division_name: Housing Bill
motion: <p class="" pid=".531.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The Bill was published on <phrase class="date" code="2004-12-08">8 December</phrase>. It will help to create a fairer and better housing market and to protect the most vulnerable in housing. Together with other Government measures on housing and planning, it will make a major contribution to achieving the aims of the sustainable communities plan. The Bill is big in vision, scope and size. In that respect, it has similarities to the Housing Act 1996, which was taken through Parliament by <phrase class="honfriend" id="uk.org.publicwhip/member/835" name="David Curry">the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)</phrase>. I take this opportunity to extend my personal welcome to the right hon. Gentleman in his new role as shadow Secretary of State for local and devolved government affairs.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid=".531.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">Early last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government's vision for sustainable communities. In that statement, he recognised candidly that for more than 30 years, all Governments had failed to meet housing need. In particular, Government investment in housing declined significantly during the 1990s, leading to an increase in social housing disrepair compared with the rest of the housing stock. As a consequence, in 1997, the Government inherited a colossal backlog of &#163;19 billion in social housing repairs, and a declining number of newly built homes. More than 2 million homes in the social sector were substandard, and there were similar problems in the private sector.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid=".544.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid=".544.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">"this House declines to give a Second Reading to a bill which introduces burdensome, ineffective and bureaucratic information packs; fails to provide a sufficiently clear licensing regime; weakens tenants' right to buy; is unclear on the rules and standards that regulate private sector access to Housing Corporation funds; and, overall, acts as a disincentive to offering property for letting in the UK's weak private rented sector."</p>
  
  <p pid=".633.2/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put,</i> That the amendment be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid=".633.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 139, Noes 375.</p>