ALLOCATION SCHEMES (Hansard, 25 February 2002)

§ Ms Keeble
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.

§ Ms Keeble
Amendment No. 4 is a minor drafting amendment. The Bill gives local housing authorities powers to take account of unacceptable behaviour when making decisions about applicants for the allocation of housing. Clause 13 constructs a test of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. Where an authority has decided that an applicant is guilty of such behaviour, it will either have power under clause 13 to decide to treat them as ineligible for an allocation altogether, or it may decide to treat them as eligible but not to give them any preference under clause 15.
The policy intention is that the test of unacceptable behaviour should be exactly the same whether it is a basis for treating a person as ineligible or for deciding that he or she does not deserve to be given any preference. The test is deliberately constructed to be a very high one and it incorporates two main elements: first, the authority must be satisfied that the applicant or a member of his household has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour; and secondly, in the circumstances when the case is considered, it must be satisfied either that the applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant or that he deserves not to be given reasonable preference by reason of that unacceptable behaviour.
The qualification by reason of that behaviour", which the amendment inserts in the clause, is essential to ensure that authorities do not have a broad power to decide to treat applicants as ineligible or not to give preference for reasons that are not linked to the unacceptable behaviour. The qualification appears in clause 13 in new section 160A(7)(b) to the Housing Act 1996. The provision deals with the treatment of an applicant as ineligible for an allocation, but was omitted from clause 15, which deals with the treatment of an 495 applicant as deserving not to be given any preference. The amendment would merely insert that qualification in the clause and ensure that the provisions on unacceptable behaviour are clear and symmetrical.
As I said, clause 13 allows an authority to decide to treat an applicant as ineligible for an allocation because it is satisfied that he is guilty of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. When an authority is satisfied that an applicant is unsuitable to be its tenant, it may decide to treat him as ineligible or instead to consider his application but not give any preference for an allocation. As the Bill stands, the authority must notify the applicant of a decision to treat him as ineligible and of the grounds on which it has been made. With regard to a decision not to give preference, applicants have the right to ask to be informed, but the authority is not required to notify them unless it is requested to do so.
7.15 pm
In another place—and, indeed, in this place at an earlier stage—there was pressure for an amendment to require authorities to notify applicants about such decisions. Unfortunately—this is where the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was misguided—the proposal's construction meant that it would also have required authorities to notify applicants about routine decisions taken about the facts of their application. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman is very entertained and is about to say that he was right all along. That is not the case. The Government reflected on the points that were raised in debate about his amendment. We saw the force of the argument that in areas where pressure on housing is high a decision not to give preference could have the same practical effect as a decision to treat an applicant as ineligible; that is to say, it could remove any realistic opportunity of his being allocated accommodation. [Interruption.] Again, the hon. Gentleman indicates that he is right. We have shown simply that the Government are prepared to listen and cherry-pick his amendments so as to take the good bits while still rejecting the wider and totally impractical elements.
The additional requirement should not add significantly to authorities' work load. We anticipate that, overall, only a small proportion of applicants will receive such decisions and our understanding is that the local authority associations support this proposal. The Government have therefore decided that authorities should be required to notify the applicant when they decide not to give any preference because of unacceptable behaviour, but they will not be required to deal with the confetti of decision papers that the amendment of the hon. Member for Bath would have required. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will help to achieve those effects. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
We heard a lot in Committee about the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) sending his wife postcards when his amendments succeeded. I have no doubt that his wife will be receiving a postcard in the morning. Tribute where tribute is due: he pushed the matter in Committee and it is now being dealt with.
The official Opposition broadly welcome the amendments. For too long, tenants who have exhibited patterns of unacceptable behaviour have been given 496 preference when other people who have behaved perfectly properly are disadvantaged thereby. We welcome the amendments and the fact that the inconsistency between clauses 13 and 15 is being done away with, and the requirement for the local authority to notify people for whom preference has been withdrawn because of unacceptable behaviour.
I have one question for the Minister: what will happen in relation to the Data Protection Act 1998? Will one authority be able to give information on unacceptable behaviour to another authority so that it can judge how to treat people when handling preference?

§ Mr. Don Foster
May I thank the Minister for accepting at long last the amendments that I tabled many months ago and tidying them up in the way that she has described? I am sure that honour is now satisfied and that at least a brief postcard can now go to Mrs. Foster.

§ Ms Keeble
I shall be brief, so perhaps it will be just half a postcard. [Interruption.] That is for the hon. Member for Bath and his wife to settle between them.
In relation to data protection, I was trying to envisage the circumstances in which such a situation would arise. As people would normally make applications to separate housing authorities, I cannot seriously think that it is an issue, but I shall check to make sure.