Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

It is shameful that this modest Bill is the Government’s legislative response thus far to Grenfell, almost four years after that tragedy took place. We might expect, therefore, that it would at least address the most significant and urgent wrongs that the Grenfell fire brought to the Government’s attention. The purpose of the Bill is to update the fire safety order and better manage and reduce the risk of fire. What better and more straightforward way of achieving that than to implement the recommendations of part 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, which deals with issues such as the inspection and maintenance of lifts and doors, and having proper systems of evacuation in place and communicated to residents? It is impossible to imagine those steps, backed by the moral and legal authority of the inquiry, not becoming law. That is the purpose of Lords amendment 2.

Although safety is the paramount concern, the treatment of leaseholders and tenants living in unsafe blocks is a wholly new scandal that this Bill will fail to address unless Lords amendment 4 is agreed today. Those tenants should not bear the cost of remedial work to their flats where they did not and could not have known the risks posed by their construction. The Government do not seek to deny that, but instead make a series of partial concessions. That is the wrong approach. We should start, as amendment 4 does, with the presumption that remedial costs attributable to the Bill should not be borne by leaseholders. They should not be borne by tenants or social landlords either, or by the rents of the least well off or the limited funds set aside for the provision and repairing of social homes.

The cynical disregard for the lives of our fellow citizens that Grenfell exposed will take years, billions of pounds and the concentrated efforts of the Government and industry to address. Building design, materials, construction, maintenance and inspection are all in the dock. Height is a factor, but so is who the occupants and users are and how they are taught to behave, especially in an emergency.

For the Government constantly to adopt a reductive approach to the crisis is irresponsible. This is not just about one or two types of cladding, buildings over 18 metres or residential buildings. Today is an opportunity not to address all those issues, important as they are, but to show a serious intent to act now on the most obvious faults and injustices. The Government should take it by accepting all the amendments before the House.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). This is a horrendously complicated issue involving cladding—ACM, high-pressure laminate and other forms of inflammable cladding—fire safety measures and the height of buildings. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have come up with the money to remedy the most unsafe buildings—tall buildings—and the cladding that was put on them, which fails to provide safe accommodation to residents.

The reality is that the £5.1 billion will remediate only the unsafe cladding and will not do the comprehensive work. The issue then becomes one of the fire safety work that has to be carried out as well. There is no funding to provide for that, so it has to be paid for by someone.

I have a series of suggested tests that could apply. The first is that, emerging from the Grenfell inquiry, it is quite clear that the ACM cladding was illegal, so those responsible for developing the cladding and putting it on the building must pay for the remediation in all other buildings where that is the case. Similarly, for other forms of unsafe cladding, if those people fail to accord with the building regulations that exist at the time, they should pay the cost of removing and correcting it.

Leaseholders could not reasonably have been expected to foresee the fire safety issues when they bought the leases on their flats, so the fundamental issue is that they should not have to pay the cost of remediation, either of cladding or of fire safety defects. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he finds the amendments defective. My challenge to him, when he responds to this debate, is to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government will bring forward proposals in the Lords to amend the Bill to make sure leaseholders do not pay.

The defence seems to be that the Building Safety Bill will eventually come through and be implemented. The problem is that we have sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill and recommended at least 40 changes to it. It will take probably 18 months for it to reach the statute book, and then we have the secondary legislation. Leaseholders do not have the time: this work needs to be carried out now. The industry estimates that it will take some four years to implement all the safety works required. It must be made clear that the leaseholders are not the ones to pay.

Currently, leaseholders cannot insure or sell their properties and no one wants to buy them. We are in danger of freezing the housing market because of this problem. I urge the Minister, when he responds, to—

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I must say that, after the 14 hours and seven sittings in Committee that we have heard about, I was somewhat alarmed when the Government tabled 21 amendments on over six pages last week. I have to say that, on my first reading of them, I was not much the wiser as to what was happening. However, one perseveres, as one always does with legislation.

I must say two things. First, I do appreciate the difficulties the Minister and the promoter have had in squaring the circle so that local government, landlords and homelessness charities are all happy about the way the Bill works, rather than about the principles of the Bill, which I think have been agreed. I am also grateful to the Minister for giving us time with his officials to go through in some detail the implication of the amendments and why they are necessary, and I think I speak for my hon. Friends in saying that. It is regrettable that things could not have been done differently, but we are where we are, and the Opposition regard these amendments and the next set, which we will come to in due course, as either necessary or improving of the Bill, so we will not oppose any of them today, and I can be fairly brief in responding.

I have only two concerns to raise. I think we have all struggled with clause 1. When you start debating clause 1 in the sixth session of a Committee, you know that something is awry. There have been real difficulties with getting this operative clause of the Bill correct, and it is still not perfect. Much of the original clause 1 had to be omitted because it created more problems than it resolved. The key point—about extending the duty from 28 to 56 days —is still there, but there are concerns that, notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the further amendments before us, which will extend that duty beyond the 56 days where necessary, local authorities will be able to continue to drag their feet in some cases. However, everything that has been said on all sides, and the refinements before us, which add to what is in clause 1, certainly show that the spirit of the Bill—I hope the same is true of the letter of the Bill when we come to the codes of guidance—really does require all local authorities to act at an early stage and to deal, particularly in the case of section 21 notices, with homelessness and threatened homelessness at an early stage.

The other point—the Minister may address this when we deal with the subsequent provisions—is what additional costs there are likely to be. There will undoubtedly be cost implications in relation to continuing prevention assistance beyond 56 days and—this is quite proper—to being clear about when interim duties come to an end and continuing them while reviews continue. I would like to hear from the Government not only whether those costs will be fully funded but whether the funds have been calculated. Will we hear about that today? We certainly need to before the Bill leaves both Houses. However, with those two caveats, I can be commendably brief and end my comments there.

[Bob Blackman]

I am pleased to support these amendments and to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter).

It is fair to say that the amendments have been some time in coming. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister, his officials, the homelessness charities and the landlord associations on assisting us in reaching an appropriate compromise. The hon. Member for Hammersmith pointed out that clause 1 was debated some way into the Committee sittings, as, indeed, was clause 7. By that time, we had passed clauses 4, 5 and 6, and these amendments relate to those clauses.

Clearly, the amendments we made to clause 1 in Committee had consequential impacts, which needed to be reflected in clauses 4, 5 and 6. Those clauses refer to the duty in cases of threatened homelessness, the duties owed to those who are homeless and the duties to help to secure accommodation. So the amendments before us are largely technical and follow up the changes made by the Bill Committee.

The most important aspect of this is that the prevention duty cannot end after 56 days with the individual or family still sitting in their home facing eviction under a section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988, and with nowhere else to go.

Clause 1 of the original draft Bill was substantially changed before Second Reading, after pre-legislative scrutiny, and was substantially changed again in Committee. That had a consequential, knock-on effect on the other clauses in the Bill, and that is why the amendments are essential.

We have now got to a position with these clauses where we can help to make sure that local housing authorities act at an early stage. We do not want—I think this is true right across the House—a single individual or family to be told by their local housing authority, “Yes, you may be threatened with homelessness. Go back to your home, stay put and wait until the court action follows and the bailiffs arrive.” That is completely against the spirit of the Bill and is against what everyone wants to see. If we get to a point where landlords are taking tenants to court, gaining possession orders and getting bailiffs and county court judgments against tenants, those tenants, who will then be evicted and face huge costs, will be extremely unlikely to get accommodation in the private rented sector ever again.

In correcting this position, we have to end the bad practice followed by some local authorities—by no means all—of telling tenants to go back and stay put. It is important, above all else, that individuals who are faced with homelessness can get help and advice from the word go, once they approach the local housing authority. The clarifications proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the local authority is not allowed to end its duty on reaching the technical position where the 56 days has expired. That is a very positive move.

The rest of the amendments in this group reflect the changes that we made to clause 7 in Committee. Once again, they ensure that protections are in place for applicants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The purpose of the amendments is to clarify and give certainty, where required, to certain provisions in the Bill and, in some cases, to correct drafting or extend the ambit of clauses. We have no problem with any of the amendments, and I am pleased to say, having just reread the briefing from the local government and charities sides, that although one side supports them more than the other, as one would expect, both agree that they should go forward as a package.

Amendment 10 makes it clear when the interim duty comes to an end, about which the LGA and others have been anxious for certainty. Amendments 20 and 21, which the Minister just referred to, were particularly called for by Shelter and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who led for the Opposition on that part of the Bill. I am pleased the Government have tabled the amendments because they address a key point by providing that all priority need households be included, rather than just those that are vulnerable, which clears up an important omission. One side, in particular, favoured the amendments, but all sides are at least content with them.

Another thing the amendments, particularly amendments 10, 20 and 21, have in common is that they incur costs. The Minister said, slightly coyly, that when the amendments passed, he would return to the matter of costs. I hope that means on Third Reading, because, from what I have heard, I assume the amendments will pass in a few moments. The costs will not be negligible. Obviously, he goes into this with his eyes open, but it would be helpful if we had an update today or at least were told when we will have it. We need to be certain not only about what the Bill means—that it addresses the key points—but that it will be fully funded.

With those comments, I need not prolong the debate, because we have gone through the amendments with the Minister and the officials, and I think we have a pretty keen understanding of why they are necessary and should form part of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

I am delighted to rise for the last time on Report in support of a group of amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister introduced them at length, so I will keep my remarks to the pertinent points. I thank him and the officials for all their work in getting us to the point of these detailed amendments. I am sure that all would agree that it has been a long and almost tortuous journey to identify the different issues with clause 7, but we have worked patiently and appropriately with the LGA, Crisis and, in particular, Shelter to resolve the issues such that everyone now supports the amended clause 7, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) pointed out.

As I said earlier, we did not want a change in the law to put priority-need families in an even worse position than they were already in. We wanted to enable single homeless people, and others who were not currently owed a statutory duty, to be given help and advice and an offer of suitable accommodation. At present, that accommodation will almost certainly be in the private sector, but it is up to local authorities to establish whether they can find a social rented property to provide for such people.

I particularly welcome amendments 20 and 21. As we heard from the Minister, in Committee there were representations—not least from the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who kicked off on the issue—about the scope of what is now clause 12 in relation to the suitability of offers in the private sector. Ideally, local authorities would inspect and approve every single offer to every potential tenant, but during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill we decided that the cost to them would be beyond what was reasonable. We therefore focused on priority need, and, indeed, vulnerable people. I am delighted that the Minister has found a way of extending the provision to all those people, not least pregnant women.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the intention is to lay out that individuals have responsibilities and must follow their actions. There is however a concern that in some local authorities—not all, but some—there could be an impact on priority need and vulnerable households. I expect that amendments will be tabled on Report to revise the position and make clear that we are talking, as I have said, about those who deliberately and unreasonably refuse to co-operate, but also to ensure that we do not impact the main relief duty. We have striven from the word go not to change the impact on individuals who are owed a responsibility by their local authority already.

I will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Minister to bring forward a package of amendments on Report, which I hope we will all be able to support. If Committee members want to put particular comments on the record so that we can use them in our deliberations between now and Friday, when we need to table the amendments for Report, I would be very keen to hear them. I will be working on the amendments over the next week, and I hope that Members will be able to support them when they come before the House.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I greatly missed the Committee last week.

[Bob Blackman]

We missed you, too.

[Andy Slaughter]

I hear what the promoter is saying, but I am sure that it is not true, because the Committee had the services of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. It is always dangerous to ask someone to stand in for you when they are more experienced, competent and knowledgeable on the subject, but there we are.

I will not be long on this clause. With all due respect to the promoter and the Minister, if we are to debate it all over again on Report, and we have yet to have the benefit of the amendments, I would rather wait and see what happens then. It is unfortunate that the Bill has had to be sliced in this way, and that we are jumping around from clause to clause. I understand that we all want to get it right, but it is not an ideal way to proceed, as will be clear when we come to clause 1. We Opposition Members will try to be as disciplined and organised as we can be, in order not to repeat ourselves or lengthen the debate more than is necessary, which is the guidance we have heard from Mr Chope as well.

Therefore, all I will say on clause 7 is that we do not oppose it; it is a necessary clause, because there has to be some sanction or limitation on the relationship between the applicant and the local authority. The key issue is getting the balance right. What is the balance? I pose the question, which may be better answered on Report, when we know the full extent of the clause. We are all familiar with the term “unreasonable”, but are perhaps less familiar with the term “deliberate”. There have been perfectly reasonable representations from both sides, if I can put it that way—from Shelter and from the Association of Housing Advice Services. One side of the argument is that it is essential that the bar is set very high, so that local authorities cannot evade their duty; on the other hand, the process must not be overly bureaucratic, or effectively provide no sanction because the applicant would be entitled to the same assistance as they would if they had not deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate. That question hangs in the air. As for the definition of “deliberate” and what might constitute that behaviour or how authorities would define it, that is a question that the Minister or the promoter may wish to deal with, although it may not be a matter for today.

I reserve any further comments. It is regrettable that we are doing this on Report. I remember having a conversation early on with the promoter, in which I said, “We might wish to table some clauses on Report,” and he said, “Can you please ensure that you do that in Committee, so that we have a clean run at Report and Third Reading?” I think I may have to table something on Report myself now; we will see.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman]

On a point of order, Mr Chope. As we have reached the end of the proceedings, I would like to thank you for your patient, good-natured and flexible chairing of the Committee. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee both for attending these sittings and for their contributions, which have added to the Bill and to our consideration of the amendments. The discussion has been consistently conducted in a consensual spirit. We have had the odd point of disagreement, which is healthy, but I believe we have worked well together to scrutinise the Bill and ensure it is returned to the House in a good state. That follows the excellent work of the Select Committee that preceded the Bill’s coming to us.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for marshalling the full resources of the Department to ensure that the Government support the Bill, and for allowing his officials, lawyers and the Bill team to help to draft the Bill and address issues as and when they have been identified. Finally, I thank the Clerks and the Doorkeepers for managing the Committee.

I look forward to seeing all Committee members when we next debate the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House. I feel confident that Members on both sides of the House will be able to support it in good conscience. The Report stage will take place on Friday 27 January, and the administrative arrangements for anyone who wishes to table amendments will be circulated to give them proper notice. With that, I thank you, Mr Chope, all members of the Committee and everyone who has been involved in reaching this stage of the process.

[Andy Slaughter]

Further to that point of order, Mr Chope. I echo the thanks expressed by the Bill’s promoter to everyone involved thus far. We all agree that the sittings have been conducted with civility and, where possible, consensus. I will leave it there, other than to thank you particularly, Mr Chope, for your forbearance. Perhaps the proceedings have been a little more helter-skelter than is common in such Committees; you may have been reminded of the national lottery by the random manner in which the clauses were drawn for debate. None the less, with your usual sang froid you have kept us in order, so thank you very much.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That in the Committee’s order of 23 November setting out the order in which the Bill be considered, leave out “Clauses 4 to 7, Clauses 10 to 13,” and insert “Clauses 4 to 6, Clauses 10 to 13, Clause 7”.

The purpose is to reorder consideration of the Bill, because we have discovered a technical problem with clause 7 that requires an amendment and we are awaiting clearance for that amendment before we can consider it in debate.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Chope. We do not oppose the variation, because it is important to get the drafting of the Bill accurate. I do however want to raise a concern. I am sure we are all capable of coping with taking clauses in any order, but, as we are now waiting on Government amendments in relation to clause 7 and, more importantly, clause 1, it would be useful to get an indication as to when those will be circulated. That is my first point.

Secondly, inevitably consideration will be stretched into the new year. I think there was probably an informal wish on both sides of the Committee that matters could be concluded before the recess but that clearly will not be possible. We have made our contribution to try to speed up the process in deeds rather than words by not moving several amendments and new clauses and either making those points more briefly in clause stand part debates that happen anyway, or by reserving the right to bring them back on Report.

I say that in the consensual spirit in which the Committee has largely proceeded thus far, but it would be helpful to get an idea of when the Bill’s promoter and the Government will be able to table the further amendments, whether we have some idea of when we might conclude, and whether it is in the mind of the promoter to schedule additional sittings—this is also a matter for you, Mr Chope—either before the recess next Tuesday, which is tight, or, if we are to sit on the morning of 11 January, later on that day or on another day that week. This event, as unfortunate as it may be, may focus our minds on those matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

The clear position is that, if relief efforts and reasonable steps in the plan have not been followed, the local authority can bring the duty to an end. That would still leave the applicant the opportunity of a review. For example, they might have agreed an action plan to accommodate them but not honoured their steps, or the local authority might not have honoured its steps. There can be a review at that point.

We need to be clear that there are duties on the applicant and the local authority. When people do not co-operate and behave unreasonably, it is not fair if others in desperate need and who are acting reasonably suffer—there will obviously be diminished efforts for them. Not paying the rent is a prime reason for someone to become intentionally homeless. That is a reasonable position to take.

Of course, an applicant might be entitled to benefits. Under those circumstances, if a local authority has not met the benefit requirements, it would be unreasonable to end the duty. That clearly has to be looked at on an individual basis.

Finally, it is up to the applicant if they wish to withdraw the application at any stage. I hope the duty would come to an end when a satisfactory position is achieved and the applicant has accommodation and is no longer homeless. With that, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter]

Alongside clause 4, clause 5 is a major part of the Bill and a major departure from current practice. We should all be aware when discussing the clause that it proposes a significant change to how homelessness legislation works.

We welcome both the 56-day period of assistance by local authorities to those who are not in priority need, and the requirement for six months with a possible extension to 12 months. I note that Shelter wishes to see a 12-month period, and we will see the Government’s response to that. We clearly do not want a yo-yo situation with people going into short-term accommodation and coming back. That will not be helpful either to that person or to the local authority, and 12 months might be a more appropriate period.

As I said, we welcome the measure although we do not underestimate the sea change. Let me highlight our concerns. First, will there be a knock-on effect from non-priority homeless to priority homeless? Local authorities, particularly those under heavy stress such as London boroughs and other metropolitan authorities, are finding it almost impossible to cope with the demands put on them by priority homeless cases. In theory, perhaps there should be no overlap. There has been a significant change since the first draft of the Bill, which I will come to in a moment, which means that the duty owed to non-priority homeless is very different from that owed to those in a priority situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

We have had a wide-ranging debate on this clause. I will answer some of the points raised.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith raised important issues such as the knock-on effects for priority need households of extending the duty to single homeless and others who previously did not come under it. That is an important aspect of the Bill and one of the reasons why there will be funding for it under the new burdens doctrine. We look forward to the Minister announcing the extent of that funding soon—that is parlance that I have heard from colleagues across the House. This is clearly an issue, and we do not want to get to a position where priority need households are disadvantaged at all as a result of these new measures.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the 24-year low in building social rented accommodation. To correct my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, I think we can all say that the Government’s record-breaking £3.15 billion settlement with London for it to build 90,000 affordable homes is a great start to the process. The provision of housing goes beyond the scope of the Bill, but it is of course part and parcel of the whole process. If we give local authorities duties to help and advise and provide accommodation, we need that accommodation. Forgive me, Mr Chope, but I recall the hon. Member for Hammersmith opposing tooth and nail the Transport for London Bill, which I took through, and provided for TfL to supply affordable housing across London. I am sure he regrets that opposition now that his colleague the new Mayor of London can implement that wide-ranging and far-sighted proposal, which I had the honour of making.

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not want to test your patience, Mr Chope, but the issue with the Transport for London Bill was that TfL was building out schemes with no additional social housing and virtually no affordable housing. I am delighted to say that under new management, it is a reformed character.

[Bob Blackman]

The issue, of course, was giving TfL the power to develop housing; the political control of the delivery of that is up to politicians. You will be delighted to know that I will not be diverted any further, Mr Chope.

The other important point that the hon. Member for Hammersmith raised was that in the original draft Bill, there was provision for emergency accommodation for non-priority households. That would clearly be an extreme extra burden on local authorities. In our discussions before we produced the final version of the Bill that was introduced, I reluctantly agreed that we should remove that provision on the basis that it would produce major costs for local authorities, particularly in London. That is not to say that I would not like that provision to be in the Bill—I would. It would clearly be an extremely important contribution, but it would be very expensive, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been removed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South raised the important issue of applicants’ frustration. I went out last night with St Mungo’s night patrol to identify homeless people on the streets of the City of London and help its clients. One of the volunteers made clear that he was a non-priority individual. He had gone to his local authority, which had just said, “Sorry, nothing to do with us.” He was very proactive, but had he got the help and advice that he needed up front, he would not have become homeless. That is exactly what we are attempting to achieve with the Bill; as we have said, we have to change the culture set by changing the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of reasonable steps, which I trust the Minister’s answers have set out. It is difficult to prescribe those in legislation. We have to rely on a local authority understanding its duties and ensuring that it delivers them in a reasonable manner. To prescribe all those steps would be too prescriptive and would prevent local authorities from trying new ways of delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. We will come later to the duty of the local authority to inspect properties. This is a sensible change that would mean that local authorities could work much more efficiently and households would have more choice over where they live. That is often a key demand. In our surgeries, people often say that local authorities are making offers of properties in completely unreasonable locations. This measure would give applicants far more control over their future lives. I trust that we can agree to the clause and move on.

[Andy Slaughter]

I was not going to speak to the clause, but I will do so briefly because the debate has taken a slightly surreal turn. My reading of the clause is exactly the opposite of that of the hon. Gentleman.

The picture painted by some of the interventions is that non-priority homeless people are taking their pick of attractive properties in the area and may be competing with others or people who are not in the same market, and that local authorities might intervene with some bureaucratic procedure to stop them doing that.

My reading of the clause is that if somebody goes to a local authority with a duty under clause 5, it is much less restricted in how it can discharge that duty than would be the case for priority homeless people. That is why Shelter has asked for it to be made clear that this should be suitable accommodation under the 2012 homelessness regulations.

It would be wrong of me to oppose the clause. As I said in my remarks on clause 5, the onerous additional burdens placed on local authorities are likely to lead to their duty towards priority homeless people being subverted by the new duties. However, we should go into these matters with our eyes open. It will not be the applicant but the local authority that will be given a greater degree of flexibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct that this will be less bureaucratic and more effective, but to paint a picture that it somehow gives the keys to the housing market to those who come to local authorities with such a degree of need is, at best, wishful thinking.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members for the amendments they have tabled and for the debate we have had. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East that we are not talking about mere guidance; local authorities will be ordered to take into account matters of education and employment, and the other aspects he mentioned. We wish to proceed in this Committee by consensus and discussion. If we can agree on that, it is going to help considerably.

Clause 3 will require local housing authorities to carry out an assessment for all cases in which an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The housing authority will have to look at the circumstances that caused the person to become homeless, or that threatened them with homelessness, which will be specific to that person, and it will have to look at the person’s housing and support needs.

Following the assessment, the authority must work with the applicant to agree what steps need to be taken by the applicant to secure and retain suitable accommodation, and what steps need to be taken by the authority to help them. The steps must be notified to the applicant in writing, in the form of an agreed plan, which will mean that applicants will be clear on what steps they, as well as the local authority, need to take to get accommodation.

There may be circumstances in which agreement cannot be reached. If that is the case, the local authority must record the reasons why and provide the applicant with a written copy of them that also contains the steps that the authority will take and those that it thinks it would be reasonable for the applicant to take.

The clause has been included in the Bill because local housing authorities are not currently required to assess the circumstances that have caused an applicant to become homeless or to be threatened with homelessness. That can lead to vital information about the applicant’s circumstances being missed, which in turn causes them extra difficulties. By asking applicants for more information about what happened to make them homeless or led to their being threatened with homelessness, a potential solution should be identified.

A more personalised approach will definitely help local housing authorities to get it right first time and prevent people from becoming homeless. The tailored approach will help the applicant and the housing authority to understand the actions that have to be taken and the responsibilities on both sides. The clear intention is to help both the housing authority and households to become more effective in preventing and alleviating homelessness, thereby diverting more households from the crisis point.

I have sympathy with the desire of the hon. Members for Westminster North and for Sheffield South East to ensure that the consideration of specific issues relating to education, employment, health and other matters is spelled out. Only this past weekend, a constituent’s case was related to me. The husband is undergoing knee surgery at a local hospital, the three children are in local Harrow schools, and both the mother and father of the children are employed locally. Harrow Council has offered them a place in Wolverhampton, so it is clear that the existing order is not being enforced correctly. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to making sure that local authorities understand and implement their duties. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Local connection of a care leaver

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Chope. It is good to see you in the Chair again.

The clause is uncontroversial and we support it. The objective of the clause, as we see it, is to give greater flexibility in the case of care leavers, particularly when there is a conflict between different authorities or different tiers of authorities within the same area. I gently point out to the Minister that that is exactly the point I tried to make with amendment 4, which he rejected. It may be that, in looking at the Bill again, he would like to see those provisions not only for care leavers but more generally, and for local authorities to consider what their duties are towards people presenting as homeless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

We have had a useful brief debate on the clause. We should remember that the existing position for care leavers to prove a local connection is that they must be currently or previously normally resident in the area, be employed there, have a family association or have special circumstances. Care leavers are often unable to prove such a position, which makes it very difficult for them to get assistance when they need it on leaving care. Young people leaving care are extremely vulnerable and need assistance with housing.

My intention is to clarify the position so that it is straightforward for a local authority to house care leavers in their area if they wish to do so, and so that any district can accommodate care leavers if they are in the care of the county. The local connection will therefore be enhanced and provide a facility, as the Minister described. My intention is to make it much easier for care leavers to prove a local connection and therefore to gain assistance from the local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Reviews

[Andy Slaughter]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 9, page 15, line 32, leave out paragraph (ba)(i).

This amendment would enable the different review stages to be amalgamated and processes streamlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

As my hon. Friend says, the clear intention behind the Bill is to have a comprehensive strategy on dealing with homelessness and to reduce homelessness.

The aim is that no one ever becomes homeless. If they get help, advice and prevention measures from the local authority, they will not reach that terrible position. However, we know there are problems in local authorities at the moment and that many are not delivering what they are supposed to deliver. This group of amendments would remove the right of review, which is vital for vulnerable people. I trust that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, having heard the debate and the commitment from the Minister, will withdraw his amendment.

[Andy Slaughter]

As I said, I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote. I hear what the Minister says, and I look forward to his proposals, but warm words are not good enough on this, wherever they come from.

I am the first to criticise local authorities when they fail in their duties, but I do not believe that most local authorities do so wilfully or because of a lack of concern. I do not believe that concern or compassion is any less among local councillors than among members of this Committee. The reason they are failing in their duties now is often inadequate resources. The reason they effectively ration their support for homeless people—which I am not defending, but this is a fact—is that they are rationing many of their services. It is irresponsible, in my view, for us to pass legislation that puts duties on other people without ensuring that those duties can be fulfilled. That is the point I will repeat as appropriate throughout our discussions on the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I trust that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will see from the Minister’s comments that new clause 3 is unnecessary. However, it is important that we consider the right to reviews in this process, because we are extending the homeless support services for people not only in priority need but across the range of homelessness, and the aim of the review process is to ensure that a fair and transparent service is offered to an applicant. It is crucial that that covers all the decisions that affect the applicant’s journey to seek and obtain support.

Currently, applicants have the right to request a review made by the local housing authority in relation to their homelessness case in specified circumstances, so it is important that clause 9 does not change the current review process but merely extends it to the new duties in this Bill. That will allow an applicant to request a review of specified decisions in the new prevention and relief duties in the Bill.

Specifically, with the decisions that can already be reviewed, individuals have the right to request a review when a housing authority decides: what steps it will take to help to prevent an applicant threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless, or to help an applicant to secure suitable accommodation; what duties are owed to all eligible persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness; to end the duty to help to prevent an applicant who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless, or the duty to help to secure suitable accommodation when an applicant—this is a very important aspect of the review process—has “deliberately and unreasonably” refused to co-operate with the authority when exercising its prevention or relief functions, or to take up any agreed step in the personalised plan to prevent or relieve their homelessness, or to take any step that the authority considers reasonable and has recorded when no agreement could be reached; what duties are owed to such applicants, and the suitability of accommodation offered by way of a “final Part 6 offer” or a final accommodation office offer.

The key issue here is that this process raises the bar on reviews and on the position of applicants who “deliberately and unreasonably” refuse to co-operate. That is very important. This is a bit of tough love, if you like. An applicant can come in and seek help from a local authority, but if they just sit back with their arms folded and say, “You’ve got to find me somewhere to live” and actually take no action on their own part, then a local authority can say, not unreasonably, “Well, you’ve got to be part of this process as well”. It is important that applicants understand that duty but also that local authorities can end the responsibility if someone unreasonably and wilfully obstructs the process.

All other aspects of the current review process remain, including the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if the applicant is dissatisfied with the initial decision. I trust that the hon. Gentleman understands that under those circumstances new clause 3 is unnecessary, because local housing authorities already have to inform applicants of their right to request a review. I therefore hope that he will not press new clause 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Duty in cases of threatened homelessness

[Andy Slaughter]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 30, leave out “reasonable steps” and insert

“such steps as it considers reasonable”.

This amendment would reduce an ambiguity in the present draft. The local authority should decide what steps it should take, subject to the normal rules of public law and judicial review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, I agree with other hon. Members about these two amendments. When I looked at his proposal, I wondered what the hon. Member for Hammersmith had in mind. I am a convinced localist. It is right and crucial that local authorities make their decisions and ensure they deliver services that they customise to their local residents.

However, one intention behind the Bill is to bring local housing authorities up to the standard of the best. The current wording of “reasonable steps” for the local authority to help people threatened with homelessness is crucial. I do not pretend to be a lawyer but I see a potential risk in the reading of the amendments. An interpretation could be that a local authority could decide what steps it considered reasonable to take, as opposed to the reasonable steps that are well understood in law that would be expected to be taken by a local authority.

The risk is that individual local authorities that may be laggards in assisting homeless people could interpret this by saying, “We consider this to be reasonable.” Different standards would operate in different areas of the country and between different local authorities. That is the risk of these amendments and I trust the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, withdraw them.

[Andy Slaughter]

I disagree with what the promoter of the Bill just said. On the contrary, focusing on local authorities’ behaviour is more likely to ensure consistency and the ability to challenge where a local authority has not behaved reasonably. Having said that, I do not want to prolong the debate so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

This clause is a major part of the Bill. It would insert a whole new section into the Housing Act 1996, requiring a local authority to take reasonable steps to help prevent homelessness. It is essentially a homelessness prevention duty. Reasonable steps could include the provision of debt counselling, the provision of tenancy support or help with family mediation, so that a person can stay with their family.

As we know, the causes of homelessness are vast and each individual case has to be looked at on its merits. The duty would be extended to any eligible household that is threatened with homelessness. It applies regardless of priority need, intentionality and local connection. As clause 1 would make changes to the period a household is threatened with homelessness, it does mean that households are owed this duty from 56 days before they are likely to become homeless. Clearly, that gives a two-month window in which a local authority can help someone who is threatened with homelessness. In deciding what reasonable steps it should take, a local authority must have regard to its assessment of the applicant. We have already agreed the assessment process in clause 3.

The prevention duty can be ended in a number of different ways, and those are set out in the Bill. The Minister has already given some of the detail of ways the duty can be limited, so I will add some observations. If the Bill is successful in creating a more effective and collaborative approach, I expect the most common way the duty will come to an end will be because the situation has been resolved—the household has been either rehoused or maintained in its existing, accommodation. That is the idea outcome, but the clause states that a local housing authority can be satisfied that the applicant has

“suitable accommodation available for occupation”

when there is a “reasonable prospect” of retaining that accommodation

“for at least 6 months”.

Where the local housing authority has secured that accommodation, it can choose to do so for a longer period if it agrees that that is the right solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will pick up just a few points that colleagues have raised during this debate on what I think essentially is the heart of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly alluded to the potential increase in applications to local authorities. I remind colleagues that, according to the House of Commons Library’s helpful briefing on the Bill, statutory homelessness applications—not acceptances—peaked in 2003-04 at nearly 300,000 cases and by 2010 had dropped to about 100,000. The point there is that individuals in a position whereby they know they will not get any help from a local authority will not go to it, but under the Bill everyone who is owed a duty will try to gain the assistance of a local authority. It is therefore natural that the case load will increase and, under the new burdens doctrine, I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that resources follow as appropriate.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and several other colleagues mentioned supply issues. I agree that we must increase supply, but that is beyond the scope of the Bill. She also alluded to reform of section 21 notices. Someone reminded me last night that this is already, I believe, the private Member’s Bill with the most clauses ever, so if we were to continue the process we would end up with a veritable dictionary. I agree that we must reform those notices, but that is also beyond the scope of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Westminster North rightly mentioned the shortage of housing and issues about the benefit cap and local housing allowance. Clearly that is for the Government to consider. It is appropriate for those issues to be raised in Committee but they are beyond the scope of the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter]

I note in passing that the title of the Bill includes the words,

“to make provision about measures for reducing homelessness”.

The hon. Gentlemen is courteous enough to say that it is reasonable to raise such matters. I would have thought that, given the matters covered by the Bill, the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and I have raised on supply, financial measures that are effectively increasing homelessness—whether LHA or other measures—and the nature of the private sector market are on point.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the Bill is part of an overall strategy. We must understand that, as we have said, the causes of homelessness are many and varied and the solutions are many and varied. Without doubt, supply is one of the key elements. The White Paper will be published soon—soon in Government terms seems to stretch quite a lot—and I look forward to its coming forward as quickly as possible so that we can debate increasing supply, which is important.

Several issues were raised in terms of the postcode lottery, with clear examples of potential rationing of services from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate in particular. We should remember that the Bill’s aim is a cultural change and dramatic shift in helping and advising people who are in desperate need of housing rather than having housing officers trying to trap them to stop having to provide them with help and assistance.

I note what my friend the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee said about its review and some of the issues raised. Pertinent points on the welfare system were made, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that they are raised with the appropriate Ministers so that they are looked at in the round as part of the overall strategy.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention on the ingenuity of local authorities to meet the needs of local residents. It is good news that the fund is available, and I would encourage every local authority to bid for it and to start thinking about creative ways to help people threatened with homelessness. We want to prevent those individuals from becoming homeless in the first place. Local authorities can now get their thinking caps on, get creative and bid for that fund. I understand that up to 20 local authorities might be successful in this bidding round. I hope that it is oversubscribed, so that the Minister will have to find extra money to support that initiative in the run-up to the Bill hopefully becoming law, with every local authority in the country having to provide that service.

The advice given will be different depending on the needs of the individual, the family or the sets of individuals who are applying. The idea is that the advisory service should be designed to meet the needs of particularly at-risk groups, such as care leavers or victims of domestic abuse—those are two examples, but there are many reasons why people become homeless. It is not easy to categorise those areas, so the key is that the advisory service should be individualised. It should not be a basic service where someone turns up and has a look at a computer; it should be individual and with people who have been trained with this in mind.

The most important point about the clause is that those threatened with homelessness will get effective information right across the country. It will help every household threatened with homelessness or, worse still, those who become homeless. They will get the information they need. I believe that this has been supported throughout. There is a cross-party consensus, so I hope that everyone in the Committee will see the benefit of the clause and that we can then go forward.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, for the first substantive sitting of this Committee. I echo what the Bill’s promoter said: as far as possible, there will be a consensual and hopefully constructive atmosphere throughout our proceedings, because the substance of the Bill is supported by those on both Front Benches. We have already seen two indications of that. First, I am grateful for the change in the sittings motion, which is mainly for the convenience of Opposition Members so that they can come here direct from Berlin, filled with European bonhomie, in order to engage in our proceedings. Secondly, no amendments have been tabled to this clause. However, it is an important clause and I would like to make one or two comments.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That, if proceedings on the Homelessness Reduction Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee meets on Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 9.30 am.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second week in a row, Mr Chope; I suspect that it will not be the last time. The motion will ensure that we have time for a full and constructive debate on the details of the Bill. I hope that everyone agrees that getting the Bill right in Committee is important, so that we can return it to the House in as complete a fashion as possible and it can complete its passage, particularly given that it has all-party support. I hope that the motion will have the full support of the Committee and that we can progress with a like mind.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your fair and clear chairmanship, Mr Chope. We always know where we stand when you are in the Chair, for good or ill. I have no reason to oppose the motion; the Opposition welcome the opportunity for open-ended debate on this important Bill.

My only observation is that the order of consideration is somewhat unorthodox. We are to start with clause 2, so the substantive clause 1 will come later, and probably not in the first sitting. I make no formal objection to that, but—I hope that the Government and the Bill’s promoter hear this—if there are to be substantive amendments, it would be as well for those of us who may also table amendments if they could be made available sooner rather than later; otherwise we are going to get ourselves into a bit of mess, which will not help proceedings to be as clear and efficient as possible.

Not having seen any Government amendments yet, I make no criticism of them; I will wait until I see them. It would be helpful if the Minister or the promoter could indicate when they are likely to be tabled, because we will clearly either be wasting our time or getting our wires crossed if we try to amend something that is no longer going to be in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I beg to move,

That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clause 2, Clause 3, Clause 8, Clause 9, Clauses 4 to 7, Clauses 10 to 13, Clause 1, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.

Over the past few weeks, I and others have met stakeholders, in particular the Minister and his officials, to consider the Bill as presented on Second Reading. We will discuss potential amendments to some of the clauses, to make sure that their meaning is clarified, any errors are corrected and their effect is improved. One of the problems associated with this type of Bill is the consequences of changing the system. We do not want it to impact on that. My proposed order of consideration will allow sufficient time to complete the process. We are clear that we want to proceed on an all-party basis, working closely together in a collegiate fashion, so that amendments, especially Government amendments, are tabled in plenty of time and everyone has a chance to read and understand them, and, if Members want to propose further changes, we can do so.

One rationale for the order of consideration is that there has been substantial lobbying on clause 1 in particular. I propose that we debate that clause at the end, because that will allow us to ensure that any proposed amendments to it are drawn up in a suitable fashion, through parliamentary counsel, and circulated to Members. By the time we come to debate the clause, everyone on the Committee will have had a chance to see and understand the provisions and obtain any background information that they need.

That is the reason for a slightly strange order of consideration. One reason that clauses 4 to 7 are included later is that it was envisaged—although this may turn out not to be the case—that there might be consequential amendments to clause 4 in particular, as a result of amending clause 1. I understand from our discussions last night that that may not necessarily be the case.

The order of consideration gives us a sensible route for discussing the clauses. My understanding is that some of the earlier clauses are less likely to be controversial or require amendments, but we want to go through them in detail as well. I hope that, in that spirit, we can discuss the Bill in the order suggested. If colleagues are concerned and want to change it, I will understand, but I believe that it is a logical way of dealing with the Bill, because it is complicated and any changes will have consequences.

[Andy Slaughter]

I have nothing to add other than this: I understand that there is no formal programme motion for a private Member’s Bill, but given the tactics that the hon. Gentleman has set out, I wonder when he envisages the first sitting taking place. It looks like there will be an interesting debate on clause 1 or what replaces it, but when will we get to that point? This is a bit like “Hamlet” without the prince: we are talking around the subject before we actually get to it. When will the new position on clause 1 be set out and when are we likely to debate it? Clearly, that is a matter for the Committee, but it would be useful to know what is in the minds of the Government and the promoter.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I support amendment 1, and consequential amendments 2 to 6, which I tabled on behalf of the promoter.

This is a private Bill promoted by Transport for London, as has been said. It was submitted to the House of Lords in November 2010, and reached this House on 4 March 2014. It took rather a long time to get through the other place. The Commons gave the Bill a Second Reading on 9 September 2014, and it was considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee on 13 January 2015, where clause 5 was substantially amended. I shall come on to discuss that briefly.

A debate on the consideration stage took place in the last Parliament on Monday 16 March, and those of us who were Members then remember that as an epic occurrence. Many amendments were tabled, and the time allocated for debate expired before proceedings could be brought to a conclusion. Following the agreement of both Houses to the revival of the Bill in this Parliament, consideration was first proposed on 22 February 2016, but there was an objection, resulting in the need for today’s debate.

The promoter, TfL, has considered carefully the strength of feeling expressed in the previous debate in the House about clause 5. If the clause was introduced, it would allow TfL to engage in limited partnerships. TfL recognised, notwithstanding the amendments to the clause made by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, that serious concerns remained about the possible exercise of powers conferred by the clause and about the lack of transparency arrangements, which was raised by objectors. Accordingly, TfL took the decision not to press for clause 5 to stand part of the Bill. The amendment to which I am speaking would leave out that clause, and the further minor amendments grouped with it are consequential upon the removal of clause 5. I understand that that is accepted across the House.

[Andy Slaughter]

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is saying that TfL has listened to the democratic voice of this House and to the wishes of the elected representatives here. Is it as simple as that? If so, that is quite refreshing.

[Bob Blackman]

We have had substantial debates. The promoters listened to those debates, considered them carefully and decided that in order to ensure the passage of the Bill, rather than prolong the agony and the disputes, it would be better to withdraw the clause and demonstrate in good faith that they would not proceed with that element. That means, of course, that the Bill is substantially changed from its original form.

I shall touch on the amendments proposed by the objectors—in principle, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). If I miss one of the amendments that he is pushing, he will no doubt intervene to clarify that. New clause 1 is substantially that which was debated on 16 March 2015. We had a very long debate on consideration at that time and it was clear that that was not going to proceed.

The present new clause would impose restrictions on the disposal of land and on the development of the land. Prior to the disposal of any land, various tests would have to be satisfied. Prior to carrying out any development other than the development of the land for rail maintenance facilities, consultation would have to be undertaken with a range of consultees, including unnamed trade unions and the London boroughs.

TfL is subject to the normal legal requirements relating to the development of land. Accordingly, prior to carrying out development of land, including for rail maintenance facilities, TfL has to undertake consultation in accordance with the rules and procedures relevant to the consenting process in question. Adding a further layer of consultation there is unnecessary. Furthermore, the process for securing consents for disposal of land is well established under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I believe the hon. Member for Hammersmith was a member of the Government at the time. Section 163 provides the statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The promoters therefore consider that a further consenting process is neither necessary nor desirable.

Amendments 9 to 12 would lengthen the period of consultation. No solid argument seems to have been put forward by the proposer of the amendments on why that should take place. There would be a severe impact on TfL were that to take place. It would delay TfL improving its financial affairs and managing its operational undertakings, which would be detrimental to the tax-paying public and the fare-paying public. It is not clear what the impact of amendment 12 would be. It refers to a report being produced. TfL’s view is that the Bill, together with the existing processes and procedures under the 1999 Act, ensures that the exercise of the powers conferred by clause 4 will be properly exercised in discharge of statutory functions under the 1999 Act. That set of proposals is therefore unnecessary and unreasonable.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman asks what the point is. The point is bitter experience. I bet that he could give just as many examples from his constituency as I can from mine of projects that TfL has gone into without proper risk assessment or consideration, and which have invariably wasted millions of pounds. What we are looking for here, before steps are taken, is a proper process of review; of stepping back and thinking.

[Bob Blackman]

Requiring the Secretary of State to go through a process of producing risk assessments and so on is clearly extremely burdensome. It is quite clear that TfL will have to carry out those functions itself in order to justify what it is seeking to do.

Amendments 7 and 8, which the hon. Gentleman pressed in particular, are new and were not considered on 16 March 2015. The clear issue here is that exercising powers under clause 4 is subject to the consent of the Mayor, when he is granting security on borrowing or acquiring companies, and the consent of the Secretary of State, in respect of core assets and revenue. I could go into a long and detailed explanation of why that would be unnecessary. The point is that these amendments would create legal uncertainty over the whole question of what the requirements would be. They would also create uncertainty about TfL and its subsidiaries exercising the necessary flexibility around assets and revenue streams.

Since the Bill was deposited—this is a very important aspect—the operational funding from central Government has been reduced, as has been said during the debates. It will now be removed entirely, but much earlier than anticipated. The Bill, including clause 4, will assist TfL in its efforts to achieve further savings and efficiencies, while at the same time upgrading transport networks, which, I remind the House, support new jobs, new homes and economic growth in London and right across the UK. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press those amendments to a vote, because they are completely unnecessary, would create tremendous uncertainty and, indeed, would impact on TfL’s ability to generate the sorts of savings and to create the types of work that we all want to see.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will give way very briefly.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think I want the long and detailed explanation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. What I want to know—this is not about the first part of clause 4(2), which I understand, about

“security for money which it borrows”—

is how

“the payment of which it guarantees, or in respect of which it gives an indemnity”,

first, improves TfL’s financial position, and secondly, does not create risks to TfL.

[Bob Blackman]

It is quite clear that the operation under clause 4(2) mirrors what TfL can do anyway under section 160 of the 1999 Act, and the scope of what a subsidiary can lawfully do by way of offering a guarantee or indemnity is not changed by this Bill whatsoever. From that perspective, the proposals to delete these references are almost irrelevant, given that the same powers exist under the 1999 Act. TfL is merely seeking to ensure that it has got this flexibility under those arrangements.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I have given way on a couple of occasions. If there is something else the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, he will no doubt duly do so.

Most of the other proposals appear to have been put forward at consideration stage on 16 March 2015—they certainly formed a great part of the debate, but they clearly did not secure the agreement of the House. I therefore suggest that all the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman should be rejected and that we should end consideration stage and allow the Bill to proceed to Third Reading so that we can discuss its general merits.

[Andy Slaughter]

I appreciate the way the hon. Gentleman has approached the debate, but he will understand that I am a little disappointed by his response and by that of the Minister, who gave the proposals a cursory few moments. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, for at least making some thoughtful comments.

It is not my fault, or that of any of the other opponents of parts of the Bill, that it has dragged on for five and a half years, and we will perhaps look at that issue on Third Reading. As I said, most of the proposals were probing or, I hope, improving proposals, and I am disappointed that they have been dealt with in a fairly cursory manner. However, I also said that I would not press them to a vote.

Let me go back to amendment 7. As I said, the powers in clause 4(2) already exist, but there is no ability to secure borrowing, or an indemnity or guarantee, against property. I asked what I thought were quite reasonable questions about that. I said that, whereas I understand the advantage of securing borrowing against property, I do not understand the benefit to TfL, the fare payer or the taxpayer of an indemnity or guarantee. I have not really received an answer on that from the Minister or the sponsor. I do not really blame the hon. Gentleman, who drew what turned out to be the short straw in being the sponsor of the Bill. TfL has serried ranks of experts in these matters—consultants, lawyers and property people—and the fact that we have not had an answer shows a certain amount of arrogance in the way this issue has been dealt with throughout.

I am not persuaded, but I am not going to push the proposals to a vote this evening. I hope, as I have said, that we have a new Mayor who will take a different view of how these matters are dealt with and how these powers are used. I agree that these issues are not at the centre of the Bill. As I have said several times, I appreciate the concessions that TfL has made. In that spirit, I am not minded to stop the Bill going forward now.

I simply think that it shows a lingering lack of candour and transparency and an attitude of “It’s none of your business how we run our railway” when those involved cannot give a simple explanation of a fairly simple, albeit technical point. However, there it is. I have made the points I want to make on the proposals, but I do not propose to put any of them to a vote tonight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 1, page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7. —(Bob Blackman.)

Clause 5

Power for TfL to form and invest in limited partnerships

Amendment made: 2, page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.—(Bob Blackman.)

Clause 6

Specified activities

Amendments made: 3, page 4, line 19, leave out “or a limited partnership”.

Amendment 4, page 4, leave out line 21 and insert “a member; or”.

Amendment 5, page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 39, leave out “(c)” and insert “(b)”.—(Bob Blackman.)

Third Reading

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to rise at what I hope will be the end of a very long journey. The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers, so it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. TfL has identified various opportunities for maximising the value of its assets. They can only be realised if TfL acquires the new statutory powers or if the restrictions on the exercise of its current powers are removed.

This has been mentioned before, but let me put it on the record: TfL is one of the biggest landowners in London, with 5,700 acres of land. Clearly, there is a pipeline of some 300 sites, with 50,000 new homes to be provided in London. We know above all else that in London, the capital city of this country and one of the major cities of the world—if not the major city in the world—we need to provide more new homes and to keep people moving to create investment for the opportunities for jobs and for a better quality of life for everyone. The Bill enables TfL to play its part. It is clear that from October 2015 we already have 75 sites that will generate 10,000 new homes over the next two years. Two thirds of them, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, will be in zones 1 and 2. It is not true to say that sites are not being provided for new homes for Londoners and for people who want to make London their home.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I will make a bit of progress and then maybe give way. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to put his own perspective and spin. I want to set the record straight.

Four sites in particular have been invested in recently by TfL: 360 homes at Nine Elms tube station, with 25% affordable; 55 homes in the Fenwick Estate near Clapham North tube station, of which 100% are affordable; the development at Northwood is only 20% affordable housing, but TfL has respected local demand to invest in a brand new tube station with step-free access; and at Parsons Green TfL has submitted a scheme with 40% affordable homes, which it has now withdrawn to allow further time for consultation with local businesses and residents. It is clear that TfL is responding to the request and demand for additional housing to be provided in the capital.

The Bill contains only three substantive clauses but is of great importance to TfL because it will enable it to deliver much better value for money for the fare payer and taxpaying public. The growth in London is relentless and driving up demand for services. The tube has record ridership year on year and our roads are also under great pressure. To keep London working and growing, TfL has to invest just to keep the assets in good repair, modernise the rail and road networks and improve reliability. The reality is that all its revenue is reinvested in TfL projects, be it on the roads or rail. Clearly, the issue that will be debated in the run-up to 5 May is how we keep that revenue stream increasing and ensure a fair balance between the taxpayer and the fare payer.

TfL’s £11 billion capital funding settlement from the Government runs from 2015-16 to 2020-21—the life of the Parliament—and includes a total of £5.8 billion in investment grant, £1.4 billion in general grant from the Department for Transport and, crucially, £3.8 billion in borrowing powers. That allows TfL to invest £1.7 billion a year to modernise the road and rail networks. The Circle, District, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan lines will be the next four tube lines to be upgraded. I would have thought the hon. Member for Hammersmith would welcome that, seeing as his constituents use those lines, as do mine—I think, in particular, of the Metropolitan line.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to put his point of view.

From 2019, TfL’s objective will be to cover all the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks through non-DfT grant sources of income. It plans to do this over an extended period by running the business more effectively and efficiently. The continuous savings programme has generated a 15% reduction in costs. Following the November spending review, TfL has had to accelerate and build upon that because, as has been alluded to, its overall income is set to reduce by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. The Bill will provide TfL with additional powers to run its business more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient and economic financial arrangements. This will allow TfL to maximise the value of assets, bear down on fares and deliver significantly better value for money to the public.

The first of the substantive clauses, clause 4, will allow TfL’s subsidiaries to borrow and grant security over assets and revenue streams. We have had a long debate about this issue in relation to the amendments. The powers will allow TfL to access cheaper finance for projects and to structure security so that a creditor has recourse only against subsidiary borrowing. TfL will be able to purchase subsidiary companies that already have secured debt without having to engage in costly loan restructures. Very importantly, the Secretary of State’s consent is required if core assets are to be offered as security, and the Mayor must consent to all other arrangements.

Where TfL owns more than 50% of a joint venture, clause 4 will enable TfL’s subsidiary to incur debt using the assets of the subsidiary as security. That does not advantage or disadvantage a private partner involved in the joint venture, as the increased value of the assets will be brought about with the greater flexibility in clause 4 and will be shared by TfL and the private sector partner, in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties.

Clause 5 has now been removed. Clause 6 seeks to expand the type of entities through which TfL’s commercial activities must be undertaken. TfL is currently required to undertake its profit-making activities through a company limited by shares that is either a subsidiary or a joint venture. The clause amends this restriction to give TfL the option of using any type of entities that TfL has the power to form, in addition to a company limited by shares. TfL would be able to use a company limited by guarantee or a limited liability partnership. Importantly, clause 6 preserves the policy that TfL must undertake commercial activities through a taxable entity by requiring that the subsidiary be a member of a limited liability partnership. Clause 6 will enable TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and net the maximum value from the assets.

Clause 7 amends TfL’s hedging power, responding to changes in the way that financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices—as, for example, in the use of an oil price index, as opposed to a barrel of Brent crude oil. It also gives TfL the capacity to enter into a derivative investment when TfL is exposed to a risk by virtue of contractual arrangements for the provision by others of public passenger transport services—for example, if there were movements in fuel prices, it would allow TfL to hedge the costs. Clause 7 also clarifies that TfL may use its hedging powers in respect of its liability to any pension fund. It is not proposed that TfL enter into any derivative investments on behalf of the TfL pension funds, but TfL will be able to hedge its contribution risk to the fund.

Given the benefit to TfL pension fund members, some of whom will be members of RMT, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, acknowledged the merits of clause 7 on Second Reading. Once again, I find it hard to see the logic of the hon. Member for Hammersmith’s continuing to block the Bill. It seems that my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen have misconceptions about the scope of the Bill, but, contrary to assertions made on Second Reading and elsewhere, the Bill does not give TfL any new powers to sell or develop its land. TfL has had those powers since it was created in 2000, and it is not seeking to enlarge them in any way. Neither can TfL act autonomously when it wishes to dispose of its interests in its land, including when granting a long-term lease. TfL must obtain the consent of the Mayor to sell surplus land, and if that land is operational land or has been operational land in the last five years, the Secretary of State must give his or her consent.

Some colleagues suggested on Second Reading that TfL’s track record shows that it is not competent enough to be given greater powers and that it should focus on its core function of providing transport services rather than delving into joint venture projects with developers. It cannot be disputed that TfL serves more customers more efficiently and more reliably than at any point in its history. Providing public passenger transport will always be TfL’s main focus. The powers it seeks in the Bill will not detract from its discharge of those functions, and the discrete scope of the Bill should be taken as indicative of a change in TfL’s priorities.

The Bill will, however, give TfL greater opportunity to secure sustainable income from its assets, rather than a one-off capital receipt from their disposal. Very importantly, that is to adopt a long-term strategy to the management of its property estate, which will allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver better value for money to the public.

I am somewhat confused because it would appear that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is so lacking in confidence in his candidate for the mayoralty that he would seek to block this Bill in order to get him there. I am looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) assuming his place as Mayor of London on 6 May, and we can look forward to this Bill helping him to deliver more homes, more jobs and better and safer transport for the people of London.

NHS in London

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Thursday 24th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing the debate on London’s NHS. The subject is vital to people not just in London but nationally and internationally because we provide a health service for not just people resident in London but those who work in London and those who come to London for specialist treatment. I apologise that I may not be here for the winding-up speeches; I must attend the debate in the Chamber where I am the lead speaker. My apologies if I have to scuttle off before other contributions.

I want to speak about three issues in my contribution: primary care; the position at Northwick Park hospital; and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. In terms of primary care, without doubt, one problem we experience in London is that people have difficulty getting on to a list for a GP and then getting appointments when they are ill. As a result, when a person is ill, they immediately say, “Well, if I can’t get an appointment with my GP, I will go to A&E or the urgent care centre or whatever facilities are around.” That means that people turn up at A&E and at urgent care centres who should be seen by GPs or even by nurses at GP surgeries—they do not necessarily need to be seen by doctors.

We all have anecdotes we can share, but at the health centre to which I go the GP appointments system is now such that people can only register for appointments 48 hours in advance—it is always quite difficult to know whether one will be ill in 48 hours—or walk in and wait; however, how long will it take to be seen after all the appointments? That leads to a challenge. Immediately, people say, “I’m not going to do that, because I can turn up at A&E or the urgent care centre and make sure I am seen.” Therefore, the all-party parliamentary group on primary care and public health, which I co-chair, has pointed to the need for better signposting in the national health service to point patients to the right place and to ensure that primary care in particular can provide care for those who need it.

I will move on to Northwick Park hospital. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, who led the debate, its A&E performance was truly dreadful. I can speak from personal experience: I waited in A&E for some eight hours before I was seen on an urgent care basis and received medical intervention. It was a disgrace. People were waiting for far too long and never, ever were the targets achieved. However, in November 2014, the Government invested in the new A&E at Northwick Park hospital and since then there has been a complete transformation.

One of the problems we had with Central Middlesex hospital having an A&E was that its brilliant doctors and nurses were sitting around, waiting for patients to arrive; patients would go to the A&E at Northwick Park because it was nearer and more convenient. The consequence of the A&E at Central Middlesex closing and those doctors and nurses transferring to Northwick Park was that performance transformed overnight.

I have the latest figures. When we talk about stats, we should talk about what is going on now in reality, not what happened in the past. At Northwick Park, in January, 89% of patients were seen within four hours and—[Interruption.] I accept that the target has not been reached, but the key issue is that that is far from the dramatic underperformance that the hon. Lady described. The reality is that 90.3% of patients were waiting less than 18 weeks to start treatment at the end of January, and we all accept that January is probably the hardest month for the NHS because of difficulty with the cold weather.

Cancer waiting times are a vital aspect, and Northwick Park hospital meets the targets: 94.1% of patients with suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within two weeks. I would much rather see that figure at 100%, but that is above the target of 93%. Of patients diagnosed with cancer, 99.2% began treatment within 31 days—the target is 96%, so that is an outstanding performance. Finally, 86% of patients began cancer treatment within 62 days of an urgent GP referral; the target is 85%. It is therefore fair to say that Northwick Park hospital—it is not in my constituency but virtually all my constituents use it—has transformed itself under this Conservative Administration. It is important to get the facts on the record, so that people can congratulate the health providers, who are delivering an excellent service. Of course, there are always challenges. We know there is a deficit, but the key is that Northwick Park hospital’s funding from the CCG will see a 6.01% increase this year. That is a good performance; we can see that money is being invested.

Just before the 2010 election, when I was elected for the first time, under the previous Labour Government, there was a review of accident and emergency services in north-west London. We heard not a squeak from Labour MPs about the fact that as part of that review they wanted to close down five of the A&Es in north-west London. [Interruption.] Oh yes. The incoming Health Secretary said, “We are going to stop that review in its tracks, and any review of A&E services will be clinically led, not driven by particular elements or arguments.” The reality is that this is nothing new; this is being driven by the NHS and the NHS bureaucracy. That is what I want to move on to finally.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman needs to substantiate both elements of what he just said. To go back 10 years to try to defend the current crisis in the NHS in his constituency is a bit unnecessary. The fact is that promises were made by his party about specific hospitals as well as about A&E generally and it has gone back on almost every single one of those. A little less hubris from him would be appropriate.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

This is a private Bill promoted by Transport for London that was deposited on 26 November 2010 and ordered to commence in the House of Lords.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Perhaps I might make some progress on what has happened and on timescales before I give way.

The Bill was considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee of this House on 13 January 2015 and one of the clauses was amended. The Bill was subsequently debated on Report on Monday 16 March, but the time allocated for the debate expired before proceedings could be brought to a conclusion. Parliament was prorogued shortly thereafter and the Bill fell.

In accordance with the practice of the House, at the beginning of the present Session the promoters requested that the Bill be revived under Standing Order No. 188B on private business. The revival motion that was subsequently tabled in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means has continued to be objected to, leading to the necessity for this debate. I stress that this debate is about the revival of the Bill, rather than its substance.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that a revival motion is needed because the Bill did not succeed earlier this year, but I wonder whether he raises his eyebrows slightly, as other Members do, at the fact that it has taken five years to reach this stage. Will he indicate why he thinks that might be the case?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly the process in the other place has taken some time, and there were various applications to the Opposed Bill Committee for consideration of amendments, which is why the promoters of the Bill have amended it to allow those who objected to it to see changes that would benefit the overall process.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers so that it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. It would allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver significantly better value for money to the paying public, which is a laudable aim, and one with which I am sure we all agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I will not give way any more.

The discrete scope of the Bill should be taken as indicative of a desire by TfL to meet its business needs more flexibly, and cost-effectively.

One of the key issues that has been identified during the whole process, which I think we all agree on, is the opportunity to maximise the development of assets for housing purposes. If the Bill were finally to become law, TfL would release more than 300 acres of land in London to help create more than 10,000 new homes across London. Sixty-seven per cent. of this phase of development is in travel zones 1 and 2.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

The other problem is that if solicitors did not believe that they would get paid for the work, they might hang on to the case and take it to conclusion, despite not being an expert. That presents a huge risk to the individual, who possibly has a case.

[Mr Slaughter]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). To put it slightly differently, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that firms might want to hang on to work even after it goes beyond their expertise, so an inducement to pass it on might work. I am not saying that in favour of referral fees, but it does happen, and we have to be aware of it.

He is absolutely right about the definition of referral fees. When the Minister announced, rather hastily, in response to my right hon. Friend, that the Government were banning them, he admitted that he could not define “referral fee”. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, therefore, that a number of problems still need to be resolved, but those are questions that he should be putting to his Front Bench team. He should be asking why they have not sorted out these matters, including on his point about text messages.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It seems a long time since the Budget, and this policy on housing was probably the worst of a number of shocks on that day, particularly for London MPs. We have had time to reflect, and we have seen a pattern of announcements. If we look at the announcement about Building Schools for the Future last week, or that about the NHS yesterday, we see a systematic attack on the welfare state, and major changes that are being done without consultation or advice. To my mind, that looks like the legal definition of recklessness—we are either giving no thought to the consequences of our actions, or we are giving thought to those consequences, but pressing on regardless. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has given this policy any thought. He has a reputation for doing that.

I do not know whether this degree of recklessness is the new politics, or whether the Conservatives expect the Liberal Democrats to hold them back. There is little sign of that at present given the rather slavish and shameless way in which the Liberal Democrats adhere to those policies, which are attacks on the poorest communities in this country. I hope that the Minister will speak not only on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of his party to explain how he can defend his actions. He would be well advised to take advice.

Citizens Advice has produced an excellent brief for this debate that claims that there will be a marked increase in poverty, debt, rent arrears and homelessness, as well as negative impacts on family relationships. The National Housing Federation has estimated that homelessness will rise by 200,000. I feel most strongly about the fact that this policy will destroy mixed communities in London. We are proud of those communities, and not only poorer people but better-off people enjoy living in places such as Shepherd’s Bush, Hammersmith and many other areas in London. Such areas have a uniqueness that is not found in many other countries in that people of all backgrounds, incomes, races and religions live together harmoniously. This policy is destroying that. It is just one way in which the Conservative party has sought to destroy the communities that I represent, but is a particularly pernicious way that will lead to the return of Rachmanism in London. It will lead to appalling housing conditions being promoted by the Government, which is something that I hoped never to see in this country. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this debate. As she said, this policy is full of contradictions and is driving out those people who can get work and who, to a large extent, do work in London.

Given the limited time available I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) has said, but there is a myth that people in receipt of housing benefit are scroungers and that they are staying out of work. Shelter stated:

“The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are either pensioners, those with disabilities, people caring for a relative or hardworking people on low incomes, and only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed.”

There is a myth that housing benefit is generous, although half of people who receive it pay an average of £23 a week towards their rent. There is a myth that people are living in luxury. We know the stories that Tory central office plants in the Evening Standard, which is frankly a disgraceful way to pillory the millions of people who are reliant in some degree on housing benefit in this country. At present, the level of accommodation is low.

The biggest myth of all is that people choose to live in that way. Almost everybody I know who receives housing benefit would prefer to have a secure or assured tenancy in an affordable home. To give some figures, the director of finance of Hammersmith and Fulham council estimated that initially the cap would mean 750 families being unable to afford to live in the borough—I suspect many more once we have taken into account other factors, such as the six different changes. The cap alone means thousands of people not being able to live where their families live, where they have grown up, where their work is or where their children go to school. In comparison, in the past two years the Conservative council has given planning consent for only four new affordable rented homes, although even that scheme is in doubt.

Do not blame the people who are receiving housing benefit for the problem. I blame Conservative councils in particular, but also Liberal Democrat ones. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) agrees about the Liberal Democrats. Those councils have singularly failed through the planning process and their own means to build affordable homes in London over the past five years. What I find particularly pernicious—

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not think that I have time—I would like to, but it would be unfair on other people.

A degree of trickery and blackmail is used by Conservative councils and, I am sure, Liberal Democrat ones—I have to include them now—to force people into the private sector. They say, “Give up your tenancy in order to get more space. If you want your families to live in more than a one-bedroom flat, move into the private sector.” I have such cases every week in my surgery. I now have to inform those people that if they do so, not only will they be in an insecure tenancy, but in a year’s time their rent will be capped and they will be forced to move out of the area altogether. They simply do not know that.

I praise the campaign that Inside Housing magazine is running on the issue, and I praise the efforts of many London MPs, but the policy needs a rethink even at this stage. The Minister needs to go back and look at the implications, which he clearly has not yet done.