HL Deb 10 July 1996 vol 574 cc402-21

(" . Any asylum seeker who is granted exceptional leave to remain shall be entitled to—

  1. (a) housing benefit, and
  2. (b) council tax benefit,
backdated to the date of their asylum application.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realised that the time was close when this amendment was to be considered when I saw the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, take his place on the Government Front Bench.

I do not apologise to the House for yet again raising the question of asylum seekers and refugees, although I agree that in two Bills going through Parliament simultaneously we have had a lot of debate on the issue. The reason for this amendment is very simple. The Government have already agreed that if an asylum seeker is granted asylum status, he shall be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit back-dated to the date of the asylum application. It is clearly an anomaly that that provision has not been extended to asylum seekers who are granted exceptional leave instead of full refugee status.

My understanding is that in every other respect as regards entitlement to benefits and all the other provisions that we discussed during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and the earlier stage of this Bill, asylum seekers granted refugee status and those granted exceptional leave to remain have been treated in a similar way. Therefore, it is clearly an anomaly that they have been missed out in this respect. I am confident that the Government will feel that this is the right occasion on which to rectify that anomaly. I beg to move.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)

My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly says, we have discussed these matters on a fair number of occasions during the course of both this Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is now on its way to the other place. This amendment is interesting in that it introduces an entirely new concept into the income-related benefits. It actually provides that someone should be entitled to benefit simply by virtue of having a particular status. If a United Kingdom citizen seeks housing benefit or council tax benefit, he has to show a liability for rent or council tax and then that he fulfils and satisfies all the other entitlement conditions which apply to those benefits, including income.

A person with exceptional leave to remain under this amendment would gain entitlement simply by having exceptional leave to remain. That would be a most curious way to proceed. I understand that noble Lords opposite seek to refer to our proposals that those granted refugee status should be able to claim retrospective payments to cover periods when they have been excluded from income-related benefits. They seek to extend that proposal to cover those granted exceptional leave to remain. Even if the noble Lord's amendment was couched in more technically correct terms, I am sorry to say to him that it would still be unacceptable.

Perhaps I may explain the rationale which underpins our proposal to make retrospective payments available to refugees. The Government's policy on benefits for asylum seekers, which we shall seek to restore in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, aims to reduce incentives for people to make unfounded claims for asylum. To that end we shall restrict benefits to those who have claimed on arrival in the United Kingdom and who have not received a negative decision from the Home Office—in other words, we shall insist that in order to gain benefits under the United Kingdom system, people will have to claim at the port of arrival. If, after consideration, the Home Office decided that they were not eligible for consideration as asylum seekers, they would not then be able to claim benefit during the time they waited for their appeal to be considered.

As your Lordships know, the House took a slightly different view on this matter by a small number, a fortnight ago. Those people who apply at the port or within three days, according to the amendment carried against my advice, would receive benefit not merely up until the point when the Home Office made a decision, but actually beyond that point and during all the time they were awaiting an appeal decision.

Your Lordships will know that my right honourable friend Peter Lilley, the Secretary of State for Social Security, has indicated that it is the Government's intention to ask the other place to overturn that particular amendment which your Lordships passed.

But in a minority of cases, where an asylum seeker is found to be a genuine refugee, we think it is reasonable that they should, in effect, be retrospectively exempted from the measures designed to dissuade the bogus from claiming. Therefore, we proposed and inserted in the Asylum and Immigration Bill that refugees should be eligible for retrospective payments covering periods during which the benefit regulations had previously excluded them from benefit.

That would mean that those people who claimed in country and who were subsequently found to be genuine refugees would be able to have retrospective payments and those who appealed and were eventually found to be genuine—three out of every 100, as it turns out—would be able to have retrospective payments.

This, as your Lordships will recall, puts refugees on a similar footing to United Kingdom nationals who lodge a claim against refusal of benefit. During the appeal no benefits are paid, but if the appeal is successful benefit can be backdated.

We do not accept—as I have explained to your Lordships before—that people who are granted exceptional leave to remain should be treated in the same way. Refugees are accorded specific rights under the UN convention. We ensure that those rights can be exercised. Exceptional leave to remain is a discretionary concession made by the UK Government over and above its obligations under the UN convention. It seems to me entirely reasonable that a person granted exceptional leave to remain should be paid the benefit from the date that the status is awarded.

Tonight, I can see no case for making such payments retrospective to an earlier period. I have been over this argument before. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, feels that I am making a rather narrow distinction between refugee status and exceptional leave, but we have argued it before and I am not convinced that I should change my position. The position of a refugee—somebody who is granted refugee status—is quite different from that of a person with exceptional leave to remain. It is only right that we retain that distinction in that we will pay retrospective benefit to those people who are granted refugee status but that we will not pay it to those granted exceptional leave to remain.

I appreciate that the noble Lord will find my reply disappointing but I suspect he will also find it predictable. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I find it disappointing but I am bound to say I have more faith in the Minister than to suggest that I predicted his answer. I appreciate that technically the amendment is somewhat defective, but the Minister directed most of his arguments against the principle. I would simply say this. This is the only occasion on which the Government have made a distinction between benefit entitlement on the part of refugees—people given refugee status—compared with those given exceptional leave to remain.

We are talking of very small numbers because if people are going to be given ELR they are normally given it in response to their asylum claim. Only in isolated cases are they refused asylum. They then appeal and, although refused asylum status, they are granted exceptional leave to remain. It does happen, but we are talking of a handful of cases. I should have thought that the principle was clear—and the sums of money are tiny. We are making a distinction between two groups of people who, in all other respects, are allowed to stay in this country and who ought to have the same rights. It seems to me that the Government are being a bit niggardly about this. It would have been generous to say, "Yes, this is an anomaly", and to do something about it. I am dismayed that the Government do not see it that way. Reluctant as I am to accept something like that, I do not think that I have any choice but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Clause 115 [Payment of housing benefit to third parties]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 166:

Page 79, line 30, at end insert— (" "(5A) As it has effect in relation to housing benefit subsection (1)(h) above shall require a request for information or evidence by the determining authority to be made in such a manner and within such a target period as may be prescribed."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment too relates to housing benefit, something that preoccupied us earlier today. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for regulations to ensure that, when applications for housing benefit are made, requests for information and evidence in relation to that housing benefit are made within a set or specified target period. We are concerned that delays in the determination of claims for housing benefit are a significant factor causing arrears of rent and even homelessness, despite regulations requiring local authorities to make payment within 14 days of receiving full information on the claim.

One cause of the delays is the current lack of any time limit on the period for requesting additional information. The amendment seeks to tackle that by introducing target periods for time limits for requests by the determining authority for additional information and evidence.

Perhaps I may give one or two examples from the citizens advice bureaux. A CAB in Norfolk reported that a single parent moved into a housing association house in July and claimed benefit. By September no payment had been made and she received a notice to quit. In October she was threatened with court action for arrears of £683.88. Benefit was finally paid after 11 weeks. The housing benefit department claimed that it had been waiting for information from the Benefits Agency, but there was still a further month's delay even after the CAB sent it a copy of the Benefits Agency letter confirming the client's income. Those are long delays. If there were targets for getting the information, such delays could be significantly shortened.

Perhaps I may give another example, again from a citizens advice bureau but in this case from Devon. It reported that a client waited eight weeks for his claim to be processed. He had been served a notice to quit for rent arrears. When the CAB contacted the department, it was told that there was a backlog and that the claim could not be speeded up.

I think that having a time limit would be helpful. It is quite common to set targets for various authorities so that they can meet adequate standards of sensitivity for their customers. It would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have the powers to set targets for the collection of such information. It is a simple point. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I support this amendment, recognising that in doing so I am supporting some centralisation of a local provision. Nevertheless, I support the amendment for one particular reason: the importance to the smooth functioning of the private rented sector of the housing benefit system. My own experience, which I do not think is unusual, is of potential landlords refusing to make properties available to tenants on housing benefit because of their fears about problems in terms of getting paid—and getting paid promptly. It is important to keep properties available. That is why I believe the amendment is important.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has come up with a variation of an earlier amendment which we debated in Committee and which would have required local authorities to request all the information and evidence they would ever need within seven or 10 days of the date of a claim for housing benefit. Now, the noble Lord is suggesting that local authorities must request the information and evidence they need within a "target" period. Regulations would be required to lay down the length of this period. But how long would that period be? Whatever the length of the period, the real question is: would this amendment have the desired effect of delivering a better service to claimants? My view and that of my colleagues is that it would not.

If the "target" period is too long, local authorities could take their time about dealing with the majority of inquiries. This would defeat the purpose of the amendment, which is to speed up the process. Giving local authorities a shorter period of, say, seven or 10 days, to take the appropriate action would result inevitably—and for good reasons, such as staff sickness or an unexpected surge of claims—in some of them missing their target. That is when the problems would begin.

Local authorities would have two choices: they could do without the necessary evidence or choose to ignore the fact that they have no statutory power to ask for the evidence. Even then, claimants could refuse to provide it and there is nothing an authority could do about that. In consequence, some claimants would be refused benefit because they had not supported their claim—indeed under this amendment they might not even be told what further information was required—while others would be overpaid benefit or would suffer hardship because they were paid too little. That would be a very unsatisfactory situation.

The nub of the problem is that many claimants fail to provide the information and evidence requested on their claim form in the first place. If they did, most delays would be avoided. It is in the authority's own interest to obtain the information as quickly as possible. I am sure there is no suggestion that authorities deliberately delay taking the appropriate steps. Many authorities set their own administrative targets, which can be as low as five days, for getting information and replies to inquiries. The results are monitored by my department's officials through a programme of visits to local authorities. I can tell your Lordships that standards are undoubtedly improving. However, I am not complacent. I recognise the strength of feeling behind this amendment. I propose to monitor the position. If I am persuaded by the evidence that something needs to be done, I shall consider carefully whether a change can be introduced which meets the needs of claimants and local authorities.

But I do not believe that the way forward is to have a piece of primary legislation like this. We shall monitor the position. We appreciate the need for speedy and correct action as far as concerns these benefits. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I indicated earlier that my support for this amendment was a little out of character. I was glad to hear his acceptance of the difficulties experienced by local authorities in meeting a target which is a short period of time. In reviewing the targets and the workings of this matter, will the Minister bear in mind and discuss with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment the appropriateness of certain performance indicators under the Citizen's Charter which perhaps give the public the false impression that local authorities are themselves at fault in failing to meet targets? The underlying reasons are, as he has indicated, rather complex and not necessarily of their own making.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a valid point. On a number of occasions, I have said that it takes two to tango. If the claimant does not give the information quickly and in proper form, delay is inevitable because the authority is obliged to go back to the claimant to ask for further details. That is one of the difficulties about setting targets. None the less, it is important that an attempt is made to set targets. As the noble Baroness has said, it is important for claimants that decisions on their cases are made as quickly as possible. I will make sure that the points raised by the noble Baroness are borne in mind when we look at how authorities perform.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, although the Minister has rejected the amendment it is of comfort that he agreed to review the workings of the system and to see what can he done if it is not working well. On that basis, I thank him for what amounts to a small concession and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 167:

Page 79, line 38, at end insert— ("(3) In section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payment of benefit) at the end of subsection (1)(k) insert "and where a claimant who is a local housing authority tenant is on income support and has included in the calculation of his applicable amount the pensioner, the enhanced pensioner or the higher pensioner premium, or although not in receipt thereof has included in the calculation of his applicable amount the pensioner, the enhanced pensioner or the higher pensioner premium, the award of benefit shall be made for an indefinite period."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to provide for regulations which will enable claims for pensioners who live in council housing to be determined for an indefinite benefit period. At present, housing benefit claimants must renew their claims every 12 months. I suppose that for the majority of claimants that is a reasonable process. However, the renewal claims increase the administrative burden on local authorities. They often delay sending out renewal claims, do not always explain why the claimant must reclaim and can delay or lose the renewal claim.

The amendment is concerned with elderly claimants who experience stress and even the threat of eviction because either they do not know that they have to reclaim housing benefit or are deterred by the claim form. The requirement of housing benefit authorities that claims must be renewed every 12 months is the subject of the amendment. Often clients in receipt of income support do not understand the need to reclaim because they are not required to do so for income support. There are two different procedures.

As regards people below pension age, perhaps the requirement for the 12 monthly renewal of claims is satisfactory. However, in the case of pensioners, perhaps they are subjected to too many bureaucratic requirements which some find difficult to understand fully. Perhaps I may give two examples. A citizens advice bureau in Sussex reported that many elderly clients seek advice as to why they have received a housing benefit renewal form. The form arrives in the post without explanation. There is no local council office to approach for advice. Furthermore, a CAB in London reported the case of an elderly housebound woman on income support who lives alone in a council flat. She received a notice seeking possession from the council for rent arrears, which left her in a very distressed state. That had been caused by the cessation of housing benefit following the failure of the council to send out the yearly renewal forms.

The point is fairly straightforward. In other respects we simplify the procedures for pensioners knowing that their circumstances are much less likely to change than those of younger people. Therefore, it is appropriate to ensure that pensioners' entitlements to certain benefits, once the case has been established, should not require the frequent and repeated renewal of claims. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Lord has fairly described the objectives of his amendment. It may be helpful if I explain why we do not believe that it would be wise to put such an amendment into the Bill. Housing benefits are awarded for a fixed period called "a benefit period". The length of a benefit period is at the discretion of a local authority and it is up to a maximum of 60 weeks; in other words, just over a year. After that the local authority must invite a repeat claim.

In that way there is a formal statutory mechanism for ensuring that benefit is paid accurately and that it reflects the applicant's circumstances and any changes which have occurred in the previous year. The requirement to make a fresh claim for housing benefit applies to all claimants, not only to pensioners, and it ensures that local authorities are administering the scheme correctly by paying the correct amount of benefit and therefore preventing both overpayment and underpayment building up.

We have in the past consulted the local authority associations and asked them to provide evidence for improving administrative efficiency through adopting easements similar to what is suggested in the noble Lord's amendment. The evidence they provided was inconclusive. There was evidence of overpayments and some local authorities prefer to set even shorter benefit periods than the maximum of 60 weeks.

In addition, we remain unconvinced that any administrative easement following a move to continuous awards would justify the costs involved in identifying the cases affected. Such a move might result in overpayments, for which there would be subsidy implications for the local authority. Claimants could suffer because the complete absence of a review of their entitlement might result in underpayments for which they would not be fully reimbursed as there is actually a 52-week limit for paying arrears. If there were an underpayment and there was no need to review the claim at any given period, somebody could be underpaid for quite a considerable time and all they could get by way of arrears would be up to 52 weeks. Of course if there were overpayments they could be asked to refund the money and I think that could be particularly difficult over time. Therefore, far from making pensioners' lives easier, a move to indefinite benefit periods could result in actually causing some distress to at least a number of individuals in this group.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out that we do simplify procedures for pensioners in other regards, and I want to say to him that there is no need for the renewal claim form to be an onerous one. The practice varies from local authority to local authority, but they may at their discretion use a shortened form for repeat claims in order to avoid the need for claimants to repeat all the same details. I did write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, a noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, following her withdrawal of a similar amendment during the Committee stage. I advised her that my officials would be having further discussions with local authority associations about this issue.

I further explained—and I do so again now—that any easement of the rules should, in our view, be permissive rather than a requirement. If we were to ease the rules, we should give a permission to do so rather than making it a requirement, so that local authorities can make their own decisions about granting longer benefit periods. If we come to that conclusion at some stage in the future we can change these rules by secondary legislation. We do not need primary legislation to do so, because the rules governing the length of benefit periods are decided in secondary legislation.

I can give the noble Lord these assurances. The first is that, if at some time in the future the Government decided that the rules could be changed, the powers to do so are there in secondary legislation and therefore primary powers are not necessary. Secondly, in our view, it would be right, if one were to go down that road, to give local authorities permission rather than to make it a requirement. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I think the Minister has said no, but he has said it in a helpful and positive way. In the light of the assurances that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 [Introductory tenancies]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 167A: Page 81, line 11, after ("force,") insert ("except where subsection (2A) applies,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and, with it, I should like to talk briefly to Amendment No. 168B. We have now moved on to the question of introductory tenancies and this amendment is concerned with tenant management organisations—a term used to describe tenant management co-operatives or estate management boards. The amendment seeks to say that where TMOs exist they are likely to have a view on whether they wish to operate an introductory tenancy regime. This amendment proposes that, where the authority proposes to operate an introductory tenancy scheme, it should consult tenant management organisations where they exist. If, having consulted them, they are of the view that the TMO and the tenants managed by the TMO do not wish to operate an introductory tenancy scheme, then the amendment will give the local authority discretion to exclude the particular estate managed by the TMO from the scheme. In that sense, the issue is rather simple and I think that the point is a fairly obvious one. I am just considering whether there are any further aspects of this which are worth mentioning at this stage.

The reason that it is proposed that local authorities should have discretion as to whether or not to exclude an estate is that some tenant management organisations will take on all aspects of tenancy management, including the decision whether to seek possession against tenants for non-payment of rent or other breaches of the tenancy conditions delegated to them under the management agreement. Others operate differently and do not have as many powers.

Rather than attempt to specify in the amendment the precise degree of delegation of management functions beyond which the TMO should have the right to decide that it should be exempt from the introductory tenancy scheme, this proposal would leave local authorities with a discretion on the assumption that an authority would be more likely to accede to the TMO's request where the TMO was substantially responsible for managing anti-social behaviour and enforcing tenancy conditions. That is the nub of the argument. TMOs have a range of differing responsibilities and for some one particular approach would be more appropriate than for others. The point of the amendment is to allow that element of discretion.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I shall follow the example of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and say no helpfully. We are quite comfortable with the idea of consultation. During Committee stage in another place my right honourable friend the Housing Minister explained that under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 local authorities are already required to consult their tenants on matters of housing management and, in particular, changes in practice and policy. He confirmed that a decision to have an introductory tenancy regime would fall into that category. This consultation would cover all the tenants of a local authority, including those whose properties are managed by a TMO.

We are not at all happy with the idea that a TMO should be able to exempt itself or should be exempted from the system. We have maintained consistently that introductory tenancies must apply to all new tenants and that there can be no cherry-picking. The reason underlying that is that we believe that exemptions would encourage discrimination and lead to the stigmatising of introductory tenants. We are not prepared to countenance that.

It may be that, in putting forward these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is suggesting that the tenants involved in a TMO are unlikely to be the kind of tenants who need an introductory tenancy to keep them on the straight and narrow. That may well be true, but such tenants have nothing to fear from an introductory tenancy. We are not prepared to have a system in which introductory tenants are singled out as people who are somehow less worthy than others. If the authority needs the scheme, it should apply to everybody. For that reason, we are not content with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said. I am disappointed because I do not think that he recognises fully the difference between the responsibilities and the functions of one TMO compared with another. They cover a very wide range of responsibilities. Putting them all in the same position demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to their differing roles and functions. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 168: Page 81, line 13, leave out ("have been") and insert ("be").

The noble Lord said: my Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169, 170, 178 and 182. Clause 119 enables a local authority or housing action trust to elect to run an introductory tenancy scheme. Clause 120 provides that the trial period for an introductory tenancy shall be 12 months. Clause 129 deals with assignments of introductory tenancies and Schedule 13 contains consequential amendments. The minor amendments in this group are all designed to clarify and tidy up the existing provisions and prevent the potential for abuse. They have no new implications for the policy on introductory tenancies.

At present, an introductory tenant who leaves his dwelling and who returns at a later stage would become a secure tenant by default, even though he had not completed the trial period. That is because the test of whether someone is an introductory tenant is established at the start of the tenancy. Amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 170 will close this potential loophole. They provide that the test of whether a tenant is an introductory tenant can be assessed at any time during the tenancy, rather than only at the start of the tenancy. The result will be that, should an introductory tenant leave the dwelling and return, he will not become a secure tenant.

Amendment No. 178 prevents an introductory tenant from leaving his home and assigning it to someone else with the result that the incoming tenant becomes a secure tenant. That could occur because, under Clause 120 as it stands, when an introductory tenancy has ended the tenant will still hold a tenancy at will. So he will not be bound by the provision in Clause 129 which prohibits the assignment of introductory tenancies. The incoming tenant would not be an introductory tenant because he succeeds to the tenancy at will held by the outgoing tenant. Further, if the incoming tenant occupies the dwelling as his only or principal home, he may well obtain a secure tenancy by default. Amendment No. 178 aims to prevent this potential for abuse by preventing assignment where the introductory tenant is not occupying the dwelling.

Finally, Amendment No. 182 is consequential on these amendments. It amends Schedule 16 to the Housing Act 1985 (the schedule that lists tenancies which are not secure) so as to ensure that if an introductory tenant—or, in the case of a joint tenancy, every tenant—ceases to live in the dwelling as his only or principal home he will not become a secure tenant.

I should point out to the House that these were serious unintended consequences of the wording as originally in the Bill. I am delighted that the diligence of parliamentary draftsmen has highlighted them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 168A

Page 81, line 19, at end insert ("; or (c) in a case where the authority have adopted the tenancy, a regulated tenant or an assured tenant (otherwise than under an assured short hold tenancy) of the same dwelling-house.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would add a further exception to the short list of exceptions contained in Clause 119(2) which deals with introductory tenancies. The clause establishes introductory tenancies preventing a tenant of a local housing authority becoming a secure tenant. Subsection (2) sets out two exceptions. However, why should a regulated tenant of a dwelling, for example, which is compulsorily purchased or otherwise acquired from the private sector—perhaps under threat of a CPO—lose his security of tenure if he has lived in the dwelling for a long period? It is the property that has changed, not the tenant.

I suspect that the amendment would be likely to apply only in a relatively few cases. However, it has been drawn to my attention—and I apologise for the fact that this is another starred amendment—that this is a group of people to whom it would be unfair not to give the equivalent protection to that already afforded to those protected under subsection (2). I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, we may be discussing another starred amendment, but the noble Baroness has explained its meaning with admirable clarity which, if I may say so, is something which is entirely usual in her case. A similar amendment was discussed during the Committee stage in another place. I should emphasise that one of the principles behind the introductory tenancy regime is that all tenants should be subject to the trial period, and that there should be no picking and choosing. But we looked very closely at who should be exempt from the new arrangements and have provided exemptions only for established tenants of either a local authority or housing association. Private sector tenants are not subject to the same housing management regime as social landlords. We did not feel that we could therefore make comparisons between a tenant of a local authority or registered social landlord and one who has come from the private sector where his or her track record may be difficult to establish.

Introductory tenancies are designed to deal with problems that local authorities and housing action trusts face in their role as social landlords. Therefore it must be right that people with existing social housing tenancies of a secure nature should have the benefit of that continuity. However, where people come from different sorts of tenancy there can be no objection to their being asked to serve the trial period required under an introductory tenancy. As I explained under the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that is required of everyone coming into the system. As the Government have always said, good tenants have nothing to fear from introductory tenancies, and this applies equally to the small minority of tenants who have their tenancies adopted by the local authority. We are sure that in this as in other cases the vast majority of introductory tenancies will become secure. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, if I were a tenant in this situation I would object to the slur in that I should not like to be asked to serve time, as it were. However, the Minister has explained the Government's thinking. It is another occasion where we beg to differ. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 168B not moved.]

Clause 120 [Duration of introductory tenancy]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 169: Page 81, line 31, leave out from ("which") to ("entered") in line 32 and insert ("was").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 170: Page 81, line 37, leave out from ("which") to ("adopted") in line 38 and insert ("was").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122 [Proceedings for possession]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 171: Page 82, line 38, at end insert ("or it is unreasonable to make such an order").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 172. The amendments again are concerned with introductory tenancies. Their purpose is to give the courts discretion not to grant an order for possession if doing so would be unreasonable to the tenant, and to give additional protection to tenants by allowing the court to judge whether in seeking the order the landlord is behaving in an unfair or discriminatory manner.

The Government have made it clear that they accept that local authorities which establish introductory tenancies will need to have fair procedures for dealing with them. The problem is that the individual who may be the victim of these procedures will have no legislative defence if it is judged by the individual that the procedures are not fair. His only safeguard to make certain that the local authority is following fair procedures is that the courts should be given an element of discretion.

The issue of introductory tenancies and the way in which they will operate has caused a great deal of concern, as the Minister will know. I rely again on the citizens advice bureaux which have already reported instances where tenants have been threatened with eviction for anti-social behaviour where the full complexity of their situation has not really been considered. That is why there is a fear that these proposals may reduce the security of tenants in a way which is unfair to tenants. It is best to illustrate this by way of one or two examples. There was an instance from Dorset where an 80-year old tenant of a housing association had a son who suffered from manic depression. He lives in accommodation without a bath and visits his mother regularly in order to use her bath. Neighbours complained about his behaviour, and the housing association has threatened to take legal action to evict her if he continues to visit. So an elderly mother has a son with a severe depressive state; the son visits his mother; neighbours complain, and there is a threat that the mother will be evicted because of the son's visits.

I have an example from South Wales. A couple live in a council flat; they have an adult son with a mental health problem. Neighbours have complained about the son's behaviour, and the local authority wanted repossession. When the CAB visited the housing department, it said that it would rehouse the couple but not the son. Quite naturally and understandably, the parents did not want the family split up.

Some examples of threats concern racial harassment. For example, a client in Greater Manchester has five children of mixed race. Since moving into her present home she has been subject to verbal and written abuse. But the police and local authority have told her that they can do nothing. Again there is a danger that if this were an introductory tenancy that would lead to eviction.

I give another example. In south London an elderly Caribbean man was evicted from his council flat for making himself a nuisance to neighbours. However, he believed that he had been racially harassed and strongly contested the allegations made.

These and other examples demonstrate that there are ways in which, at least on the face of it, people can be under pressure. They may well be innocent parties, yet they face eviction. The vulnerable position of introductory tenants means that that could happen all too easily.

I have many other instances that I could cite. What is needed are better procedures for demonstrating complaints of nuisance. I accept that nuisance can exist. I do not say that there are not instances where it is absolutely right that action should be taken against a tenant who behaves in a very anti-social way and makes neighbours' lives miserable. But one needs a balanced approach. One needs to ensure that one is behaving fairly to these people.

If the courts were to have an element of discretion not to grant an order of possession, they would be able to look into these matters and arrive at a fairer and more balanced conclusion. There may be pressure, and a mistaken and unfair decision may be made to remove a tenant. The courts would provide the necessary safeguard. They would not protect tenants who behave in an anti-social manner but would protect tenants who were the victims of a misunderstanding or of neighbours who complained without all the facts being understood. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is odd that the court should not have the power not to make an order if it considered that to do so would be unreasonable. If the court has to make the order whether it likes it or not, as appears to me to be the case, that is not proper justice.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I entirely agree with the last comment.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, we visited this matter at Committee stage with a similar amendment, if not the same one. I have not a great deal to add to what I said then, although if noble Lords wish I can repeat it. It is several pages long and is available in Hansard, but noble Lords present will remember what I said.

We appreciate the point being made but I am sure noble Lords also appreciate that we are not prepared to go down the road proposed by the amendments. They would effectively destroy the utility of introductory tenancies by opening up every case to trial in court in the way that existing ordinary tenancies have to be terminated. They would bring an end to the advantages we seek to gain through introductory tenancies of a quick and simple process.

In the following amendments, my noble friend Lord Swinfen proposes a different route and one which we might explore more fruitfully at this time of night. If noble Lords opposite wish me to go through the full arguments, I shall, but I hope that they understand that I have nothing to say other than what I said in Committee. The needs of vulnerable people whom the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, used to illustrate his argument are important. It is a matter of great moment for us that local authorities and others should take appropriate and sensitive decisions and look after the needs of those people as well of the communities of which they form part. I covered all that at Committee stage and I have nothing else to say.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I do not wish the Minister to repeat exactly what he said at Committee stage. The hour is late. Normally one thanks a Minister for a concession that he has just made. I cannot do that because he has not made one, but I intend to thank him in advance for the concession he is about to make to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]

Clause 124 [Right to request review of decision to seek possession]:

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 173: Page 83, line 18, leave Out ("a") and insert ("an impartial").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was prophesying. In moving Amendment No. 173, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 174. They are very similar to amendments I moved at Committee stage. This time I seek to ensure that introductory tenants have the safeguard of an impartial review before they are evicted. At Committee stage I sought an independent review.

Under the proposals in the Bill, during the period of the introductory tenancy a landlord will be able to evict a tenant at any time. The landlord will have to obtain a possession order from a court but there will be no defence to the possession proceedings and the landlord will not have to prove to the court that tenancy conditions have been broken. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate on what grounds a landlord would issue such proceedings but debate around the Bill has indicated that the introductory tenancy is intended as a method to enable the speedy eviction of anti-social tenants.

The concern about the introductory tenancy is that it gives considerable power to landlords to make decisions about which tenants are behaving anti-socially and gives the tenant no defence against proceedings which may be unreasonable. There are particular concerns among representatives of disability organisations that people whose behaviour is unusual due to mental illness or disability may find themselves summarily evicted by a landlord who is under pressure from other residents or who is unwilling or unable to try to resolve problems in a more constructive fashion.

The only safeguard given to an introductory tenant faced with possession proceedings is that he is entitled to a review of his case. The Bill proposes, however, that such a review should be carried out by the landlord. Clearly, a review carried out by the landlord who has instigated possession proceedings is unlikely to be impartial and is certainly unlikely to be seen as such by the tenant.

When this issue was discussed in Committee, my noble friend the Minister stressed that there is the option of a judicial review open to tenants who are not satisfied with the internal review carried out by the landlord. This, however, is a very lengthy and costly procedure. If the local authority has to defend a number of judicial review hearings this will take up valuable staff time and cost public money. The tenant involved might also be entitled to legal aid, which would again be a drain on the public purse. Such a review is also unsatisfactory because it takes considerable time. In the meantime what will happen to tenants threatened with eviction? Will they be homeless, or will they be able to remain in their home, perhaps continuing their anti-social behaviour?

I noticed when reading the account in Hansard of our proceedings last Monday that my noble friend Lord Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18, which lays down a review procedure in Part VI of the Bill. I wonder whether he will bring forward a similar amendment at Third Reading to lay down such an impartial procedure for this part of the Bill if he is not prepared to accept my amendment this evening. I beg to move.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I do not wish to leave my noble friend wondering for too long. Clearly, he will understand that, whatever review procedures we have, we wish to avoid the pitfalls we felt were opened up by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, introducing delays into the procedure which made introductory tenancies no longer useful in the way that we wish them to be.

At the same time it is essential to ensure that the tenant is treated fairly throughout the process. There will have been negotiations between tenant and landlord in an attempt to resolve matters before the eviction stage is reached, and impending eviction should not come as a surprise to the tenant. Even so, the landlord will be obliged to notify the tenant in writing of his intention to seek a possession order. At that stage the tenant will also learn of his right to request a review of the decision. Such a review must then be completed by the earliest date on which the proceedings against the tenant could begin, which would be 28 days after the notice had been served.

The Government are confident that local authorities will act fairly and impartially at all stages of this procedure. Local authorities are well practised in handling these kinds of problems among their tenants. The Department of the Environment will also be issuing detailed, firm advice to local authorities which will cover all stages of the tenancy, including deciding when to take action, what evidence is required to seek eviction and how a review should be handled.

To supplement the advice on the handling of the review, the Government have decided to bring forward at Third Reading amendments which will provide the Secretary of State with a power to make an order to lay down requirements for the review. We would certainly wish the order to provide that the person who made the original decision to evict should not be involved with the decision-making process in the review. Other matters to be dealt with might be when written or oral representations might be appropriate and whether the tenant might be represented and, if so, by whom. The local authority associations and other interested bodies, including tenants' representative bodies, will be consulted on this.

The Government believe that this strikes the right balance between giving the tenant a fair opportunity to have his case heard and the local authority effecting a prompt eviction in those cases where it has become necessary. We do not consider that to set up an independent review, whether it be styled after the Housing Benefit Review Panel or the child support reviews, is warranted. The additional bureaucracy and expense could not be justified when a perfectly good and impartial system of review can be offered through the local authority. We do not believe that there will be many introductory tenants who face eviction, and even fewer will have grounds to dispute their landlord's decision. Within the framework which the secondary legislation will provide such cases will receive a fair hearing. The secondary legislation will also give us the advantage of being able to change the arrangements in time if it proves that any of the worst fears expressed by noble Lords are realised and if partiality is creeping into the decisions being made on introductory tenancies.

I hope that will be sufficient comfort to enable my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment because those are comforting words indeed. I look forward to seeing the amendment my noble friend proposes to table for Third Reading and hope that I shall not feel it necessary to improve upon it by moving amendments to it. However, at this stage of the Bill and at this stage of the night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]

Clause 127 [Cases where the tenant is a successor]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 175: Page 84, line 35, after ("proceedings)") insert ("or section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 175 to 177 with Amendment No. 5, and to Amendment No. 178 with Amendment No. 168. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 128 [Succession to introductory tenancy]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 176: Page 85, line 16, at end insert— ("(b) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or (c) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 129 [Assignment in general prohibited]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 177 and 178:

Page 85, line 23, at end insert—

  1. ("(ii) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or
  2. (iii) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).").

Page 85, line 25, at end insert—

("(3) Subsection (1) also applies to a tenancy which is not an introductory tenancy but would be if the tenant, or where the tenancy is a joint tenancy, at least one of the tenants, were occupying or continuing to occupy the dwelling-house as his only or principal home.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, having spoken earlier to these amendments, I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 130 [Right to carry out repairs]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 178A: Page 85, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("section").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 178A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 178B. The purpose of these amendments is to give introductory tenants the right to have their properties repaired or improved. It is difficult to see why introductory tenants should not enjoy the same rights to repair as secure tenants. After all, the properties are all likely to be local authority properties and it is difficult to see why introductory tenants should live in property of a lower standard than secure tenants because it is in need of repair.

If the arrangements for introductory tenants are different from those applying to secure tenants, there is likely to be extra administrative work for local authorities operating the scheme. They would have to check the tenancy status of every tenant reporting a repair to see which procedure should be initiated. If the scheme for introductory tenants differs significantly from that for secure tenants, there will be other procedural and administrative issues for the local authority.

Whereas I fully understand the Government's thinking as regards introductory tenancies—but I am not happy about it—when tenants may be living side by side in adjacent flats and one has an introductory tenancy and the other a more secure tenancy, it is anomalous that the local authority should have a higher responsibility to carry out repairs and maintenance for one property than the other. It also means that the housing stock will deteriorate in condition because introductory tenants would live in flats in a less good state of repair than secure tenants. That makes for unfairness for tenants living side by side and means that local authorities have to behave in a curious way. It is surely better that the right of repair should be the same for introductory tenancies as for secure tenancies. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, the noble Lord's amendments seek to make absolutely sure that the right-to-repair scheme is applied to introductory tenants. I am happy to confirm that it has always been our intention that that will be the case. During Committee stage in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, James Clappison, made it clear that introductory tenants would enjoy the same rights as secure tenants in relation to the right to repair. Clause 130, as drafted, enables the necessary regulations to be made for that to be effected.

We will be making regulations to apply those rights to introductory tenants. They will come into force at the same time as the provisions on introductory tenancies are commenced. The amendments proposed are therefore unnecessary; we will be doing what the noble Lord urges us to do. If he were to ask why we are not prepared to put the provisions on the face of the Bill, I should reply that I am advised that they would be too lengthy. In the context of amendments that I have proposed today and those that I shall be proposing at Third Reading, the noble Lord may think that that is a thin excuse but, nonetheless, I hold to it.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I thank the Minister for making that clear and for giving me the assurance that, whatever is not on the face of the Bill, the effect of these amendments will be carried out. I derive some amusement from his reluctance to put forward a lengthy explanation, given all the others that we have heard at some length. I detect a certain inconsistency there, but not for the first time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 178B not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 179: After Clause 132, insert the following new clause—