HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS (Hansard, 27 July 1977)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
We come to Lords Amendment No. 1—

§ Mr. Sainsbury
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You ruled me out of order when I was trying to raise certain matters relating to the papers associated with this matter and you informed me that it would be more in order to do so on the next matter. You then did not allow anything to be raised on the next issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I was trying to assist the hon. Gentleman. I was indicating that in my view it was not a point of order but was relevant to the debate which we were then having on the Question which has now been passed.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate had not then started.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has not quite followed what has happened. The Minister moved that the amendments should be considered. We were debating whether we should consider them when I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman that the matter could be dealt with in debate at that time, but not on a point of order. We are now dealing with Lords Amendment No. 1.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I should like to say for the benefit of hon. Members that there is available a list of the groupings of the Lords amendments. There are 20 groupings.
Lords Amendment No. 1 is a simple drafting amendment to correct the grammar, which will be welcomed even by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It seeks to treat the term "housing authority" as a plural noun.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to ensure consistency in the wording of the clause.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may also take Lords Amendments Nos. 4 to 8.

§ Mr. Ross
This is a series of drafting amendments all relating to the subject of 866 priority need. I agree that it is helpful to deal with this group together.
Lords Amendment No. 8 is designed to improve the Bill by dividing Clause 1 into two clauses. The first part of the clause will then deal with the definition of "homeless person" and those threatened with homelessness and the second part with the definition of "priority need". They are basically all drafting amendments. They fall into three groups.
The clause as drafted is concerned with two distinct matters: the distinction between homeless persons and those threatened with homelessness, and the definition of those who are in priority need. It is felt that those matters would be better treated in two separate clauses. It is therefore appropriate that the new clause should contain the definition of "priority need" which is now in Clause 13. The reference in Clause 13 is altered accordingly.
The second part of the group of amendments is concerned with the consultations that must take place before an order can be passed. Clause 1(7) requires the Secretary of State, before making an order to change the definition of priority need in any way, to consult such organisations as he thinks "appropriate". The amendment substitutes for that a provision that the order is to be made after "appropriate consultations". Amendment 13 is a definition of "appropriate consultations". As Clause 1(7) did not limit the consultations to be made to consultations with associations, the definition now explicity includes consultations with such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
The hon. Member has referred to amendments to Clause 13, but such an amendment does not appear in the group of amendments which we are now discussing. Is he referring to a later amendment? Did he mean Clause 13?

§ Mr. Ross
I meant Clause 13. We are rejigging the Bill, and it is appropriate that the new clause should also contain the definition of "priority need" at present contained in Clause 13.
The Secretary of State will thus be obliged to hold consultations. Those consultations are to be with such local authority organisations or other persons as he may consider appropriate. The 867 amendments to line 2 in page 28 adjust the wording of the provision relating to emergencies to bring it into line with the wording used in the joint circular. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
I did not find that at all helpful. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has not considered the amendments. I should have thought that Lords Amendment No. 53 should have been taken with these amendments if the matter is to make any sense. If the hon. Member is suggesting that Lords Amendment No. 53 is entirely separate, he mystifies me even more. I hope he will respond, because he is responsible for this confusion concerning what are supposed to be straightforward drafting amendments.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
Contrary to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), I found that the explanation of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was helpful because it proved abundantly clearly that which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has drawn to our attention—that we are totally unprepared to consider the Bill now. It showed to me and other hon. Members that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, the sponsor of the Bill, did not have a clue to what he was talking about on this group of amendments.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight referred to Clause 13, but, as has been pointed out, the amendments to Clause 13 are Lords Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. None of the amendments that we are now discussing is on Clause 13. These are amendments of considerable importance. Whether there should have been a pre-legislative committee on the Bill is another matter, but those of us who participated in the Committee proceedings are aware that differing views were expressed. However, we were all united in agreeing on the importance of these issues not only to those who might be homeless or threatened with homelessness but to the local authorities who would have the responsibility of exercising a statutory power under the terms of this measure.
It is fair to say that the amendments arise out of a desire to make the Bill operable for the local authorities which 868 will have the statutory duty of operating it. I put it to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that it must be in the interests of the homeless, in the interests of persons who might be affected by the giving of priority to certain categories of homeless people, who are obviously primarily those already on the waiting list, and in the interests of all housing authorities that the Bill, if it gets on to the statute book, should be in a proper state and be thoroughly understood by us and, I hope, by the representatives of the local authority associations.
If the hon. Gentleman is not able to answer the simplest of questions about the amendments, I do not see how we can be satisfied that the Bill is in that state. He referred to Clause 13. Again I ask, what in these Lords amendments deals with Clause 13? The first of the amendments is in page 2, line 28; the second is also in page 2, line 28; the third is in page 2, line 38.

§ Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the responsibility of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to select the amendments to be grouped together?

§ Mr. Sainsbury
The hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The grouping is merely an indication of what might be convenient. There is no question of anybody selecting them.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
I think that I had got to the fourth amendment in this group. It is also to page 2. Then we come to page 3, line 3. Lords Amendment No. 8, which is of no little effect, divides Clause 1 into two classes. Substantially, Clause 1 of this important Bill—I do not think that there is any division among us about its importance—is being totally redrafted, yet all we get from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is a reference to Clause 13. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
Perhaps I can assist. Clause 13(2) originally referred to "priority need". It read: Any reference in this Act to a person having a priority need is a reference to his having a priority need for accommodation within the meaning of any order for the time being in force under section 1(4) above. 869 That is now in Lords Amendment No. 7, and that is why Lords Amendment No. 55, which we shall come to later, deletes Clause 13(2). The reason why all of them cannot be taken at this stage is that Amendment No. 53 deals also with another definition in relation to priority need and must come later. What we are doing is taking into Clause 1 a reference to priority need which appears in Clause 13(2). That is why it is referred to in this group of amendments.