Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

V981 – Homes and Honour Bill 2016 (Second Reading) Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    68.00%
    On the contrary, No
    10.00%
    Abstain
    22.00%

    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    V981 – Homes and Honour Bill 2016 (Second Reading), RayApparently MP (seconded: cranbrook_aspie MP, DanE1998 MP, DMcGovern MP, EricAteYou MP, 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 147, sub-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 £5000 or;
    OOOOOc. community service not exceeding 150 hours.

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

    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show
    In 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.

    Local councils determine priority of allocation by placing people into bands. The reason this bill doesn't specifically refer to 'bands' is that these are determined on a council by council basis. Instead an amendment is made to the Localism Act that means that councils must give veterans priority when constructing these bands.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-after-2071049
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents

    Changes for Second Reading
    Spoiler:
    Show
    - Paragraph added to the notes to add more explanation.
    - 'Act' not 'Bill' in 4.1
    - Penalties increased. £5000 figure reflects current punishment for benefit fraud.
    - Formatting changes


    EDIT: I have amended 2.1 as requested by Ray (see post #6)
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    I'll be abstaining on this bill. Whilst I do not want to hinder it's passage as it's at least helping some people, for me we shouldn't be prioritising some members of society over others. I am extremely grateful for everything the armed forces have done for this country, but there are millions of other people that also contribute to this country in many different ways. It is for this reason that I cannot support this bill. More must be done to tackle homelessness as a whole, not just for some.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, good bill.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I'd like to make a final defence of my bill. I don't write a lot of PMBs so I'd like to thank all those who are in support as well as those who are unsure and have abstained rather than voting against. I understand the concerns people have but nonetheless I think this is the right thing to do.

    I don't think the country does enough for its veterans. No one should be left without a home in a country they fought for. I believe that the state has a moral obligation to these people and that thousands of homeless veterans on the streets is a truly disgusting phenomenon. Of course I want to help all homeless people - and I'll support measures that promise to do that. However, I feel that veterans, who must adjust to civilian life and endure past traumas, currently have particular disadvantages over others who befall hard times. These disadvantages were wrought not by selfish, irresponsible behaviour or even plain bad luck but by sacrifice. And as veterans are such a small percentage of the population I believe that whilst this bill, by it's very nature, advantages one group over others, the negative effect of this will be minimal. This is legislation that we, as the people's representatives, must pass.

    I think this is a bit where I say 'I commend this bill to the House'?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    //
    I decided to look at the Localism Act to see if it specifies how "priority" is given because I'm not clear on exactly how local authorities are supposed to do that.

    However looking at section 166 of the act here, I am not sure where exactly this amendment fits in. The section is referring to repairs to housing which doesn't seem right in the first place, there is no subsection 3, and there is no (c) for your (d) to come afterwards.

    I fear you may have referenced the wrong section of the bill.

    Regardless, it is a nay from me because I do not agree with the principle of prioritising one person in need of help over another simply due to their past line of work.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by cBay)
    I decided to look at the Localism Act to see if it specifies how "priority" is given because I'm not clear on exactly how local authorities are supposed to do that.

    However looking at section 166 of the act here, I am not sure where exactly this amendment fits in. The section is referring to repairs to housing which doesn't seem right in the first place, there is no subsection 3, and there is no (c) for your (d) to come afterwards.

    I fear you may have referenced the wrong section of the bill.

    Regardless, it is a nay from me because I do not agree with the principle of prioritising one person in need of help over another simply due to their past line of work.
    It looks like I was referring to Section 147, Sub-section 166A. I will request the Speaker tweak the wording. Thank you.

    ---

    toronto353 Mr DS, could you tweak the bill slightly so that 2.1 reads:

    (1) To section 147, sub-section 166A (3) of the Localism Act 2011 the following shall be added:


    ---

    PS. I just realised I made a massive error in not waiting for Fez to come back because I've basically lost myself a vote in favour of my own bill haven't I.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Abstaining because while I agree with the notion of the bill, I'm a staunch anti-interventionist and oppose many of the armed forces' past actions, as well as disagreeing with the notion of prioritisation cBay has mentioned.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    toronto353 Mr DS, could you tweak the bill slightly so that 2.1 reads:

    (1) To section 147, sub-section 166A (3) of the Localism Act 2011 the following shall be added:


    ---

    PS. I just realised I made a massive error in not waiting for Fez to come back because I've basically lost myself a vote in favour of my own bill haven't I.
    I've amended your Bill as requested. On the subject of voting, I have decided to change my own precedent now in that where I am sending updates for a day or two, I will still vote since it seems silly, on reflection to arrange a proxy for a vote or two. Where it is longer, I shall maintain my current stance of not voting. So I will be voting on this Bill, but not until tomorrow when Fez is back taking the updates again.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I've amended your Bill as requested. On the subject of voting, I have decided to change my own precedent now in that where I am sending updates for a day or two, I will still vote since it seems silly, on reflection to arrange a proxy for a vote or two. Where it is longer, I shall maintain my current stance of not voting. So I will be voting on this Bill, but not until tomorrow when Fez is back taking the updates again.
    Thank you Mr DS. I think that's a very sensible decision.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Thank you Mr DS. I think that's a very sensible decision.
    Perhaps wait until you've seen how I vote before you come to that conclusion
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Perhaps wait until you've seen how I vote before you come to that conclusion
    Either way I think it's the right call.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Either way I think it's the right call.
    Thanks, I think a lot of it came from wanting to be sure that I was seen as non-partisan within the chair, but I think that I shown that now and a healthy dose of pragmatism is needed in these situations where I'm only covering for a day or two.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'll be abstaining on this bill. Whilst I do not want to hinder it's passage as it's at least helping some people, for me we shouldn't be prioritising some members of society over others. I am extremely grateful for everything the armed forces have done for this country, but there are millions of other people that also contribute to this country in many different ways. It is for this reason that I cannot support this bill. More must be done to tackle homelessness as a whole, not just for some.
    Hear, hear
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    One double vote removed from seat 38 (nebelbon/Nigel Farage MEP) (–1 No).
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Ayes to the right: 34
    Noes to the left: 5
    Abstentions: 11

    The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!

    Turnout: 100%
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 19, 2016
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.