statutory instruments have been prayed against in the Early Day Motions so had to be debated here
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) thinks Article 4 Directions (A4D) are OK. Yes Julian, housing and student needs in Cambridge are not representative of the rest of the country. Most students are in College-provided accommodation so the demands on the private rented sector are different. The industries around Cambridge and the particular circumstances of the University lead to intermittent demand for family housing that doesn't exists elsewhere in the country. Elsewhere there are student ghettos that remain as such year after year.
Grant Schapps in his response comes up with some sophistry about developers not knowing if they could invest,as a reason for undoing the change. Its difficult for me to understand , he also says its difficult for him to understand. Of course its difficult to understand , you clown, because the decision you are trying to defend is illogical, irrational and goes against the prolonged consultation that went on over 2 years. The Councils are rushing to implement Article 4 Directions because that's the only option you have left them , not that they think its a good idea. The other reason for the change gets a brief mention. With the changes to Housing Benefit, the Government need to ensure as far as they cant hat there is a supply of HMOs for people to move into after they have left their current accommodation. So stopping the Councils doing anything about it for 12 months lets developers provide the supply of housing.
Grant Schapps reminds me of a young Tony Blair - oozing insincerity and opportunism every time he says something.