Clause 68 - Designations under section 67: further considerations
Housing Bill
2:30 pm
Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is likely that someone who had been engaging in consistent antisocial behaviour and was evicted as a result would be assumed to have been made intentionally homeless. It is right that private landlords, as well as local authorities and social landlords, should have as the ultimate sanction for dealing with antisocial behaviour the ability to evict tenants or to threaten eviction when necessary. It should only be the ultimate sanction because a whole range of measures can be used before evictions need to take place, including antisocial behaviour orders. It is also right that we should work with families to try to support and improve their behaviour and deal with the problem in other ways, but it is also important that there is an ultimate sanction; otherwise we could end up with the situation in which neighbours have to move out or feel like prisoners in their own home because nothing can be done.
It is equally right that there are responsibilities towards the homeless. There are already in existing legislation obligations to the homeless, which include the provision of assistance and advice to those who are intentionally homeless. As the clause mentions explicitly the importance of homelessness and links it with the homelessness work of the local authority, the amendments are unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to withdraw the amendment.