|
Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The hon. Gentleman has been drinking in the last chance saloon for long enough. We were talking about new clause 3(7), (8) and (9) five minutes ago. The matter has been explained to the hon. Gentleman, who moved off and returned to it. We are going up and down like a yo-yo.
Mr. Clappison rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Column Number: 083
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Clappison, Mr. James
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Field, Mr. Frank
Howarth, Mr. George
Knight, Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Selous, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
NOES
Davey, Mr. Edward
Question accordingly agreed to..
Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. If I have understood the procedure correctly, we may now press individual amendments to a Division. Am I correct?
The Chairman: I was about to put amendment No. 1 to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he intended to withdraw it, but did not do so for the sake of ease of progress. He is free to withdraw it at this stage.
Mr. Clappison: I will do so. Without prejudice to later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Davey: No.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 1, line 3, after 'individual', insert 'permanently'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 12.
Division No. 2]
AYES
Davey, Mr. Edward
NOES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Clappison, Mr. James
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Field, Mr. Frank
Hoey, Kate
Howarth, Mr. George
Knight, Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Selous, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. When the Committee holds a Division and it is clear that only one voice is either in favour of a proposition or against it, do you have the ability to weigh the voices rather than hold a recorded vote, especially when you come to the view that the one hon. Member is obstructing the business of the Committee?
The Chairman: The Speaker or Deputy Speaker in the Chamber may have such a power, but a Committee Chairman does not. If there are dissonant voices, I must press the matter to a Division.
Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 1, line 5, after second 'tenant', insert
'and reasonable attempts to offer support and resettlement services have been refused'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 12.
Column Number: 084
Division No. 3]
AYES
Davey, Mr. Edward
NOES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Clappison, Mr. James
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Field, Mr. Frank
Hoey, Kate
Howarth, Mr. George
Knight, Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Selous, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed, No. 13, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 12.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Davey, Mr. Edward
NOES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Clappison, Mr. James
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Field, Mr. Frank
Hoey, Kate
Howarth, Mr. George
Knight, Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Selous, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed, No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after 'means', insert 'a pattern of consistent'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 11.
Division No. 5]
AYES
Davey, Mr. Edward
NOES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Clappison, Mr. James
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Field, Mr. Frank
Hoey, Kate
Howarth, Mr. George
Knight, Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Selous, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed, No. 23, in page 1, line 10, at end add
'and which in the opinion of the Secretary of State cannot better be dealt with in any other way than that specified in this Act'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 11.
Division No. 6]
AYES
Davey, Mr. Edward
NOES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Clappison, Mr. James
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Field, Mr. Frank
Hoey, Kate
Howarth, Mr. George
Knight, Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Selous, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
Question accordingly negatived.
Column Number: 085
Amendment proposed, No. 21, in page 1, line 10, at end add—
'(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the Secretary of State may only withhold any payment of housing benefit if he is satisfied that exceptional hardship will not result for the tenant or any person who resides with them.'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 11.
Division No. 7]
AYES
Davey, Mr. Edward
NOES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Clappison, Mr. James
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Field, Mr. Frank
Hoey, Kate
Howarth, Mr. George
Knight, Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Selous, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 1 disagreed to.
Clause 2
Withholding of housing benefit: landlords
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
3.30 pm
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 14—Consultation with landlords—
'( ) Before taking any action under section 2 above the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations as in his view represent landlords in order to take into account any views expressed by them as to how any such action can be taken in such a way as to lessen any hardship caused to landlords.'.
Mr. Field: I will obviously wish clause 2 to be withdrawn when the time comes. As we heard from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton this morning how valuable it would be to involve landlords in the process, I conclude that we have already heard the debate on new clause 14. May I move to a vote?
The Chairman: That is a matter for the Committee rather than the Chair. I put the question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill, which is debatable.
Mr. Davey: I wish to speak to new clause 14. I will put forward different arguments to those I used earlier. I did not mention the representations that I had received from landlords who are extremely concerned about this legislation. I am not talking about any old landlord, but about the National Housing Federation, which I believe has written to many hon. Members.
The NHF says that social landlords are especially concerned about the Bill. They would have to live with the consequences and they worry about the tenants that would face benefits sanctions and, more importantly, those who have to endure antisocial behaviour. They have a huge interest in the subject. Therefore, it is right that they should be consulted, as new clause 14 proposes.
Mr. Field: I wrote to that body asking, ''Who did you consult before you wrote to me saying that you
Column Number: 086
were going to try to sabotage this Bill?'' The reply was, ''Nobody.'' Advice was taken from officers. That is how representative that body is.
Mr. Davey: The federation is a body of landlords. Presumably, if the landlords who are members strongly disagreed, they would vote out the people who run the NHF. That would be the right and the proper way to do it. One presumes that, although they have not undertaken a survey or representative sample—
Mr. Field: They did not take any.
Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but perhaps the federation understands its sector very well. It is a body of experts that talks to landlords and understands their needs. It would be odd if a body answerable to its members went in completely the opposite direction to them.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he not should dismiss the NHF out of hand. It represents the independent social housing sector. About 1,400 not-for-profit housing associations are members. Together, they own or manage about 1.8 million homes in England. I call that a sizeable institution.
The federation has expressed a range of concerns about how members would manage if the Bill were enacted. It wishes to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that its members have to work with vulnerable people whose behaviour poses a risk to the community and to themselves. The job involves promoting the safety of the wider community, but they feel that the Bill would jeopardise the work that they undertake. Through the automatic procedures that are proposed, they would lose control and would not be able to manage some of the problems with which they have to deal. By centralising the administration, which we will address in due course, this Bill will, in effect, enable the Secretary of State to micromanage this problem. As the Government are taking that approach, it makes even more sense that the Secretary of State should be under a duty to consult with landlords and the organisations that represent them. They can give the Secretary of State a grassroots response to how this legislation is operating in practice and their views need to be taken seriously. For the record—and to enlighten the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—I have not written to the NHF to ask whether it thinks that this new clause is sensible. However, its briefing, which he has obviously also received, suggests that it would like to be consulted.
The NHF believes that the threat of the withdrawal of housing benefit would deter reputable private landlords from renting to anyone who is receiving welfare benefits. I know that from what has happened in my constituency. For its sins, Kingston took on a wonderful private sector company called EDS to administrate its housing and council tax benefits. I was aware of the consequences of its mismanagement of housing benefit because many people who were affected sought my help in dealing with this appalling private contractor. One of the damaging long-term effects of the company's mismanagement was that
Column Number: 087
landlords were put off from renting to people on housing benefit, because the administration was so slow and poor and the landlords were not receiving the housing benefit for their social tenants. Although Kingston got rid of EDS about two years ago, some very vulnerable people, who need to rent in the private sector and who would be eligible for housing benefit, are still feeling the effects of its mismanagement because private landlords will not accept them.
In Kingston, there was a reduction in the number of private sector landlords as a result of that poor administration of housing benefit, which backs up the NHF's argument that it should at least be involved in this process so that it can point out the pitfalls and the problems.
|
