Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Margaret Greenwood

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

[Andy Slaughter]

I think the best thing to say is that there is a mixed economy among local authorities. Some do very well—some have to do very well because of the pressures on them—and others do less well. Part of the Bill’s purpose is to bring them all up to the same standard. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point cuts both ways. If it is true that Camden Council, for example, is already preventing 80% of those who present themselves from becoming homeless, the savings that are likely to be made—most of which, I understand, will result from an increase in prevention work, which will avoid the need to find alternative accommodation or fund the costs of homelessness in other ways—will be less. The Government rather piously hope that after two years there will be no need for funding, but I do not think anyone believes that, including the Government.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

This is not just a problem in London. In 2015-16, there were more than 1,000 homelessness prevention and relief cases in Wirral as a result of the council’s actions. Does my hon. Friend agree that any new duties that councils will have to take on should be fully funded, both now and in the future?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, the problem is clearly greater in some areas than in others. The precedent for the Bill is legislation passed by the Labour-run Government of Wales, which has already been successful: there have been substantial falls in homelessness. Of course there are parts of Wales where there is a real crisis, as there are in the rest of the United Kingdom, but there are also hotspots, and the big cities, particularly London, are hotspots.

We cannot rely on the example of Wales. It is still possible in many Welsh authorities for accommodation to be made available to people including those who are not in priority need. In London boroughs—and, I suspect, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and many others—that opportunity disappeared years ago, and the reverse is now the case. We spent some time in Committee talking about the disgraceful attitude of Westminster Council, which is sending its homeless people quite literally to Coventry, and I fear that other boroughs are doing exactly the same. That is the difficulty with which we are grappling.

I am not going to labour the point. We want assurances, which we believe new clause 1 would deliver, that the full funding of the Bill’s implementation by local authorities for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has rightly asked will be provided. Yes, the Government have made a start, and, yes, I think that we shall hear more about money today, given that some of the Government amendments will involve additional costs. We are pleased with what has been done so far, but we must have that funding, because otherwise the Bill will fail, and local authorities will be in an even more parlous state.

Let me now deal briefly with new clauses 2 and 3. We could have tabled a great many more new clauses illustrating the same point, which is that the Bill’s provisions cannot be seen in a vacuum. We all welcome the greater concentration on prevention to which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred, and we also welcome the new relief duties requiring local authorities to assist homeless people who are not in priority need. However, the pattern of homelessness is utterly bleak, and that is a perfect storm which, I am afraid, derives from the Government’s own actions or inactions.

The first problem, as the new clauses make clear, is the crisis in the private rented sector. The huge inflation in rents over the past few years has meant that many private landlords take advantage of the “no fault” eviction process for which the Housing Act 1988 provides. They say to people, “You are on benefit, and I can get a higher rent from someone else”, or they simply say, “I want a different tenant and I do not have to give any reason, so off you go.” Provided that the payments are in order, the consequence of that swift process, with no argument to the contrary, is that many thousands of people present themselves to local authorities as homeless. I believe that more than 40% of homelessness cases are caused by private sector evictions, with all the misery that they bring.

Again, however, the problem is not insoluble. The inclusion of new clauses 2 and 3 would make a significant difference. This is a modest proposal. I am suggesting that if there were longer tenancies—three-year tenancies—and if, within the period of those tenancies, there were controls over the levels of rent increases, we would end the present chaotic market in evictions in which landlords bid against each other.

BMA (Contract Negotiations)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Margaret Greenwood

Monday 21st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

I will move on, because when someone is in a hole, they should really stop digging.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I could not let the comment made by the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) pass. Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Opposition, and the Conservative party is in turmoil today in the face of his leadership. Being a Corbynite and a member of the BMA is no bad thing—I just wanted to clear that up.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will try to put an end to this exchange, but it is tragic that a party of the stature of the Conservative party should turn its guns on the profession and on a representative body such as the BMA in this despicable way. It is extraordinary. I will go further and praise those in the BMA who have had their positions undermined and suffered character assassination and being idly quoted in tittle-tattle on Twitter. Last week the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) hosted an open session for Members at which I was pleased to renew an acquaintance with Dr Johann Malawana, who has been a particular target of insidious and malicious personal attacks, supported by the jackals in the right-wing press. Is that really how a Government should behave in dealing with any industrial dispute, particularly one as serious as this?

Depending on when the debate ends, I may have to leave for a constituency engagement—I have said that to you, Sir David, and I apologise to you and to the Front Benchers—so I will make my comments brief to give other Members time to make theirs. I simply want to say to the Minister, who can no doubt take the message from this debate back to the Secretary of State, that there is nothing dishonourable about continuing negotiations in this dispute. There is an attitude of despair among junior doctors, which has led to some of the statistics we have already heard about those who now wish to leave the profession or move to other jurisdictions where they would be more appreciated.

The Government were initially resistant to going to ACAS, but in the end they agreed. Progress was made at ACAS, but at the end there were still matters outstanding. Everything that I have learned from talking to junior doctors suggests that not only do they not want to take industrial action, and not only do they want to continue serving their patients to the best of their ability, but they are prepared to sit down and compromise. However, they are faced with a wholly intractable Government.

Is the best that we can get from the Secretary of State the misappropriation of statistics to prove something that is clearly false on two levels? It is false because the so-called weekend deaths are not as he has presented to the public, and it is false to say that we do not have a seven-day emergency service now. Of course we do. I strongly believe that we need to restore trust and faith in the relationship between the NHS and junior doctors, and the Government have an important role to play in that. Unfortunately, individual trusts are under such financial pressure, and their management under such strain, that it is tempting for them to exploit junior doctors.

On the guardianship system, we know about the assurances that have been given and the protections in the existing contracts. I do not think there has been a previous example of a contract being imposed on the NHS in this way. I simply urge the Government to think again. There is a deal to be done, there really is. The fact that they are not even prepared to sit down and negotiate again implies that they do not want a deal to be done. They want to play hardball, and they want to get something that is completely different from what they say. They already have their emergency service and they already have junior doctors working the way they want, and they say they do not wish to save money. They have different motives from those that they are expressing. They therefore need to return to the negotiating table. They need a pragmatic solution, and they need to step back and calm down.

I will read the Front Benchers’ speeches tomorrow if I am not here for them, but I hope we will hear a better spirit of conciliation than we have heard so far.