DUTY TO PERSONS WITH PRIORITY NEED WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS INTENTIONALL

HC Deb 07 February 2001 vol 362 cc972-97

'.—() In section 193 of the 1996 Act (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) after subsection (7) there is inserted— (7A) an offer of accommodation under Part VI is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7) if it is made in writing, states that is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7) and states that the offer shall remain available to the applicant for not less than three working days from the date of the offer, or such longer period as the authority consider reasonable in all the circumstances.".'.—[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.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Right of review of eligibility for allocation of housing accommodation— '—() If a local housing authority decides that an applicant for housing accommodation is ineligible by virtue of subsection (3) and (5) of section 160A for an allocation by them, they shall inform him of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.'. New clause 6—Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need— '().—Section 188 (interim duty to accommodate in case of an apparent priority need) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows. (3) After subsection (3) for the words "The authority may continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review" there is substituted— The authority shall, if the applicant requests a review of the decision, consider whether to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant pending a decision on a review, and shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular—

1. (a) any new information provided by the applicant since the authority's decision was notified to him;
2. (b) whether a decision not to continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation will substantially affect his ability to pursue his request for a review;
3. (c) the merits of the request for a review, as they appear to the authority at the time the request is made.".'.

New clause 7—Right of appeal to county court on point of law— '.(1) Section 204 of the 1996 Act (right of appeal to county court on point of law) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2), after the words "decision on review" there is inserted "or such longer period as the authority and the applicant may agree or as the court may allow.". (3) For subsection (4) there is substituted— (4) where the authority were under a duty under section 188, 190 or 200 to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation, they shall consider whether to continue to secure that accommodation is so available—

1. (a) during the period for appealing under this section against the authority's decision, and
2. (b) if an appeal is brought, until the appeal (and any further appeal) is finally determined

and they shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular—

1. (a) any new information provided by the applicant since the authority's decision was notified to him;
2. (b) whether a decision not to continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation will substantially affect his ability to pursue his request for a review;
3. (c) the merits of the request for a review, as they appear to the authority at the time the request is made.".
4. (4) After subsection (4) there is inserted—

(5) A county court may, in any case where an applicant appeals under this section, require the authority to continue to secure that accommodation is available until the appeal (and any further appeal) is determined.".'.

New clause 10—Guidance by the Secretary of State— '.—() In section 169 of the 1996 Act (guidance by the Secretary of State) after subsection (2) there is inserted— (3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, a local housing authority or social services authority shall exercise their functions relating to the allocation of housing accommodation in accordance with such directions as may be given to them under this section by the Secretary of State. (4) Directions under this section—

1. (a) shall be given in writing; and
2. (b) may be given to a particular authority, or to authorities of a particular class, or to authorities generally.".'.

New clause 11—Guidance by the Secretary of State (No. 2)— '.—( ) In section 182 of the 1996 Act (guidance by the Secretary of State) after subsection (2) there is inserted— (3) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, a local housing authority or social services authority shall exercise their functions relating to homelessness and the prevention of homelessness in accordance with such directions as may be given to them under this section by the Secretary of State. (4) Directions under this section—

1. (a) shall be given in writing; and
2. (b) may be given to a particular authority, or to authorities of a particular class, or to authorities generally.".'.

New clause 12—Provision of advice and assistance— '().—(1) The Secretary of State may by order specify matters to be taken into account in providing (or securing the provision of) advice and assistance under sections 190(2)(b) and (3), 192(2) and 195(5) of the 1996 Act, and make provision as to the procedure to be followed in the provision of that advice and assistance. (2) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations representing relevant authorities, and other persons as he considers appropriate. (3) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

New clause 17—Persons with priority need— '—() In section 193 of the 1996 Act (entry to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) after subsection (7) there is inserted— (7A) An offer of accommodation under Part VI is a first offer for the purposes of subsection (7) if made in writing, states that it is a first offer for the purposes of subsection (7) and states that the offer shall remain available for five working days from the date of the offer or such longer period if the authority consider reasonable and shall include an opportunity for the person receiving the offer and an independent adviser to inspect the property.".'.

New clause 18—Independent review— '.—( ) If a local housing authority decides that an applicant for housing accommodation is ineligible by virtue of subsections (3) and (5) of section 160A for an allocation by them, they shall inform him of his right to request and receive an independent review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.'.

Amendment No. 52, in clause 20, page 12, line 31, at end insert— '(6A) People unable to stay in or who are obliged to leave the previous home owned or rented solely or jointly by them and where after relationship breakdown it is agreed that they are the partner to leave the home and the other partner will continue to live in the home are not to be held intentionally homeless.'.

Government amendment No. 47.

Amendment No. 16, in clause 27, page 17, line 24, at end insert— 'to include particularly families with dependent children'.

Amendment No. 60, in page 17, line 24, at end insert— 'in particular, to provide for those who need to be allocated new accommodation, whether or not they have previously been local authority tenants, either on the grounds that they are at risk for their mental or physical safety or that their rehousing is a precondition of them being able to give evidence in criminal proceedings.'.

Amendment No. 53, in page 17, line 24, at end insert— '() It shall be the duty of the local housing authority to provide or secure accommodation for people who need it for their personal protection within 28 days of a request by the police for such accommodation to be provided.'.

Amendment No. 21, in page 17, leave out lines 25 to 40 and insert— '(2A) A local housing authority may defer an allocation of housing accommodation to a person falling within section 160A(2) of this Act where they have reasonable grounds to believe that—

1. (a) an allocation of housing accommodation to that person would cause significant hardship to other persons;
2. (b) if allocated housing accommodation, a person would fail to comply with his obligations as a tenant, having regard to resources and services which may be available to that person in the authority's district (whether available from the authority or otherwise);

(2B) An allocation of housing accommodation shall not be deferred in accordance with subsection (2A) above where to do so would be unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances and to the need of the person for an allocation.'.

Amendment No. 17, in page 17, line 34, at end insert— '() any record of behaviour of a person (or a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'.

Amendment No. 55, in page 17, line 34, at end insert— '(d) the length of time people have been occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing, or otherwise living in unsatisfactory conditions, or that they have needed to move on medical or welfare grounds, or who need to move to another locality.'.

Amendment No. 20, in page 18, line 12, at end insert— '(2G) The authority shall be able to suspend subsection (3) where it can reasonably show that to operate its term would have a detrimental effect on the provision of local housing needs.'.

Mr. Foster

The time that it took you to read out the items to be debated, Madam Deputy Speaker, shows just what a long and complex group of amendments and new clauses this is on the subject of housing applications and allocations.

The group covers three themes. First, some of the amendments and new clauses seek to ensure that the law is applied in practice, and in ways that meet policy intentions. Secondly, others seek to apply minimum standards to ensure that bad practice improves, and that there is more consistency, where appropriate, between local authorities. Thirdly, others seek to achieve a proper balance between local authority discretion and meeting housing need.

6.15 pm

Some of the new clauses and amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), but others have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I shall draw the House's attention to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend's amendments that were not discussed in Committee.

For example, amendment No. 52 deals with the level of support that should be given when a relationship breaks down and one party is left without accommodation. Equally, amendments Nos. 60 and 53 raise the important issue of the level of support that should be given to people whom the police believe need protection because they have reason to fear violence to their person. No doubt my hon. Friend will air those issues should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

New clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and myself. New clause 4 deals with the minimum time that a homeless person should be given to consider the final offer of accommodation made by a local authority. The issue was debated in Committee, and I pointed out that a homeless person, when presented with a final offer, needs time to consider the offer and to take into account the implications of accepting it for working arrangements, and the effect on the arrangements for his children's education. He also needs to be given time to find out whether the local authority is prepared to carry out any repairs to the property that might be required.

During our deliberations, the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary suggested that they would not accept such an amendment. However, the Committee clearly took the view that the practice of many local authorities, which allows only 24 hours for a homeless person to make a decision, was unacceptable. We referred to several authorities, including my own, that operate such a 24-hour policy. The Under-Secretary described it as unreasonable and said: in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is too short a period in which to expect a person to decide on a final offer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 356.] His argument was that if three days appeared in the Bill as a minimum period, it would in many cases become the maximum.

I do not accept that argument. Many of us might prefer a longer period, and in new clause 17, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests a minimum period of five days. That suggestion is attractive. However, a minimum of three days, provided that it is backed up with strong guidance making it clear that it is a minimum, will at the very least ensure that the practice of allowing only 24 hours, which is currently followed by far too many authorities, is outlawed.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He said that it proposed a period of five days, but did not explain why that relates to the first, not the final offer. Why do Liberal Democrats believe that five days should be allowed for a first offer but only three days for a final offer? Can the hon. Gentleman explain that curious logic?

Mr. Foster

That is a matter for my hon. Friend. Indeed, we look forward to his explanation. However, it will not have escaped hon. Members' attention that all too often, the first offer and the final offer are the same. Too many local authorities do not provide homeless people with the range of choice that the Minister would like. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make that point when he replies to the Minister's question.

New clause 5 deals with the right of review. I place on record our gratitude to the Minister for agreeing, under pressure from Liberal Democrat Members, to include a review period in the Bill. We have tabled new clause 5 to clarify the Minister's exact intentions for the review. In the original measure, people's eligibility for housing assistance and the priority that they would receive were not subject to review. It provided for the local authority to decide; there was no review period to deal with cases in which someone did not agree with the decision and did not believe that the correct information had been used to make it. The Government have now acceded to our request for a review.

Did the Minister mean what he said in Committee when I asked whether the review period covered eligibility? He replied: The right of review provided by the amendment will extend to such a decision, which will have to be the first decision that an authority makes in the process of deciding whether to allocate accommodation to an individual applicant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 419.] I took that at face value. I hope that I am right, and that it means that the review process covers eligibility.

Decisions about eligibility are made under clause 25 whereas the right of review has been included in clause 27, which covers priority. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the same opportunity exists for reviewing eligibility as for ascertaining the priority of an eligible homeless person. Such a clear statement would persuade me not to press new clause 5, at least.

New clause 6 deals with another issue that we discussed briefly. What happens to homeless people during the review period? Will the local authority ensure that they are given accommodation? Section 188 of the 1996 Act provides that local authorities have the power, but not a duty, to provide accommodation for a person who is undergoing a review. In most cases, the power is not exercised. When I raised that in Committee, the Minister said that requiring local authorities to provide such accommodation in all circumstances would place too great a burden on them. I hope that he has noted that I have taken his anxieties about my earlier formulation into account in new clause 6, which would place a less stringent duty on local authorities. It would require them at least to consider whether to accommodate the individual who is undergoing a review. Given that significant watering down, I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.

New clause 7 relates to a review or an appeal in a county court. It deals with the length of time that should be allowed before an appeal is made to a county court, accommodation during the appeal and the period for the appeal. Under the 1996 Act, those who are dissatisfied with a decision about support from a local authority can take the matter to a county court, but must make the appeal within 21 days. I do not intend to repeat the lengthy debate that we had in Committee, but there are good reasons why a 21-day period may not be long enough for a person to assemble the details that are required for an appeal to be heard, let alone to succeed.

Mr. Bercow

Notwithstanding the brickbat that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) for my tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I genuinely enjoy his advocacy of the argument. However, given the preponderance of cases in which local authorities choose not to provide accommodation pending the outcome of an appeal, what assessment has he made, in his constituency or more widely, of the financial and logistical burden that falls on others?

Mr. Foster

Thereby hangs an interesting tale. It is difficult to make such a calculation because current arrangements, whereby local authorities often do not even provide accommodation for the period of the review, let alone for the time required to develop an appeal, mean that many people cannot prepare for a review or an appeal because they have to worry about the more urgent matter of trying to get a roof over their heads.

Research shows that few appeals have taken place. It would be difficult in current circumstances to assess the increase in the number of appeals and thus in the cost. I regret that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. However, he knows that there will be hundreds of appeals throughout the country. If accommodation is to be provided for a few weeks in each case, he can calculate the approximate magnitude of the figure. He has made an interesting point, which shows that a 21-day time limit can put people off.

The Minister was worried about over-prescription. He will note that new clause 7 shows much greater flexibility than a previous amendment that I tabled. Under current legislation, it is not possible to extend the period beyond 21 days even if both parties want to do that. At least new clause 7 provides for an extension with the agreement of both sides. It also deals more flexibly with providing accommodation during the appeal period.

6.30 pm

As for new clauses 10 and 11, I suspect that the Minister has been honing his quotes to demonstrate how my hon. Friends and I frequently stress the importance of giving freedom to local government. No doubt he has a third quote up his sleeve. He will say that the problem with the new clauses is that Liberal Democrats want to impose things on local government, which is contrary to what we say on other occasions.

The new clauses would give the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to housing and social services departments to ensure that there is an adequate level of service, and consistency in key areas of practice. New clause 10 would apply to the allocation of social housing by an authority under part VI of the 1996 Act, and new clause 11 would apply to a local authority's homelessness functions under part VII.

During our deliberations in Committee, the Minister referred frequently to the crucial importance that he attached to the guidance that will be issued by the Department. Yet he will acknowledge that where the law is incredibly complex, as it is concerning homelessness and allocations, guidance is a vital instrument for implementing policy intentions. Unless there is direction on some of the specific issues contained in the Bill, there is a real danger that some authorities will ignore the guidance. In some authorities, therefore, the quality of provision would be well below a minimum acceptable standard.

Before the Minister tries to jump down my throat to tell me that it is wrong to issue directions and guidance to local authorities, I ask him to be careful. Were he to say such a thing, I would remind him of occasions when the Government have done just that, not least with social service departments. Were he to challenge me, I would say that often such directions are given to social service departments without any additional resources being provided to enable them to carry out the functions demanded of them.

Finally—the House will no doubt be pleased to know—I shall talk about new clause 12, which deals with the importance of setting out a basic minimum set of standards in regulations, to ensure that the provision of advice and guidance to certain groups of homeless people by a local authority is acceptable. That is a key issue.

In Committee, the Minister was more than willing to accept that the level and quality of advice and guidance offered by local authorities varies enormously. He acknowledged that the research findings in reports undertaken for the Department, and by organisations such as Shelter, have demonstrated that huge variability. I hope that, as it has been accepted that this should appear in the Bill as one of the duties of a local authority, he will also accept that it would be sensible specify minimum standards of service delivery.

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for having taken a fairly long time to introduce the new clauses. I am sure that you will be aware that there are many important issues involved. The House will be aware that there are more to come, and no doubt we shall be hearing about some of them from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Waterson

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for dealing so fully—I might almost say exhaustively—with his various new clauses and amendments. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not express a view on every one of them—at least not in any detail.

Mr. Bercow

Go on.

Mr. Waterson

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is eager to do just that.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bath has not been persuaded by any behind-the-scenes deal not to press new clause 4 to a vote. If he does press it, as I hope he will, we shall be supporting him. That is not because the new clause represents an earth-shattering change to the Bill. It is because, if we divide on it, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be able to register our support for those of our amendments that are included in this group. If we do not, they will fall, and will have to be voted on later under the programme motion, taking up time that might otherwise be used in debate.

Mr. Don Foster

I have always believed that our procedures mean that we listen to the debate before deciding whether to press a matter to a Division. However, having heard the Minister's response to similar amendments in Committee, I doubt whether I shall be persuaded to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Waterson

Let us hope that the Liberal Democrats stick to that resolution. They will have our support in the Lobby if they do so.

Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East)

That is a back-room deal.

Mr. Waterson

It is a front-room deal. It could not be more open—though it has been said that the best way of keeping something secret is to make a speech on it in the House. I am sure that, even these days, that is untrue.

I will be speaking to amendments Nos 16, 17 and 20. Before doing so, I shall comment briefly on two of the more significant new clauses that the hon. Member for Bath has tabled. In Committee, when we debated the substance of new clause 4, I think everyone was horrified at the prospect that authorities were giving people 24 hours to make up their minds on a housing offer. The Minister took the view that that was unreasonable, and so did we. It is perhaps not untypical of the Liberal Democrats that they seem to be proposing two different periods, one of three days and one of five. We seem to be in period inflation. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has the opportunity, I have no doubt that he will explain the merits of five days. I shall not trespass on that internal argument among Liberal Democrats.

Turning to new clause 5, people such as Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter, and the London Government Association have expressed their concerns about removing rights of review and rights of appeal. In Committee, we consistently supported the argument that these rights should be preserved in such circumstances.

We said that the Government could be going too far in sweeping away the position that is set out in the Housing Act 1996.

It will be most useful if I touch on amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 20, which feature a range of concerns that we debated in Committee. It is right that we should return to those issues on Report because the Minister did not take them on board in Committee. I know that there are Members in the Chamber who were also members of the Committee and who may wish to speak on these matters.

Amendment No 16 to clause 27 would insert the words, to include particularly families with dependant children. I know the argument that the Minister will advance. I can almost hear it now. He will say that we should not be too prescriptive in Bills, particularly when dealing with categories of people who are given priority. However, we felt strongly that messages should be sent out. In Committee, the debate on allocations and priorities, for example, was driven by a series of press leaks by the Department to the effect that released prisoners would be given some sort of priority in terms of homelessness.

Mr. Raynsford

Not true.

Mr. Waterson

The Minister made that clear in Committee; that is why there is not an amendment that touches directly on the matter. We are taking the Minister's assurances at face value, as is only right. We are pleased that there has clearly been a rethink on the issue within the Department, and that the Government have backed off, no doubt having received much critical comment. This matter has featured in the media on at least two occasions. I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that that was nothing to do with him but, as the Government think they are good at the art of spinning, somebody obviously thought that it was worth spinning.

Mr. Raynsford

Will the hon. Gentleman accept, once again, my clear and categorical assurance that not only is there no intention to give prisoners a direct priority in housing allocation—a point I have made repeatedly—but there was no leak from the Department on the issue? If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will probably recall that one bout of press speculation followed a press release that he himself put out making that unfounded allegation. When we are thinking about where press stories come from, Conservative central office is probably the answer.

Mr. Waterson

I do not think the Minister can get away with that. First, I have accepted his assurance, but if it makes him feel better, I will say again that I acknowledge that that is not now the Government's intention. Whether it ever was is perhaps academic. We certainly did not think the issue up; it featured in the media, which is why we commented on it. In fairness, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said in a debate in the House that, if the matter was going to be spun, it was an odd thing for the Government to spin. Sometimes, though, as we have seen in recent weeks, spin doctors get out of control. In any event, we are delighted that, at this point, the proposition does not form part of the Government's proposals. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

We still think, as we did in Committee, that we should not move away from a principle set out in the Housing Act 1996. The Minister will say that this is an opportunity to simplify matters in the light of that Act, which we accept. Under the Act, authorities are required to produce allocation schemes that give "reasonable preference" to numerous categories, including families with dependent children. I say again that I see the argument for making some simplification. However, we take the view that if only one category is to be singled out, it should be families with dependent children. Parliament is entitled to send that sort of message.

I referred in Committee to the useful work of the Catholic Housing Aid Society. I shall not refer to it again in any detail, except to say that, among other things, it shows that, of all local authority acceptances of priority need, nearly 60 per cent. are households with dependent children. That chimes with my mailbag and surgery and is a perfectly legitimate issue which could be included in the Bill.

Amendment No. 17 raises the important issue of so-called neighbours from hell. There was near unanimity in Committee that perhaps the most difficult sort of issue in which we are asked to get involved as Members of Parliament concerns people who behave antisocially. It is often significantly easier to deal with the problem if such people are in social housing rather than in private housing. Having said that, we all face such problems in our constituencies. The Bill should send out a much clearer message that people should not and cannot behave antisocially.

Earlier, we talked about violence and the threat of violence, and the effect that that can have on neighbours. We are now talking about a range of activity from the mildly antisocial through to genuine violence, which encompasses people breaking windows or making a lot of noise and encouraging their children to be noisy and difficult with certain neighbours. Such activity may even involve repairing cars and motorcycles on the front lawn or hanging out washing in a certain area. All those things can make a difference to a neighbourhood and to people's neighbours. There are also problems of racial abuse and other issues, which we have already discussed in relation to a different group of amendments. Such activity is one of the biggest causes of unhappiness in many estates throughout the country.

6.45 pm

Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 gives landlords grounds to evict people from shorthold tenancies. Section 162 of the 1996 Act gives local authorities the power to apply for injunctions against antisocial behaviour. The Government have introduced antisocial behaviour orders but, on any view, their use to date has been disappointing. I will not repeat the experience of the Irwell Valley housing association in Salford, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) dealt with it at length in Committee. The association's approach, which involves being tough with antisocial people and trying to reward those who behave as good neighbours, produces high levels of customer satisfaction and low levels of arrears, and so on.

The Committee also discussed a scheme by Wandsworth council—so often the trailblazer in these matters—for contracts between it and its tenants to cut down on criminal and immoral acts in council housing.

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the difficulty that many local authorities face with the kind of tenancies that he described. There was considerable cross-party agreement on that in Committee. However, does he not accept that the wording of amendment No. 17 is rather woolly and open to interpretation?

Mr. Waterson

Like everything in this Bill or in any other piece of legislation, the amendment is subject to interpretation. We hope that local authorities will apply the measures reasonably. However, the point of the amendment is that we need to give them a steer so that they can—and should—take account of people's previous behaviour.

If people have a record of bad behaviour, rent arrears or whatever—we went into that in detail in Committee, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will remember—that could and should be taken into account. That does not mean taking into account a criminal conviction such as a speeding fine, as some councils do. It means taking into account the fact that there are genuine grounds for concern that tenants who have behaved badly vis-à-vis their neighbours in the past may well do so again.

Mr. Bercow

It is right that my hon. Friend should focus, as the Committee did, on obviously antisocial and, in some cases, even criminal behaviour. In that context, will he take the opportunity to distinguish between behaviour which, we all agree, should be denounced and counteracted by public agencies—and, possibly, be the subject of police investigation—and cases of honest disagreement and dispute between neighbours? On the latter, would he not commend the important contribution to the resolution of those conflicts that can be made be mediation services, of which there is an excellent example in Aylesbury?

Mr. Waterson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is another excellent example in Eastbourne. We discussed in Committee—and I am sure that this will have wider resonance across the House—the problem of receiving one set of neighbours at one's advice surgery one week and then, to one's horror, seeing on one's list of appointments the next the people about whom they were complaining. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my experience: we are seen as arbiters of these problems, which are extraordinarily difficult to resolve.

Mr. Bercow

They are invidious.

Mr. Waterson

Indeed. We should set aside the situation in which two perfectly respectable and responsible sets of neighbours, neither of whom are behaving criminally or particularly reprehensibly, simply do not get on with one another. Whatever they do, there will always be a dispute about something—whether an overhanging tree, an uncut lawn or a badly parked car. We all know of such cases—I certainly have experience of them—which have gone on for years, blighting the lives of both sets of neighbours and sometimes costing them an enormous amount in legal fees and causing other problems to no eventual purpose.

Finally, I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 20 which, on the face of it, would provide a dramatic power for an authority effectively to suspend the operation of a certain provision when it can show that continuing to operate it would have a detrimental effect.

I explained in Committee, but perhaps I should do so again, that we have in mind the clear distinction that exists between authorities that have an excess of supply over demand in respect of social housing, and those where the opposite is the case. I understand that there are parts of the country, particularly but not exclusively in the north, where someone looking for a new flat or house will go to the local council and be shown two or three nice options that afternoon.

I discussed the situation in Eastbourne recently with Councillor Mrs. Ann Murray, who is the lead cabinet member for housing under the new and highly successful Conservative administration of Eastbourne borough council. The average wait in Eastbourne can be three to four years, which is phenomenal. When people contact me and come to my surgery, it is extremely depressing to write off to the housing department knowing that one will get a letter back stating that those people will have to wait three to four years.

The council hopes to reduce the waiting time to two to three years, which may not seem like a great leap forward, simply by changing the rules so that children can be put into council flats, which has not been allowed so far.

May I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that Eastbourne is one of the 90-odd authorities that have applied for the pilot scheme for choice-based allocations? As I recall, the arithmetic was rather depressing. It seemed that only about a third of those that had applied would be eligible for the scheme. None the less, it is an interesting concept. We had a longish discussion in Committee about the so-called Delft system. Closer to home, Harborough is ahead of the game, having undertaken a particular pilot scheme.

My only comment—and this is the point of our amendment—is that a choice-based system is all very well and up-to-the-minute and trendy, but how is it to operate in a place such as Eastbourne, where there is a vast excess of demand over supply? I can see that it would make a difference in some cases. That is why I am particularly keen that Eastbourne should be successful in becoming part of the pilot scheme and getting some of the dosh out of the Minister—we get precious little else in Eastbourne.

It will be fascinating to see how the scheme would work in such places. If I were the Minister trying to decide on a wholly dispassionate basis how to allocate the resources for the pilot schemes, I would consider Eastbourne a particularly good example of one end of the scale, where there is great demand and a thoroughly inadequate supply. I hope that the Minister will look warmly and encouragingly on the Eastbourne bid, although there is a more serious general issue at stake.

Mr. Don Foster

Will the hon. Gentleman encourage the Minister also to look favourably on the bid from Bath and North-East Somerset, where there is a much greater mixture of housing provision than I imagine is the case in Eastbourne?

Mr. Waterson

Before we get to that stage, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman's local council electors do what the voters of Eastbourne have done, and get rid of a thoroughly incompetent, inept Liberal Democrat administration. I shall not go further down that path, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, probably would not allow me to do so. There are questions about how a choice-based system would work in areas such as Eastbourne. That is the point of the amendment.

I commend our three amendments to the House. As I explained, because of the quirks of our procedures, it is unlikely that we shall press those amendments to a Division. Hence my support—breaking the habit of a lifetime—for the Liberal Democrats' new clause 4.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I am grateful to be called, and I shall speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name.

However, I begin by observing that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) started his speech by having a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for speaking for 20 minutes on seven new clauses. The clock shows that the hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke for 20 minutes on three amendments. We must take care not to be over-critical of colleagues doing their job.

On new clause 17, the Minister again sought to make mischief, but I shall disappoint him. Unless the Minister responds positively, I shall happily support new clause 4 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, and I am glad to hear that the Conservatives will do so too.

New clause 17 is entirely compatible with new clause 4, for three reasons. First, unfortunately—because of my own bad handwriting, I concede—the text as printed is not the same as the text as drafted. It should have read "final offer", not "first offer". We always speak of the final offer in this context, so I hope that the Minister will accept my explanation.

Secondly, new clause 4 refers to a minimum of three days for an offer to be considered. I suggest in new clause 17 that a period of five days should be set. That is not inconsistent. The important thing is that there should not be a 24 or 48-hour turnaround. People are often on a list for a long time, and the offer may come with no warning. They may be away, visiting family or on holiday, so they must be allowed a reasonable period within which to receive the offer and respond to it. That should be at least three days, potentially five days, and possibly longer, if the local authority considers that appropriate, after consultation with tenants.

In many cases, people receive only one offer. The Minister must know from his personal experience that it is entirely unfair to give them a ridiculously short time within which to accept it. I hope that he will be positive and accept the new clause moved by my hon. Friend.

The third specific point that I included in new clause 17—I had seen new clause 4 before I drafted it—allows people to inspect the premises with an independent adviser. It is no good expecting them to accept the offer without looking at the premises, or, if they are allowed to go in, to be accompanied only by the housing officer, who will clearly be determined to tell them that the property is acceptable and that that is the only offer that they will get. People must be allowed to inspect the premises, to be accompanied by an independent adviser and then to judge whether the offer is reasonable.

That leads to new clause 18, which would require the local housing authority to inform applicants of their right to request a review, independently of the local authority, if they are told that they are ineligible for housing. One of the great causes of complaint is that people make an application, the local authority decides and that is the end of the matter.

I have tabled four amendments, all of which derive from issues regularly raised by people who come to my surgery and to others. It is often the case that people who experience a relationship breakdown in a home that they rent or, much more frequently, in a home that they own are told that they cannot be housed by the local authority and that they are intentionally homeless.

If, for example, people bought their home under the right-to-buy scheme and the marriage comes to an end, one partner will usually stay in the home. The other partner may leave, possibly with some finance. However, it may not be possible to raise any finance. The partner staying in the home cannot raise it, so there is no money available at that moment.

I ask Ministers to accept that, when the family home can no longer be the family home, the person who leaves should be able to look to the local authority for housing. Such people may or may not have children, but if they are parents, they may want the child or children to stay with them for a weekend, the school holidays or whatever, yet they find that they have nowhere to go. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to those amendments.

7 pm

Amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 60 relate to a later part of the Bill.

Mr. Love

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled separately from those of his Front-Bench colleagues. Given that there is no Liberal Democrat Whip available in the Chamber at the moment, will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) passed over to him as to why he is tabling a separate set of amendments? Is this another example of Liberal Democrat anarchy?

Mr. Hughes

I knew that I should not have given way to what was clearly going to be a silly intervention.

People are entitled to table amendments from the Back Benches. Our Front-Bench colleagues do their job and all my hon. Friend's new clauses and amendments have my support. However, I represent more council tenants than any other Member of Parliament in England, including all the Labour Members, and I hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will accept that these issues are of huge interest to my constituents. I have tabled amendments, as the hon. Gentleman could have done, although I notice that he did not.

Mr. Don Foster

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, a number of amendments were tabled by Labour Back Benchers? That seems to be a perfectly appropriate way for all hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Hughes

My hon. Friend must have been blessed in that Committee, because I have served on many Committees in which not a peep comes from Labour Back Benchers and they all happily toe the Government line.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to make the point that it is legitimate for Back Benchers and Front Benchers to table amendments and new clauses. If the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is unfamiliar with that basic constitutional fact after spending nearly four years in the House, it is about time he became aware of it.

Will the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at least accept that, while there is a case for the three-day period and for the five-day period, it is stretching a point to say that they are not incompatible with each other? Will the hon. Gentleman, who is rather self-effacing, accept from me that his preference for a five-day period proves that, by comparison with his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he is simply more liberal?

Mr. Hughes

Those are judgments that must be made by others.

The Government have a policy that all the Opposition parties find unacceptable. The good thing is that they now have two alternative proposals that they could buy off the shelf. One contains a word that was misread, and the other has the endorsement of those on the Conservative Front Bench. The Minister has no excuse for saying that he has no choice, and I sincerely hope that he will buy one of our options. I seriously look forward to that happening.

The other amendments relate to serious matters, and have been referred to supportively by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. Some people need personal protection, often urgently. I am trying, with the help of my local authority, to have someone in that predicament re-housed. Indeed, four families who are trying to get re-housed are on the books in my constituency office, having visited my surgery.

I would like it to be the law that, when the police say to a local authority that people must be moved for their own safety, and that their safety cannot be guaranteed where they are because there is a serious risk to their life, the local authority must have a duty to move them within 28 days. That should have an priority overriding other responsibilities. I know that such a proposal would have the support of the police, who get very frustrated in these circumstances, as do local authority officers trying to juggle all kinds of competing priorities.

Amendment No. 60 is linked to that proposal. The issue of people at risk from violence has been dealt with and we have received a positive response from the Minister. However, people whose mental or physical safety is at risk sometimes need to be moved. Those circumstances might involve threats rather than actual violence.

I am dealing with a case at the moment involving a serious assault that took place not far from the Elephant and Castle. The youngster who was seriously injured is not able or willing to give evidence if he still has to live in the area in which he was assaulted. That is perfectly reasonable. The family will not support him in giving evidence, and the police understand that. The Crown Prosecution Service's clock is ticking away, and it insists that there is a date by which it will have to decide whether it can proceed. The prosecution will not be able to proceed without the evidence of that individual. My proposal is that, if re-housing is a precondition of someone's being able to give evidence in criminal proceedings, he should be re-housed within the time limit required by the criminal justice system.

Amendment No. 55 relates to the circumstances in which councils have to juggle competing priorities—as they all struggle to do—and requires that they assess the length of time someone has been in a particular category of need, in their list of considerations. They would have to form their own view about that; I am not trying to dictate to them. For example, account should be taken of the length of time someone had been ill, suffering from the after-effects of a stroke, and therefore been unable to go up and down stairs, or of the length of time that a family of seven had occupied a one-bedroom flat.

The amendments relate to practical matters, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to all of them. I also hope that he will accept a new clause in the form of—or similar to—that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in so far as they are compatible.

I want to raise a specific point with the Minister, relating to agricultural tied cottages and the effect that the Bill will have on them. A couple came to see me in my constituency surgery in Wincanton last week—my constituency could not be further removed in character from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Mr. Brice and Ms Parsons came to see me because they had been served notice to quit an agricultural tied cottage. Mr. Brice had previously been made redundant from his post at a farm.

The difficulty in the case is that the landlord is trying to introduce a market rent, having given notice to quit in the interim. The local authority would normally have a duty to re-house the couple as homeless, and there is some urgency about the situation because the lady in question is due to give birth within two weeks. However, they cannot be re-housed because the matter has to be reviewed by the agricultural dwelling homes advisory committee under the terms of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The notice to quit is not valid until that review has taken place.

That is a conundrum to which the Minister may not have an answer immediately and, if that is the case, I would be glad if he wrote to me on the matter. It seems perverse that a provision intended to give protection to tenants is, in this instance, doing precisely the reverse by preventing the local authority from doing what is clearly necessary—that is, re-housing a couple in need as priority cases because they are effectively homeless. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the matter his consideration.

Mr. Raynsford

We have had an interesting debate involving a considerable number of amendments and new clauses, and a number of speakers. I shall try to do justice to all of them in the shortest possible time that I can. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little time to deal with the large number of issues raised.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases but I will look into the circumstances surrounding the issue and write to him.

New clauses 4 and 17—there are some interesting textual problems here—return to an issue discussed thoroughly in Committee. As I said then, I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment to ensure that people accepted as unintentionally homeless and who are temporarily accommodated by a local authority have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer of an allocation under Part VI. That is important because by making it a final offer the authority will have in effect given notice that they intend to bring the homelessness duty to an end.

Applicants will need time to give the offer careful consideration. If they are not immediately taken with the offer, they may well feel that they want to consult with family, friends or, in some case, their legal advisers. They should be given a reasonable time in which to do so.

As I said in Committee, my genuine fear is that specifying a minimum of three or perhaps five days would make that period the yardstick according to which many authorities might decide to operate. It could, in effect, be construed as a Government-approved maximum period for consideration, which, in my view, would be an unhappy outcome. In some cases, three or five days will not be enough. Flexibility is required, so that account can be taken of the circumstances of individual cases: the situation does not lend itself to narrow prescription.

I shall not comment on the lack of clarity on the part of the Liberal Democrats, who have specified both three and five days. If I had not understood from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he had intended his new clause to refer to a final offer, I would have asked him why he thought it reasonable for a time limit to be placed on a first offer but not on a second or third offer.

New clause 5 requires authorities to notify applicants of a right to request a review of a decision that they fell within an ineligible group, and of the time allowed for the making of such a request. The Bill gives applicants the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of their case. That includes decisions about eligibility based on the applicant's personal circumstances, including immigration status.

I can tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that there is no confusion about the scope of the review. As I made clear in Committee, the eligibility issue is covered. There cannot, of course, be a dispute about circumstances in which someone is validly deemed ineligible, but the basis on which the decision is reached—the facts of the case—will be open to the review.

The hon. Gentleman's proposal would take that two steps further. It would ensure first that when an applicant was made aware that he had been deemed ineligible he would be informed of his right of review, and secondly that a time limit would be imposed on that right. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's intention, but I would like to consider further whether the ends we both wish to achieve might be better achieved through an amendment or through guidance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his proposal, in return for my undertaking that I will give further thought to the issues that it raises.

As for new clause 18, I have begun to wonder whether, as a child, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was ever caught copying at school—and copying rather sloppily too. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Bath seem to agree strongly about some things, but not about everything. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is clearly keen to assert his independence, and appears to be trying to shift his party's housing policy from the policy to which his shadow Home Office responsibilities relate.

Amendment No. 18 seeks to give applicants a right to be informed when a decision on eligibility has been made, but also requires such a review to be independent. Let me say a little about the conduct of reviews. When undertaking a review, a local authority must provide for a proper or appropriate review in the light of the circumstances. It must take into account the laws relating to human rights and to judicial review; it must pay attention to what rights it is considering, and what procedures are appropriate. Having considered all those matters, it will be able to decide what is right in the circumstances. In his amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks again to determine the minutiae of arrangements. We think it right to leave the authority a measure of discretion, and I therefore do not propose to support the amendment.

New clause 6 provides for circumstances in which a local housing authority has decided that it no longer owes an interim duty to accommodate, and notifies the applicant. It would place a specific duty on the authority to consider continuing to secure accommodation for those seeking a review of the decision.

The current legislation gives authorities powers to ensure that accommodation remains available to applicants pending a decision on a review, but does not place an obligation on them to do so. It is for an authority to consider—on the basis of the facts of the case, and with regard to the resources available—whether to exercise those powers. The authority must exercise its discretion reasonably and with consideration, but the new clause seeks to specify in some detail how it should exercise its discretion.

7.15 pm

In Committee we discussed, on many occasions and in different contexts, the need to strike the right balance between giving authorities discretion in the carrying out of their functions and specifying in detail what they must do. It is never easy to draw the line, but our approach in the Bill has been to establish a clear framework in which authorities can make their own judgments, informed by local knowledge—knowledge of the facts of individual cases, in the context of the many pressures that authorities have to balance. I believe that, ultimately, the exercise of local judgment will lead to better outcomes than detailed, inflexible instructions set out in statute.

It is not that the issues for consideration specified in the clause are inherently implausible; they are not. They could be incorporated in guidance to authorities on issues that they may wish to take into account. Important factors have been missed out, however—not least the other pressures on accommodation in an authority's area. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will probably be more aware of those than most hon. Members.

The new clause would also have unwanted and adverse effects. It would perversely encourage appeals against authorities' decisions even when there was no realistic chance of success, simply because that would guarantee a continuation of accommodation for the period of the appeal. It would have resource implications for authorities, which could in some cases result in cases of lesser need gaining priority over those in greater need.

As I have said many times, it is a question of getting the balance right, and we do not believe that the new clause gets it right. It is too prescriptive; it would encourage vexatious requests for reviews; it would add to bureaucracy; and it would take away an important discretionary power from local housing authorities.

In a recent press release headed "Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns", the hon. Member for Bath said: Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns. Labour's centralising tendency is undermining local democracy. I must say to the hon. Gentleman "Get your Liberal Democrat tanks off local government lawns".

New clause 7 seeks to amend the provisions on right of appeal to the county court on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. It would allow an extension of the current appeal period of 21 days. Like new clause 6, it would place a detailed duty on authorities to consider continuing to ensure that accommodation was available to applicants who sought a review of the decision under section 202.

I have just dealt with the issue of consideration, and I believe that the arguments here are the same. Authorities should be given the tools with which to do their job and discretion to make difficult judgments, and they should be accountable for those judgments.

We dealt in Committee with the proposal to extend the appeal period beyond 21 days. As I made clear then, I do not think that the current 21-day period is unreasonable, and it is important for appeals to be dealt with quickly. The new clause, however, raises one point that I think merits further consideration. Part VII of the 1996 Act introduced a right of review of homelessness decisions, and a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if the applicant was not satisfied with the authority's decision on review. The aim—rightly, in my view—was to allow grievances concerning homelessness decisions to be heard locally by the county courts, rather than the applicant's having to go through the more costly and remote processes of judicial review in the High Court.

My understanding is that in considering appeals against homelessness decisions by a local authority, the county court has powers equivalent to those of judicial review by the High Court in every respect, save the power to require an authority to accommodate the applicant pending the appeal. That means that applicants are required to make a separate claim for judicial review to the administrative court in London, if they wish to seek an injunction requiring their local authority to accommodate them on an interim basis.

As I have said, authorities currently have discretion to decide to continue to accommodate pending an appeal to the county court, if they wish. Any court would need very clear evidence that an authority had acted unreasonably before granting a mandatory injunction; indeed, it would be inappropriate for a court to do otherwise. Nevertheless, there will always be a number of applicants who seek leave to apply for judicial review, and the court must give careful consideration to such cases. I should like to consider whether there is a case for giving the county court power to require an authority to accommodate, so that consideration of homelessness cases need not be taken to the High Court. As I am sure the hon. Member for Bath will appreciate, that will require discussions with colleagues in other Departments, but I undertake to engage in such discussions. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the motion.

New clauses 10, 11 and 12 seek to provide the Secretary of State with the power to give directions to local authorities on the exercise of their powers in relation to homelessness. Again, that raises the question of how to balance local discretion against central policy. I am surprised that hon. Members are so attracted to provisions that give powers to the Secretary of State to determine how local authorities shall conduct their business. I have already referred to one quote from the hon. Member for Bath. I give him one more: Our problem derives from the decision by the current Government and the previous Conservative Government to adopt a model that is designed to keep as many hands on the tiller as possible, denying local authorities freedom."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 369.] Get those Liberal Democrat hands off the tiller. Give local authorities more discretion.

On amendment No. 52, the breakdown of a relationship can be one of the most distressing and traumatic events in a person's life. If children are involved, it may be especially wretched—for each partner and, above all, for the children—but whether, on break-up, either partner is intentionally homeless is surely a matter of particular circumstance. Relationship breakdowns vary in their emotional impact, their financial impact and in the way they impact on each partner. Some can be amicable, but not all are, as we know. That surely is the point. No two cases are alike and there is a need for each circumstance to be assessed on the individual merits of the case.

I do not agree that it should necessarily fall to the local authority to accommodate one of the partners in every case of relationship breakdown, particularly where the relationship may have been a casual one and has not lasted for any length of time, but that would be the effect of the amendment. It would place an unacceptable and unreasonable burden on local authorities and send the wrong signals to people who were experiencing difficulties in their relationships, but were capable of resolving their problems and housing themselves. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will accept that the amendment is not appropriate.

On Government amendment No. 47, one of the Bill's aims is to facilitate the development of allocation schemes that can be framed so as to give more choice to applicants. That should include, wherever possible, more choice about the properties that they wish to apply for, and more choice to make a trade-off between holding out for a more desirable property and opting for something perhaps less desirable, but more easily available.

For applicants to be in a position to exercise that choice, letting schemes will need to offer as much transparency as possible. People in the housing queue, particularly in areas of high demand, should be given an idea of how long they are likely to have to wait for particular properties in particular areas.

To facilitate that, it will be important that authorities provide as much feedback as possible about the level of priority and length of waiting time of successful applicants. That will help others to make a judgment about how long they may have to wait for a similar property. Such feedback can, of course, be couched only in the most general terms. It is essential that there are safeguards against the release of confidential and sensitive personal information.

As drafted, clause 26 does not quite achieve that policy. That amendment will allow authorities to let applicants have general information about those households who have been successful in their application. It will not, however, allow authorities to divulge the fact that someone is currently applying for accommodation. The Data Protection Act 1998 will ensure that authorities cannot divulge sensitive personal information.

At first sight, amendment No. 16 seems reasonable, although a little thought rapidly shows it to be flawed. It seeks to give additional preference to families with dependent children. Its effect would be always to place the needs of families with dependent children above those of the elderly, the disabled or other groups. In Committee, we heard the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) make an eloquent plea for the needs of elderly people to be met. In the House, we have heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) make a passionate plea for the needs of people with disabilities to be met. We recognise the wide range of needs. I hope that they will recognise that, if we give additional priority to one group, by definition, it downgrades the others. Many families with children are not in need. Many affluent families with children would not deserve priority over a poor or disabled household. Therefore, it is not appropriate to pursue the amendment.

I am sympathetic to the intention behind amendments Nos. 53 and 60, which are to ensure that authorities respond quickly to the immediate rehousing needs of people whose personal safety may be at risk. However, the Bill already facilitates that. Clause 27 requires that allocation schemes must be framed, so that reasonable preference is given to people who need to move on welfare grounds. That will include people who need to move to alternative accommodation because they are at risk or are under police protection. The clause also gives authorities the power to give additional preference to particular descriptions of applicants who fall within the reasonable preference categories.

The provisions will ensure that authorities continue to be in a position to respond promptly to requests for housing assistance from the police. I would be very concerned if an authority did not respond positively to a formal request from the police to assist in the rehousing of someone whose safety was known to be at risk, whether as a result of agreeing to testify in proceedings, or otherwise. From my experience in my constituency, there was close and quick collaboration between the police, the local authority and the Home Office to rehouse the families whose identity was unintentionally and unfortunately revealed in the annexe of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report and who might have been put at risk by that disclosure, so I know that the arrangements can work. I would be alarmed if they were not working. I invite hon. Members who have evidence that they are not working to let me know.

Amendment No. 21 addresses the case of an applicant whose behaviour is so unacceptable that an authority, taking account of the rights of other residents, refuses to allocate accommodation. I make it clear that the Bill, as amended in Committee, already provides authorities with the right to refuse an application in such circumstances. Section 167(2A) to (2D) will make it clear that such a person need not be awarded any preference whatever. Therefore, there is no need for any further amendment.

Amendment No. 17 seems superfluous. It proposes that account be taken of any record of behaviour that has affected the terms of a previous tenancy. That is already covered by subsection (2A)(b), which deals with behaviour that affects a person's suitability to be a tenant.

Amendment No. 55 seeks to place further statutory prescription on allocation schemes. It would add a fourth factor to the three already specified in the Bill. We know that unsatisfactory housing conditions or medical or welfare considerations are currently taken into account a great deal by local authorities, which already consider the length of time that applicants have been waiting. It is probably one of the most common factors used by housing authorities throughout the country. Because of that, it is not necessary to make particular provision to make it clear that that factor may be incorporated by local authorities. It is already widely known by authorities that they may do so.

Amendment No. 20 is unnecessary and, if accepted, would be open to abuse. It would, in effect, allow an authority to suspend the framework for allocating preference and priority to needy groups and to individuals within those groups. I am not sure that that was the intention in tabling the amendment—I sincerely hope it was not. Although some authorities in high-demand areas face real challenges in managing applications, all are still able to allocate some housing through the register. Under the Bill, transfers within the authority will be handled through the provisions of the allocations or lettings schemes. I cannot think that hon. Members want to remove that sensible framework. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment.

I apologise for the length of my response, but the number and detail of the amendments made that necessary. I hope that hon. Members recognise that the amendments are unnecessary and that none should be accepted, with the one exception of Government amendment No. 47, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Don Foster

I congratulate the Minister on that tour de force, but there would have been no need for him to rush if we had had a decent programme motion. I thank him for his willingness at least to reconsider aspects of new clauses 5 and 7. However, I am completely horrified by his lack of confidence in the Government's legislation, which is such that he believes that provision for a minimum of three days could be interpreted as the Government agreeing to a maximum of three days. If that shows the faith that he has in this Labour Government, it is all the more reason why we should press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, that the clause be read Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes151, Noes 255.

Division No. 110]	[7.29 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Hawkins, Nick
Allan, Richard	Hayes, John
Amess, David	Heald, Oliver
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Horam, John
Baker, Norman	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Baldry, Tony	Hunter, Andrew
	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Beggs, Roy	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Jenkin, Bernard
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Johnson Smith,
Bercow, John	Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Beresford, Sir Paul	Key, Robert
Blunt, Crispin	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Boswell, Tim	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Lansley, Andrew
Brady, Graham	Leigh, Edward
Brake, Tom	Letwin, Oliver
Brazier, Julian	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Lidington, David
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Livsey, Richard
Burnett, John	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Burns, Simon	Llwyd, Elfyn
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	Loughton, Tim
(NE Fife)	Luff, Peter
Cash, William	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sir Sydney	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
(Chipping Barnet)	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Chope, Christopher	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Clappison, James	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Maples, John
	Mates, Michael
Collins, Tim	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Cormack, Sir Patrick	May, Mrs Theresa
Cotter, Brian	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Cran, James	Moss, Malcolm
Curry, Rt Hon David	Nicholls, Patrick
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Norman, Archie
Donaldson, Jeffrey	Öpik, Lembit
Duncan, Alan	Ottaway, Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain	Page, Richard
Evans, Nigel	Paice, James
Fabricant, Michael	Pickles, Eric
Fallon, Michael	Prior, David
Flight, Howard	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Rendel, David
Foster, Don (Bath)	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Fox, Dr Liam	Ruffley, David
Fraser, Christopher	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Gibb, Nick	St Aubyn, Nick
Gidley, Sandra	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gill, Christopher	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Gray, James	Spring, Richard
Green, Damian	Steen, Anthony
	Streeter, Gary
Greenway, John	Stunell, Andrew
Grieve, Dominic	Swayne, Desmond
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Syms, Robert
Hammond, Philip	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hancock, Mike	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Harris, Dr Evan	Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Taylor, Sir Teddy	Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)	Willetts, David
	Willis, Phil
Townend, John	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tredinnick, David	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Trend, Michael	Yeo, Tim
Tyler, Paul	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tyrie, Andrew
Walter, Robert	Tellers for the Ayes:
Waterson, Nigel	Mr. Adrian Sanders and
Whittingdale, John	Sir Robert Smith.

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ainger, Nick	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Allen, Graham	Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Atherton, Ms Candy	(B'ham Hodge H)
Austin, John	Dean, Mrs Janet
Banks, Tony	Denham, John
Barnes, Harry	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Barron, Kevin	Doran, Frank
Battle, John	Dowd, Jim
Beard, Nigel	Drew, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Drown, Ms Julia
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Bennett, Andrew F	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Bermingham, Gerald	Edwards, Huw
Berry, Roger	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Betts, Clive	Ennis, Jeff
Blackman, Liz	Etherington, Bill
Blizzard, Bob	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Borrow, David	Fisher, Mark
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Bradshaw, Ben	Flint, Caroline
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Flynn, Paul
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
(Dunfermline E)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Foulkes, George
Browne, Desmond	Galloway, George
Burden, Richard	Gerard, Neil
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Gibson, Dr Ian
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Goggins, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Caplin, Ivor	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Caton, Martin	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Cawsey, Ian	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Grocott, Bruce
Chaytor, David	Grogan, John
Clapham, Michael	Hain, Peter
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Hanson, David
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Healey, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hepburn, Stephen
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Heppell, John
Clelland, David	Hesford, Stephen
Coaker, Vernon	Hill, Keith
Connarty, Michael	Hinchliffe, David
Cooper, Yvette	Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Corbett, Robin	Hopkins, Kelvin
Corbyn, Jeremy	Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Cousins, Jim	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cox, Tom	Howells, Dr Kim
Cranston, Ross	Hoyle, Lindsay
Crausby, David	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hutton, John
Cummings, John	Iddon, Dr Brian
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Darvill, Keith	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Johnson, Miss Melanie	Primarolo, Dawn
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Rammell, Bill
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Rapson, Syd
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Raynsford, Nick
Keeble, Ms Sally	Robertson, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	(Glasgow Anniesland)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Kemp, Fraser	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lammy, David	Ruddock, Joan
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Laxton, Bob	Salter, Martin
Lepper, David	Savidge, Malcolm
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Sawford, Phil
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Sedgemore, Brian
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Shaw, Jonathan
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Love, Andrew	Short, Rt Hon Clare
McAvoy, Thomas	Skinner, Dennis
McCabe, Steve	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Macdonald, Calum	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
McDonnell, John	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Snape, Peter
McIsaac, Shona	Soley, Clive
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Spellar, John
McNulty, Tony	Squire, Ms Rachel
McWilliam, John	Steinberg, Gerry
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mallaber, Judy	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter	Stoate, Dr Howard
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Stringer, Graham
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Marshall—Andrews, Robert	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Martlew, Eric	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Maxton, John	(Dewsbury)
Meale, Alan	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Merron, Gillian	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Temple—Morris, Peter
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Timms, Stephen
Miller, Andrew	Tipping, Paddy
Moran, Ms Margaret	Todd, Mark
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Touhig, Don
Morley, Elliot	Trickett, Jon
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
(Bham Yardley)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
(Aberavon)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie	Tynan, Bill
Mudie, George	Vis, Dr Rudi
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Wareing, Robert N
Norris, Dan	Watts, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	White, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Wicks, Malcolm
O'Hara, Eddie	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Olner, Bill	(Swansea W)
O'Neill, Martin	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Organ, Mrs Diana	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Pearson, Ian	Winnick, David
Pickthall, Colin	Woodward, Shaun
Pike, Peter L	Woolas, Phil
Plaskitt, James	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Pollard, Kerry	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Pope, Greg	Wyatt, Derek
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond	Tellers for the Noes:
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Mr. Mike Hall and
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Mr. David Jamieson.

Question according negatived.