B981 - Homes and Honour Bill 2016 Watch

This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B981 - Homes and Honour Bill 2016, the Rt Hon. RayApparently MP (seconded: the Rt Hon. cranbrook_aspie MP, the Rt Hon. DanE1998 MP, the Hon. DMcGovern MP, the Hon. EricAteYou MP, the Rt Hon. JoeL1994 MP)

HOMES AND HONOUR BILL 2016
An Act to make it easier for former members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to secure housing after their service and to protect the honour and reputation of the veterans of this nation.

Preamble: This Act calls on local housing authorities to ensure that 'reasonable preference' is given to veterans (as defined in this Act) when allocating housing accommodation. No such provision currently exists. This Act also strengthens legislation forbidding the impersonation of members of the Armed Forces.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: DEFINITIONS
(1) The following definitions are for the purposes of this Act alone.
(2) "veteran" means a person who served in British Armed Forces as part of the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonourable.

2: AMENDMENT
(1) To section 166A (3) of the Localism Act 2011 the following shall be added:

OOOOO(d) of these, people who qualify as veterans under the Homes and Honour Act 2016 OOOOO(O)should receive priority.


3: IMITATION OF VETERANS
(1) Falsely presenting one's self as having served in the British Armed Forces so as to receive financial benefits under this or any other Act shall be an offence punishable by;
OOOOOa. a prison sentence not exceeding 6 months or;
OOOOOb. a fine not exceeding £1000 or;
OOOOOc. community service not exceeding 100 hours.

4: COMMENCEMENT, SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
(1) This Bill may be cited as the Homes and Honour Bill 2016;
(2) This Bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
(3) Shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent.


NotesIn 2013 its was estimated that there were 9000 homeless who had served in our Armed Forces. This is a blight on our nation. This Act maintains the freedom of local councils to distribute council housing based on their own priorities however adds consideration for those who have formerly served in the Armed Forces.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-after-2071049
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I support the intentions of this bill, but not the bill itself.

Homelessness is a massive problem - We shouldn't just be focussing on war veterans. Whilst this helps some into homes it simultaneously ignores many more. It's for that reason that I cannot support this bill.

More most be done to tackle homelessness as a whole. This does not achieve that.
1
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
The title is a bit… eh… but I do agree with the concept so it's an aye. The punishment could be more severe, though.
0
TitanCream
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Interesting bill, but I would like to see the families of serving personnel ensured housing.
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Although I do understand the idea for this Bill and in part sympathise with it as a foreigner (which is why I agreed to second it), I will not be supporting this Bill for political and social reasons, mainly because of the issues of homelessness, equality and encouraging militarism.
0
JoeL1994
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
Aye (of course).

Assisting all those affected by homelessness is vital, any step taken should be welcomed.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
I would abstain from this I support the idea but at the moment I think we would be better to tackle homelessness as a whole first.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Section 2 needs expansion in terms of the technicality of how they receive priority. You also have some formatting changes to make.

Perhaps you may get the first non-government Aye of the term.
0
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Hear hear !
I agree 100% its a disgrace Some brave service Personnel are left homeless are years of Proud service to his/her country
Although I think the punishment needs to be MUCH stricter
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I support the intentions of this bill, but not the bill itself.Homelessness is a massive problem - We shouldn't just be focussing on war veterans. Whilst this helps some into homes it simultaneously ignores many more. It's for that reason that I cannot support this bill.More most be done to tackle homelessness as a whole. This does not achieve that.
(Original post by joecphillips)
I would abstain from this I support the idea but at the moment I think we would be better to tackle homelessness as a whole first.
That is something that I hope your government will be doing.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Rakas21)
Section 2 needs expansion in terms of the technicality of how they receive priority. You also have some formatting changes to make.

Perhaps you may get the first non-government Aye of the term.
From what I've read it appears that the way the relationship between central government and local government works with regards to social housing is that we just tell them to assign priority and let them deal with the technical aspect case by case.

How would you like the formatting amended?
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Life_peer)
The title is a bit… eh… but I do agree with the concept so it's an aye. The punishment could be more severe, though.
I like alliteration. And the second part is similar to the American 'Stolen Valor Act' so I thought 'what the heck'.

As Hazzer also mentioned the severity of the punishment where would you too place it? I think the current level would serve as a solid detriment without being punitive but I'm happy to hear any suggestions.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by RayApparently)
That is something that I hope your government will be doing.
As Home Secretary in the previous Government I had already made in-roads by implementing Housing First (check the Housing SOI).

I very much will continue to push for more to be done internally and I welcome any additional external pressure


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by PetrosAC)
As Home Secretary in the previous Government I had already made in-roads by implementing Housing First (check the Housing SOI).

I very much will continue to push for more to be done internally and I welcome any additional external pressure
Posted from TSR Mobile
I do remember. And fine work it was too.

And so, as joecphillips says, I believe we have 'tackled homelessness as a whole first'. Thus I'd urge him to back the bill - because if not now, when?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by RayApparently)
From what I've read it appears that the way the relationship between central government and local government works with regards to social housing is that we just tell them to assign priority and let them deal with the technical aspect case by case.

How would you like the formatting amended?
I believe that councils have banding systems or points, you need to instruct them to put the people in band A or whatever since there will be central government guidance (central government is far too distrusting of local government to leave them to it).

4.1 also needs changing to act.

1) Sort out your line spacing at the top of the bill (title to preamble).

2) Make the bottom of your bill look like this one..

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3720989
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
I believe that councils have banding systems or points, you need to instruct them to put the people in band A or whatever since there will be central government guidance (central government is far too distrusting of local government to leave them to it).

4.1 also needs changing to act.

1) Sort out your line spacing at the top of the bill (title to preamble).

2) Make the bottom of your bill look like this one..

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3720989
I'll take a look but I do think the Localism Act gave the local govs a lot more power.

I'll look at making the formatting changes you mention.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by RayApparently)
I do remember. And fine work it was too.

And so, as joecphillips says, I believe we have 'tackled homelessness as a whole first'. Thus I'd urge him to back the bill - because if not now, when?
I don't believe we have yet but I could be drawn to back it but first I will have to look deeper into the overall problem before I back just helping one group.

Is there anything in particular you think I should look at to show that we have tackled the problem?
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
Aye.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
Nay. To each, according to his need is a sound, fundamental principle. Ex-military men have no greater need than other homeless people, nor is their career more praiseworthy than many other careers (indeed, I'd argue that teachers and doctors are far more praiseworthy).
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nay. To each, according to his need is a sound, fundamental principle. Ex-military men have no greater need than other homeless people, nor is their career more praiseworthy than many other careers (indeed, I'd argue that teachers and doctors are far more praiseworthy).
As a Liberal, I'd use Kant's argument of "equal moral worth" so I can agree without coming across as a commie
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

803

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you going to self-release into Clearing?

Yes I've pressed the button (98)
18.96%
No I'm happy with my uni offer (329)
63.64%
Not yet but I am planning to (24)
4.64%
Not yet but I might (66)
12.77%

Watched Threads

View All