 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Housing and Regeneration |
Housing and Regeneration Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 22 January 2008(Morning)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Housing and Regeneration BillH&R 11 Local
Government Association and Chartered Institute of
Housing
H&R 12
UNISON
10.30
am
Clause 260Family
intervention tenancies:
general
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 103,
in
clause 260, page 105, line 14, at
end insert ‘, and
(c) under a
specific Family Intervention Project or other similar scheme approved
by the HCA.
(3A) The HCA may by
order designate projects or schemes which it shall approve for the
purposes of subsection
(3)(c).’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 104, in
clause 260, page 106, line 32, at
end insert ‘, and
(c) under a
specific Family Intervention Project or other similar scheme approved
by the HCA.
(3A) The HCA may by
order designate projects or schemes which it shall approve for the
purposes of subsection
(3)(c).’.
Andrew
George:
Good morning, Mr. Gale. It is a
pleasure to introduce amendments Nos. 103 and 104, which aim to
restrict the use of family intervention tenancies to circumstances in
which a recognised family intervention project approved by the
Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers provides behaviour support
services. Without the amendments, the general reference to behaviour
support services in subsection (3)(b) may enable landlords to use such
highly insecure tenancies to claim that they are providing intensive
support services, when the nature and quality of those services are not
subject to scrutiny. Two separate but identical amendments are
necessary because the clause contains separate provisions for secure
council tenancies and assured housing association or private
tenancies.
I hope
that the Minister accepts that the purpose behind the amendments is to
ensure that action is taken in a proper and measured way. Given the
pressure on time, I will not elaborate unnecessarily and I look forward
to the Minister’s response.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Iain Wright):
Good morning to
you, Mr. Gale, and to the rest of the Committee. May I say
what a pleasure it is to see you back in the Chair.
We now come to amendment No.
103. To be honest, I did not think that we would get this far, but we
have. For the reasons suggested by the hon. Member for St. Ives, I
shall take the two amendments together. As he said, they are identical
and apply to two separate provisions in the clause.
The
amendments would have significant implications for the delivery of the
family intervention programme. Although the Department for Children,
Schools and Families and its partners have developed close working
relationships with projects that receive Government funding, that
relationship does not involve formal designation or accreditation. We
would therefore need to consider in some detail how any formal
accreditation would work and to assess the burdens that it would place
on projects. We would not wish to impose rigid criteria on projects if
that served to shackle their innovation or restrict their flexibility
in tailoring individual services to the specific needs of individual
families. For example, it is unclear whether the amendments propose
that projects should be subject to performance management or inspection
as a condition of any designation.
I am aware
that there are concerns about the possible misuse of family
intervention tenancies, but I strongly believe that such concerns are
unfounded, and I have a FIT in my constituency. Family intervention
projects continue to prove how successful they are at tackling the root
causes of antisocial behaviour. Over time, similar approaches may come
into existence to provide equally effective behavioural support to
antisocial families, but such approaches may not necessarily be classed
as family intervention projects or receive direct Government funding,
and we do not want them to be unable to include family intervention
tenancies. To that end, we have specified in the Bill that family
intervention tenancies can be used only in the context of behaviour
support services, by which we mean that they must address antisocial
behaviour. That sets the necessary parameters for the use of such
tenancies without creating undue
restrictions.
In
moving the amendment, the hon. Gentleman said—I think that I am
quoting him correctly, but he can always intervene if I have got this
wrong—that these insecure tenancies cause a burden in terms of
any landlord. That is a crucial point, which I want to address on the
record. It is very important to note that family intervention tenancies
can be used only by social landlords, such as local authorities and
registered social landlords, because FITs will be applicable only to
those tenants who have a secure or an assured tenancy. As we are aware
and as we will debate when we consider part 2 of the Bill, both types
of landlord are subject to regulation. Because of that crucial point, I
do not think that we need to consider the new layer of regulation that
the amendments would impose. I hope, therefore, that my explanation has
allayed the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has about the misuse of
family intervention tenancies.
Andrew
George:
I am grateful. I was seeking for my language to
apply to a wider range of landlords in circumstances where the FIT
measure might be applied. It is reassuring that the Minister is saying
that it would be used only in very narrow circumstances. However, I
hope that the Minister appreciates that there are organisations outside
this House that are concerned that FITs could be used to tip the
balance against the interests of families who, in many circumstances,
the state is trying to
help.
Mr.
Wright:
That last point is crucial. The state is trying to
help those families. An awful lot of resources are devoted to targeted
and focused help for antisocial families. FITs are voluntary and we may
come on to that issue in the clause stand part debate. I recognise the
sentiment in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. However, the
key point is that we have defined it narrowly to avoid the risk that he
has identified. We are trying to balance that with the need for
flexibility and innovation to ensure that the resources used and the
approaches taken to address the needs of antisocial families are as
targeted as possible. I hope that that reassures
him.
Andrew
George:
I wish to probe the Minister further. This is a
short debate, but I simply want reassurance from him in respect of
circumstances that I am sure he can envisage—certainly I can in
my constituency—in which neighbours have created the
circumstances in which a family have become subject to a FIT. In such
circumstances it is the others who have been victimising them and who
should be the focus of these actions. The family could be the victims
rather than the
perpetrators.
Mr.
Wright:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
I recognise the example that he raises from my own constituency case
load. However, I must point out that FIPs and FITs are entirely
voluntary. Families are accepted into these support programmes only
after an extraordinarily rigorous process of evaluation to ensure that
they are likely to benefit from it, to weed out that sort of
victimisation—for want of a better term—and to tailor
support to the family’s needs. That is in everybody’s
interests. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and as I tried to
make clear earlier on, that takes considerable time and
resources.
Projects
are established to ensure that long-term changes in behaviour are made
and that families do not give up at the first hurdle. We do not want to
facilitate fast-track evictions for so-called problem families. Any
eviction from a project would be seen as a failure by the agencies
concerned. The latest evidence suggests that very few families are
dropping out of support programmes. We must bear in mind the voluntary
nature of these measures and that families want to engage in this sort
of support programme to get help in addressing their behavioural
issues. The FIT is devised as a temporary tenancy to help that
long-term stability. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will
withdraw the
amendment.
Andrew
George:
I am grateful to the Minister for that
clarification and for the reassurance on the circumstances in which
FITs and FIPs will be applied.
Having received those reassurances on the parameters within which they
operate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
Just before we proceed, I have been looking, as
no doubt hon. Members have been looking, at the schedule before us for
consideration and completion by Thursday 31 January. I think that we
need to concentrate a few
minds.
I am willing,
subject to the staffing of the Committee, to sit, if necessary, this
evening and I am also willing to sit next Tuesday evening. I say that
now because the usual channels may want to consider this proposal
fairly carefully. As Members of the House, we have a duty to the staff
of the House to give them adequate notice if we intend to sit longer
than the allocated hours. We do not need to change the programme
resolution to do that, because we would simply extend the afternoon
sitting. That would entail a break, say, from 7 o’clock until 8
o’clock, because I do not think it is reasonable to expect
people staffing a Committee, either civil servants or indeed the
Chairman, to sit for more than three hours without some type of a
break, for fairly obvious reasons. However, we could sit from 8
o’clock until 10 o’clock and we could sit from 8
o’clock until 10 o’clock next Tuesday. You might like to
consider that as a Committee.
I would be grateful if the
usual channels could let me know by the end of the morning, so that I
can let the staff know if you are thinking of sitting later this
evening; next Tuesday is a bit of a moveable feast. I am giving that
advance notice now, simply because hon. Members, should they take that
decision, might wish to look at their own
diaries.
Mr.
Wright:
I beg to move Government amendment No. 115, in
clause 260, page 105, line 37, leave
out ‘Such regulations’ and insert—
‘A notice under sub-paragraph (5) must contain advice
to the new tenant as to how the new tenant may be able to obtain
assistance in relation to the notice.
( )
The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory
instrument make provision about the type of advice to be provided in
such notices.
( ) Regulations
under this
paragraph’.
Mr.
Wright:
Thank you, Mr. Gale. I thank you for
that ruling as well, which I think is most wise. I also thank you for
the consideration of the House staff. I would suggest, Mr.
Gale, that you could possibly take on a role as a trade union shop
steward; I think that you would perhaps be very good at
that.
The purpose of
these amendments is to ensure that the notice issued to families before
they decide on a
voluntary basis, as we have just been discussing, whether or not to sign
up to a family intervention project and family intervention tenancy
contains advice as to how families may obtain assistance in relation to
the notice. That will involve directing families to take independent
advice before they reach a decision.
I want to stress—I have
done this on a number of occasions this morning, but I think that it is
crucial—that families sign up to FITs on a voluntary basis.
Therefore, it is important, if not vital, that, where they do so, it is
as a result of an informed decision to accept both the support
programme on offer and the insecure tenancy offered in relation to that
support.
Although we
have every confidence that landlords and projects will ensure that
families are made fully aware of the decision that they are being asked
to make and its potential consequences, to make it incumbent on
landlords to advise families to seek independent advice about the
content of the notice with which they have been issued will further
assist families in working through their decision.
These amendments therefore
provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the
type of advice that must be provided in the notice. I hope that hon.
Members will accept
them.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 116, in
clause 260, page 107, line 9, leave
out ‘Such regulations’ and insert—
‘A notice under sub-paragraph (5) must
contain advice to the new tenant as to how the new tenant may be able
to obtain assistance in relation to the
notice.
( ) The appropriate
national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument make
provision about the type of advice to be provided in such
notices.
( ) Regulations under
this paragraph’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Clause
260, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 23 January 2008 |