are you back to it. They may be immaculate for five


years, or seven years, and then when you go back you can see the houses


that weren't bored by people as the tenets which were then sold on. So


you got two stages and I can assure the honourable lady that in many


estates, the buy to let our running down of property is actually,


infuriated council tenants who didn't buy and also those who did


and stayed. I believe that people who bought their own pop homes -- on


Homestake a great pride. But we should agree to differ. Not a


progression for personal view. We know that over 40% of council


housing that was sold under Right to Buy has been cycled into buy to let.


We know that the. In some places... The point I was making is that I can


tell a house that has been bought because, generally, they are in very


good condition. I'm not starting to make the argument about how this


that have and so on through tertiary or subsequent sales to write to buy.


I'm talking about, I was just making a comment to the noble lord about


people taking pride in the House. Sorry to restrict the Noble Lady,


but I just don't want to diverge it into that point. The Minister said


before them are applied to intervention, that the reduced usage


of rooms would be in consideration on review. In other words, if


someone left then the local authority that about one of the


consideration to the local authority have in that review? Is he just


reducing rooms? My lords, we will be coming to that. If the noble lord


will bear with me. I do have some news that the noble lord will take,


that is the guidance for publishing in time of the commencement of the


provisions. LAUGHTER That is absolutely idiotic. The


guidance will be published at the time which the legislation is in.


That the Noble Baroness really mean that? Surely, we've got to see that


guidance before it's implemented. Well, my lords we will see the


guidance before it's implemented, but I'm just saying that it will be


published. It will be published in time. I'm grateful the noble lord,


grateful. My lords, I don't believe that providing social housing on a


long-term basis to households that make on the experience temporary


need is a good use of scarce social housing. I don't think it's right to


lead to strong and conducive communities. I'm not going to give


way. If the Noble Lady wants to come back later, she can. After I


finished. But, my lords, the Noble Lady, lady hollies, talked about


protecting the rights of those in most need. Local authorities will be


able to find the appropriate level of stability to those with longer


term needs, such as the disabled and older people through the granting of


further social tendencies, whether in the same or in a different more


suitable social home. My lords, I've outlined, or had the provisions in


the bill to restore a sense of fairness to social housing, ensuring


that is properly focused on those who really need it. If I could now


turn to the amendment tabled by Noble Lords, Kennedy and Beauchamp,


my Lords amendments, 82 GAE seeks a public feud but about restricting


lifetimes tendencies on rough sleeping. In each local authority


area. I would like to thank the Noble Lords for the amendment and


for raising the issue of homelessness. I agree with them that


it is important that the government of all he can to reduce the number


of homeless households. The government has always been clear


that we are committed to supporting the most vulnerable people in our


society and one person without a home is one too many. That is why


we've increased both central and local government funding, maintained


and increased it over the next four years. However, while I sympathise


with the intention behind the amendment, I believe it may be


unnecessary because local housing authorities already recorded review


of the incidences of homelessness and rough sleeping and must produce


a homelessness strategy... I don't think we've got to these yet, have


we? Could be Noble Lord Reagan amendment? I think is a type of.


We're in the wrong Clause. I'm yet again speaking to amendments that we


haven't got to. Sought, I shall... Before the Minister sits down.


Sorry, carry on. Amendment 62 GAE is in this group. It's correct. OK.


Would the Noble Lords like to discuss it or should we discuss


it... Would Noble Lords like to draw it? Be really clear about what she


said about guidelines. So, if this is about regulations and it's about


guidelines of. I'm now looking at the policy fact sheet which the


department has published, and that makes it clear that there are going


to be a single set of regulations for these measures. That is the


facing out of lifetime tendencies. But the regulations will be subject


to be an affirmative procedure, not the negative procedure. Minister's


confirmation of that fact, it then says that the regulations will be


developed in discussions with local authorities and he regulations and


provisions of the bill will come into force early next year. That,


therefore, is early 2017. It is, therefore, easy to share the


guidelines that are going to be written because they do Mac there is


from now approximately ten months for those two have been shared. Just


to help colleagues. This amendment 92, GAE. We will speak on it


tonight. My lords, it was grouped with 82 and... Well, it will be


helpful if the House were advised earlier than at this stage of the


evening, because the noble lord much done that must have had a chance to


do group it earlier. This has never been in a previous thing. Will the


Noble Lady started to speak to him and we asked what is this because


obviously we had to amendments which squarely go together. Course, we are


now seeing the paper. It clearly is a mistake and I really apologise to


be Noble Lord. If you might have waited all this time. I was trying


to say to My Noble friend that I come into the chamber, I wish to


intervene, guiltily, but we have patiently gone through six days in


this committee. We have had many opportunities to look at groupings.


I think it is a courtesy to the House is Noble Lords who have a


problem with the groupings, which are published and they are out


there, and we picked them all out, make clear before that they are not


happy with the groupings. Otherwise, I think the House is entitled to


expect that those things grouped together will be discussed together.


It is due to be debated tonight. WHISPERING Excuse me a second, my


lords. I've actually got a paper from Thursday. It is a typo. This is


the sheet on Thursday, it's got the two amendments down and My Noble


friend's name. And they appear today. I don't produce the


government's sheet for debates, but it was on a Thursday which we signed


up to, as Mike to Noble Friends to remember. Nothing else. Would Noble


Lords like to hear it tonight? Or Thursday? I'm not going to waste


anymore time on this then, and if I could just finish my comments where


I should have finished them. And just say to the noble lord,


obviously I have guidelines, guidance, when I have it, I am very


happy to share it with them. What I'm trying to get at is that if the


regulations have to come to your lordships House under the


affirmative procedure, my she explained the guidelines at that


point? Rather than keeping them from separate from the regulations. I


would like to do just that, my Lord. Then I will be withdrawing my


amendments. LAUGHTER I can see that the Noble Baroness is


troubled and waiting for something to happen, so my lords, I'd be very


intrigue and what the noble ladies have to say. I've been a little bit


reassured him abut I sat there thinking about it a bit, and I'm not


as reassured as I was because back in 1971, when I left home to go to


university in 1972, that left Mike or mother in her counsel home on her


own with a spare bedroom. -- Mike or mother. Is ridiculous legislation,


had he been in place at time, no doubt she would've added visit from


her local council inviting her to move to yet a smaller accommodation.


I don't think that is a particularly constructive way to approach things,


and to I think it would have been in her interest or local communities,


because she was a bit of a terrier in her place. So, my lords, I think


this is a seriously deficient piece of legislation which doesn't really


achieve what we really need to do here. That is to create more social


housing for people to have access to, rather than spreading but we've


got more family, but recycling basics. And forcing people out of


their homes and out of their communities. Which is really the


point behind my MMF. I shall give you some further thought before we


get to report states, but I do actually think that the secretary of


state were to think long and hard about this whole issue of community


cohesion, but I think it's good that the Noble Lady, the Baroness, is the


policyholder for that because I can see that it is something that she


cares passionately about. I think she am along with the Secretary of


State, needs to reflect on this issue. Having said that, I'm happy


to withdraw my admin to. Oh, hello. LAUGHTER


I think the Minister hasn't replied to the question I asked about


review, which I've now asked twice. I did ask what review meant. What


considerations will be look forward to? I think he has misread my


amendment. The review is actually a review that the amendment calls on


by the Secretary of State, not by the local authority. I have


withdrawn. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that amendment 82 AAB


withdrawn? The amendment is withdrawn, the question is that


Clause 90 state part of the bill. Contrary not content. The content


have it. It should be debated from a supplementary sheet. And Lord


Beauchamp, not moved? Not move. In schedule four, amendment 82 BZA,


Baroness Williams. My lords, at this somewhat late hour and after another


long day in committee, I am pleased that I can provide a further break


for the Minister, although it is a technical one and somewhat brief. It


may not be necessarily time for the ice creams. My lords, this is a


consequential amendments. Relating to the abolition of the disposals


proceeds fund. Which is one of the deregulatory measures included in


the bill. Certain properties developed with public funding


subject to the statutory right to acquire. This consequential


amendment maintains that position by defining public funds without


referencing the disposal proceeds fund. These amendments to schedule


four will ensure that this is the case. My lords, this is, as I said


earlier, a technical amendment resulting from the office of


national statistics concerns about public sector concerned the Mac


control over housing associations. And those being introduced to


address those concerns. I beg to move. A minute please. Page 115.


Question is that this member that about those content? Not content?


The content have it. The question is that this amendment be agreed to.


Content? Contrary, not content. The content have it. The question is


that schedule for, as amended, the in the bill. As many of that opinion


was that content? Content. Contrary not content? Contents have it. The


question is that agile five be the fifth schedule to be built. As many


of that opinion was that content? Content. Oh! As you work, my lords.


I beg your pardon. The first question is that causes 91-97


standard part of the bill. Content? Content. Contrary, not content?


Contents have it. That schedule five be the fifth commitment to bill.


Content? Not content? The contents have a. The next is that causes


98-110 stand part of the bill. As many of that opinion that content?


Content. Contrary, not content? Contents have it. At schedule six B


the sixth schedule to be built. As many say content. Not content? The


contents have it. Laws is 111 and 112 stand part of the bill. Content?


Not content. Because it's habit.


Download Subtitles