HC Deb 07 February 2001 vol 362 cc958-72

'.—() For section 170 of the 1996 Act (co-operation between registered social landlords and local housing authorities) there is substituted— Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co-operate in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority's allocation scheme, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies— '().—(1) Section 213 (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows. After subsection (1) there is inserted— () Where a local housing authority request a registered social landlord to assist them in the discharge of their functions under this part, the landlord to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions. (2) In subsection (2)(a) the words "a registered social landlord or housing action trust" shall cease to have effect.".'.

Amendment No. 57, in clause 16, page 10, line 27, at end insert— '(8) In formulating its homelessness strategy, a local authority shall be required to show that its policies meet housing needs before meeting housing demands.'.

Amendment No. 18, in clause 17, page 10, line 30, after "homelessness", insert "including rough sleeping".

Amendment No. 19, in clause 18, page 11, line 45, after "organisations", insert— 'people living within the authority's area including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.'. Amendment No. 15, in page 11, line 46, at end insert— 'to include organisations recognised by the Secretary of State as specialists in representing people with physical and mental disabilities.'.

Mr. Foster

We are now dealing with the important issue of the strategies and reviews of homelessness for which local authorities are to be responsible. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the Government's proposals, although I am sorry that they were not prepared to accept the importance of uniting authorities housing and homelessness strategies.

In Committee, we made a great deal of progress in determining what should be the content of the reviews and strategies. The new clauses and amendments are intended to make further improvements. I shall not comment on the Conservative amendments, but I commend them—particularly amendment No. 15, which suggests that consultation during the development of strategies should include consultation with organisations representing people with mental and physical disabilities. We discussed that issue in Committee. Amendment No. 19 concerns another issue that we discussed then: the importance of involving homeless people in the development of strategies. I especially commend amendment No. 57, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which suggests that the primacy of housing need should be stressed in all allocation strategies.

New clause 2 and new clause 3, which is intimately linked with it, raise an issue that was touched on during our Committee deliberations. However, because it was linked with many other issues, we perhaps did not have the opportunity to give it the attention that we might have liked.

The Committee became aware during its deliberations, as I am sure the House is aware, that the registered social landlord sector is playing an increasing role in the provision of affordable housing. As we discovered from information provided by various organisations, by 2004, because of continued progress by local authorities in selling their council houses to RSLs, the majority of affordable houses will be in the control of RSLs. Therefore, if a local authority's homelessness strategy is to be successful, it is important that there be an intimate relationship between the local authority and the RSLs in its area.

The existing legislation, the Housing Act 1996, requires co-operation between RSLs in a local authority's area and the local authority, but the problem is that, within that legislation, the nature of that relationship is largely based on the RSLs deciding what it shall be reasonable for them to do in respect of that co-operation.

Clearly, if an RSL is not prepared to co-operate in the provision of affordable housing for people in need in a local authority's area, there can be serious consequences. Some people will stay longer in temporary housing. It could mean that some people are in less satisfactory housing. It might even mean that some people are not housed at all. The test, however, is whether that co-operation is deemed by the RSL to be reasonable. It is clear that the RSL would decide whether the relationship was reasonable. Indeed, the Minister, in relation to advice and assistance given by a local authority, said: the legal advice that I have received is quite clear that the courts would be likely to take such 'advice and assistance as is reasonable..' to be reasonable in the eyes of the local authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 429.] Under the current legislation, co-operation between the two is expected, but it is for RSLs to decide whether the level of co-operation that they are providing is reasonable.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster

I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose contributions we so enjoy.

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that unsought compliment.

If a local authority changes its social housing priorities in the course of one financial year, either because of a change of administration or for any one of a number of possible reasons, how quickly will the hon. Gentleman expect a registered social landlord to respond in terms of the provision of accommodation?

Mr. Foster

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It raises a more complicated point than I suspect even he is aware of. A large number of local authorities have transferred their housing stock to RSLs. At the time of the transfer, it was assumed that the RSL would abide by the allocations and priority procedures of the local authority. Over time, however, as local authorities change, registered social landlords have not been required to change their procedures. Therefore, there is not even a requirement for RSLs to change their procedures, let alone to change them quickly.

I acknowledge entirely the concern that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may have that registered social landlords will be required to make changes overnight. Consequently, if he carefully reads new clause 2, he will see that I have included various caveats to ensure that although registered social landlords will be required to co-operate more fully with the local authority, they do not have to do so if that is against their constitution or if they can demonstrate that it would in some way subvert their main purpose and key activity. I am grateful to him for making that point and allowing me to expand on it.

Some people may argue that registered social landlords will certainly want to co-operate. In a majority of cases, they do want to co-operate. Unfortunately, however, evidence from across the country has shown that some RSLs are not as co-operative as one might hope. In Committee, we heard of research done by Shelter that demonstrated that of the 61 large-scale and partial transfer authorities with which it was in discussions, 26 per cent. said that, after the stock transfer, it was less easy to house homeless households and people on the register. Interestingly—although I do not think that we should make too much of that relatively small sample—89 per cent. of the authorities surveyed said that they would favour greater statutory powers in the matter.

The purpose of the two new clauses is clear. They would strengthen the current statutory arrangements for registered social landlords to co-operate in offering accommodation under the authority's allocation scheme and assisting in the discharge of the authority's homelessness function. As registered social landlords are an increasingly important part of the affordable housing sector, that relationship is vital. That relationship needs to be strengthened, and the new clauses propose ways of doing just that.

Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)

I should like to speak first to new clauses 2 and 3, and then to our own amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 15.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to recognise the increasing importance of housing associations and other non-local authorities in providing housing. He is also right to welcome, as Conservative Members do, provisions that provide homelessness strategies and encourage local authorities to take a more preventive approach to homelessness. Our objection to the Liberal Democrats new clauses is their rather vague—I probably should not be surprised at that—way of approaching the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. We do not know why we need provisions "to strengthen co-operation", as the hon. Gentleman describes it, between registered social landlords and local authorities. We trust registered social landlords to decide what is reasonable.

I echo the concerns expressed by the National Housing Federation about new clause 2. It states Whilst it is right that RSLs offer assistance in meeting local housing needs, it is also important that they remain able to offer housing to people in need through other routes. By offering referrals to specialist agencies, RSLs are able to ensure that a wider spectrum of needs is met. Vulnerable single people or couples on low incomes, for example, are often helped into affordable housing in this way. It is also vital that RSLs are able to consider whether a property on offer is suitable for the applicant, given their household's needs and the available support. We want to avoid a move towards sink estates, and so cannot support the new clause.

5.30 pm
Mr. Don Foster

I agree on all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. There is great diversity among registered social landlords, and it is important to allow them to have regard to their constitution and key purposes. The new clause provides that those criteria can be used as exceptions, enabling RSLs not to co-operate if they believe that to do so would not be in their interests.

Mr. Loughton

I do not disagree with much of that, but the new clause would not guarantee that local authorities could not press registered social landlords to act in a way that would be unreasonable and prejudicial to the provision of housing for other potential tenants. We believe that section 170 of the Housing Act 1996 is adequate for the task. It states: Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co-operate to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority on the authority's housing register.

Mr. Bercow

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the emollient advocacy of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and his helpful reference to the caveat in the new clause that a registered social landlord should not be obliged to prejudice the discharge of its other functions, it is important to know who will arbitrate disputes when they arise? As yet, that is unclear.

Mr. Loughton

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The flow of complimentary language between him and the hon. Member for Bath is most unseemly and unexpected. However, Conservative Members will not support the new clause.

Far more important is the matter of the three amendments that we tabled in Committee. The Government greeted them with warm words then, but do not appear tempted to make those warm words more explicit in the Bill. We therefore feel it necessary to tease from Ministers more action and commitment than they have so far offered.

Amendment No. 18 would add rough sleeping to homelessness as a requirement for housing authority reviews. In Committee, we discussed at length the problems faced by rough sleepers, which are different from those faced by other homeless people. Rough sleepers' problems include dependency on drugs or alcohol and difficulties with social services, and their requirements with regard to the housing authority's review policy should be included in the Bill.

In Committee, we also discussed the role of the rough sleepers unit. We used the example of the rough sleepers initiative so ably introduced by my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when they were housing Ministers in the early 1990s. They did a great deal to tackle the problem of rough sleepers.

We believe that devoting a budget of £200 million to a quango filled with well-paid people is not the best way to concentrate resources on rough sleepers, and that it would be better to endow local authorities with the task. That is why we want the Bill to specify that rough sleeping should be part of a homelessness strategy. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his unwillingness to accept the amendment. We are not convinced by the reasons that he has produced so far.

Amendment No. 19, which is perfectly sensible, deals with homelessness strategies and whom local authorities should consult. The issue was covered in Committee at some length, and we congratulated the Government on the more holistic—that ghastly word, which we all vowed not to use—and comprehensive approach to including other partners in formulating homelessness strategies and using partnerships to execute policies to deal with homelessness. We thought it was simply an error or drafting omission that nowhere in the Bill is there an undertaking that when formulating or modifying homelessness strategies, the very people those strategies are to help—homeless people—should be consulted.

I mentioned in Committee the work done by organisations such as Shelter, which we all congratulated. It has been very supportive with regard to the homelessness measures in the Bill. Its report, "Closing the Gap", is a prime example of good practice and the way in which needs are translated into action. For that report, Shelter consulted the victims of homelessness. To consult homeless people seems a straightforward proposal. I should be grateful if the Minister explained to the House why he has not felt able to include such a provision in the Bill thus far.

Amendment No. 15 deals with local authorities consulting specialist organisations that represent people who have physical and mental disabilities. As chairman of the Conservative disability group, I spoke with some concern in Committee. I think that what we are trying to achieve fits in neatly with what the Government are trying to achieve and with the spirit of the Bill. I cannot see why such a provision has not been included.

Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of homeless people, including rough sleepers, are over the age of 50. They are therefore much more vulnerable to the mental and physical effects of poor accommodation or rough sleeping and have a higher proportion of physical or mental disabilities. They have less easy access to mainstream advice services.

In terms of physical accommodation, it is straightforward stuff—wheelchair and door access, ramps and rails. People in wheelchairs should not be put in flats on the fifth or 15th floor of a tower block, making them prisoners in their own home. We have all seen people at our surgeries who have been offered wholly inadequate accommodation.

It is also a question of the area in which physically disabled people are housed. They need accommodation where an eye can be kept on them—where sympathetic neighbours, be they wardens or others, will look out for them or provide them with companions.

When people with mental disabilities are able to go back into the community, where they are placed and whom they live next to are very important. Families with young children will be less understanding and sympathetic to their situation. Organisations such as Mencap raise the problems of the resettlement of people with learning disabilities who remain in long-stay hospitals due to the absence of suitable accommodation for them when they come out—another form of bed blocking, effectively.

The Local Government Association report, "No Place Like Home", made certain proposals. It stated: Social services and, where relevant, health authorities should be involved in the allocation plan for households deemed to be in particular need of settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds in order to ensure that the need for support is both assessed and provided as part of the allocation process … Housing, social services and health authorities should jointly agree hospital discharge planning arrangements … Local housing authorities should maintain a register of wheelchair adapted properties in the council and housing association stock and, where feasible, in the private sector. So on, and so forth. We agree with those proposals.

In Committee, we were given undertakings that argument A, which was cited by the hon. Member for Bath right at the beginning of the Committee proceedings, would not be trotted out as the all-encompassing excuse for not including measures such as those proposed in the new clause and amendments in the Bill. Argument A is essentially that if we mentioned certain groups of people, we would have to mention everyone—but we are talking not about a small special interest group, but about a large proportion of the population.

According to DSS figures, up to 8.5 million people have disabilities of varying severity. That is one in five adults. Even if we think that that is too broad a qualification, we should remember that there are 700,000 wheelchair users in England and Wales alone. That is 700,000 people for whom special accommodation must be provided. If it is not, they will have varying degrees of problem in gaining access to and egress from the homes allocated to them.

Why the Minister cannot concede on reinforcing the necessity to have regard to people who are specialists in dealing with people who have mental and physical disabilities, I do not know. We do not want to place enormous restraints on housing providers; nor are we asking for an enormous amount of extra resources. All we are asking for is that the Bill should state that regard must be had to the particular needs of a large part of the population—possibly the largest special interest in the population.

During our consideration of people with mental disabilities, the Minister quoted the Housing Act 1996. That Act was panned by the then Labour Opposition when it was introduced. It was remarkable how much of it the Minister was able to cite as the reason why our amendments should not be accepted. He said that our points were already adequately covered by the 1996 Act. The Minister said that mental illness was a priority category under the 1996 Act. We are talking about delivering strategies on including physically and mentally disabled people—not just acknowledging as a priority that they exist.

Our amendments are straightforward and not contentious. We mostly agree with the thrust of what the Bill is trying to achieve. However, we cannot see why the Minister, despite the warm words that he trotted out in Committee, has not felt able to stipulate in the Bill first, that the victims of homelessness should be consulted, and secondly—and perhaps more important—that local authorities should have greater regard to disabled people of various descriptions in formulating their homelessness strategies. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to refer to the amendment in my name. I should be grateful to know whether the Government support the view that local authorities should be required to meet housing need before housing demand. I shall give an example that prompts my concern.

Local authorities own land. There is often pressure on them to sell it to realise the value of the land. Land is often needed for social housing, whether it is owned by the council or by a registered social landlord. I often get the impression that the Government are putting pressure on local government to get rid of housing and land. The result is that housing for those who need it, which does not bring the dowry that housing built by developers might bring, is squeezed out because land is developed for houses for those who may love them, but do not need them. Second and third homes should never be a priority when housing need remains unmet. When about 14,000 people are on the waiting list, as they are in Southwark, we should not be developing land in the borough for second or third homes.

I have a question about the perfectly acceptable Conservative amendment No. 18. Under the Bill, or under the amended Bill if the amendment is accepted, will local authorities have to take into account the circumstances of people who, because they are single adults or are not rough sleepers, are not priority homeless? I offer two examples of people in my constituency who have fallen through the net in the past three months. The first was a young, single woman, aged 21, who was sleeping in a car. She was training as a nursery nurse. She did not have housing priority as a homeless person. As she could find nowhere to live, her training was at risk; training and undertaking placements when one has to sleep in a car every night are hardly an easy life style. During the wet and cold winter period, she was extremely vulnerable.

5.45 pm

The second case involved a young man, aged 19, who was also sleeping in a car, in Camberwell. He was holding down a cleaning job for four hours a day—his first job. He was unable to live in his home with his mother and her new partner because the partner would not accept him. He was unable to stay at his girlfriend's home because he had once committed self-harm there—a suicide attempt, or a call for help. Understandably, the family were nervous about that and told their daughter, "No, you can't have your boyfriend here".

Neither of those people had priority for local authority housing, nor did they qualify under the rough sleepers initiative, because they were not unemployed and had not been rough sleepers for six months. We must ensure that we do not leave that category of people in such a predicament.

When I went back to the local authority, it accepted, to its credit, that the case of the young man was a priority. As someone whose father and uncle had committed suicide and who had himself attempted self-harm, he should have been categorised as vulnerable and thus given priority need status. Thankfully, he has now been awarded that status—at my request—and has been given accommodation while his needs are assessed properly.

Sometimes, however, going through those hoops for six months, three months—even one month—might be too much for such people. Both those people were in dire circumstances. My colleague in my constituency office, who daily copes with such cases—as do the constituency staff of many parliamentary colleagues—will testify to the acute urgency of ensuring that people in such desperate circumstances are not left homeless, because of the great risk of suicide and other problems.

Ms Glenda Jackson

I declare an interest inasmuch as I am the adviser on homelessness in the cabinet of the London Mayor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) describes his amendments as unconten-tious. As he is a member of a party that, in government, was almost singlehandedly responsible for the huge explosion in the number of rough sleepers on the streets of London and for the large number, within that group, of people with serious mental health problems, and as that party constantly turned its face away from creating any rights for people with disabilities, I find much of his argument unbelievable. I am delighted that perhaps he is beginning to acknowledge that those matters warrant everyone's consideration. As in so many matters that have to do with compassion, the Conservatives are late to the party, but if they have arrived, that is good.

Mr. Loughton

The hon. Lady can be forgiven as she was not a member of the Standing Committee, but perhaps she will acknowledge the figures that were eventually accepted by Ministers. Between 1991 and 1996, under the Conservative Government's rough sleepers initiative, the number of rough sleepers in central London alone fell from more than 1,000 to 286. Does she agree with those figures? If so, her argument is completely bogus.

Ms Jackson

I did not serve on the Committee, but I have read all the Hansard reports of its proceedings, and it seems to me that what was essentially wrong with the previous Conservative Government still characterises the Conservatives' approach. They still get bogged down in putting their faith in figures that, in the main, compare unlike with unlike, which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) were so keen to do. No, I do not accept the reading of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of the policies that the Conservative Government instituted to try to tackle the problem that they had created—too little, too late and, in my view, grudgingly.

I am astonished by the hon. Gentlemen's grudging response to what the present Government have done, and especially to the work of the rough sleepers initiative. If they are worried about this issue, they should offer firm thanks to Louise Casey and that initiative, who are on target to reduce rough sleeping in the capital by two thirds by the date that they have set.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham argues that the additional funding that the Government have given should be returned to local authorities when the RSI winds up in 2002. That would simply increase the burdens of rough sleeping that are borne, in the main, by only four boroughs in this city. We should consider ways to prevent, not encourage, rough sleeping.

I heard the story about the two constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who had to sleep in their cars. I was surprised that the first example that he cited was not immediately recognised by his local authority as requiring prioritisation on the grounds of vulnerability.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are holes in the fabric. They result from the previous Government's failure to replace, or to allow local authorities to replace, housing stock that had been lost, and their failure to allow local authorities to enter into partnerships or even to repair and maintain their existing stock. We have too few affordable properties in this city. In the medium and long term, steps must be taken, but there is also a need in the short term.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey does not need my advice, but he might be interested to know that organisations that have received contracts from the rough sleepers initiative tell me that an increasing number of young people who are coming into the centre of London—thank God, no longer from other parts of the United Kingdom, but certainly from the outer London boroughs—are under the misapprehension that if they take up rough sleeping they will be prioritised for housing. We must make it abundantly clear that that is not, nor will it be, the case. The purpose of the rough sleepers initiative was, rightly, to prioritise the most vulnerable of those who are on our streets. The initiative is working effectively and well, and that is the strong view of the majority of those long-established charities that have worked in the area for many years.

However, in London at least, there will have to be an integrated policy that takes account of the fact that, in many instances, rough sleeping by people who are particularly vulnerable, either as a result of mental illness or physical disability, is not a problem exclusively of bricks and mortar. It is also a problem of maintaining people when they eventually achieve a form of permanent housing.

In my constituency it is not unusual for a person who has been rough sleeping, and for whom one has eventually managed to find permanent housing, to run away when the first electricity or gas bill arrives, because they cannot yet take absolute control of their life. It is not unusual for those in the older category of rough sleeper especially—many of whom have been in the armed forces, so they have been used to camaraderie and a life in which the individual does not necessarily have to take day-to-day responsibility for living—to be overwhelmed, when they are in their own property, by the sheer loneliness. Someone said to me the other day, "You look at a wall at 4 o'clock in the morning and there is no one to talk to; I go back to the street."

For that reason, there is great need for a pan-London strategy, to ensure not only additional affordable housing but additional support. I am not arguing, and those organisations that already have excellent schemes in place would not argue, that the most vulnerable people must have someone living in their flat or bedsit 24 hours a day, to ensure that they know how to turn the gas off and the light on, pay the bills and wash themselves. I am arguing that there are schemes that work well and that, as has been said at other stages of the Bill's progress, it is important that central and local government start to disseminate across a much wider field examples of best practice so that we do not go through the pointless, time-wasting and expensive process of reinventing the wheel. Equally, to return to the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I am arguing that to disburse the additional funding that the Government have put into the rough sleepers initiative among, in the main, the four local authorities that carry the largest rough sleeping burdens is not the way that we can most actively and cohesively prevent people from returning to our streets.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I do believe that there will be difficulties for local authorities, because in some there will be an element of nimbyism. They may not necessarily want people who have been rough sleepers, who may be recovered alcoholics or recovered drug users, in their locality but, speaking exclusively from the perspective of a London Member of Parliament, we simply must ensure that there is a cohesive, integrated strategy that ensures that we never again have people with nowhere to rest their head other than a shop doorway, and that those who are mentally ill are properly supported: a long-term strategy that ensures that we create truly integrated communities where local authorities, registered social landlords and anyone and everyone that we can attract into this field will provide the housing that, at least in London, we desperately need.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth

Our proposals for homelessness reform require local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Such a strategic approach will be effective only if it harnesses the efforts and activities of all the organisations operating in each authority's area that provide services and assistance to homeless people.

We have made it clear that a partnership approach is central to our proposals. We require local housing authorities to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness. There is a logical corollary: other agencies, statutory, voluntary and private, will have to play their part, and the voluntary sector includes registered social landlords.

Registered social landlords will be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas, they provide the majority of social housing, and the transfer programme is increasing their importance in delivering services to tenants and in supporting local authorities in the performance of their statutory duties.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) quoted what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said in Committee, but he quoted him on a different point. Registered social landlords are subject to the Housing Corporation. If registered social landlords do not co-operate with the strategies drawn up by local authorities, the Housing Corporation can ensure that they do.

New clauses 2 and 3 seek to strengthen the statutory duties on registered social landlords to co-operate with local authorities in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authorities' allocation scheme, and to assist authorities in the discharge of their homelessness duties by depriving them of their discretion to consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. We have covered that ground pretty thoroughly now and in Committee. Registered social landlords are already under a duty to co-operate with local authorities to such an extent as is reasonable. That allows some discretion, but the provision is given teeth by the sector's regulator—the Housing Corporation.

6 pm

In guidance and through its policies on investment, the corporation can influence and provide incentives to associations to ensure that they work constructively with authorities. The corporation is reviewing its guidance and will ensure that local authorities' strategic roles are highlighted and that registered social landlords should endeavour to help authorities to deliver that role.

Registered social landlords serve an important social purpose, but they are independent, voluntary bodies even if regulated and monitored under statute. I do not believe it appropriate, or necessary, to prevent them from exercising their discretion in relation to their statutory duties. It is essential that we respect their independence, but we certainly will look to them fully to support local housing authorities in the development and implementation of homelessness reviews and strategies, and the Housing Corporation will strengthen its guidance in that respect.

It is odd that those hon. Members who generally welcome the greater freedoms that we are giving to local authorities in carrying out their functions are seeking to place stronger statutory duties on registered social landlords. There is real value in the sector's independence and diversity. That has come about not by Government diktat, but by steady evolution, with associations informing and voluntarily supporting and contributing to the social housing agenda. Independence allows self-motivation, greater innovation and a vision that goes beyond statutory duties. In seeking to limit that vision, the hon. Member for Bath risks losing much of what is best in the sector. I believe that new clauses 2 and 3 would do more harm than good, so I ask him to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Don Foster

I apologise to the Under-Secretary for not joining the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in congratulating him on his first outing at the Dispatch Box, but many of us in Committee had the opportunity to congratulate him on his promotion. Having said that, I found this outing rather disappointing, because he claims that, under new clause 2, some of the freedom and flexibility of registered social landlords would be removed, which would be appalling, and that we should respect the sector's diversity and flexibility. However, at the same time, he categorically told me that I need not worry because, in fact, all registered social landlords were under the control and dominion of the Housing Corporation.

The Under-Secretary admitted that such landlords were regulated by statute and that they have statutory duties, but he now tells us not only that the Housing Corporation will issue new guidance but that there will be strengthened guidance. I want to provide a mechanism to strengthen the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. However, having told me that I could not do that, he now describes an alternative by which that will be done. Of course, in doing so, he generously answered—so avoiding my having to do so—the question about who would have control over such issues, asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The answer is that those who hold the purse strings control the issues. Given that the Under-Secretary has given that response, I intend to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Ainsworth

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I confused him; I certainly did not mean to do so. I thought that he wanted to intervene, so I gave way to him. Although I am new to the Dispatch Box, I hope that I never fall into the habit of making such long interventions.

Mr. Foster

rose—

Mr. Ainsworth

Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene, or does he want to make a speech?

Mr. Foster

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way now. I assumed, by the way in which he ended his previous remarks, that he had finished his speech and was seeking to persuade me to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Ainsworth

It is not at like the hon. Gentleman to be so self-centred; he should realise that the group contains other amendments, which have been tabled by other hon. Members.

Amendment No. 57 is misconceived. It would set up false alternatives and suggests that meeting need is not compatible with meeting demand. However, meeting need does not preclude promoting choice. For example, facilitating transfers within an authority's stock does not increase demand for social housing, but it does increase choice. Offering choice to homeless applicants is not incompatible with meeting need—they can occur together. The Bill will establish a robust framework for prioritising claims on social housing. It will allow need to be met and choice to be promoted.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cited a couple of examples from his constituency. He will be aware that we are extending the priority categories to cover all 16 and 17-year-olds and all 18 and 19-year-olds leaving care. I should have thought that those categories, as well as a properly used definition of vulnerability, could cover those examples in a reasonable, caring and thorough local authority and that such people should be considered in those priority categories.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. Ainsworth

At least the hon. Gentleman makes it clear that he wishes to intervene.

Mr. Hughes

On the Under-Secretary's response to amendment No. 57, in the Government's view, should local authorities meet need before demand?

Mr. Ainsworth

As I have said, we do not see a contrast. Local authorities must not only meet need, but provide choice. That is the core purpose of our proposals. We do not believe that there is a conflict between those matters.

Under amendments Nos. 18, 15 and 19, we need, yet again, to consider what should, and should not, be included in the Bill. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants, residents and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, including rough sleepers. Their views will be central in informing, from a consumer perspective, the homelessness reviews and in helping to draw up the strategies. We expect local government to engage people in the area, to work in partnership and to be customer focused, but such matters need not be stated in the Bill. Homelessness includes rough sleeping, so adding rough sleeping, as suggested under amendment No. 18, would be meaningless. There is no need to imply, by including one group, that its needs were necessarily more pressing than another's.

I share hon. Members' concern about the welfare of those with mental health needs, but we shall ensure that such needs are carefully addressed in the code of guidance. I repeat that, no matter what problem a group faces, or how large the group may be, it is not necessary to state every detail in the Bill. Indeed, that is not always desirable, as we have discussed elsewhere.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) refers to the fact that such people are not mentioned in the Bill, but the Housing Act 1996 states that they are exactly the people who need to be looked after. Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 defines exactly the categories of people that he wanted to include in the Bill. The issues are covered, and I hope that he will accept that assurance.

Mr. Loughton

The Minister appeared to be perorating, but I wish to intervene on his reference to section 189(1)(c) of the 1996 Act. That section refers to identifying people in priority need, but it has nothing to do with consulting specialist groups that represent people with mental and physical disabilities on the best strategy for dealing with them. As I pointed out in Committee, they are two entirely different issues, so my point is not covered by referring to a section in the 1996 Act.

Mr. Ainsworth

In drawing up their strategies, local authorities will be obliged to consult groups representing those with priority needs. As the hon. Gentleman can see, the groups are identified in section 189(1)(c). As he rightly said, we are back to what was known in Committee as argument A. If we include one group in the Bill, that might relegate the priority given to every other group. That might be an unforseen consequence of including one group without making the broader provision that is needed.

Mr. Bercow

In the context of amendment No. 18, and assuming the veracity of the Minister's words about local discretion, how can he seriously suggest that the inclusion of the words "including rough sleeping" would either circumscribe that discretion or, still less, prove justiciable?

Mr. Ainsworth

Homelessness is covered and rough sleeping is a part of homelessness. To mention it separately in the Bill would be superfluous and would achieve absolutely nothing. On that basis, I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.

Ms Glenda Jackson

There is an obsession with the phrase "rough sleeping", although I accept it gives rise to real needs. Many rough sleepers have multiple needs, and one could argue that they could be covered by every single category that one might care to name. However, the bottom line is that they are homeless.

Mr. Ainsworth

My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. Rough sleepers are already covered within the category of homelessness. As I said, to include them separately in the Bill would be superfluous and would achieve nothing.

Mr. Don Foster

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to