Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

As I was sitting down, I glanced up and noticed that I have cleared the Public Gallery, which is an achievement in itself.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Not for the first time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

It is a pleasure to be here for the Opposition to respond to the Bill. I wish the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) success with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) said on Second Reading, it has our support. Although it is modest in size, I am sure it will do what the hon. Gentleman says and bring pleasure around the country.

It is also a pleasure to be opposite the Minister for the second week running, but I would just say this to the promoter of the Bill: check the new burdens money, and make sure it is all there at the appropriate time. Having said that, I do not—unlike last week, when we spent five hours on the concluding stages of the Homelessness Reduction Bill—want to prolong the debate.

I will just make two short observations. When the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) was making his interesting and somewhat lengthy interventions earlier, he said two things that I mildly disagreed with and that the Minister may wish to comment on. One was that local authorities can fill their boots with parking charges and use the money for whatever they like. The facility to charge money under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 was tested in the case of Attfield and Barnet, and the conclusion of the learned judge, Mrs Justice Lang, was that

“the 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure and does not authorise the authority to use its powers to charge local residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes funded by the General Fund.”

So although there are a variety of things connected to parking and other road traffic and transport matters that local authorities can use the funds for, I do not think that parking charges can simply be used as a revenue-raising measure.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Let me just try to help the hon. Gentleman and bring a little clarity. He is right in what he says about on-street ticket revenue, but there are currently no restrictions on how ticket revenue from off-street car parking is spent by a local authority.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful to the Minister. I was interested to see that the Bill deals with both on-street and off-street parking.

The hon. Member for Torbay said that he cannot envisage circumstances in which he would get letters from people asking for parking charges to go up. That may well be true as regards council-owned car parks and off-street parking, but it is often the case with on-street parking that is shared between residents and non-residents who wish to park there and pay and display, when charging is for the purposes of regulating access between residents and users of the visitors’ scheme, and residents ask for parking enforcement and for certain levels of charging. I do not think that that goes to the heart of this Bill. I understand that its intention is to give flexibility to local authorities and to encourage them more towards lowering than raising charges. I do not think any of us are going to disagree with that. I make these points merely because these matters are often fraught for councils and for Members of Parliament. I hope that, on the whole, councils try to do a decent job in pleasing everybody. If they do not, they tend to get voted out.

Having made those rather pettifogging remarks, I will not prolong my comments. The promoter of the Bill said that he wants it to make life better for people around the country, and I am sure that it will do that. I am also aware that slightly further down the list of private Members’ Bills—until this Bill and the next Bill came out of Committee, it would have been the first to be discussed—is the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on reducing child poverty. If I may humbly say so, from my own perspective as a Member with a great deal of child poverty in my constituency, I wish that we could get on to that Bill and give it a Second Reading, because that would make life even better for our constituents around the country.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

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

[Andy Slaughter]

Absolutely, and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, also care about homelessness in Tooting. What my hon. Friend illustrates is that we are in new territory. Even though there were big problems, particularly in the private rented sector, 20 or 30 years ago, I doubt that we would then have been talking about homelessness among people of pensionable age. It illustrates how deep this goes in society now that we are worried not just about groups that were at risk in the days of “Cathy Come Home”, but about people who are at a time in their life when they deserve, and should have, stability and security.

I am not keeping to my promise, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude now, but let me just say this. Yes, new clauses 2 and 3 illustrate a clear point, but this is only part of the problem. Alongside that is the issue of housing supply and the terrible record, I am afraid to say, that this Government have on genuinely affordable housing, on allowing councils to build and ensuring that there is specialist housing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

Can the Minister not make the point in his own comments? [Interruption.] Very well, I will give way if he wants to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance in taking my intervention. Does he not welcome the record amount of £3.15 billion that this Government are providing to the Greater London Authority to provide affordable housing in London, which has been welcomed by the London Mayor?

[Andy Slaughter]

As the shadow London Minister, I welcome everything the London Mayor welcomes. I do not want us to go off on a tangent, but I will just say that we were beginning to make progress; we were beginning to make progress towards the end of the last Labour Government, and the best illustration of that is that under the coalition Government eight out of 10 council homes completed were started under the previous Labour Government. I do not mind the Minister taking credit and talking about the building of additional affordable and social homes, but his Government need to have their own record, not leach off ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Layering more regulation on to residential landlords will have the net effect of reducing supply. Many of our constituents rely on renting private properties, so we need to be very careful that the balance is right.

Finally, if new clause 3 is enacted, it will introduce rent controls in the private rented sector by compelling landlords to limit rent rises to no more than once a year and by no more than inflation in cases where there is a risk of the tenant becoming homeless as a result of a rent rise. Although I understand the spirit in which this amendment has been tabled, introducing rent controls is fundamentally the wrong approach and is not borne out by evidence. Experience from Britain and around the world shows that rent controls lead to fewer properties on the market and less choice for tenants. Returning to the situation in the 1980s when the private rented sector was in decline will not help landlords or tenants.

The key to improving affordability and choice for tenants is to build more homes rather than impose rent controls. Our build-to-rent fund has now contracted investment worth £630 million to deliver more than 5,600 high-quality homes specifically for private rent. Our £3.5 billion private rented sector housing guarantee scheme will increase the stream of investment in new private rented sector housing.

We have also established the private rented sector affordability and security working group to explore options to reduce the cost for tenants who access and move within the sector. This group is expected to submit its report to Ministers next month.

I therefore urge the House to agree that new clause 3 is not desirable, and, given the commitment I have made to Opposition Front Benchers, I hope that new clauses 1, 2 and 3 will now be withdrawn.

[Andy Slaughter]

I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I appreciate all the comments that have been made. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for speaking so passionately about the situation in Manchester and the issues of rough sleeping, reminding us that these problems go around the country.

I said in my opening remarks that I would not press new clauses 2 and 3 to a vote, and that is still the case. Their purpose was to try to elicit some positive comments from the Minister, but I think I have failed in that respect. We will return to those matters at an early date. Eviction by private sector landlords is the single greatest immediate cause of homelessness, and it does need to be tackled. We are living not in the world of 1988, but in a very different and less stable climate. I was disappointed by the Minister’s rather wholesale rejection of that issue today, but I hope that we will return to it on a future occasion.

On a more positive note, I said that I hoped not to press new clause 1 to a vote. I am greatly encouraged by what the Minister said, and I thank him both for entering into the spirit of the discussion and the specific words he used. He gave us the comfort that we were looking for in relation to a proper, timely and comprehensive review of the finances behind the Bill. I am particularly pleased that he said that the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and the Select Committee itself will be engaged in that process as well as local government. That is extremely helpful, especially given the time pressures we are under to get these matters sorted out here rather than in the other place. I am sure that the other place will be watching and listening to what the Minister and I have said. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 4

Duty in cases of threatened homelessness

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

“( ) But the authority may not give notice to the applicant under subsection (5) on the basis that the circumstances in subsection (7)(b) apply if a valid notice has been given to the applicant under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) that—

(a) will expire within 56 days or has expired, and

(b) is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.”

This amendment prevents a local housing authority from bringing the duty in section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (inserted by clause 4) to an end after 56 days if the applicant has been given a notice under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 that has expired or will within 56 days expire and which is in respect of the only accommodation that is available for the applicant’s occupation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has been a diligent member of the Bill Committee, and I thank him for his intervention. He is correct: the Bill provides for a final written warning. Obviously, we want to make sure that people have an incentive to do the right thing and accept an offer of suitable accommodation, but we also need to consider people who present challenges and need a final warning, in some circumstances, to make them think again and take up the offer the local authority has made.

Amendments 3 and 5 insert helpful signposts into clauses 4 and 5 to ensure that they are appropriately cross-referenced with clause 7. Specifically, they insert references to the provisions in clause 7 about ending the prevention and relief duties when an applicant has deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate, and to the provisions about ending the relief duty when an applicant has refused a final accommodation offer or a final part 6 offer. That simply means that the ways in which the prevention and relief duties can be ended are easier to see and understand for those reading the clauses.

Amendment 8, along with amendments 6 and 7, deal with the provision of interim accommodation while a local housing authority is helping an applicant to secure accommodation under clause 5. Amendment 6 sets out that, if a local housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must secure interim accommodation. It also sets out how that duty comes to an end.

In cases where the local housing authority has concluded its inquiries under the homelessness legislation and decides that the applicant does not have a priority need, the duty comes to an end in two circumstances: first, if the local housing authority notifies the applicant that the relief duty is not owed; and secondly, if the local housing authority notifies the applicant that, once the relief duty ends, they will not be owed any further duty to accommodate.

Amendment 7 is a technical amendment to the Housing Act 1996 required as a result of amendments 6 and 8. Where an applicant has been provided with interim accommodation and refuses a final offer, they may request a review of the suitability of that offer. Amendment 8 ensures that the duty to secure interim accommodation continues until any review has been concluded and the decision has been notified to the applicant.

Finally in this group, I turn to amendment 9. The duties to applicants under clauses 4 and 5—the prevention and relief duties—are to help the applicant to secure accommodation. In some cases, this will entail the local housing authority securing this accommodation directly, rather than helping the applicant by, for example, providing a deposit guarantee. Amendment 9 provides that, where that is the case, the provisions of sections 206 to 209 of the Housing Act 1996 apply in the same way they would if the local housing authority secured accommodation under the main homelessness duty.

Those sections contain various provisions about how a local housing authority’s housing functions are to be discharged—for example, about how authorities may secure that accommodation is available and how they can require an applicant to pay a reasonable charge for the accommodation. Provisions also cover the requirements relating to placements in and out of district, including notifications to the hosting local housing authority.

I will leave it at that on amendments 1 to 9. I hope that the House will look favourably on them, in the spirit in which proceedings on the Bill have been conducted, and support them.

[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.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

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

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever and makes an excellent point. Clearly, amendments will be tabled on Report. I assure him that anything in those amendments that constitutes a new burden on local authorities will be dealt with in the same way. There is nothing in the statement that we have already made that is not in the Bill today. If there are any additional costs as a result of amendments tabled on Report, they will quite correctly be dealt with separately from the £48 million that we announced in our statement. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

Amendments 16 and 17 represent the best balance between the interests of tenants, landlords and local housing authorities. I believe that the schedule of new burdens costs that we have set out for the Bill is fair and we did our homework in relation to the calculation of those costs. The clause is part of the excellent package that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has brought together with the support of the Select Committee, the Government, housing charities, and in the main local authorities. I am pleased to propose that the Committee supports the amendments and clause 1 as amended.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If I understood you this morning, Mr Chope, you would like single speeches addressing both the amendments and clause stand part. That is a sensible way to proceed. I observe in parenthesis that I would be the first person to be accused of being a hypocrite if I was to deprecate a filibuster. The only thing that I say is that in my experience, one usually does that when one does not care for the legislation one is talking over. I say to the promoter, the hon. Member for Harrow East, that I would hate, for the sake of posterity, for this debate to be one of rather more quantity than quality. I will try to set a good example by being clear, precise and concise while I hope covering the relevant points.

It would be churlish to say that the Government or the promoter have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse by spending several weeks mulling over what we should do with clause 1 and then deleting 95% of it. I also asked those advising us to have a look at it and they could not come up with much better than deleting most of clause 1. So there it is; that is where we are. There is broad agreement that the new slimline version of clause 1 is better than the old version, so I concede that point. There were technical and policy difficulties with the original version and the more that everyone looked into them, the more irreconcilable and unresolvable they became. Although the revised version is better, there are still problems. I will not ask the Minister to respond to those problems today, but do ask him at least to look at some of the concerns and to consider, perhaps before the Bill emerges in the other place, whether clause 1 does the entire job.

Rather than spend a long time outlining the problems, let me just give two examples. The Association of Housing Advice Services said:

“There is government guidance that requires councils to make a decision on a homelessness application within 33 working days (about 42 days). As an applicant is now threatened with homelessness as soon as they receive a section 21 notice, we must take the homelessness application at that point. Which means we will need to determine the application…before the S21 notice has expired and often whilst prevention work is still being undertaken. If we succeed in preventing”—

that is the local authorities—

“homelessness after the application has been decided, we have to formally end it with an offer of accommodation; which is unnecessarily bureaucratic as they (still) have somewhere to live. Currently if we are negotiating with a landlord, we can delay starting the homelessness application (as they are not yet threatened with homelessness) until that fails.”

However, Shelter says that

“in cases where the prevention assistance does not prevent proceedings or help find an alternative home, the amendment to Clause 1 would allow the local housing authority say that the applicant was not actually homeless right up to the date of eviction. Only homeless applicants in priority need are entitled to interim accommodation, so authorities would not be obliged to provide interim accommodation until the applicant actually became homeless, which could still be interpreted by local authorities as the date of the eviction.”

I am not saying that I entirely agree with either of those points, but they are worthy of consideration and are caveats to how the amended clause would run. They are not necessarily consistent with each other; indeed, in some respects they contradict each other. I just feel that we may not have resolved the fundamental issue with clause 1, although we have gone some way towards that.

My other concern relates to Government amendment 17 to clause 1, which refers to a “valid” section 21 notice having been served. What is a valid section 21 notice? I earned quite a lot of money arguing over that for a number of years, but in the end it was not my decision—it was the judge’s decision as to what would be valid. In this case, I assume it will be the view of the local authority, but will it be correct and does it have the full facts on which to determine what is a valid section 21 notice? These things can be quite technical and complicated, and there is a body of case law, not surprisingly, as a no-fault eviction, which is what the section 21 notice is all about, behoves representatives and courts to look even more closely at the technical side of the matter.

Notwithstanding what the Minister said about section 8 notices, the new version of the clause does deal with section 21 notices. Again, these are technical legal points, so rather than the Minister responding today, he might want to go away and reconsider them before Report or even before the Bill goes through the other place. I was not entirely persuaded as to whether there is some inequality between the serving of a section 21 notice—a no-fault process—and a section 8 notice. Of course, there are other types of tenancy as well, some of which are less secure than assured shorthold tenancies, which can be terminated by a notice to quit. Where do they stand? Given that the Bill does not deal with the myriad tenancies under housing law, but with anyone who is made homeless, we need to able to deal with those matters comprehensively. I entirely understand the problem of trying to draft something that deals with section 8 notices as well as section 21 notices, but nevertheless we need to hear a little more at some stage about how the clause will impact on those tenancies—a minority, probably—that are terminated other than by a section 21 notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Of course I have seen it and read it. I was slightly surprised that it appears to have come personally from the DCLG statistician, rather than the Minister. I do not know whether that is to allow the Minister, if it all turns to dust, to say, “Oh, it was just some functionary who produced that”—[Interruption.] Let me take the points one at a time.

First, there is the matter of quantum. Although we do not have absolute figures, because we are in new territory, all the indications so far—I quoted some of them earlier—suggest that £48 million is not going to touch the sides. I am sure the responsible Minister saw the article in “Inside Housing” on 21 December, in which a number of councils volunteered what they think it will cost them. Lewisham, for example, said it would cost £2.38 million per year and Ealing said it would cost £2.55 million per year. AHAS estimated, and I think the figure has increased since then, that the 32 London boroughs will have a combined bill of £161 million in the first year, which is substantially in excess of £35 million.

I appreciate that even in the two pages of methodology there has been no attempt yet to divvy the sum up among authorities, and I think one can anticipate that London authorities are going to get a larger share than some rural or district authorities. Nevertheless, there is such a disparity between what the professional bodies and local authorities have estimated and what the Minister has provided. It is, shall we say, unlikely that it is going to fully fund, even in the first year, the local authorities’ new responsibilities.

[Mr Jones]

We do not recognise some of the very high figures that have been quoted. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is within the scope of the Bill and what will be within the new burdens. There is also the question whether the savings that will offset the costs have been taken into account. Has the hon. Gentleman done any homework and asked the local authorities in question whether they have considered those issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The principal way in which a case could be resolved in Wales was by finding accommodation. We have been talking about Westminster for half a day, and we know that for the authorities with the most pressing housing need, finding accommodation is virtually impossible. It is not impossible in Wales; it is virtually impossible in many London boroughs. Resolving those issues will be expensive in any event—there is a higher cost attached, whether it is to mediation, landlord incentive, deposit schemes or whatever—but there is also less ability to do anything, so it will take more time and be more difficult to do. So yes, I am pessimistic about it compared with the situation in Wales.

If we do not know the answer, let us make sure that we build in a mechanism to ensure that we do know. I am sure that the Scots will agree with this, even if Conservative Members do not, but we do not want the initiative to fail, and certainly not for lack of resources. I will be delighted to make a public statement of having been totally wrongheaded about this if it turns out that within 18 months there is no additional cost to local authorities under the provisions of the Bill. At the moment, however, I am somewhat dubious about that. The Minister may call my bluff simply by agreeing to what the LGA wants.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman talks about 18 months’ time. Does he accept that the chances are that, in 18 months’ time, we will have only a matter of months’ worth of evidence on the effect of the policy and the costs and savings from it? It needs to be looked at over a longer period. The LGA is saying two years, but that is not 18 months.

[Andy Slaughter]

I said 18 months because the money runs out in two years, as a maximum, but if the Minister wants to say two years, let us say two years.

My final point is one that I suspect the Minister has heard before. It is difficult to look at the Bill, especially the funding element of it, in a vacuum. There is a supply crisis, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) urged the Government before Christmas to make additional properties available that were dedicated to relieving rough sleeping. Supply is a many-headed issue, but there is a specific issue about rehousing those who are in a particularly vulnerable position.

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne may talk a good game, but the Government are playing one. We are putting in place move-on accommodation, and we are going to spend £100 million on providing 2,000 places for the very people that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is talking about. Does he welcome that?

[Andy Slaughter]

I gave way to the Minister because he was so insistent that I thought he had something new to say.

Supply is an issue, and so is security. We know—Government Members have said it today—that the biggest cause of homelessness is ending private sector tenancies, because of the opportunity for “no fault” possession and because of rising rents and landlord attitudes. Our very sensible and moderate proposals for longer tenancies and for controlling rents would be a major way of controlling homelessness. The Government cannot ignore their own actions in relation to local housing allowance, the benefit cap and all the measures that we have heard mentioned today. I pray in aid Westminster City Council and other Conservative authorities, which are saying that they cannot cope because of the additional pressures that the Government are putting on them. Those pressures go right across the board for local authorities.

I will not labour the point. I simply say that the Government need to take a holistic approach and say, “Yes, of course we want the Bill’s provisions to work and we want to fund them properly.” However, we cannot do only that. We have to look at where the accommodation is going to be, at why people are increasingly coming to local authorities—there has been a substantial, 40% increase in the use of temporary accommodation over the last four years—and at the effects of other policies that are directly contrary to the intentions behind the Bill. I put that on the record. The question of money relates not just to the specific matters raised in the Bill, but to how the system works as a whole. At the moment the system is creaking incredibly. It is not getting better; it is getting worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Chope. I add my thanks to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Hammersmith for your chairmanship of the Committee; you kept us in order throughout. I thank colleagues on both sides for their contributions on this important measure.

I particularly thank the Opposition Front Benchers for the spirit in which they have approached the Bill so far. It is a rare experience to be on a Committee where there is such a consensus, and I shall probably have to wait a little while before I experience another that operates in the same way. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said that there had been a bit of a lottery for the clauses, but as someone who does the lottery now and again I feel we have probably had more success with the Bill than I ever do with that—although it has not always been all that easy.

I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for the energy and determination, and at times patience, that he has shown during the Committee sittings. It is not easy to negotiate one’s way through a Bill when there are so many different interests that we understandably want to work with on getting things right.

I also thank the officials who have worked so hard on the Bill. Parliamentary counsel worked extremely hard, especially during the many periods of recess, Christmas holidays and so on. Finally, I thank the Clerks and Doorkeepers, who have done a sterling job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a good point and I assure her that we are working extremely hard across Government through a cross-governmental working group, which I chair. She mentions the fact that temporary accommodation and the temporary accommodation management fee, which originates from Department for Work and Pensions policy, is being devolved to local authorities and to the Scottish Government.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Rather than patting themselves on the back, should not the Government be apologising for allowing rough sleeping to double since 2010? This is not an insoluble problem; it merely requires action such as that taken by the previous Labour Government, which cut street homelessness by three quarters. Will the Minister adopt the initiative announced last month by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and commit to an extra 4,000 homes to end rough sleeping altogether?

[Mr Jones]

It will not be lost on the hon. Gentleman that under the Labour Government, in 2003, homelessness was at its peak. This Government are absolutely committed to making sure that we eradicate rough sleeping and we are working extremely hard, with a £20 million fund for local authorities, as I mentioned earlier, and £10 million for social impact bonds to get our most entrenched rough sleepers off the street.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

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

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

To reassure the hon. Member for Hammersmith, the amendment to clause 7 is due to an unforeseen situation in relation to its drafting. He is correct that we need to get the Bill right and therefore we have had to take some additional time to change the drafting. He is also correct that a final version of clause 1 is still outstanding. I expect that those proposed changes to the Bill should be drafted shortly and laid in order to enable us to debate them on 11 January. If that were to be the case, I expect them to be laid by the Christmas recess.

--- 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.

[Mr Jones]

Clause 6 adds clarity to the homelessness prevention and relief duties. It ensures that the requirements that a local housing authority must meet when securing accommodation for applicants itself do not apply when it takes steps to help to secure accommodation. That common sense change means that authorities can work more efficiently and can direct resources to where they are needed most, and that households get the help they need while retaining their ability to make their own choices about where they live. The Government are therefore happy to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Duty of public authority to refer cases to local housing authority

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

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

[Andy Slaughter]

I will be brief because I think that we have dealt with the clause stand part debate. We all agree that if we are to give new duties to local authorities there has to be a power of review. New clause 3 is intended to be genuinely helpful, and I live in hope that, one day before I die, the Government will accept a clause that I table. It may be this one—who knows?

I say that because—this is not by any means unique to the Bill—housing legislation is littered with notices. An example would be, under clause 4, proposed new section 195(8), which says:

“A notice under this section must be given in writing”

and so on. Rarely, but sometimes—it seems to be idiosyncratic—notices are to be in a prescribed form, and it is helpful to have notices in a prescribed form. I think of section 21 notices, which are perhaps one of the most widely used, or section 8 notices. To have a prescribed form is helpful to both the party issuing it and the party receiving it. That, in my submission, would make a small but significant contribution to alleviating the burden on local authorities, because things would be done in a clearer, more consistent and thorough manner, which would be clearer for the person on whom the notice is being served. That is the simple point, and I look forward to the Minister’s accepting the new clause.

[Mr Jones]

I will speak first to clause stand part. The Government welcome the measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East proposes. We believe that it will encourage local authorities to deliver their new required services to the highest possible standard, ensuring that vulnerable people who require help because of homelessness get the support that they need. As my hon. Friend explained during the discussion on the amendments, this measure means that an applicant can request a review of the decisions made by the local housing authority when delivering its homelessness support services under the new duties in the Bill.

Elsewhere in the Bill, new prevention and relief duties for local housing authorities have been brought in to better support vulnerable people who are either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The clause ensures that applicants can request that a review be carried out of the decisions taken by the local housing authority when undertaking those new duties. The measure does not amend the review process; it just extends which decisions are covered. We hope that this measure will encourage local housing authorities to deliver their new services effectively and to the highest standard. If they do not, there is a clear and transparent recourse process that applicants can follow.

New clause 3 would give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe a document summarising an applicant’s right to request a review for all relevant decisions taken by a local housing authority when discharging its homelessness duties and an applicant’s right to appeal to the county court on a point of law arising from any decision on the review. The authority would be required to supply a copy to applicants each time it is notified of anything relating to those rights and duties.

Although I understand that the new clause is intended to be helpful, local housing authorities are already required by law to inform applicants of their right to request a review of decisions and the guidance recommends that the procedure should be explained fully. In cases when the applicant has difficulty understanding their rights or the implications of any decision, it is also recommended that authorities arrange face to face support to understand the full picture. A prescribed document such as a standard letter or form would work against that flexibility and could result in an applicant failing to understand or exercise their rights.

In addition to this requirement under the existing legislation, clause 2 of the Bill, which is on the

“Duty to provide advisory services”,

states that each local housing authority in England must provide, among other things:

“information and advice on…the rights of persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, and the duties of the authority, under this Part”.

We will make it absolutely clear in guidance that this should include information on an applicant’s right to review.

We will certainly keep the guidance under review and address any concerns about the applicants’ ability to understand and exercise their rights. I hope that, given that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

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

[Mr Jones]

It is a pleasure to respond to clause 2 on the second day of our consideration. It is obvious from this first debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has chosen well because Members on both sides of the Committee are not only capable and knowledgeable but have spoken with immense passion and power. It is obvious that the members of this Committee care about the enactment of the Bill.

The Government welcome the duty to provide homelessness advisory services and hope it will go a long way in helping to provide access to the same high standard of information and support for everyone. It does not help to prevent homelessness if local authorities provide minimal and out-of-date information but, technically, they could still be acting within the law. The measure is a key first step to addressing that. Having said that, some local housing authorities provide relevant and up-to-date information and, in some cases, tailored advice, and they need to be commended.

The clause will help to ensure that all local housing authorities step up to the standard of the best by providing detailed advice and information to all households in their area while empowering people to seek support before their housing concerns turn into a housing crisis. We hope local housing authorities provide more personalised advice that meets the needs of households that are likely to be at risk of homelessness, and advice that targets the vulnerable groups identified in the clause.

Earlier, I mentioned some prevention trailblazers. The best local authorities include Newcastle, where staff work to gather information to identify people at risk of becoming homeless so they can target their advice and support far earlier so that people do not end up in a housing crisis. That is the spirit in which the clause sets out further obligations for local authorities, and what we expect to happen.

To ensure that the measures work in practice, we will work with local housing authorities, homelessness support organisations and others to review and update the guidance on how local housing authorities should comply with the new duty. In doing so, we will look to Wales, which has a similar duty enshrined in legislation in section 60 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, and to other good practice such as that which I mentioned in England.

As I mention Wales, may I respond, in order to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, to the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the extent of the legislation regarding England and Wales? I reassure him that we have discussed the Bill with Welsh Government lawyers and are satisfied that the approach taken in the Bill correctly addresses the devolution points he raised. I have some responses to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in a few other areas.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the issue of funding for the Bill. I reiterate that we are absolutely committed to funding the costs of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned, we are still working with local authorities and the LGA to identify the costs of the Bill. Given how the Bill has been brought to the House, the timescales have been tight, particularly for the Select Committee’s scrutiny process and the tabling of amendments.

We are now dealing with changes to clause 1 to deal with challenges raised by a particular stakeholder group, so we are still finalising the costs. We expect to be able to come to the Committee shortly with the final details of those costs. I can reassure people that when we come back with that final detail, we will be taking into account the costs as a result of clause 2.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister has said that he will come back to the Committee, so I am assuming that we will have something in time for next week’s sitting or the one on 14 December.

[Mr Jones]

As I have said, I will bring those costs to the Committee as soon as is practicable, but the hon. Gentleman is not making an unreasonable point. I hope to be able to satisfy his request. It is important that the Committee should have the chance to see what the costs are.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about AHAS and the information duty. AHAS raised an issue about councils going beyond the provision of just homelessness issues. I want to be absolutely clear that the measure is about a duty to provide advice and information relating to homelessness only; it is not about local authorities going beyond that. Local authorities can signpost to other services, but we expect them to work with local partners to help address wider issues, and that is what the best authorities are already doing.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood raised a point about the Bill, and the clause in particular, being about changing culture at the local level, and I very much agree. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester about reinvigorating the role of housing officers so that they can get back to a position where they genuinely feel they are helping people—as he rightly pointed out, that is why most housing officers took up their roles in the first place. We have seen a similar change in culture in Wales, which bodes well for the Bill. We will make absolutely clear that the revised guidance on what constitutes good advice will accompany the Bill once it makes its passage through the House and into law.

I will conclude by saying that the Government are extremely pleased to support clause 2. We think it will bring about a real shift in culture and enable people who hitherto have not received good advice and assistance to receive the support that they absolutely need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I always welcome the Select Committee’s work, and if councils do not respond in the way that we ask them to respond—that is, by adhering to the 2012 order, the importance of which is reiterated in the Bill —it perhaps would be sensible for the Select Committee to look at the issue again.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Sheffield South East said on Second Reading about recognising the importance of speaking to people from the very beginning about addressing their housing needs. We are talking about the important first step in creating the culture that we all want. We need a more co-operative and effective relationship between local housing authorities and those they try to help. That is why clause 3 is really important. However, I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East would like.

Amendments 3 and 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith would require local housing authorities to consider a further requirement when assessing the applicant’s case. There would be a requirement to consider,

“what other support the applicant is or may be entitled to from any public authority under any other enactment”.

The amendments would create a very broad duty. Local housing authorities would need to investigate the legal duties of multiple authorities to identify whether such a duty were owed. There could be a scenario, for example, where a local housing authority would have to undertake a mental health assessment to establish whether a person is owed duties in respect of any mental health issues that they may have.

Owing to their wide-ranging nature and the general requirements that the amendments would bring to local housing authorities, the proposed changes would place an unacceptable burden on those authorities. As I mentioned previously, local housing authorities already have to take into consideration a wide range of factors, including the significance of any disruption that would be caused by the location of the accommodation to the employment, caring responsibilities or education of the person or members of the person’s household; and the proximity and accessibility of the accommodation to medical facilities and other support.

Successful prevention, as the best local authorities already know, takes a broad view in assessing needs. Many of the things we are looking at here will be dealt with in the personal housing plan, which is covered in the substantive clause.

[Andy Slaughter]

To look at this the other way, does the Minister not think that it could be helpful to local authorities in identifying other organisations or other resources that should be brought into play? What was good on clause 2 in relation to specifying people with particular needs may also be good on clause 3.

[Mr Jones]

There are many ways in which the Bill broadens the support that people will get. As the hon. Gentleman knows, later in the Bill there is a duty to refer. Organisations will therefore have to notify local authority housing teams of people in certain circumstances as they pass through the NHS system in hospital A&Es and so on. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East is proposing a broad provision. As I said, it is difficult in terms of its workability. The challenge would be massive for local authorities, which would almost have to become experts in massive areas of work that they are simply not in a position to be experts on.

However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that local authorities can work in a better and more collegiate fashion across public services and other organisations that can help people who are homeless or becoming homeless. In many ways, the Bill will seek to achieve that. I therefore do not think it is necessary at this point to support the amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled.

Contribution of Poles to UK Society

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge. He knows far more about such matters than I do. What he said is borne out by the fact that the Polish squadron was the highest scoring RAF Hurricane squadron in the battle of Britain.

It was not just in the air that the Poles excelled in the second world war. Girls and women today would do well to look at the contribution of one of the Special Operations Executive’s most daring operatives, Christine Granville, otherwise known by her Polish name, Krystyna Skarbek. She proved that being brave and fighting for one’s beliefs is not just a male preserve. On the battlefields, the Polish army, under British High Command, was instrumental at the battle of Monte Cassino, which was mentioned by colleagues, and at the battle of Arnhem, among many others. Perhaps most importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and several other colleagues highlighted, we have Polish cryptographers to thank for cracking the early versions of the Enigma machine. That laid the foundations for subsequent British successes in deciphering German military signals, which proved a key factor in many allied successes during the war.

Poles were with us in our darkest hour, as they were with thousands of Polish Jews in theirs. More than 6,000 risked their lives to save Jews from the horrors of the holocaust. Poles constitute the largest national group within the “Righteous Among the Nations”, an honour bestowed on recipients by Yad Vashem, Israel’s official memorial to the victims of the holocaust. Considering the harsh punishment that threatened rescuers, it is an extremely impressive number.

To ensure that the murder of millions of Polish Jews is never forgotten, the Department for Communities and Local Government is working with From the Depths to preserve the memory of the holocaust and give a name to those who were murdered, particularly those, including many Poles, who were placed in unmarked graves. That will offer some level of closure to the remaining holocaust survivors—including in Polish communities in this country—who have never known their loved ones’ last resting place. There are an estimated 10,000 sites of mass murder in eastern Europe, with only around 30 commemorated in the past three years. The project we have undertaken will rectify that.

Along with many others in this House and throughout the country, I reacted in absolute horror to the spike in incidents of hate crime following the EU referendum. My colleagues Baroness Williams, the then communities Minister, and Lord Ahmad, the then Minister for Countering Extremism, saw at first hand the effects of such mindless acts when they visited the Polish Social and Cultural Association—POSK—which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned earlier in the debate. They met the Polish ambassador, His Excellency Witold Sobków, who I am really pleased to see in the Public Gallery.

I want to make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate those few individuals who target people because they are different. Our police forces are on alert and have encouraged people who have experienced hate crime to report it to the police. We have zero tolerance for all forms of hate crimes, whichever community they are perpetrated against. Just as Polish men and women stood by us during the second world war, we will stand by those who have come more recently and who have contributed to our national life.

Our communities must be open, tolerant and welcoming. I am pleased to say that my Department is working with Near Neighbours to fund projects that promote integration and support social action—projects like the one in Birmingham run by the Polish Expats Association, which is holding a series of events to promote Polish music and culture, along with that of other communities. The project will also hold fundraising events to help the homeless community in Birmingham. I am pleased that, in his capacity as chair of the all-party group on Poland, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will meet my departmental colleague, Lord Bourne, to discuss how we can continue to counter hate crime and promote integration in communities throughout the country.

Today, there are thousands upon thousands of Polish citizens and people of Polish origin making a difference to the UK. My hon. Friend and others have highlighted their vital contribution. That is nowhere more true than in the NHS, where, according to the figures we have from the Department of Health, more than 6,700 Poles work.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am glad that the Minister mentioned the NHS. He will no doubt have seen the article in today’s Daily Telegraph by the NHS chief executive, Simon Stevens, in which he wrote:

“It should be completely uncontroversial to provide early reassurance to international NHS employees about their continued welcome in this country.”

Will the Minister address the concerns I raised about employees and students, and about the reassurance we are giving to Polish nationals in this country about whether they can stay?

[Mr Jones]

The Cabinet Office, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued an extremely important statement on 12 July. If the hon. Gentleman reads that statement carefully, he will see that it provides significant reassurance to members of the Polish community, and quite rightly so.

Poles are known for their entrepreneurial skills. In 2014, it was estimated that 22,000 companies had been set up by Polish-born entrepreneurs, with a further 65,000 registered as self-employed. Poles are employed throughout our society, including right here in this very House. Polish people have enriched our country, and while the UK remains in the EU, all its citizens continue to enjoy the rights and status they had prior to the referendum. The Government want to be able to guarantee the legal status of EU nationals who are living in the UK, and we are confident that we will be able to do so, but we must also win the same rights for British nationals living in European countries. It will be an early negotiating objective for the Government to achieve those things together. Some Members have expressed concerns that that might not be a high priority for the Government, but I hope I can reassure them that it will.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Debate between Marcus Jones and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that this debate does do that, and I am grateful for this opportunity to increase my own knowledge. However, I think that we need to move on to some very specific recommendations because, as the mover of the motion eloquently said, this is a time for action more than contemplation. That is exactly what Mr March did when he brought the judicial review in April, and the matter has been just been clarified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described, in relation to the mistake that the previous Government made on the situation in Ireland. That was the error made by that Government. That was the finding of the judicial review, and it is what the Government are responding to today.

I shall not read from the judicial review, other than to quote its final paragraphs, because they again relate to Mr March. The learned judge, Mr Justice Holman, said that counsel for the claimant

“paid a warm but measured tribute to…Andrew March, ‘for his tenacity and balance in the asking of questions and soliciting of information, and not taking no for an answer when the reasons are not good ones.’ My impression is that that tribute is justified and well judged, and that the many other people interested in this cause owe gratitude to Mr March for his tenacity or persistence.”

I say again that Mr March has done that for many years, suffering as he did not only from his original medical condition but from the effects of the contamination.

Taintedblood, an organisation that has done a lot of excellent work in briefing us all and preparing us for this debate, states:

“The Under-Secretary of State for Health”—

the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton)—

“recently held a series of meetings with campaigners, the Haemophilia Society, the Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts, the Skipton Fund and others. In those meetings she demonstrated a new willingness by Government to face up to and deal with what has happened to the Haemophilia Community.”

Those organisations must be very disappointed today by the amendment that the Government attempted to move and by the written ministerial statement.

I welcome what is said in the terms of reference about hepatitis C, as has been mentioned. I want to clarify whether the Minister is offering full parity for hepatitis C sufferers with what AIDS sufferers experience, including the £12,800 per annum payments, and that that will be susceptible to the review.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The constituent whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned is the son of one of my constituents in Nuneaton. I want to mention the families of those affected by this disaster, because they have also had to bear a real burden in supporting people such as Mr March over the years. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the terms of reference that the Minister announced in her statement about supporting the families who have had to bear that burden?

[Mr Slaughter]

No, I definitely do not. I ask the Minister to clarify—if not now, when she makes her speech—whether the terms of reference will allow hepatitis C sufferers to be treated at least as HIV/AIDS sufferers are under the current scheme. I hope that she will do that. However, all that could have been done today. The limited amount that is offered in the review could quite easily have been announced today. If there had to be a review, I should have liked it to have been along the terms of Lord Morris’s Bill, which considered all the remaining provisions of the Archer inquiry and said specifically—this is the contentious part:

“When making the regulations the Secretary of State shall have regard to any comparable compensation schemes offered in other countries.”

The noble Lord’s Bill was a good Bill, but I would say—this is the only criticism that I would make of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West—that I think today’s motion goes a little too far. It calls specifically for parity with the scheme in Ireland. I do not think that it gives the Government sufficient room. I would ask the Government—this is the commitment that I would look for today—to widen the terms of the review and to reconsider all the matters that Lord Archer raised, including compensation. Even if the conclusion is that parity is unlikely with Ireland, where the situation is different even given the judicial review—that was suggested in the opening speeches—in the current financial climate we need to look at the levels of compensation that are paid.

I also think that the motion, while criticising previous Governments, could at least have acknowledged that the previous Government responded to the Archer review by making regular annual payments at a higher level, although I understand that my constituent and many others regard that as inadequate. I regard it as inadequate. We are looking, I think, for something between the two. The unfortunate thing about the Government response today is that it cuts off that option. The amendment and the ministerial statement do not allow the option of considering more generous compensation in the light of Lord Archer’s proposals. That is why I would have voted against the amendment and that is why I think it is wrong for the Government to have given false hope to sufferers and to have dashed that hope with their announcement today.