Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

As the hon. Member will know, we have the defending democracy taskforce, which is dedicated to this very subject and is led by the Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). We as a team are actively participating in that, and we also work with social media companies and our international counterparts. It is something that I personally put on the agenda at the summit and that I have personally discussed in forums such as the G7. The Deputy Prime Minister is also leading the way with his AI compact. There is no easy answer to this, but we are working in a conciliatory and speedy manner to ensure that we address all opportunities and answers.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to help protect the personal data of individuals.

Artificial Intelligence Safety Summit

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

Thursday 9th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

Let me pull up the hon. Member on one comment he made, which was about us lagging behind on legislation for social media. We are in fact leading the world with the world’s most comprehensive Bill—now Act—in that area. On the misuse of AI, this is one of the three pillars of risk that we discussed at the summit. The risk documents that we published just before the summit highlighted the fact that AI can amplify existing risks. There are already risks presented by the internet and other technologies in relation to biochemical warfare—they are present today and we are dealing with them. This could potentially amplify that, and we have certainly both talked about that internationally and are working on it domestically. We will be coming back to our White Paper within the year.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Historically, every revolution at a time of technology leads to threats of job losses—people not having opportunities to work, which is dreadful for people’s lives. However, here we are today with almost full employment in the UK, and there are opportunities for AI to increase that, as well as to make people’s lives easier, improve employment prospects and, indeed, conquer diseases. Will my right hon. Friend set out some of the advantages for the average individual of harnessing artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humankind?

[Michelle Donelan]

The opportunities from AI are limitless, and they can transform our public services. In fact, that is already happening. We see our doctors detecting cancer earlier, and we see us utilising the technology to try to tackle things such as climate change more quickly. In relation to jobs, my hon. Friend is quite right that AI, like any technology, will change the labour market. If we look back to 1940, we see that 60% of jobs we have now did not actually exist back then. AI will create new jobs, and jobs we cannot even think of, but it will also complement our jobs now, allowing us more time to do the bits of our jobs we actually train to do—for example, assisting teachers to have more time in the classroom and doctors to have more time with patients.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

This Government have proven time and again that we are on the side of the fans. We committed to the review in our manifesto. We stepped in during covid to protect clubs with a £600-million sport survival package. We stepped in again to prevent the super league —a competition that no fans wanted. Whenever fans have needed us, we have been in their corner. This will be a huge shake-up of football, and I will not apologise for taking the time to get it right. We will come forward with the White Paper in the next two weeks.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T1.   If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michelle Donelan)]

The Online Safety Bill reached a major milestone when it passed its Third Reading. It is now being introduced in the Lords. Last week I visited Birmingham to hear how the 2022 Commonwealth games has contributed £870 million to the UK economy. Meanwhile, another major event is heading down the tracks, with just 100 days to go until the King’s coronation. The Government are helping to deliver a historic weekend that will bring our country and communities together. Everyone can join us across the whole weekend, whether it is hosting a street party or volunteering through the Big Help Out for causes that matter to them.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that update. There has been much conjecture in the press about widely differing rules on transgender people participating in elite sports, with very different agreements made. Could my right hon. Friend give an update on her position, to ensure that we protect the integrity of women’s sports?

[Michelle Donelan]

On all sport, the Government are clear that a way forward is needed that protects and shows compassion to all athletes. We are also clear that sex has an impact on the fairness of competitive women’s sport. Fairness should be the primary consideration. We need a common-sense approach in this area, which is why I am holding a roundtable with domestic governing bodies in the coming weeks, and working with UK Sport on an international engagement plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

We work closely with the Charity Commission, and of course all donors and charities have to work transparently. I shall be happy to meet the hon. Member for discuss this in detail.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T7. I join others in congratulating England on qualifying for the knockout stage of the World Cup, and, indeed, congratulating my hon. Friend the Sports Minister for his demonstration at the event. At home, however, more than half our Premier League clubs are now owned to foreign owners. In some cases that has been very successful, although I think that in Manchester there may be different views on either side of the city. What action can the Minister take to ensure that foreign owners are appropriate for this country?

University Students: Compensation for Lost Teaching and Rent

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

Thursday 15th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

We have urged accommodation providers to have students’ best interests at heart, to review their policies and to give refunds where they can, and a number have done so, including a plethora of universities and private providers such as Unite. The hardship money is there for those students who have faced a situation where they cannot access a refund. I again urge all students to access that, particularly if accommodation pressures are putting them in financial difficulties.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work she has done in supporting students and universities across this very difficult period. Clearly, students are now consumers—consumers enabled to demand the best from their universities—and the key point here is getting value for money. I know that she is trying to do that. Can she also state the position in relation to international students? Many universities are wholly dependent now on the income from international students. What advice is being given to those students, who are equally consumers of our education?

[Michelle Donelan]

The Government’s expectations are clear: universities should maintain the quality, quantity and accessibility of provision. If a student, whether international or domestic, is unhappy, they can utilise the OfS notifications procedure to pre-empt a review, or make a formal complaint to their university. If they are still unsatisfied, they can go to the OIA, which can lead to fee refunds and has done in the past.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As I said last week, it is a pleasure to see the Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), back in his place for this debate. During his absence, the Committee has had to deal with many of the issues we are discussing tonight. I thank my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for coming before the Committee to update us on the Government’s proposals and to give us a chance to comment before the Bill came before the House.

In many ways, that is something from which all Departments could learn. Using Select Committees to do pre-legislative scrutiny is a good way of making sure we get legislation as close to correct as possible before it is presented to the House, rather than requiring the House to develop it further. My Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 went through the same process, so it is clear that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is leading the way in government, and we should congratulate it on doing so. However, I will outline some criticisms of the proposals, because there are some concerns.

The staircase tax came as a bolt out of the blue to some 30,000 small businesses in this country. We cannot criticise Supreme Court rulings, but this one was a massive shock to small businesses across the country that have paid their business rates for many years—there was a settled position. The Supreme Court ruling ended that, and I will pay particular attention to what has happened across the country in the past couple of years as a direct result.

My constituent Anthony Broza is the chief executive of Wienerworld, the UK’s leading independent music publisher and distributor. Given that his company is competing against Amazon and other such companies, the staircase tax has a direct impact on his business. He is my constituent—he lives in my constituency—but he runs his business out of an office just across the border in the London Borough of Brent, and therefore the levying authority is Brent Council.

Mr Broza owns an office block that I think is on four floors. He uses the ground floor for distribution and to allow the public to come to see his goods and services, and he uses the fourth floor for administration purposes. He quickly realised that he would not need the other floors so, rather than keeping them empty, he not unreasonably rented them out to other businesses. The floors are connected by a common staircase, hence the staircase tax.

Mr Broza runs a small business and, because he was getting small business rates relief, his rates were effectively zero. Suddenly, after returning from a good holiday, he received a 22-page document from the Valuation Office Agency and no less than nine rates bills from the London Borough of Brent demanding payment within five months. As might be imagined, it came as a bit of a shock to put it mildly. The sole reason for the shock is that the offices are split over different levels, and they have been that way for many years.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such shocks can deter the very entrepreneurial spirit we need to ensure that the small business economy thrives under this Government?

[Bob Blackman]

Mr Broza’s view is that he might have to close his business as a direct result of this completely unreasonable demand and, as I have said, his is one of 30,000 businesses in that position.

Obviously, the various different charges levied on Mr Broza covered a number of years going back to 2015-16 and 2016-17. The 2017-18 rates bill was even more aggressive, because it took account of an increase in rateable value and the loss of transitional relief and business rates relief. He was placed in a position in which he was suddenly presented with a bill for £8,344.59 in one go, to be paid within the year, when he had previously been paying the princely rates of about £370 a month on one property and only £50 a month on the other. He was clearly encountering a draconian position.

When Mr Broza came to see me, I was shocked that he was being placed in that dreadful position. Clearly, overall, the Government were going to gain from this Supreme Court decision. Whether it is local government or national Government, overall the taxpayer was going to gain some £3,040.95 in one hit that was completely unbudgeted for.

Worse still for Mr Broza, he had budgeted that his business rates bill for the 2017-18 tax year would be zero. Of course, he was then told that he would have to pay £5,365.07 within five months of receiving the bill. I took up this case with the Chancellor, and I am pleased to say that the Chancellor saw the right way to proceed: small businesses in such a situation that have acted in a perfectly reasonable and lawful way should not be penalised by suddenly being hit with a dreadful windfall tax.

However, we have a number of problems still to resolve. I welcome the Bill, under which businesses such as Wienerworld will be returned to their previous position. However, the current position is that the London Borough of Brent, and other councils across the country, are still levying these punitive tax rates and demanding payment. So businesses are having either to find money out of their revenue to pay local authorities—to keep paying the business rates as they are—or to borrow the money in the hope and expectation that it will be returned to them. Either way, this seems unsatisfactory, given that the Government have made it clear they are going to correct the position for those businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the Government and the Department have figures they can use to evaluate which local authorities are most affected in this way. It may well be that a threshold should be imposed, whereby if only a relatively small amount of money is involved a local authority could not claim it back. However, if a substantial sum is involved, as could happen in many of these cases, we should get to a position where the local authority is returned to where it should have been in terms of the expectation in its budget. My hon. Friend may know that I was in charge of the London Borough of Brent’s finances for many years, so I know the way the finances of that local authority work extremely well. The reality is that this will create a hole in Brent council’s budget, and I do not see why Brent should suffer as a result.

Let me turn to the empty homes premium. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) asked in an intervention how we can ensure that local authorities can encourage empty homes to come back into operation, but without unfairly penalising those homeowners who are refurbishing their homes or converting them for other purposes, thereby making them temporarily empty for an extended period. We do not want those people to suffer any damage or be charged any financial premiums, but at the same time we do not want unscrupulous homeowners or landlords to keep a property empty, only to do some work when the local authority investigates, just to demonstrate that they are doing something, but still keeping the property empty for longer.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why the two-year period is a fair benchmark and why the 2013 guidelines on assessing why a home is empty are important in protecting people?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, different local authorities have interpreted the rules in different ways. One of the concerns is that owners should not be penalised for refurbishing properties and bringing them back into use, but it must be genuine refurbishment, rather than people artificially refurbishing properties and keeping them empty. That is a very difficult test, and it must be left to local discretion, rather than trying to formulate a detailed law that will not necessarily provide the answer, but will allow learned lawyers to gain from trying to interpret it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I am a fan of localism and such decision making could be done on a local level, but I am not sure that I would be as radical as my hon. Friend. I think that the answer lies in increasing the premium rate to a point that makes it unaffordable not to sell the property or to rent it out. I would be interested to hear whether the Government will be commissioning any reviews or studies of the implementation of the measure and looking at potentially raising it further in the future, and whether this is the first step.

[Bob Blackman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues is the starting point at which any multiples would apply? Obviously, property prices in London would start at £1 million-plus, so multiples of that sum, as premiums, would be extremely penal and would therefore lead to people thinking twice about leaving a property unoccupied.

[Michelle Donelan]

I completely agree. That is exactly what we need people to do: we need them to think twice about whether it is a sensible decision for their pocket, and then the issue can be resolved for our country.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

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

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Thank you for the comfort break, Mr Chope. I think Members on both sides of the Committee were ready for it.

As has been said, the Minister’s amendments have been the subject of something of a rollercoaster ride during the deliberations on the draft Bill and the Bill itself. Clause 1 in the original draft Bill was very different from the clause in the draft Bill that was eventually presented to the Select Committee. It was then changed substantially after discussion with the Minister and officials, and we ended up with the Bill that was passed on Second Reading. At that point, many concerns were raised by a large number of groups about clause 1 in particular. I thank all those who came along to see me, particularly towards the end of last year, to discuss the clause. They expressed their concerns and were willing to engage constructively, which enabled us to reach a solution that is acceptable to everyone. They include the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association, the local government sector—the LGA, London Councils and other local authorities—and homelessness charities including Crisis, Shelter and St Mungo’s.

The process has not been easy. The hon. Member for Hammersmith alluded to that in attempting to gain advice about how to propose amendments that achieve his aims. Given the various different organisations’ requirements, ensuring that we got something that works for everyone has been like squaring a circle.

At times, some of those groups’ interests appeared to me—and, it is fair to say, to the Minister and officials—to be almost irreconcilable. Local authorities said that they want clarity regarding their flexibility to try to save tenancies at risk and to facilitate moves into alternative settled accommodation directly from tenancies that are ending. That is essential if we are going to ensure that they prevent homelessness in as many cases as possible. Landlords and charities were concerned that applicants must receive proactive help so landlords and tenants do not face unnecessary costs and tenants avoid the distressing experience of eviction. It is the custom and practice of many local authorities up and down the country—particularly in London—when they are approached by individuals or families who are threatened with homelessness through a section 21 notice to say, “Go home, wait until the bailiffs arrive and then come to see us. Then we will try to resolve your problem.” As has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, one of the key concerns in such cases is that landlords incur court and bailiff costs, and the tenants incur costs and end up with county court judgments against them. In many cases, that also overloads—unnecessarily—the justice sector. We therefore have a real dilemma.

The concern expressed right from the start was that in many ways clause 1, without amendment, enshrines many of those bad practices. That was never the intention—it certainly was not my intention as promoter of the Bill. In this process we have therefore tried to ensure that we keep at the centre of our consideration the needs of those who the Bill will affect most: the people who are at risk of losing their home or those who have lost their home.

We have had the wide-ranging involvement of various groups affected by the Bill, in-depth discussions and consideration of potential impacts in order to determine a way forward. It is fair to say that we have looked at all sorts of ways to amend the clause to make it work in the Bill, and we have concluded that that is not the most practical way forward. The amendments tabled by the Minister offer a practical and achievable solution that I hope we can all support and which will be welcomed right across the sector.

Crisis made two points in its briefing that I will refer to. It supports the decision to remove clause 1(2) entirely, to preserve the status quo, which means that local authorities should follow the existing code of guidance that clearly states that households should be considered homeless if they approach the local authority with an expired section 21 notice. Under amendment 17, a household that approaches the local authority with an eviction notice that has yet to expire will automatically be considered to be threatened with homelessness. That will require local authorities to accept a duty to prevent the household from becoming homeless in the first place.

That is a vital aspect of the Bill. The intention in extending the timeframe in which a family or individuals can apply to their local authority for assistance is to ensure that the local authority and the applicants use that time as effectively as possible to prevent a family or individuals from becoming homeless. The risk we have with clause 1 without amendment is that some local authorities—I will not single any out—notwithstanding the fact that they could intervene, would not do so until such time as the family or individuals became homeless.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the amendment will simplify the Bill? The initial feedback was that the Bill was far too complicated, and we are now working towards a more simplified Bill that will be easier to roll out.

[Bob Blackman]

Simplifying Bills is always good news. One of the things we originally set out to do was provide detail where required but simplify processes wherever possible. It is fair to say—I ask the Minister when he responds to the debate to make this clear—that we will look at operation in practice. If local authorities are not following both the letter and the spirit of the law, in any code of practice we introduce we will ensure that there are appropriate measures to enforce that, to ensure that local authorities do honour their duties on the concerns rightly raised throughout the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I noted during my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution earlier his very detailed knowledge of the technical issues of housing law.

In the various meetings, we considered the different aspects of section 21 and section 8 and whether we could reach a compromise that would satisfy all parties. The drawback, if we set out all the procedures—almost a flow chart—in the Bill, is that unfortunately we cannot address every single reason why someone becomes homeless; we cannot set out every position in relation to section 8 or section 21 notices. Obviously, what we want to do is to make it clear that the position will be that on receipt of a valid section 21 notice or, indeed, section 8 notice, the local authority will treat that as a means of starting the process of combating the threat of homelessness. That is the clear message that I want to impart as promoter of the Bill. We do not want landlords to have to go off and wait and go through a lengthy legal process, which is of no benefit to them or the tenants and, in the long run, costs the local authority substantial amounts of money when it has to put a homeless family who are in priority need into temporary accommodation. This is one of the issues that we looked at in considerable detail. I will not go on too much about this issue and the various discussions that we had. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that we looked at this in detail and concluded that the way to reach a compromise was to accept the Minister’s amendments.

A planned amendment to clause 4 will also ensure greater continuity of help between the prevention and relief duties for households during the eviction process, if such a process follows. I hope that we never get to families being evicted but recognise that we cannot solve all those problems in one go.

I welcome the commitment to provide stronger encouragement for people to engage early through the forms used in the section 21 process and the “How to Rent” guide that the Department has published.

The intention is to recognise that prevention is vital to tackling homelessness. The earlier someone gets help, the less likely they are to end up in crisis. The clause works with the rest of the Bill, which should be seen as an entire package, and with current legislation in placing more emphasis on prevention, encouraging people to seek help at an early stage.

[Michelle Donelan]

While we continue to discuss the clause, I want to stress that it is not only large charities and organisation that have called for and welcomed the extension to 56 days. Charities in my constituency, such as Doorway, which does a great deal of work on homelessness in the Chippenham area, are delighted and have stressed how vital it is to deal with homelessness at the root and try to prevent it in future.

[Bob Blackman]

I acknowledge that local charities are doing brilliant work to combat homelessness. During my discussions on the Bill I have dealt mainly with national charities and some local ones which I visited. All hon. Members will be aware of the local charities that do excellent work, which is why I believe these measures are universally welcomed.

It is not logical that someone in a private sector tenancy who receives a section 21 notice or encounters the threat of homelessness should have to wait until the final 28 days before they will be on the streets. Ensuring that the clause extends that period, with a duty owed by the local authority, must be sensible to help prevent them from becoming homeless.

I trust that the provision will help increase the number of successful preventions carried out by local housing authorities. In the long term that reduces costs for them and, most importantly, the trauma experienced by vulnerable people and households.

There may be instances where the 56-day prevention duty does not work and ends, though the household is not technically homeless, as the local authority finds it reasonable for the household to continue to occupy the property. That could mean that the relief duty does not begin, potentially leaving the household without support. We clearly want to get to the position covered by clause 4 so that, in those circumstances, the prevention duty will run on until the time the relief duty begins. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that in his opening remarks.

Mr Chope, you directed that we should look at costs in this part of our consideration. I welcome the Government’s announcement of £48 million and their commitment, under the new burdens doctrine, to fund all the new costs that will result from the Bill. We have already mentioned that there will be amendments to clause 7 on Report. We have already had a debate about that; I will not reopen it. There will be a further amendment to clause 4 and, after further discussions, we might consider amendments to clause 12 as well.

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was critical, not unfairly, of the timing of the release of the money. The Government have considered our detailed discussions of the Bill and its amendments because there are cost implications. It is not fair if we end up with a running budget in Committee. We have made substantial changes and it is fair to say that the proposed changes to clause 7 would lead to additional costs for local authorities. However, I hope that if there are additional costs, the Minister will commit to their being picked up as originally envisaged under the new burdens doctrine.

The LGA and London Councils have welcomed the money that will be available. I note the concerns of the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Dulwich and West Norwood about whether the money will be enough. Clearly, none of us is in a positon to say without fear or favour that the money will be sufficient. We will have to see how the new legislation operates. It is part of a package.

I have been clear from the word go that the Bill, if enacted, will not produce one more property or one more home. I look forward to the publication of the White Paper—hopefully very soon—which will set out the Government’s method for ensuring we develop more housing. One way to ensure people are not homeless is to provide more housing in the first place. There is a shortage of accommodation in almost every part of the country, and London has particular pressures, as those of us who are London MPs know. Clearly, that will have to be addressed.

Equally, how the funding is provided needs to be considered: £35.4 million in the first year, £12.1 million in the second year and zero in the third year. I have concerns about that. Will we have solved the homelessness problem in this country after three years? As an eternal optimist, I hope we will have done. I did not mention this too much when we talked about the title of the Bill, but the original title was the homelessness prevention Bill. However, I was warned by our Clerk’s predecessor that that would mean it would be illegal for an individual to be homeless, so we should be careful what we attempt to achieve.

As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, some £633 million in 2014-15 was spent by London councils on temporary accommodation. If we can reduce that burden by a relatively small amount, that will pay for the prevention duty. I am minded of the fact that London authorities in particular have embarked on large amounts of efforts to combat homelessness through prevention duties, and that is welcome. However, there is clearly going to be a need to review the funding and review how this works.

Homelessness Reduction Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Michelle Donelan and Bob Blackman

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

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and other Members for the brief debate we have had on these amendments. As the Minister and other colleagues said, the amendments would remove the right of review.

We should remember that local housing authorities will be dealing with a much greater volume of people whom they will have a duty to assist. Those people are extremely vulnerable. They have come into the local housing authority, probably for the first time, because they are either threatened with or suffering from homelessness. They are likely to agree to almost anything that the local authority says on first sight because they are in a position of seeking help and advice. When they go away with a plan put together with the local authority, they may discover after reading it and taking further advice that what is being offered is not reasonable. It would be quite wrong to remove their right to appeal and have the decisions taken about their case for help and assistance reviewed. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but that would be the effect.

My hon. Friends on the Select Committee will know that during our inquiry, we took a great deal of evidence on that. Local housing authorities do not always do what they are supposed to do. They do not always adhere to everything expected of them—the mystery shopping exercises substantiated that during our inquiry. It is important therefore that reviews are possible for people who claim and need assistance from a local authority. That is why the reviews are spelled out loud and clear in the Bill. My concern is that the amendments would remove the protections for applicants.

I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Westminster North in respect of potential delays. The Minister made an important commitment to monitor the process to ensure that we do not have review after review, and delay after delay, preventing people from securing accommodation. The resources provided to assist local authorities in delivering the duty are vital.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our current system often unintentionally exacerbates the problems for those who face homelessness? That is why it is so important we are careful with every amendment not to do the same thing. We are trying to rectify the situation.

[Bob Blackman]

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

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