§
Lords amendment: No. 202, in page 100, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) if the applicant was occupying accommodation made available to him under section (Duties to applicant whose case is considered for referral or referred)(3) (interim duty where case considered for referral bat not referred), the date on which he was notified under subsection (2) of that section of the decision that the conditions for referral were not met;")
§ 8 pm
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 203, 211 to 216 and 229.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords amendment No. 203 agreed to.
§
Lords amendment: No. 204, in page 100, line 38, after ("satisfied") insert
("that the accommodation was suitable for him and")
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 223 to 228, 304 and 324.
§ Mr. CurryA lot of concern has been expressed about the Bill's provision to place a duty on local authorities for two years, which would be renewable. It was said that such a duty might be difficult to observe in certain areas of housing stress or in respect of persons requiring particular types of property. After much reflection, I decided to meet some of those concerns.
I am aware that a small number of local authorities could have difficulty, so the amendment provides that, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority cannot manage, he can make a direction applying to it a 12-month derogation in respect of particular properties or persons. The Secretary of State will set the conditions, in liaison with the housing authorities. That welcome flexibility is at peace with that which I have sought to introduce throughout the Bill where a case for it has been made.
§ Mr. RaynsfordThere can be no clearer illustration of the nonsense in this part of the Bill than this group of amendments. Homeless people need permanent accommodation. The statutory framework that has been in place since 1977 rightly put the emphasis on helping homeless people to secure permanent accommodation. The Government are substituting a concept that only the more loony elements in Conservative Central Office, aided by the extreme fringes of right-wing think tanks, could have devised. Homeless people will have to be shoe-horned into temporary accommodation, even though it is unsatisfactory, more expensive and universally recognised as an inappropriate solution. The Government's dogmatic approach means that temporary accommodation must in the first instance be all that is offered to homeless applicants.
As a result, the Minister found himself in an impossible position. He was presented with evidence from a large number of local authorities, which demonstrated that it was far more sensible to put homeless people in their own housing stock, rather than in temporary accommodation—probably at far greater public expense. The Minister's first response was to allow a limited period—one year—in local authority permanent accommodation. When it was pointed out that it would be ridiculous to evict people from council housing at the end of one year, the Government responded by extending the period to two years.
When it was pointed out that a nonsensical situation would still prevail at the end of the second year, the Government came back with the extraordinary provision, in clause 172, of a Lords amendment that states that, although a local authority will not be permitted to house people in permanent accommodation for more than two years in any three, the Secretary of State may, on the application of a local housing authority, allow it discretion to permit homeless persons to remain in permanent accommodation for a further period, provided that it does not exceed one year.
As with the low-rent test changes, the Government are gradually retreating from an absurd position, to one which is slightly less absurd but still achieves any sensible policy 99 objective. The amendment represents a modest improvement on a previously thoroughly unsatisfactory provision, but we will not oppose it as it makes more feasible the ability of local authorities to house homeless persons in their own permanent accommodation rather than in expensive temporary accommodation.
§ Mrs. MaddockMoving homeless people into local authority housing, only to move them out again, is totally ridiculous. We can see how ridiculous, in legislation that gives the Secretary of State power almost to deal with individual properties. That shows how crazy is the measure.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 205 to 245 agreed to.