Lords Sitting of 19 June 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Shipping Accidents and Pollution
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the event of a shipping accident which may result in pollution of the coastline, the port authority with jurisdiction over the area concerned has overriding authority to direct salvage operations so as to minimise the pollution which may occur.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): No, my Lords, under Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 the Secretary of State for Transport has the overriding authority to intervene if this is necessary to minimise pollution.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat weak Answer. However, the Secretary of State is not present at the scene of the disaster. In repeating the Statement on the "Sea Empress" made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my noble friend said:
"The responsibility for the conduct of the salvage operation rests with the salvors … their proposals have to be considered and agreed both by the port authority and the marine pollution control unit".— [Official Report, 22/2/96; col. 1158.]
Does that not give every opportunity for delay at a critical moment in the salvage operations through having to get agreement from three different sources? How does the Secretary of State operate his ultimate responsibility? Is there someone who goes to the scene of the action, and if so does that person have full knowledge of the local geography and sea conditions at the relevant port?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I utterly reject my noble friend's assertion that I gave a weak Answer. I cannot see for the life of me how saying that the Secretary of State for Transport has the ultimate authority and has wide-ranging and stringent powers to intervene to direct persons involved to take certain action, or even to take control of the operation himself and possibly eventually sink or destroy the ship, could be described as a weak Answer. We certainly believe—we have planned for this through the national contingency plan—that it is better to make use of the resources of specialist knowledge that people such as the salvors have. It is certainly for the salvors to run the salvage operation themselves but they must have their salvage plans agreed by the marine pollution control
310
unit, which is effectively the Secretary of State's agent. That ensures that all the specialist knowledge is there and is used. However, if there is a failure and if the Secretary of State, through his agent, feels that this is not the correct procedure he can invoke his wide-ranging powers and take control of the operation himself.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I would normally agree with his noble friend in characterising the Answers we receive from the Government as weak? On this occasion, however, I think the description is wrong. As there has been reference to the "Sea Empress", does not the Minister consider it extraordinary that the Milford Haven Port Authority, which, along with others, is under investigation as to its role in that accident, should have taken upon itself a sort of pre-emptive strike by taking disciplinary proceedings or action against the pilot involved? Is that not unacceptable as the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is investigating the matter? Will the Government reconsider the reconvening of the Donaldson Committee to look into the wider implications of the accident—implications which involve his department and also environmental considerations affecting the Donaldson Report itself? Will the Minister reconsider that matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right to draw attention to the fact that the MAIB is investigating the whole incident, both the original grounding and the consequent salvage operation. It will consider the command and control of the "Sea Empress" incident and the effect of current salvage law on the handling of the incident. We have rehearsed these arguments many times. The Government firmly believe that the MAIB, set up by Parliament to perform a specific function, is the correct body to take the matter forward. After its investigation the MAIB may make recommendations which could well require further work. We shall consider those issues when we have the final recommendations of the MAIB. That is why I would not want to comment specifically on the "Sea Empress" situation. With regard to the action taken by Milford Haven Port Authority, that is a matter for that authority. It has the ability to act under the Pilotage Act 1987 which governs such matters.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at the heart of the matter is rapid reaction? Surely the public want a standard of reaction which matches that of the fire brigade.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to that fact. That is why we have a specialist marine pollution control unit dedicated to the task on permanent standby. It can go into action to combat pollution at very short notice. The national contingency plan must be put into action within 30 minutes of a report of a major oil spill. In the instance we are discussing, within four hours personnel had flown up from Southampton and were on the scene.

311
Early flights by reconnaissance aircraft had already taken place. The system worked very quickly. It remains our belief that rapid reaction is important.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, while a 30-minute reaction time is splendid, does my noble friend agree that some minutes are longer than others?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall have to reflect on that question. Apart from those minutes spent at your Lordships' Dispatch Box, the minutes I have come across have been of somewhat equal length. However, it is important that we react quickly, as we do. We have personnel on permanent standby to react for that very purpose. Those plans are put into place extremely quickly.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is my noble friend convinced that pilots at Milford Haven are on board large ships early enough, bearing in mind that such vessels require a long distance in which to stop or turn? It may take three-quarters of an hour or more to stop. Is my noble friend aware that there are rumours that in a recent incident the pilot was on board only 10 minutes before the ship struck?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not wish to comment specifically on procedures that are under way at Milford Haven. They are a matter for the Milford Haven authorities. Just such matters are being investigated by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. If it makes recommendations we shall consider them extremely carefully when deciding future action.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people at Milford Haven wish we would stop talking about the issue? The oil has been cleared from the beaches, and such talk is greatly harming the holiday industry.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. There was huge media coverage at the time of the accident, with predictions of terrible consequences. It was a very bad spill. We wish to take all measures to stop that occurring again. However, in the final analysis the oil was well cleared up. I pay tribute to those who performed that task. The beaches are now clear. The fact that Tenby North won a prestigious blue flag award—it was one of only four beaches in Wales to do so—is testament to that fact.

Police Injuries: Pay Arrangements
2.45 p.m.
Lord Milverton Lord Milverton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures are in place to prevent police officers suffering financial hardship as a result of long-term sickness or injuries received while on duty.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, chief officers have unlimited discretion to allow full pay to any police officer who is on long-term sick leave.
312
Where an officer is permanently disabled from performing ordinary police duties, he or she may be retired by the police authority on medical grounds with an entitlement to an ill health gratuity or pension payable immediately upon retirement.
If the officer's permanent disablement is the result of an injury on duty, his or her ill health benefits may be further increased by an injury award of a gratuity and an injury pension.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her helpful Answer. I understand that the Wiltshire Constabulary has an insurance scheme for hardship cases. Do other forces in the country have similar schemes? As regards ill health benefit, is it not unfortunate if police officers are left worse off in pecuniary terms if they suffer injury, disease or sickness in the course of duty?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I made the point to my noble friend that the sick pay provisions for the police compare favourably with those of other employees. The arrangement in Wiltshire to which he refers is run by the Police Federation. It is for individual members to join the scheme and for individual branch boards to run such schemes. I understand that many other federations have set up such schemes and their members are subscribing to them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister stated that if a serving police officer is on sick leave as a result of injury he receives his normal pay. Many police officers work regular overtime and, therefore, their earnings will be enhanced over their basic pay. Do chief officers have the authority to pay police officers on sick leave at the level of their previous earnings as opposed to their basic pay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that that is taking compensatory payments too far. Such officers would be paid full pay for six months, half pay for a further six months, and, as the rules stand, no pay usually after 12 months. But chief constables have been given full discretion to pay full pay for the first six months, the second six months and beyond that 12-month period. It would be difficult to include a scheme which could make judgments about the overtime that might have been worked in the course of that period and compensate for the loss. However, the discretion given to chief constables is very wide indeed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, adequate provision for injuries incurred on duty is necessary. However, is my noble friend aware of the widespread surprise at the huge amount of compensation awarded to police after the Hillsborough tragedy? Are police today selected and trained to cope with mental stress compared with 25 years ago, when a similar tragedy occurred at Ibrox, Glasgow, with some 60 deaths, or compared with other services, including the Armed Forces, which also have to be prepared to face horrifying situations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note what my noble friend said. The handling of the claims in that instance

313
was a matter for the South Yorkshire Police Authority and was not part of the scheme to which I referred today.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in her reply to the Question, the Minister gave detailed information on the present situation. It is that a police authority can pay a constable who is losing time at work through injury or sickness for an indefinite period. So far as I know from my experience in local government, no other people in the community enjoy that situation. They are the best terms that anyone receives. However, is it not expensive if it continues for too long? Some authorities sometimes tend to err on the wrong side and go too far. Is it possible to ensure that if a constable is injured in pursuance of his duties because of today's violent society, maximum consideration would be given?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. It can be expensive if the provisions are wholly indiscriminate and give the absolute maximum pay allowable to any policeman who has been injured on duty.
The reason we have given discretion to chief constables is that they are the best placed to make judgments about both the seriousness of the injury and the likelihood of the policeman returning to normal duties. Other decisions also need to be made about those who will not return to normal duties, and that will be a matter for the police authority.

Married Quarters: Sale of Estate
2.51 p.m.
Lord Vivian Lord Vivian asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their proposals in the Defence White Paper for the sale of publicly-owned married quarters represent sound financial policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear, the sale of the married quarters estate depends upon reaching agreement on terms which satisfy the interests of the services and on a price which properly reflects the public interest.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's reply. However, does he agree that the proposed sale of married quarters is not in the interests of the Armed Forces, as it may reduce the availability of quarters? Does he further agree that if it is possible to sell off only the 20 per cent. of the vacant married quarters, funds would be provided for the refurbishment of existing married quarters? It would also provide income to the Treasury from the remaining rents.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that I can reassure my noble friend on both counts. Our policy remains to provide the right housing in the right locations for all entitled personnel who wish to exercise that entitlement. This will continue to be the case after the sale of the
314
estate. We have planned the sale and release of surplus properties on the basis of very cautious projections of our future housing needs. We have built in a substantial management margin of vacant properties as well. I am confident that the availability of quarters to entitled personnel will not be affected.
As to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the short answer is that the course which he proposes would not deliver the wider benefits of the sale. In particular, it would not deliver the investment needed for upgrading properties, nor the in-built discipline for disposing of surplus empty homes in an efficient manner.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever the theoretical financial advantages of the sale, his department has been completely unable to convince those most closely connected with married quarters that for service families the outlook at the end of the sale would be anything other than bleak?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I recognise that there are real worries among service families about the Government's proposals. To a degree, I blame myself for not having reassured them sufficiently because I believe that many of the worries are misplaced. The only difference that a service family will notice after the sale goes through is the upgrading of those properties which badly need attention. In all other respects, families' lives should remain exactly as they are now.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will not the sale of the married quarters—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am always in the hands of the House and I know that the Question exercises a great deal of interest. If we proceed expeditiously on this side of the House first, we will have time to fit everyone in.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will not the sale of the married quarters have a bad effect on recruiting, at a time when service recruiting is causing difficulties anyhow? Will the Government therefore reconsider the decision?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend is correct. As I said earlier, the Government's policy remains to provide service housing to all those entitled personnel who wish to have it. That will not change. There should be no apprehension among those who wish to join the forces that they will not have such housing when they are entitled to it.
I stress again that wider benefits arise from the sale, most notably a means of correcting what, I am afraid, has been a poor record over the years by the Ministry of Defence of disposing of surplus empty houses. A much tighter discipline will be in place once the sale goes through, with the private sector in charge.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a different point of view is widely felt at present? Will the Government accept that there is an

315
enormous shortage of housing to let in the public sector? Is the minister further aware that local authorities and housing associations have expressed a wish for the ownership of the properties to be transferred to them, where possible, so that they can let them at the lower end of the market? What are the Government waiting for?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising an important point. He will be interested to know that we have sold or let over 5,000 surplus properties in the past four years, many to housing associations and local authorities. The sale will reinforce those efforts. We will commit ourselves to releasing thousands of surplus properties over the next 25 years. We have also looked after the immediate interests of the social housing sector by excluding over 1,500 quarters from the sale.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl will be fully aware of the resentment that has been caused by the Government's proposals. I understand from his first Answer that the price that the Government hoped to achieve would properly reflect the public interest. Is not Nomura Securities one of the bidders for the property? Would it not be a trifle odd, even for this Government, to sell the married quarters of service personnel to the Japanese?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They will sell to anyone.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not prepared to disclose the identity of any of the short-listed bidders. I do not believe that we should object in principle to overseas investment. What interests us is not the source of the funding—a transaction of that size is bound to draw upon international capital markets, whichever way the funding is sliced—but the relationship we can expect with the future owners of the estate. Our position as tenants is safeguarded by the lease structure and, for day-to-day purposes, the identity of the new owner will make no practical difference whatever.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, will the Minister advise us whether any survey was made of the opinions of those in the Armed Forces involved with the new measure before the decision was taken?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the service chiefs have been involved at all stages and consulted along the way. Service families have also been kept in regular touch with the Government's plans.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, a moment ago the noble Earl said that the service chiefs had been consulted. Will he go a little further? Did they agree with Ministers and, in particular, the Secretary of State that this course of action was desirable?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the service chiefs have agreed that the policy represents the best way forward for
316
service families, bearing in mind the problems that I have identified, most notably the need to upgrade service housing.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in spite of my noble friend's remarks, the sale and leaseback arrangement is fraught with dangers of all kinds. I hope therefore that he will act cautiously and prudently. Will he give the House assurances that those quarters that are leased back are those best placed to suit service families? Will he also assure the House that the new owners will not be able to interfere in any way at all with the tenancies and rentals that are entered into by service families with the Ministry of Defence?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I give my noble friend a complete assurance on that point, particularly as regards rents. The rents that service families will pay will continue to be set by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Neither the Government nor the Ministry of Defence will have any say in that matter.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question! Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, something tells me that we shall be returning to this question. I am aware that the noble Baroness has a fourth Question. I am sure that the House would like to give her a clear run.

Doctors: Training Finance
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to guarantee the necessary finance to train an additional 500 doctors by the year 2000 in view of the impact upon university medical schools brought about by the 28 per cent. cut in their funding over the past six years and the further 5 per cent. cut for teacher training imposed in the last budget.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the allocation of funds to individual universities for the training of doctors is the responsibility of the higher education funding councils of England, Scotland and Wales, and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. The funding bodies are taking into account the target increase of 500 additional medical undergraduate students, having consulted universities with medical schools about intakes. The universities will be more than half way to meeting the target in 1996–97. The further increase of about 230 would need to be phased in over the following three years.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is grave concern in the majority of universities catering for the training of doctors? They feel sure that they will not be able to fulfil those numbers by the year the noble Lord mentioned. Funding is inadequate. There is a fall in student numbers because of the reduction in the amount

317
of money they can claim. Is it not diabolical that the Government are cutting back on the numbers of doctors to be trained to work in the National Health Service at the beginning of the next century?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept the noble Baroness's allegation that student numbers are falling. We have seen an increase in medical students of 11 per cent. from 4,470 to 4,970. That is well on course. As regards drop-out rates, the rates throughout the whole of higher education are relatively low. I have no evidence on drop-out levels for medical students. However, my advice from the CVCP and the Higher Education Funding Council for England is that they are probably lower than average.
As regards the concerns highlighted by the noble Baroness, being the Minister for Education in this House I am more than well aware of the concerns put forward by the CVCP and the higher education fraternity. We are listening very carefully to their concerns. We have set up a couple of working groups with them, and we will take into account all those concerns in the current spending round. However, the Government have to take into account the wider considerations, such as the burden on the taxpayer and the need to control public expenditure.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Calman Report includes a recommendation for a tremendous amount of additional training for medical staff? Although that will have financial implications, the Government are well set on the route of bringing in all that additional medical training.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting that point. We have seen quite a dramatic growth in the number of doctors working in the NHS over the past few years, from something of the order of 67,110 in 1979 to 82,680 in 1994.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, maintains, there is very serious worry throughout the medical profession, upheld by the various presidents of the Royal Colleges, concerning the level of medical staffing—particularly if the Calman recommendations are to be implemented? It has been calculated that we shall need a 30 per cent. expansion at consultant level if we are to train and also treat patients at the same time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the alleged shortage of medical staff is not so severe as to keep the noble Lord away from this House today, yesterday and on other days.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: Obviously, my Lords, I am aware of those concerns. But we have increased the numbers of trained doctors quite dramatically and are further increasing the number of medical students. We are well on target to meet the increase of 500 by the year 2000.
Lord Winston: My Lords, for the Minister's information, I am a university employee. Is he aware that, were it not for the fact that universities maintain so many people like myself, the National Health Service would collapse?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take a bit of gentle teasing in good part. If he does not, I shall be more than happy to withdraw my remark. I am also grateful that he pointed out the contribution that universities make to the health service. That is why we fund the whole of higher education to the extent that we do. Some £7 billion of taxpayers' money goes towards higher education. That is a very considerable sum indeed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am sure that we on these Benches accept that what the Minister said was in the spirit of gentle repartee, although at the time it did not quite seem like that. Does the Minister accept that those of us who have spent many decades in university work are aware that clinical academic staff in universities spend over half their time treating patients and are also engaged in research? Has he read the letter to Sir Michael Thompson, chairman of the CVCP Medical Committee, from his honourable friend, Mr. Eric Forth, dated 5th June in which he says that,
"the higher education budget funds the cost of teaching medical undergraduate students … In this sense there is not a direct link between the two. I understand that, to date, the Department of Health has not received any evidence from the NHS that patient care has been affected by recent unit cost cuts in higher education funding"?
Has the Minister ever heard anything more callous and unfeeling?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject the suggestion that the letter from my honourable friend was either callous or unfeeling. The noble Lord comes to this House with a great deal of experience of the higher education sector; others in the House have similar experience. Many put forward demands of a reasonable or less reasonable sort for yet further funding. As I made clear, in very difficult times we provide something of the order of £7 billion of taxpayers' money for higher education. That has to be considered in the context of £35 billion overall spending on public education in this country. Those are very considerable sums. Very difficult decisions have to be made about allocating them. We believe that the medical side of higher education receives its fair share.

Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Treasure Bill
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 142 [Allocation of housing accommodation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263ZAGF:
Page 88, line 29, leave out ("a secure or") and insert ("an").
The noble Baroness said: The first of the amendments in our alphabet soup of amendments today is Amendment No. 263ZAGF. We now turn to Part VI of the Bill, which deals with the allocation of housing accommodation. The amendment is quite a small one with which to start today's Committee stage of the Housing Bill. Nevertheless it is an important amendment. It seeks to delete from subsection (5) (on page 88, line 29 of the Bill) the provision that this part of the Bill applies to a secure tenant.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that a local authority shall have a duty to give reasonable preference in its allocation scheme (under a clause to which we shall come later) to its existing secure tenants who may fall within priority categories—for instance, people who are living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
Under the current allocation provisions which this Bill will replace, case law has stated that the duty to give reasonable preference in the allocation of tenancies extends to a local housing authority's existing tenants. Bearing in mind that one-quarter or thereabouts of households are in the local authority sector, concerning also the severe state of disrepair of many such dwellings and the fact that many existing tenants are living in overcrowded conditions and have been on the transfer list for many years, it seems unfair to deprive a large section of the advantages of the Bill while removing the rights that they already have.
Many authorities already operate transfer lists under the present provisions. Therefore, I hope that no problems will arise as a result of the amendment, which will effectively take that provision into the current Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As we start Part VI of the Bill, perhaps I should introduce it. It is concerned with access to social rented housing. In selecting new tenants, the provisions in Part VI will require local authorities to take into account not only the physical housing conditions experienced by applicants for social housing, but also their social and economic circumstances—the factors that are likely to contribute to a long-term need for a local authority or housing association tenancy.
Once within the social rented sector, applicants will have passed the test of "social need". Provided that they keep to the terms of their tenancy, they can expect to remain within the social rented sector for life, without the need for further tests of eligibility.
There are a number of good reasons why transfers of existing tenants should be treated separately from allocations to prospective tenants. In the absence of a test of "social need", what becomes paramount is the suitability of the household's accommodation. Some of the factors which may be relevant here may also be relevant to the selection of new tenants—for example, overcrowding. However, some factors which were relevant then, such as insecurity of tenure, will no longer be relevant.
Moveover, there are other, equally important factors which have more to do with effective housing management than with assessing housing need. One of the most important factors is the need to reduce under-occupation. By offering tenants incentives to move to a smaller property, an authority can increase its stock of larger accommodation; and that, in turn, can be used to house new entrants.
Transfers of existing tenants should not, in the overall scheme of things, put additional pressure on the amount of stock available for new applicants. Over 1½ million local authority properties in England are under-occupied; nearly half a million of those have two or more bedrooms spare. For every local authority tenant who needs to move to a larger property, there are eight who could move to a smaller home.
By seeking to bring allocations to existing tenants within the provisions of Part VI, the noble Baroness's amendment would force them to compete with people seeking to enter the system on grounds that were no longer relevant for the people already within the system. We believe that that would be unfair to existing tenants. Clearly, local authorities should balance the demands of existing tenants seeking to transfer against those of people wanting to enter the system; and in issuing guidance on the application of Part VI, we shall remind authorities of the need to do so. We believe that such a balance is best achieved by enabling authorities to deal with transfers outside the allocation scheme.
There is no reason why the provisions in Part VI should benefit existing tenants at the expense of people seeking social housing for the first time. I hope that,

321
with the explanation that I have given of why we believe that the words that the noble Baroness would take out should remain in the Bill, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister has given the most splendid argument that we have heard during the passage of the Bill for increasing the stock of affordable accommodation. It was far better certainly than any that I have made on earlier provisions when we dealt with the right to buy. That, after all, is the issue. In saying that various groups have competing claims—all quite reasonable claims—he accepts the problem of shortage.
I did not understand a comment in the middle of the noble Lord's speech about it being unfair to existing tenants, but I shall read carefully what he said. He then said that it would be unfair to prospective tenants. I am afraid I do not understand either how that would interfere with providing incentives for transfer. I applaud the schemes that many local housing authorities are putting into place to encourage tenants to transfer to more suitable accommodation and to free up possibly larger units.
I am not terribly satisfied with the Minister's answer but perhaps I can come back at the matter from another direction when we have had further debates on this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must apologise to the Committee for the inordinate length of my speeches this afternoon. I call Amendment No. 263ZAGG.
[Amendment No. 263ZAGG not moved.]
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Cases where provisions about allocation do not apply]:
[Amendments Nos. 263ZAH and 263ZAJ not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263ZAK:
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) They do not apply where a local housing authority, in order to meet local priorities, offers assistance to registered social landlords and voluntary organisations providing temporary accommodation for single homeless people, by securing a quantity of nominations through its own housing stock or that of other registered social landlords which meets the assessed needs of single homeless people identified in the local authority housing strategy.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been tabled in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is an amendment about the silting up—if I may use a slightly ugly phrase—of halfway houses within the homelessness procedure. As the Committee will know, local authorities are required to house those homeless people who are not intentionally homeless and who are also vulnerable. That is a tough test. Only about half of those who apply to local authorities saying that they are homeless come within the local authority's duty. Of those, somewhat less than two-thirds are families—people with dependent children—and the rest, well over one-third, are single people to whom the local authority has a duty.
Normally, single people would not be a local authority responsibility. However, they are such a responsibility if they are vulnerable or at risk. About whom are we talking? For example, there are children coming out of care; there are former alcoholics, former addicts and ex-offenders; there are those with mental or physical health problems; and there are those suffering disability. One-third of the women have been treated for mental health problems; another third are homeless because of marital dispute. A third of the men exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia according to the 1995 Salvation Army report, The Faces of Homelessness in London.
According to the DoE's own research, back in 1981, one half of such homeless people had spent some time in an institution. From there, too often they had gone onto the streets or into squats. But very many had come into hostels and been reclaimed into the mainstream. After building up their lives again, getting confidence and perhaps being able to secure a job for the first time, such people are ready to move on into independent life. The Salvation Army estimates that something like two-thirds of hostel dwellers are ready to move on into permanent housing and make a new start. But to do that they must be able to move from the hostel to a council flat. Otherwise, those hostels—those halfway houses—silt up (to use the phrase) and vulnerable people who are ready to come off the streets and go into hostels do not get a chance to do so, because those in the hostels do not move on into independent housing.
Many local authorities try very hard to be helpful and arrange for a modest quota of accommodation to be made available to such halfway houses, whether for battered women, ex-offenders, children coming out of care or those with mental or physical health problems. My own authority, Norwich, for example, makes 110 allocations a year to halfway houses—10 per cent. of its quota. Other local authorities act in a similar fashion.
This amendment would ensure that organisations which provide such temporary halfway houses for some of the most battered and knocked about people in our society could continue to do so. It would allow local authorities to help cope with the homelessness of the single and vulnerable by working in partnership with hostels to move such people, when they are ready, and to offer them the opportunity of an independent life. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support the amendment. It is probably well known that at any one time there are some 50,000 to 60,000 children in care in England and Wales. What happens to those children when they come out of care leaves a great deal to be desired. There is no doubt that many of them later end up in criminal institutions and prisons because of the lack of suitable housing and employment.
In that context I am glad to say that the French system of foyers is beginning to be copied and adapted to the needs of this country. They are institutions where there is not only accommodation, but also opportunities for job training, learning skills and even directly for

323
acquiring employment. The amendment is well thought out and will operate so that there is better co-ordination between institutions, local authorities and other organisations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 263ZAK seeks to provide that local authorities are able to offer permanent accommodation outside the allocation scheme and its priorities as part of a strategy to free up temporary accommodation for single homeless people. The noble Baroness used the phrase "silt up", which is rather inelegant but descriptive of the problem.
This matter was raised in another place when the honourable Member for Christchurch stressed the need to ensure that single people who were provided with temporary supported accommodation such as direct access hostels are able to move into permanent housing. If move-on accommodation was not provided, the temporary accommodation would quickly silt up. The Minister for Housing has already indicated his willingness to consider an exemption for that purpose; indeed, we had already proposed an exemption of that sort in a consultation paper in January this year. There are regulation-making powers in Clause 143 to enable us to make further exemptions to the provisions in Part VI of the Bill. I sense that the real question is why this provision should be provided for in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill.
The reason for using regulations is that there is a lot of detailed technical work to be done specifying and setting out the precise circumstances where the provisions of Part VI should not apply. We will need to be careful about the details, such as the reason for the exceptions, the extent of them, and the ability of the housing authority to control entry into its own stock. That is really best done in regulations, which would also allow flexibility to adapt the provisions as circumstances change and new special cases arise. We are fully alive to the important work done by the voluntary sector in providing accommodation for homeless young single people. Indeed, we support that heavily through the rough sleepers initiative and our Section 73 grants programme. We are also well aware of the need to support this provision and prevent the silting up by providing move-on accommodation.
I am not unsympathetic to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said and what they seek to achieve, provided it is kept within reasonable limits. But we believe that the problem is better tackled through regulations rather than in primary legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will be able to withdraw her amendment. We shall be reflecting further on the whole issue in the light of what has been said and also in the light of the consultation exercise I mentioned earlier.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I can intervene. The Minister says that he is sympathetic to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and perhaps a
324
little less sympathetic to my point. I shall restrain myself from repeating it whenever we come to the question of regulations.
This is not a Bill which came as a surprise to anybody; it was not drafted in a hurry. If certain exceptions are included on the face of the Bill and if the Government have the sympathy for others that they express—I do not mean to suggest that the Minister does not have that sympathy—then further progress to the detail of those regulations would have been welcome and appropriate. The Bill has gone through another place. It has been a matter of widespread discussion from the stage of the White Paper onwards in the housing sector.
While I understand the point made by the Minister, I want to register, at any rate once today, a protest that we will have to wait for regulations when clearly those regulations were anticipated by the Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before deciding what to do with the amendment I want to press the Minister on precisely the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If the Minister turns to Clause 148, he will see that the Government specify in great detail on the face of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, those people to whom reasonable preference should be given. There are six categories of people set out.
Clearly, the Minister can have no objection to precision on the face of the Bill as such because the Government's Bill carries that precision in Clause 148. We are saying that "reasonable preference" should also be given to groups of people who are single, vulnerable and living in hostels. Can the Minister say what is wrong with the amendment? Why should it not be on the face of the Bill? I can see why it may be convenient to come back later and include the provision in regulations; I can see why the Government may regard it as a bit of a macho test not to take suggestions from the Opposition Benches. But there is no difference of issue between us. We all believe that it is desirable that local authorities make available an appropriate portion of their permanent stock to such hostels. The Minister's only argument for it not being on the face of the Bill is that it is better in regulations. Yet other areas, which are technically more detailed, appear on the face of the Bill. So why not this?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I tried to explain the position. The subsection to which the noble Baroness draws attention, Clause 148(2), outlines the six principal priorities which we are advancing in the legislation. I see the argument of the noble Baroness. It could be pursued for the rest of the afternoon in respect of various categories and items which we believe are better treated by regulation rather than being included on the face of the Bill.
I hoped to indicate our willingness to bring forward the regulations. We are out to consultation. There will be a lot of detail in the regulations; we want to be sure that there is not a neat side door for people to get on to the list if it is not tightly drawn. Equally, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, the categories can change as

325
different events happen over decades. It seems to us more important that we have the flexibility of regulation for something which may require a little tweaking and a little changing as time goes on. Primary legislation is not always so easy to get and therefore what goes into primary legislation ought not to require changing for some time to come.
I think that the argument between regulation and primary legislation is one that we shall continue to have during the day. However, by and large, if one were to put everything onto the face of the Bill that was in secondary legislation, Bills would be extraordinarily long. I should have thought that the Committee might agree with me that the Bill is quite long enough as it is.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So far as I can gather, the Minister's reply is to be summed up in the sentence, "It should be done by regulation because I say it should be done by regulation". I do not think we heard an argument at any point. The virtue of putting the provision on the face of the Bill, as the Minister has accepted in Clause 148, is that it sends a signal to local authorities as to what the legislation is intended to deliver. However, it is clear that, every time the Minister has something that he proposes to do by regulation, we shall engage in this argument. I hope that in the course of the day the Minister will come up with a better argument than, "I believe it should be done by regulation and therefore it will be done by regulation". He has not given us an argument of any substance.
I am perfectly willing to accept that where, for example, there is an implication that the finances, because they draw on public money, may change every six months, that is properly done by regulation; or, if it is exceedingly technical, it is properly done by regulation; or if consultation is needed, it should be done by regulation. None of those three arguments applies. This is a perfectly straightforward and simple amendment which says that local authorities may house people coming out of hostels on a quota system in the same way as they give reasonable preference to everyone else. The Minister has not given one argument, apart from the fact that he does not want to, why this should not be on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Committee is treated to more substantive objections to subsequent amendments than we have so far heard this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263ZAL:
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) They do not apply where—

(a) an applicant to whom a duty is owed under section 172 (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) is entitled to be given reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation by virtue of section 148 (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme) below, and

(b) in the view of the local housing authority the applicant would he likely, if this subsection were not to apply, to be allocated accommodation within six months, or such other period as the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that families who are near the top of the waiting list with points who become homeless should be eligible for rehousing. Most families who become homeless are already on council waiting lists. Seventy-five per cent. was the last figure I saw. They are in either private rented accommodation or they are sharing with family or friends. But, for a few of those families, the ability to wait in shared accommodation or in private rented accommodation breaks down when, perhaps, they have only a couple of months to go before they would be entitled to be permanently rehoused by the local authority. They may have waited two-and-a-half-years and if they could have held out for another three months they would have been housed in permanent housing. But for whatever reason—it may be the arrival of another baby which was the last straw to an overcrowded home—the arrangement has broken down and they become homeless. They have become homeless because they could not hold on for the last couple of months. Yet, under the Bill, such families, which are only a couple of months away from being rehoused in their own right, are required to be rehoused into temporary accommodation and then, three months later, would be rehoused back again into local authority permanent housing. The upheaval means that families with children might have two moves of school within as many months.
At Committee stage in another place the Minister agreed that that situation was nonsense. He agreed that local authorities should have the discretion to house someone who is near the top of the list rather than churn them through temporary accommodation for a couple of months. This discretion or flexibility for local authorities, which we think is sensible, was widely welcomed at Committee stage and outside the House. But the question then remains: how do local authorities deliver the discretion that the Minister has already conceded in Hansard? In the other place Ministers were pressed on how they could exercise that discretion at local level but they were not particularly forthcoming. We hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming today.
In any case, local authorities need some protection because they are apprehensive that, if they follow the Minister's advice and house someone near the top of the waiting list, as would be sensible and decent, but are not protected by wording on the face of the Bill, they will lay themselves open to judicial action from aggrieved people on the waiting list who see someone with fewer points than them going ahead of them in the queue. Local authorities may then be subject to judicial action for doing what Ministers have encouraged them to do but from whose consequences Ministers have not protected them by putting words on the face of the Bill. Hence we have brought forward the amendment.
It follows what the Minister suggested in the other place. It is, if one likes, a government-inspired amendment. I hope the Minister will agree. It makes it clear that local authorities have a legitimate flexibility to avoid pushing vulnerable families through the temporary accommodation system when they are close to being rehoused from the waiting list in their own

327
right. It is a slightly back to front amendment by excluding from the single list an allocation into permanent accommodation of people who are on the waiting list or are entitled to appear on the waiting list because they fall into categories.
The Minister may tell us that there is a more preferable way of enshrining this discretion in the law. We would be entirely happy with that. We are not hung up on these words. But clearly the Government, having made this statement in the other place, now have a duty to protect local authorities, which do as Ministers suggest, from laying themselves open to judicial action because they are not protected on the face of the Bill.
This may well be more appropriately regarded as a probing amendment, but if the words are not acceptable, I hope the Minister will undertake to come back with a more appropriate amendment at Report stage to put words on the face of the Bill to carry out the undertaking and commitment given at Committee stage by his honourable friend the Minister in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mention the matter of children having to change schools. That can be extremely damaging to the whole educational process of the child involved. We know that the Bill is produced by the Department of the Environment. I hope that that department and its Ministers will consult with their colleagues in the Department for Education so as to try to minimise that adverse impact.
I wish to point out the difficult situation that arises in certain parts of London because of the concentration of temporary housing; for example, in Bayswater and certain parts of Paddington. There, numerous bed and breakfast hotels have been taken over or are mainly occupied by people put into temporary accommodation by a whole range of local authorities in the Greater London area. That places undue stress and strain on all social provision within the boroughs where that concentration occurs. If this amendment could be agreed to, it would go a small way to relieve that very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The amendment raises an important point of principle and it touches on the basic question as to whether there should be one or two main routes into local authority housing. The noble Baroness seems concerned about the case of a household with nearly enough priority to be allocated housing but which is threatened with homelessness or becomes homeless and which is then rehoused by a local authority under the two-year homelessness duty. Because the householder's circumstances may well then have improved, the applicant could lose some priority for accommodation through the housing register. But, more importantly, I think that the noble Baroness believes that it would be more sensible, regardless of whether a
328
person was at that moment at the top of the housing list, if I can use that as my example, that that person should be housed. That is the point she is making.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that is the point that the Minister himself was making in the other place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With a little patience I might get to that. Perhaps I may outline to the Committee what we are attempting to do here. The homelessness legislation is designed to prevent people reaching the stage where they are actually homeless. Only a fraction of all homeless applicants—about 2 per cent.—are actually without a roof over their heads when they apply for assistance. As soon as someone is identified as meeting the statutory definition of homelessness and likely to be in priority need, an authority is under a duty to secure accommodation immediately. Under the provisions in Part VII of the Bill, which we shall come to later, an authority will be required to ensure that suitable accommodation remains available for that household for at least two years, and if necessary, for longer.
The noble Baroness would wish to enable such people in such circumstances to be allocated long-term accommodation straightaway. By doing so, they would be bypassing other applicants who had perhaps waited patiently in unsuitable accommodation and who finally had an offer of a council house in sight. I wonder whether that is reasonable. They would also be leap-frogging applicants who had perhaps averted a housing crisis by finding accommodation themselves. Would that be fair on such households if people who had been assisted under the homelessness duty were offered accommodation ahead of them? It is that problem, which occurs at present, which has led the Government to bring forward this legislation in this part of the Bill.
The noble Baroness suggests that this route would only be available to applicants who would otherwise be made an offer of accommodation within six months. I am intrigued to know how this would be tested. For example, what would there be to prevent an authority from finding a way round the provisions of Part VI of the Bill by declaring that all households towards whom they accept a duty under Clause 172 are within six months of being made an offer? Who would be able to challenge that?
Conversely, who would be able to challenge an authority which simply decided that anyone who is made homeless is not within six months of getting to the top of the list? I believe that the purpose of setting out the principles of the allocation scheme in primary legislation, as it is in Clause 148, would be damaged and our desire to have transparency in the system would be undermined if the Committee were to accept the noble Baroness's amendment.
We want to ensure that the procedure for allocating housing is fair to applicants on the housing register, and is seen to be fair by all. The main principles for determining priority in allocations, which are contained in Clause 148, are intended to ensure that priority is

329
given on the basis of underlying need. These are important principles. I have no doubt that we shall return to them. I believe that the provisions in Part VI of the Bill will ensure that the needs of everyone on the housing register are assessed fairly, regardless of whether they have become homeless.
In fact, many local authorities provide assistance to people who are threatened with homelessness, either in order to help them find accommodation themselves or to enable them to stay where they are. Indeed, almost two-thirds of authorities operate what are called, "homeless at home" schemes, where they find ways to help keep a homeless person in the house they are in at the moment, in order to give them time to deal with their homelessness problem and reduce the need to provide temporary accommodation. Such schemes could be used, where appropriate, to delay homelessness until an offer of accommodation can be made through the housing register, if it is that near.
If there are compelling reasons why a household should get additional priority, then local authorities will have flexibility to deal with these circumstances. Local authorities can exercise discretion. I suggest that the noble Baroness looks just a little ahead at Clause 148(2) where the priorities are laid out; namely,
"As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given".
The key wording for the purposes of this discussion is "reasonable preference". It is the same as the wording in Section 22 of the 1985 Act. We are not aware that that has been subject to much challenge. The noble Baroness suggested that it would be subject to challenge, but it is there in the 1985 Act and we are not aware that there has been a problem.
The Bill does allow a certain amount of reasonable flexibility to local authorities. I believe that is the proper way to proceed. Under these new arrangements local authorities will continue to be able to set up and operate schemes to meet their own circumstances, and within that framework they will be able to use their discretion in particular cases. But what it will not do is allow them to give overriding priority to anyone who has been accepted for assistance under the homelessness legislation, but who is not actually at the top of the list when it comes to receiving a council house. I do not believe that there is a great problem concerning this situation.
The argument was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that children might have to move school. They may have to do so anyway. That is an issue which is perhaps more properly debated in Part VII of the Bill which deals with homelessness and not allocations. We address the need for settled accommodation in the homelessness code of guidance. We shall be repeating that in the revised code which we shall issue after this legislation is passed.
Perhaps I may sum up. There are a number of ways in which a household accepted as being homeless can go straight into permanent housing, which is what concerns the noble Baroness. First, the household may already be on the register. Three-quarters of homeless applicants are already on the housing register. They may
330
have enough priority to be made an immediate offer of accommodation. They may have been made an offer, but they may be waiting for something better. Secondly, the social and housing needs of a household may be so acute that on being placed on the housing register they immediately gain enough priority to go to the top of the list. Thirdly—and perhaps this addresses the specific point—an authority may decide, in the case of a household with almost enough priority to be made an offer of permanent accommodation, to treat that household sympathetically on an exceptional basis. I have explained where the words may be found in the Bill that will give the authority a defence. I believe that this exceptional basis has become known in some circles as the "layered protocol". I hope that Members of the Committee will not ask why, but I understand that is how it is known. It will be for authorities themselves to decide whether to allow flexibility within their allocation schemes for decisions to he made on exceptional cases.
I hope I have explained that there is provision for these exceptional cases to be dealt with by the local authority but, equally, I hope that I have explained that to accept the noble Baroness's amendment with its six months' cut-off point, which would be difficult to define, would begin to run a coach and horses through the principles which we want to bring into the legislation via this Bill; namely, that all people on the housing list, whether they are homeless or not, ought to be treated in exactly the same way when it comes to being allocated the next available local authority house.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can the Minister say whether he is stepping back from the statements made by his honourable friend in the other place, that it was sensible for local authorities to have the discretion, where someone was near the top of the waiting list but a few points short, to be given permanent housing rather than to be churned through temporary accommodation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have given that assurance. It may be that I did not express the matter very well. I explained where the words can be found in the Bill, and that they were already in the 1985 Act. I also explained that those words could be used in the future, as in the past, to allow authorities to have flexibility in the operation of their allocation policies. I know that I am not allowed to read directly from what my right honourable friend Mr. Curry said in the other place, but it does not seem to me to be inconsistent with what I have said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Nor is it inconsistent with what I have said. Therefore, there is some dispute between us. The Minister's statements in the other place—I hope that I express myself in a way that does not sound derogatory—were clearly regarded as a concession to the very real pressures facing local authorities. The Minister there was not merely discussing the current implications of the wording of the Bill. He was allowing that there were circumstances where it would be reasonable for local authorities to depart from the Bill. When pressed by my honourable

331
friends Mr. Raynsford and Mr. Betts on the point that that would lay local authorities open to action, it was agreed that the Government would seek to clarify, and to protect, the position of local authorities on the face of the Bill.
Clearly, we cannot pursue the point further at the moment, but I suspect that we shall want to return to it on Report. In the light of discussions today, and after consultation with his right honourable and honourable friends, the Minister may realise that in an amendment such as this we are seeking only to embody on the face of the Bill the understandings which the Minister gave in another place which, so far, the Bill does not carry. However, with the leave of the Committee—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should not like the noble Baroness to leave the Committee with the idea that my right honourable friend in the other place made a concession from which I am now backing away. In fact, my right honourable friend did not make a concession; he made a clarification. The noble Baroness can find it in the report of the Committee stage that took place down the corridor. He used pretty well identical words to those that I have used: that an authority may on an exceptional basis decide to treat sympathetically a household with almost enough priority to be made an offer of permanent accommodation. Members of the Committee may remember that I said that that was sometimes called the "Laird protocol".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall obviously want to revisit this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Allocation only to qualifying persons]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263ZAM:
Page 89, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Any person to whom an authority owes a duty under section 172 (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) is qualified to be allocated housing accommodation by that authority.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 263ZAP, which also stands in both our names. The second amendment is perhaps a stronger version of the first.
The amendments have something of the thrust of the previous amendment, but are not the same. They are intended to give someone who is accepted as being unintentionally homeless the right to be included on the housing register either of the authority to which that person has applied or, if referred to another authority because he has no local connection with the first, on the register of that other authority. The first of the amendments seeks to give the right only to homeless applicants who have priority need; the second would extend that right to applicants who are not in priority need.
Homeless people are a distinct group to whom a duty of the highest order is owed morally and, I suggest, legislatively. It would therefore be appropriate to refer on the face of the Bill to people who are homeless and not leave them to be dealt with by way of regulation, with the natural concomitant that they may lose the right to be included on the register if the regulations were to change. It is appropriate that their housing needs should at least be considered alongside those of other applicants. That is what the amendments are intended to do. I believe that the Minister in another place undertook to consider the matter further, but I am not aware that any further proposals have appeared.
One purpose of the amendments is to find a way through the difficult situation when residential and other local connection qualifications restrict the right to appear on the waiting list. Such restrictions were one of the issues raised in the Government's consultation paper. Many authorities currently require that a person must have lived in its area for a certain time, often 12 months. That is one of the factors which give rise to the current list being thought of as a "waiting list", as if one had only to wait for a certain time, make one's way to the head of the list, and then housing would appear. Sadly, that is not the case.
Homeless people are protected by the present legislation because a local authority has a duty to consider their application. If the local authority finds that the applicant has no local connection, but does have a local connection with another authority, it is entitled to refer the applicant to the second authority. That means that some authority somewhere has a duty to provide housing. However, under the changes proposed by the Bill, homeless applicants could be excluded from any right to permanent housing in the authority to which they apply as homeless if that authority continues to operate a residence criterion. If the housing register is to be the route into local authority and other social housing, homeless people should not be denied access to the register.
I expect that the Minister may again refer to the inclusion of such groups in regulations. If that is to be the Government's approach, it would clearly be helpful to have a response to the wording I have proposed. That means that rather than waiting for the regulations, we can have the debate now as to whether this is the right way in which to refer to those two groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment. As the Minister emphasised on the previous amendment, a local authority may house only those people on the housing register. That means that somebody who is not entitled to go on the housing register cannot get housed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the amendment would ensure that anyone accepted as unintentionally homeless may be placed on the waiting list. That is essential if homeless families or homeless people generally are to be eligible for local authority housing.
The amendment has another purpose. Many local authorities, particularly rural local authorities, exclude certain categories of people from being eligible for the

333
waiting list. A common test is requiring 12 months' residence in their area. Other authorities have age restrictions, such as requiring applicants to be over 21. I recall some authorities which required single applicants to be over 40 before they could go on the housing waiting list. Such restrictions mean that homeless people in those categories are not eligible for housing. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, probably has in mind a similar amendment proposed in the other place by the honourable Member for Greenwich. His concern, like that of the noble Baroness today, was that without such a provision as this, a household to which an authority owed a duty to secure accommodation under the homeless provisions might be excluded from qualifying for accommodation through the authority's housing register. We would not expect this to happen as it would be in an authority's own interest to ensure that it was able to offer a long term tenancy through the housing register to households towards whom it might otherwise have a recurring homelessness duty.
I have some sympathy with the concerns that have prompted these amendments. With reference to Amendment No. 263ZAM, which relates to those with priority need, we are clear that such provision should be made by regulations under Clause 124(2) rather than in primary legislation. In January this year we issued a consultation paper discussing how the main regulation-making powers in Part VI of the Bill might be used. Paragraphs 8 to 14 of the consultation paper discuss this particular power. We suggested that as a minimum a household rehoused by a local authority under the new two-year homelessness duty outside that authority's area should have a right to go on the placing authority's register. That would discourage authorities from "exporting" families towards whom they owed a homelessness duty. We also discussed the case for extending this right to households who were owed a duty under the homelessness legislation. We received over 300 responses to the consultation paper. In the light of our consideration of those responses, we are minded to do a number of things. I hope that this answers one of the questions posed by the noble Baroness. We are minded to give every homeless person over 18 who is given housing under the proposed two-year minimum period of duty the right to have his application considered by the authority that has accepted the homelessness duty towards him. There is an appreciation that some authorities can impose a 25-year limit. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to a 40-year limit. That is what we are minded to do in relation to the age problem. We are also considering whether to extend the entitlement more generally; for instance, to include everyone over 18 who meets certain minimum requirements relating to residence in the area and previous behaviour as a tenant.
334
One of the important points about regulations in this regard is that they will allow us to go into some detail and deal with various scenarios and, in addition, deal with any that come up in the future. If authorities believe that they have found a new way to limit access to the list, the power of regulation gives us the opportunity to address these problems without trying to find time to come back to both Houses of Parliament with primary legislation.
We believe that in general as wide a range of people as possible should be able to have applications considered, although we recognise that many authorities feel that some restrictions should apply. Any provisions that we make are likely to be detailed, and we will need to discuss these with the local authority associations. We also want to be able to react to anything that happens in regard to restrictions being placed on entry into housing lists in future.
I hope that in the light of that assurance and indication of the kinds of actions that we are considering through regulation, and our reminder of the consultation paper and the discussions set out in that consultation paper, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept what the Minister has said about the intentions of the Government. Taking the issue more broadly than my amendments, on the one hand I am reassured but, on the other, I have become less assured. The clause provides that the local housing authority shall allocate accommodation only to qualifying persons and provides that the Secretary of State can prescribe not only those who qualify but those who do not.
The comments of the Minister about criteria having to be met bothered me. They sounded almost equivalent to rights having to be earned. It is perhaps inappropriate to criticise too much without seeing precisely what the Government intend to do. I am about to break a self-denying ordinance by saying that if we were able to discuss the details of the regulations at this stage the debate might be more helpful. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 263ZAN:
Page 89, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall render ineligible under this part any asylum seeker.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 263ZAN and to speak also to Amendment No. 263C. These amendments are similar, in that Amendment No. 263ZAN is narrower, covering asylum seekers; whereas Amendment No. 263C covers all persons who are not unlawfully in the United Kingdom. The aim of both amendments is similar. The aim is to prevent certain groups of people from being excluded from the housing register in order that they may become eligible for local authority housing allocation. I appreciate that some time ago we went over this ground in debating a different Bill, the Asylum and

335
Immigration Bill. But this puts the policy on a permanent basis and therefore is to be condemned even more so for that reason.
I refer first to Amendment No. 263ZAN. The amendment seeks to ensure that asylum seekers are not prevented from being covered by the housing register. The argument is very simple. These people are lawfully in this country. These people may be vulnerable and have no prospects of any other decent accommodation. It is a discriminatory measure which will impose—and, in so far as it has been applied under the other measure, has already imposed—on local authorities a difficult set of choices in terms of whether individuals, who by all other tests are in desperate housing need, will still be excluded from consideration because of the Government's new proposals, whether in this Bill or the other Bill.
My understanding is that at the moment when an individual goes on the housing list in some London boroughs it may take two years or longer for his turn to come up. It may take 18 months in some urban areas outside London. That is a long time. In order to start the process that person has to be accepted on the housing register under the new scheme. Even if an asylum seeker has waited perhaps a year or two to have his or her eligibility to stay here as a refugee settled by the Home Office, the individual has to start the process again, because only at that point will he or she be allowed to get on the housing register. It may take a very long time before people who are vulnerable, and who by all standards ought to be considered for local authority housing, can get into the process at all. Two years may be required to get into the process and there may be another year and a half to wait before any decent accommodation is provided.
I believe that this measure will make life very difficult for asylum seekers. What are they to do? Where are they to sleep? There is a limit to the number of night shelters that can be provided by organisations like the Refugee Council (for whom I used to work). There is a limit to the number of units of accommodation that can be provided by the churches in church halls and elsewhere. What are these people to do? These people have quite properly arrived in this country and applied for asylum and need some kind of accommodation. In other countries there are different arrangements. Hostels or camps may be provided. I do not say that camps are particularly desirable, but I can think of very few West European countries that provide neither hostel or camp accommodation nor the equivalent of public housing. We are saying to people who in other countries would be housed in one way or another—perhaps not very wonderfully—that we do not even consider it at all.
The Minister may say that when the Secretary of State makes the regulations he will provide some opportunity for those asylum seekers who claim asylum at the point of entry. We have considered this argument before. Perhaps that will be his answer for some asylum seekers, but he will be aware of the counter argument that it will still leave others equally in need who, on the basis of Home Office statistics, are more likely to be allowed to
336
stay in this country than those who claim asylum at the port of entry. Those people will still be denied any access to the council housing sector.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 263C which is the wider amendment. It states that,
"subsection (2) shall not exclude from the class of qualifying persons a person who is not unlawfully in the UK".
That will include asylum seekers and other groups of people, among them those who fail the habitual residence test, which this place has discussed on a number of occasions, and those who may fail the immigration status test.
More people than asylum seekers are affected, but the principle is the same. People who, by any test, would be judged to be in housing need will not be allowed to go on the housing register. That is wrong in principle; it will have undesirable social consequences. We as a country surely do not want people who fail the habitual residence test or who have come here as asylum seekers to be forced to sleep in the streets. Goodness me, one needs only to walk along the Strand or Tottenham Court Road during the early evening. I do not say they are asylum seekers. But we surely do not want to add to the number of people who already sleep in the streets. It is my contention that that will be the effect of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find the amendments extraordinarily wide-ranging. They seem to include pretty well anyone who is not unlawfully in this country. That is a wide definition. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that in other countries hostels or camps are provided. That is something we tend to overlook. There are parts of this country where there is spare accommodation; there is no reason why an asylum seeker should have to go where there is an already overcrowded housing list. It may be desirable to have some way of directing them to where space is available.
I wish to ask the noble Lord a question on a point about which I am not clear. When he says asylum seekers, does he mean people granted asylum or just anyone who might apply? I understand that only a small percentage is granted asylum.
Lord Hylton: This country has a long and honourable tradition of accepting and welcoming people from overseas who have suffered persecution or are in immediate fear of it. It is highly desirable that that tradition should continue and continue to be honoured. The Government must make up their collective mind as to how that will be made possible. Either local authorities shall use their system, if not immediately, at least after the appropriate delay, to make accommodation available, or, if that is not to happen, central government will have to take the matter in hand and make provision. There is a choice. The amendments are important. They offer one way out, and I support them.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Committee has had an admirable discussion of these amendments from the point of view of asylum seekers and persons who are

337
illegally resident in this country. I express some puzzlement about the drafting both of the clause and of the amendments as they have impact on the clause.
I say at the outset that I realise that my difficulty may be that I am not thoroughly conversant with the Bill, although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has set me some homework on it, or with the asylum Bill. Having listened to the debates on the asylum Bill, it seems to me that the right to asylum has been abused. On the other hand, the way to deal with abuse is surely not by operation of the housing law.
I turn from that to the structure of the clause. Subsection (1) precludes the local housing authority from allocating housing to persons other than qualifying persons. I put it in the negative way. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations the classes of persons who are, or are not, qualifying persons. The baleful eye of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has understandably fallen on that subsection.
Subsection (3) provides that, subject to the regulations made by the Secretary of State, a local housing authority may decide what classes of persons are, or are not, qualifying persons. One then goes back to subsection (1). The local housing authority may only allocate to persons who are qualifying persons, but it should determine who are qualifying persons. That may be what is intended, but it is not a very neat way of dealing with the matter.
One then comes to the amendments. Amendment No. 263ZAM operates on subsection (1). Amendment No. 263C operates on subsection (2). But neither operates on subsection (3), although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may say that that is taken care of by the inter-relationship, which I have tried to describe, between subsection (1) and subsection (3).
The other difficulty is that the second amendment is not in the same terms. It goes very much wider, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, than the first amendment. I suggest that what he has in mind could be much more neatly carried out by one amendment dealing with the whole situation. He may consider it desirable to withdraw the amendment, and proceed, possibly along the lines I have suggested, on Report.
The Earl of Sandwich: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 263ZAN in the form of a question to the Minister. Can he give an assurance that the asylum seekers of this country have not been excluded from this Housing Bill? Surely, under international law, under the UN convention, we have an obligation to house asylum seekers who are coming to this country for the time being or while they are applying for asylum under appeal. Can the Minister give an assurance that they are not regarded as stateless persons living on thin air and therefore not treated equally as citizens of this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Both amendments seek to serve a similar purpose. I shall not enter a discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, other than to say that my advice to the
338
Committee is to save the noble and learned Lord a problem as to where the amendments should go by not accepting any of them.
Amendment No. 263ZAN would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe that asylum seekers are not entitled to be allocated housing. Amendment No. 263C would extend entitlement to anyone who is lawfully in the United Kingdom. If we have been around this particular course once we have been around it a fair old number of times. I shall resist the temptation to go back to basics and start the argument from scratch. Perhaps I may recommend to those Members of the Committee who missed my previous outings on the subject a visit to the Library and a reference to Hansard. That will remind Members of the Committee of what I have said on a number of occasions about the problem the Government have with asylum seekers and with the considerable growth in their number. They come to the United Kingdom from various parts of the world, many of them, in my view, perfectly sound and safe places in which to live. By comparison the number of asylum seekers in many of the countries of our European partners has diminished.
I shall not go into that matter in any great detail. Perhaps we shall address it on a number of occasions today and I have no doubt that we shall return to it in our Report stage discussions on the Asylum and Immigration Bill on Monday when we consider two similar clauses in that Bill—a Bill which already contains provisions removing the entitlement to social housing from certain immigrants. The regulations under Clause 144 will carry those restrictions forward into the new legislation and extend them to certain European Union nationals and persons failing a habitual residents' test.
It is our very firm view that social housing is a valuable asset which should go to those people with the greatest long-term needs. I emphasise "long-term needs". There is no case for saying that people who are in this country for a limited period—and on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds—should be entitled to such housing. That is the principle that I have stated on a number of occasions and it is the principle which underlines our position on the benefits arrangements.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that that is perfectly consistent with our international obligations. I refer to our international obligations as to how we treat asylum seekers from the point of view of the rules by which we arrive at a decision to grant asylum. If asylum seekers apply at the port of entry they will be eligible for benefit and eligible to be treated under the homelessness legislation. However—and this is the important point—they will not be eligible for access to long-term council housing. Frankly, we do not know whether they will have a long-term need. As my noble friend Lady Gardner pointed out, the majority are found to be neither genuine asylum seekers nor to justify being given exceptional leave to remain. Approximately 80 per cent. fail both tests. Therefore, it seems wrong to allow 40,000-odd people, which was the number last year, access to the housing list. It is not 40,000 people spread around the country; it is 40,000 people

339
concentrated principally around one or two airports and perhaps a few pockets around one or two sea ports. The number is heavily concentrated in London simply because of the international airports sited there.
The position is clear. We are saying to the Committee, as we are saying in other legislation, that asylum seekers registering their claim at the port of entry will receive certain benefits inside the UK. They will be eligible for social security benefits and they will be eligible to be considered under the homelessness legislation. That will continue until a first-instance decision is made by the Home Office. If they are granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain they will then be in a position to go on the housing waiting list because, clearly, they will have some long-term rights to be here and therefore some rights to be considered for long-term housing. It would be a little impractical if every asylum seeker were allowed to join the list immediately on arrival. The housing list would become cluttered. The position is clearer if we wait until they have established their long-term right to stay in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked where people lived while they sought asylum. He suggested that if we walked down any street in London—for instance, the Strand—we would be stepping over people sleeping out at night. Although he retreated a little, he appeared to imply that they would be asylum seekers. I believe that the rough sleepers initiative has been very successful in reducing the number of people sleeping rough in central London. On the last count—not a government count but a count undertaken by the voluntary sector agencies which work with such people—there were some 270 people sleeping rough compared with estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began. There is no evidence that those still sleeping rough in London include many, if any, asylum seekers. Many will be increasingly difficult to place and perhaps some do not want to be placed. However, there is no evidence that they are asylum seekers.
I believe that the position at which we have arrived as regards the benefits system and housing is perfectly fair to asylum seekers. What we are making clear today, and what the amendment would deny us, is that asylum seekers ought not to have the right of access to the list which leads eventually to long-term housing. We believe that that ought to be kept for those people with a long-term right to be here.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister has helpfully proposed to resolve my doubts about the different widths and separate impacts of the two amendments by rejecting both of them. Would he care to comment about my other point which rests on the structure of the clause? I refer to the oddity of providing under subsection (1) that the local authority may allocate only to qualifying persons but providing under subsection (3) that subject to the regulations the local authority itself will determine whether or not a person is a qualifying person.
340
If the Minister believes that there may be anything in that point, will he be willing to discuss it with the draftsman with a view to tidying up if necessary at a later stage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I always listen with care and some trepidation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he makes such points. Of course I will discuss the matter with the draftsman. I may be subject to correction and it may be foolish even to try to give the noble and learned Lord my thoughts on the matter, but I would have thought that one might consider that subsection (1) is the principal provision and that subsections (2) and (3) are the subordinate provisions. However, that is the tentative view of a mathematician.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may first comment on the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in relation to the two amendments which interact with different parts of Clause 144. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that Clause 144 is somewhat circular, and it is difficult to insert amendments into a circle. Therefore, the two amendments deal with different points in the circle. I shall be interested to know what is the outcome of the Minister's mathematical deliberations about the circular argument in relation to subsections (1) and (3).
I turn to the substance of the amendments and what the Minister said. First, it must be stated that only a small minority of asylum seekers is ever eligible for local authority housing. That will be confirmed by one of the later clauses in the Bill. But even present practice will exclude the majority of asylum seekers—single people, couples without young children. That will cover the majority of asylum seekers and, therefore, we are talking about only a small number. The sweeping statements which the Minister makes about all these asylum seekers are at variance with the facts.
I was not making the point that asylum seekers are currently sleeping in the streets. But if they have nowhere else to go, that will be their only option. The fact that more asylum seekers are not on the streets today is because churches, voluntary organisations and other bodies have put themselves out to provide temporary accommodation. It is a tribute to the many groups up and down the country that we do not have asylum seekers, or perhaps only small numbers of them, sleeping on the streets at present.
The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, asked why asylum seekers do not disperse themselves around the country, particularly to those areas where there is less of a housing shortage than in inner London, for example. Asylum seekers tend to go to those areas where there are other members of their own community. They may be organised through refugee organisations which provide support for them. In case any Member of the Committee is doubtful about that proposition, it should be remembered that when British people settle abroad, not as refugees but in other capacities, the tendency has been for them to congregate together because that provides support, social relationships and all the other factors which make life better.

341
Because asylum seekers need help and support, in the first instance they seek it from members of their own community with whom they have an affinity because of language, religion and culture. Those are so important that it is members of refugee organisations who have been here longer who provide the support which reduces the responsibility on social services or voluntary organisations. That is why asylum seekers tend to go to those parts of the country where other members of their community happen to live.
In relation to the other question which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked, according to latest statistics, in 1995, 23 per cent. of asylum seekers were allowed to stay in this country, and in the year before it was 25 per cent. That is both with full refugee status or with exceptional leave to remain.
I was disconcerted to hear the Minister say that some of these refugees come from countries which he knows to be safe. The problem with that argument is that government Minister after government Minister makes decisions from the Front Bench in this Chamber or the other place about whether or not people are in fear of persecution without knowledge of individual circumstances. The UNHCR advises that asylum claims should be decided individually, not on the basis of some sweeping statement about which countries are safe. There are many exceptions and I regret that the Minister felt that he had to say that.
The Minister talked about people on the housing register being there because they have long-term housing needs. On the present basis, in view of the time which it takes for asylum claims to be decided and for local authorities to provide housing, accommodation would not be allocated until claims had been decided. But this amendment gives them the opportunity to be considered and treated on the same basis as anybody else. If it so happened that the Home Office speeded up the process of deciding claims, and in the unlikely event that the people involved had to leave the country because they were found to be ineligible, then the accommodation would be available for somebody else.
Finally, the Minister talked about people not being entitled to housing when they had no right to public funds. Surely that argument does not apply to asylum seekers. If asylum seekers come to this country and apply in the proper way, then the public funds argument does not apply, although I concede that it applies to other people to whom the second amendment may refer.
There is a different model for an approach to this problem introduced by the Government. When they agreed to accept in this country several thousand Bosnians, who had been detained in Serb camps, under a scheme which the Home Office introduced and which the Refugee Council and other organisations helped to implement on behalf of the Home Office those people were not even given refugee status, in the main, but granted limited leave to remain. Arrangements were made for them: temporary accommodation was provided, and temporary reception areas were made available before they moved into longer-term accommodation. That is a model of how people can be treated differently rather than having to take pot luck
342
and end up being rejected by local authorities because of what the Government say and being unable to afford housing in the private sector because of financial difficulties. The Government know how to achieve that because it has been achieved in relation to the Bosnians. That is a better way forward. I regret that the Minister feels that he is unable to accept those arguments. Perhaps he would like another opportunity to respond.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have had more than one opportunity to respond to this argument. But the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the Bosnians. The situation in Bosnia was exceptional. As we know, many of the people who were given exceptional leave to remain came from Bosnia but are now beginning to return in the hope that they can settle in their own country. That is rather different from the generality of people who come to this country seeking asylum.
Many of the people who obtain leave to come here and obtain a visa do so on the clear condition that they will have no recourse to public funds. They state that both when applying for a visa and at the port of entry, if they do not apply for asylum there. Therefore, it is on that basis that we believe that they should not have access to the benefit system. It is our case also that they should not have access to local authority housing which is by and large provided by the same public funds, funds to which they have said they will not wish to have access. People cannot have it both ways in these matters.
Lord Dubs: I shall respond briefly because, as the Minister said, these matters have been debated already on the Asylum Bill. But I cannot allow what the Minister said at the end of his remarks to go unchallenged. He knows perfectly well that, because of the increasing demands for visas, it is virtually impossible for an asylum seeker to get here at all unless the visa is granted. It will not be granted if it is known that the person wishes to become an asylum seeker. Therefore, that places the asylum seeker in a catch-22 situation. He has to find some way of escaping, whether to Britain or to one of the other European countries where the arrangements are similar to those set out in the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. The asylum seeker must apply for a visa and he must do so for a reason other than the main purpose, which is to seek safety and freedom from persecution. If that means that he is caught on the recourse to public funds argument that is an inevitable consequence of the other measures which the Government are introducing. I am afraid that that is an extremely unfair way in which to treat people who have no options open to them other than escape by means of a visa granted on the basis of being a visitor. That has happened for a long time. There is nothing new about that. It is the Minister's argument that is new. I see he wants to have the penultimate word.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I want to be clear about this. That may well be an argument which can be advanced about the visa, but it cannot be advanced about the port of entry where they could say immediately they arrive—as many do—that they have come here to claim

343
asylum. However, many of them do not do that; they enter the country first and some weeks or months later they decide to claim asylum.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As the noble Lord will remember, we have debated all this during the proceedings of the asylum Bill. The point I made was that most of these people who arrive often have letters from friends or relatives here to assure the authorities that they will be totally responsible for those who are arriving, but when they arrive that is not the case.
Lord Dubs: As regards that final point of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I think what she is saying is much more applicable to people who come on another basis of immigration than to people who come as asylum seekers. I concede that this Chamber has debated the issue. I think the Minister is wrong. I am sorry that he is not prepared to meet any of the arguments. However, as I said, the Chamber has debated this matter at length this afternoon, and on earlier occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263ZAP and 263A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263B:
Page 89, line 42, at end insert ("and prescribe that no factors other than those relevant to housing need should be taken into account in the determination of the allocation of housing accommodation.").
The noble Baroness said: On a previous amendment, which I believe was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we sought to stop exclusions from the housing waiting list for reasons unconnected with housing need. I think the Minister was supportive of the issue but thought it was more appropriately dealt with by regulation. I refer to issues such as age. This amendment is an extension of the same argument. It seeks to stop exclusions from allocation of housing—as opposed to access to the waiting list—for reasons unconnected with housing need. The problem here is less likely to be residency or age qualifications—which tends to be the waiting list problem—as financial irregularities.
Many local authorities bar permanent council housing to those who have a history of rent arrears or other financial debts, even where—as we discovered in yesterday's discussion—those debts may be due to delays by the local authority in paying housing benefit direct to the landlord. I am not saying that all tenants in arrears are innocent in this matter and that it is never their fault. Clearly it can be their fault and clearly the local authority has a quite proper concern in ensuring that rent payments are made.
Nonetheless, the CAB quotes a case in the North East where a client and wife and child were accepted as being in priority need under the homelessness legislation but were refused housing by the local council because they were held to have rent arrears with another local authority. The client disputes that there were any arrears. It appears that the problem lay with the housing benefit claim which had not been paid expeditiously by his previous local authority. Yet on those grounds that
344
person and his family were denied a home in the new authority to which he was attached. As the CAB rightly argues, it is unacceptable to use housing need as a lever to recover debts which are pursuable through other and recognised legal channels. It could even be a council tax debt, which has nothing to do with a council house as such. If, as the Government insist—as we heard last night—there will be introductory tenancies, the local authority ought not to be at risk from defaulting tenants in this regard. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I doubt whether there is much between the noble Baroness and myself on the principal purpose of social housing, which is to meet housing need. However, merely making that general statement does not get us far. We have to define the term because housing need can mean different things in different circumstances. A definition of housing need—if we can call it a definition at all—will emerge through a local authority's allocation scheme. It will, by necessity, be an extensive definition, taking account of a wide range of factors and circumstances, and is not something one would expect to see prescribed in the legislation itself. We shall be talking later about the allocation scheme—I believe Clause 148 is concerned with that—when we discuss the principles which are being set out in legislation which should govern the decisions about priority and allocation.
The noble Baroness's Amendment No. 263B suggests that these regulations may prescribe that local authorities should address no factors other than housing need in determining entitlement. While I agree that the allocation of social housing should be made essentially on the basis of housing need, there may be some wider concerns which some local authorities might want to take into account when deciding who should have access to their housing registers. They may, for example, want to take account of the applicants' ties to the area, their age, or their behaviour. Last night the noble Baroness embarked on an interesting discussion about tenant behaviour. That is something about which we are all concerned. My noble friend Lord Lucas replied to that discussion for the Government and we concluded that that issue was extremely real but extremely difficult to resolve. I believe that local authorities ought to be able at least to take some account of behaviour when they allocate property. I do not honestly believe that the record of rent payment can be ignored by a local authority.
Many rural authorities are keen to impress on us the importance of being able to set some residency requirements in order to prevent local communities from being broken up. We acknowledge that such requirements could be harmful if taken to extremes. I have already mentioned that we have regulation-making powers—provided that the Chamber decides to give us those powers—to enable us to act against an authority or authorities which decided to take those matters to extremes. We believe that some flexibility is required in these matters.

345
As regards rural housing, we had a long discussion at an earlier point in the Bill about the sale of housing association properties. We all agreed that there was a serious argument to be made for rural areas being exempt from the right to acquire provision. That is why there is an exemption for rural communities with fewer than 3,000 in a settlement from the right to acquire provision. Earlier in the Bill we all agreed and signed up to the proposition that rural communities should have some protection as regards housing. I believe that the same argument applies to local authority housing and a council's attempt to try to address the requirements of its local community and those people who reside in it.
I fully accept that the noble Baroness could tell us some horror stories about authorities acting in an extreme way as regards the criteria for their "entry gates". If it is any help I should tell the noble Baroness that we shall be issuing guidance on those matters and on the element of discretion which local authorities ought to be able to have. If we suddenly find that some local authorities have found a clever wheeze to limit people whom we all feel should be on the list, we have the powers and regulations to do something about that. I explained earlier about the consultation paper we issued and about the kind of thoughts we had as a result of the consultation and our further considerations, as regards what we may include in the regulations.
Amendment No. 264ZE seeks to restrict housing allocation schemes to considering only housing needs. I think that most of the arguments I used with regard to the previous amendment I would use as regards this amendment. I believe that allocation schemes should focus on the characteristics and needs of the individual household, as set out in the consultation paper. We should not be prepared to go wider than that.
I fully accept that the noble Baroness might be concerned that a perverse authority might skew its allocation schemes by taking wildly irrelevant factors into account. I wondered this morning whether Scottish local authorities, which are not covered by the Bill, might decide, in the light of England's failure to keep out the Holland goal, that people from England should not be allowed on their housing lists! As time elapses, that might be seen as a perverse decision. While it may be jocular, I am sure that I could make up rather more serious racial and ethnic reasons why housing authorities could be tempted down a road of which none of us would approve. The power and regulation has to be in place to ensure that that does not happen.
In conclusion, there are issues, apart from pure housing need, which we believe local authorities should be allowed to take into account. We believe we can be confident that with the safeguards in the Bill and in the regulation-making powers available to Government, local authorities, as they almost inevitably do, will operate the system with a great deal of care and sensitivity.
Having heard my explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hylton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put to him that he is simply not comparing like with like when he attempts to equate the rural exemption
346
to the right to buy with access to the register of a local authority, which forms the starting point for an individual to be housed by a local authority.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord. The underlying argument that leads people to come to conclusions in both those cases is the same. The rural communities wish a certain amount of protection for their own community where there is a limited amount of housing. That was true on the right to buy and housing association property. It can also be true as regards local authority social housing. I may be missing some point in my logic, but I do not see that the arguments are all that different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is entirely correct; I believe that they are quite different.
As regards the amendment, I suspect that there is little difference between the Minister and these Benches on the fact that housing which is in such short supply for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave earlier should go to those in housing need. The difference between us may be that the Minister appears more concerned about goals, in particular those scored by England or Holland. We on this side are rather more worried that he is allowing local authorities to change the goalposts, hence this amendment.
The Minister stated that local authorities might wish to take into account such issues as behaviour, loyalty, living in the locality or age. I had thought that we had covered those elements. A waiting list is likely to involve a period of a year, two years or more for a family, and perhaps longer for a single person. By coming through the list those persons have identified themselves as residents of the community. The Minister accepted that on a previous amendment. The Minister also accepted that local authorities should not restrict by age. He said that he would cover that by regulation.
The Minister is right: we believe that severe anti-social behaviour on estates should not be tolerated. It is the Minister who is pressing for introductory tenancies. They would ensure that no local authority would have to continue to house a tenant whose behaviour was severely anti-social, that anti-social behaviour having become apparent in the first year.
The Minister's objections to the amendment are not well founded. He either agrees with us, or his points are covered by his own legislation through introductory tenancies.
Given the remainder of today's agenda, this is not a major issue. The Minister says that he is happy to cover these points through guidance. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263C and 263D not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263E:
Page 90, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell, I beg to move Amendment No. 263D which deletes the subsection which provides that,
"An authority's housing register shall contain such information about the persons on it as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations".
I have not discussed the amendment with my noble friend. I imagine that he believes it appropriate to probe the Minister about what the regulations will contain. It seems a wide power. We have already heard the Government's view that housing need is not to be the only criterion. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will say that the information will enable the authority to apply the criteria which the Government will share with the local authorities when the Government bring forward the regulations. It will be worth hearing what is in the Government's mind. Can the Minister tell the Committee when the regulations will be published? When might they be implemented? I have already commented today on my concern about not seeing the detail of the regulations. There is an additional concern that the Government propose to "wait and see" before getting on with the regulations. I am not entirely certain what it is they wait to see. Perhaps the Minster will assure the Committee as regards timing. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. The subsection is curious. It has the effect of preventing a joint tenancy for a husband and wife where one of the parties lived outside the area prior to marriage. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. However, that is why we question the clause; that could be one interpretation. Newly married people often have difficulty in obtaining suitable housing. A subsection which debars them seems rather curious. In his response, perhaps the Minister will explain how the subsection would be used. We may need to consider how it can be redrafted to ensure that the scenario that I describe does not occur.
Baroness Hamwee: Having made that impassioned speech, and having asked a set of questions on the wrong clause, perhaps those arguments can be taken as read when we discuss Clause 145. The Minister may wish to answer the noble Lord. I shall not withdraw the amendment at this moment, given that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has raised a point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was a little puzzled. I thought that I had lost my place in my notes. Some noble Lords may think that that is not an unusual event.
If I am right in thinking that we are discussing Clause 144—I must establish fundamental principles in these matters—it establishes who may qualify to be allocated housing. It requires local housing authorities to allocate housing only to persons who qualify.
The second subsection allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations classes of persons who are, or are not, qualifying persons; and we have discussed that. Subsection (5) allows allocation to two or more persons jointly, provided that one or more of them qualifies.
348
I have not puzzled over the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but I said that one or more may qualify. A man may qualify because he meets all the qualifications. If he marries a woman who does not qualify I imagine that a joint tenancy could be arranged. They fulfil the qualification that one or more can qualify. I hope that that helps the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I am in a muddle. I have called Amendment No. 263E, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke. We now seem to be considering the question of whether Clause 144 should stand part of the Bill. Is that correct?
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may explain. My understanding is that we are debating Amendment No. 263E, which would delete subsection (4). The Minister referred to subsection (5), which appears to contradict subsection (4). The first subsection provides that two people may not have a joint tenancy if one is not eligible; the other subsection provides that two people can have a joint tenancy if one is eligible. The two subsections appear to be contradictory and perhaps the Minister needs to look again at the subsections.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was trying to be helpful to the noble Lord. However, rather than try to resolve his dilemma—if it is a dilemma—between the two subsections while I am on my feet, I shall reconsider the provision to ascertain whether there is a contradiction. I believe that I have given the noble Lord the answer.
I now turn to the amendment. When considering it one must ascertain what the regulations are likely to accomplish. I remind the noble Baroness that the regulations made under the clause can work in two ways. In either case, they would limit local authorities' discretion as to who may appear on the housing register. They can either give prescribed groups the right to go on a housing register or they can ensure that other prescribed groups cannot appear on the register. We have been discussing that. Subsection (4) and this amendment relate to whether or not the latter group may be granted joint tenancies.
I have explained specifically the position in relation to husbands and wives. In the terms of subsection (5) the Government wish to encourage joint tenancies. They are an important part of efficient housing management. But subsection (4) is important because, without it, a prescribed person from abroad could be allocated social housing via another member of his household. That would open a back door into social housing. It would be at odds with the Government's policy in relation to persons from abroad who are in this country.
The point to which we return is the problem of people who have no long-term right of residence in this country and whether they can qualify for consideration for a council house. That is a little different from the wife from the next parish.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the Minister saying that an asylum seeker while waiting for his case to be determined, may marry a British citizen in this country whose ability to be here is not in dispute? If the wife is on a housing waiting list and the husband is a prohibited person, does it mean that he prohibits her from being housed? Alternatively, if she is eligible can she include him with her on the housing list?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I understand correctly, regardless of whether it is a man or a woman, if one of the partners is eligible he or she can be on the list. However, if the other partner is not eligible because he or she is from abroad and, for whatever reason, has no settled right to be here in the long term, then that person cannot be considered for joint tenancy. I made that point about a back-door method of getting on to the housing list someone who would otherwise not qualify because that person would be in a prescribed class. But that does not exclude the person from the next parish who has a long-term right to be here from becoming a joint tenant.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the Minister saying that in the example I gave the tenancy would rest solely with the person who is entitled to be here, although that person's husband or partner could live with them? It would mean that there would not be the customary local authority practice of a joint tenancy. The Minister indicates assent. I thank him.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I may have missed the point. Will the Minister explain why subsection (4) applies to subsection (2) but not to subsections (1) and (3)?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Not instantly on my feet. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to study his question and write to him.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The case being put is that most local authorities put "Mr and Mrs" on the rent book, or other record of payment. Both parties are secure tenants and if the marriage breaks up the local authority has to find a home for the one who moves out, whether it is the husband or the wife, so they always have a joint tenancy. The case being put is of someone who was never a joint tenant because that person was not a husband or a wife.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that that was the case being put. It was that they were husband and wife but, for the reasons I explained, one might not have been eligible to become a joint tenant. The noble Baroness is quite right that in most cases husband and wife can easily qualify to be joint tenants. Then if something goes wrong with the marriage, the problem raised by the noble Baroness arises.
Lord Monkswell: I wish to clarify in my mind what the Minister says. Is he saying that if someone eligible for social housing and on the housing waiting list—in other words a qualifying person—marries someone from abroad, the latter will be prohibited from being offered
350
social housing because it is the Government's intention that if a British citizen marries a foreigner they should not live together?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are now getting into tangled territory. That is not at all the intention. The case concerned joint tenancies. People can live together without having joint tenancies. Indeed, these days they do so without even being married.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise for having opened up the debate which was, perhaps, useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 145 [The housing register]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263F:
Page 90, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I spoke previously in support of the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell. I wish to ask for details of the information which the Government anticipate is to be prescribed by regulations. Will the Minister explain to the Committee, first, when the regulations which the Bill anticipates will be published; and, secondly, when they will be implemented? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may explain what the regulations in Clause 145 are intended to do. I believe that that is what the noble Baroness wishes to ascertain via her amendment.
The information contained on the housing register is important, both for the authority and for the individual. The housing register is the document that records an individual's application and the priority accorded to him. Clause 147 provides that he is entitled to see the entry on the register relating to him. The regulation-making power would ensure that information is kept on the register in the first place, so that the applicant can then have access to it.
The regulations are likely to cover matters of detail: for example, the applicant's name and address and details of members of the applicant's household which it would not be appropriate to set out in primary legislation.
In the course of the summer we shall be consulting local authority associations and the housing profession about the form and content of the regulations in regard to basic information about the applicant and his position. We need to be able to do that by regulation. I believe—although I could be wrong, since earlier I confused this discussion with a previous one—that so far as these regulations are concerned, we hope to consult during the

351
summer, to produce the regulations in the autumn and, equally, that they will come into force in the autumn. I hope I am speaking about the correct regulations.
Baroness Hamwee: Is it therefore proposed that the various regulations may be implemented at different times?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure about that. I shall have to look into it. Logically, in regard to regulations which are tied together and which deal with largely the same matters I should expect us to attempt, if we can, to do the work at the same time. Clearly, as the noble Baroness has already said, there are a fair number of regulation-making powers in the Bill. I am pretty certain that the department will not introduce them all in one grand slam on the same day.
Baroness Hamwee: Will it be possible for the Minister to share with noble Lords before we reach Report the details of the proposed timetable? It would be helpful if we could know so far as possible what the timetable is likely to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [Operation of housing register]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263G:
Page 90, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) A local authority shall undertake an assessment of the housing needs of a person who is to appear on their housing register and where it appears that the person or a member of his household is vulnerable or in need of support, the local housing authority shall co-operate with the social services authority and, where relevant, voluntary organisations, to ensure that they have a comprehensive assessment of the person's housing and support requirements.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment will command the support of the Committee, especially those who have a particular interest in what are loosely called special needs groups of people.
The amendment standing in my name and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require a local authority to assess whether people on its waiting list are vulnerable and in need of support. The housing department of that authority should then co-operate with other relevant local authority departments, such as social services, and with local health authorities as well as with relevant voluntary organisations, to see that those needs are met. Such an amendment is especially important in relation to those housing authorities in district councils only for which, unfortunately, housing and social services remain splintered and for which there is a very real problem of co-ordination.
To whom are we referring? For example, there is a growing number of young people who are coming out of care but are still vulnerable. Social services responsibility may under certain clauses in the Children Act run until such young people are 21. They may enter local authority housing from the age of 18 or even earlier with social services support. We must ensure that such support is in place, and that the housing department
352
can expect it to be in place in order that such young people make a successful transition from institutional care.
Last night we discussed anti-social behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was anxious to protect the situation of applicants who, for example, had schizophrenia. He was concerned to ensure that any applicant who had physical or mental health problems or learning difficulties should be in a situation whereby he or she received support as well as having a roof over his or her head in order to ensure that conflict was not created with neighbours and other residents.
We appreciate that Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 already provides for joint housing and social services assessment. But in practice the two-tier structure of local government means, regrettably, that too many vulnerable people are not recognised as having special needs. They are rehoused, sometimes without the support that they may need, and because of their somewhat eccentric behaviour they appear to be a nuisance to neighbours, who may then seek to have them evicted. I recall the example of the elderly man who crammed his flat full of newspapers, which then became a fire risk. Another example involved an elderly woman who turned her back garden into a menagerie for dozens of cats. That was regarded as a health risk to the neighbourhood. There was another gentleman with learning difficulties who did not always turn off the gas tap. These were tenants who should have received more support than was given to them in order for them to enjoy their home and allow others to enjoy theirs. Without such assessment, and without appropriate support, too often inappropriate behaviour can lead to pressures on the local authority for eviction and rehousing.
In replying to this amendment the Minister will tell us whether, as a result of physical or mental health problems, such people will be regarded as having made themselves intentionally homeless and will then find themselves living on the streets, perhaps reduced to being bag ladies or other people who are vagrant? Perhaps in that situation some of the hostels might then recover them; but clearly we should prefer that situation to be avoided in the first place. If the Minister could tell us that such guidance as he will be issuing will emphasise that point, that may begin to meet the concerns.
Will the Minister also respond to a very serious point raised in a debate last night? If a tenant has mental health problems which give rise to such bizarre behaviour that the local authority is required to seek his or her eviction, will that person be regarded none the less by virtue of mental health problems as making himself or herself unintentionally homeless so that the local authority will continue to have a duty of support? I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on both those points. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In this amendment the noble Baroness seeks to require local authorities to

353
co-operate with social services departments and voluntary organisations in assessing the needs of vulnerable applicants.
Although I share the aims of the noble Baroness, I submit that these are not best achieved through legislation. I agree that local housing authorities should work closely with social services departments in addressing the needs of community care clients and vulnerable people. However, co-operation is a matter of good practice; it is not achieved simply by prescription. I am mindful of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, in the Northavon case, who observed that the law is not the way to obtain co-operation. Co-operation is, by definition, a two-way process. What this amendment seeks to do is to place the burden of responsibility on housing authorities.
Such assessments may be more than is needed in the majority of general needs housing applications—that is, assessments by socials services departments. However, the Committee will be aware that Clause 148 requires local housing authorities to give reasonable preference to people with particular medical or welfare needs, and to give additional preference to households who could not reasonably be expected to find suitable accommodation for themselves. We would not expect local housing authorities to carry out those assessments in isolation. Where special needs are thought to exist the assessment is best shared with social service authorities, which have the expertise in this area. We will be advising authorities on the type of arrangements that may be appropriate in these circumstances.
I fully accept what the noble Baroness says: in some cases in England and Wales the same authority looks after both housing and social services. I understood from the flavour of her remarks that she thought that a good arrangement. She might just have told her colleagues in Scotland, who opposed the Government's reforms to Scottish local government last year which brought together the two authorities that were previously separate and dealt separately with housing and social services. Over a large part of urban England, the authority is the same authority. Division between the authority that deals with housing and that dealing with social services occurs more in the counties. Human nature being what it is, it does not necessarily follow that just because departments are in the same authority they work hand in hand together perfectly. Equally, I am sure it is the case that being in different authorities does not mean that they do not work hand in hand perfectly well. Or in both cases they may not co-operate as closely as we would wish.
There is guidance. I have it in my hand. It is a fairly detailed document: the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities. It was prepared in 1991, before the present Children Act came into being and before the care in the community legislation took effect. So we have to look again at the question of the guidance for co-operation between housing and social services that is issued. We shall therefore issue fresh statutory guidance that will cover this matter before the legislation is commenced. I hope that that will meet the noble Baroness's requirements.
354
At risk of speaking all afternoon, I could read out the paragraphs in the existing guidance which link housing and social security. Perhaps I should just read out the very first reference in the hope that it will give the flavour of the current guidance and therefore of the guidance that we shall write for the new legislation. Paragraph 1.3 says:
"The primary statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness rests with local housing authorities. An authority still has a duty towards homeless people even if it owns no houses at all. The Code is designed for staff in local housing and social services departments and authorities who are responsible for policy on homelessness, or who deal with homeless people".
That is the start of the guidance. I can see from the index to the document that there are a fair number of references throughout to the way in which the two authorities will co-operate. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness that the guidance that we shall issue will deal with the need for co-operation that she rightly identified.
The noble Baroness asked me a particular question about someone who is mentally ill, creates a disturbance and is evicted. She asked whether he would be intentionally homeless. Such a person would probably be intentionally homeless. Such people have particular care needs and would look to social services departments for assistance. They might approach the housing department for assistance, but the housing department would certainly want to ensure that a proper care package was in place before it provided further accommodation. That is a good example of where the two authorities have to work together. It could lead to many problems for a housing authority if it housed someone who perhaps had a history of mental illness which led him (or her) sometimes to be a difficult neighbour, should there not be a proper care package in place from social services in order to try to deal with the difficulty that that person had so that it would not spill over on to the neighbours.
I hope that, with that assurance and answer, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hylton: I very much welcome the Minister's comments about issuing guidance on the subject matter dealt with in this amendment. I wonder whether he could, if possible, ensure not only that his own department agrees the guidance but also that the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, the Home Office—in so far as it has responsibility for children—and the local authority associations are all in agreement with what will be sent out.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Speaking in, my strange double capacity on this Bill, it is quite clear that the Department of Social Security is aware of what is in the guidance. The lead department is the Department of the Environment so far as guidance is concerned. But I imagine—I intentionally use the word "imagine"—that where it impinges on social services and health matters, which include care in the community, the department liaises with the Department of Health. I do not expect that much of this guidance will impinge on

355
the Department of Social Security, but for any that does, I suspect that what I might describe as the usual Whitehall paperchase will take place.
Lord Prys-Davies: May I ask the Minister what happens to the homeless person while the two departments are in liaison?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is always somewhat difficult to deal with that kind of question when one does not have the case in front of one. So much depends on what the position is. I imagine that the social services people will have a role and responsibility in trying to help deal with the problem of such a person. Undoubtedly, it will talk to the housing department. As the noble Lord will know, later in the Bill—I just cannot remember the clause—we come to the question of an interim duty to accommodate. That interim duty to accommodate may come into play in such circumstances. I use the word "may" because much will depend on the circumstances of the individual case and its severity. If it is very severe, it may well mean that some medical care or hospital treatment is required. It is difficult across the Dispatch Box to make a judgment about a theoretical case.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Many of the homeless men to be found in large cities are "walking the country" (if I may use that phrase) and going from town to town. Originally, they might have been designated as homeless in, say, London. Then, they have gone on their tracks and might be picked up again in Coventry. At that point, the local authority that had designated them as homeless would have been another authority. Would Coventry—I just use that town as an example—have to agree to put them on its housing register because a London borough had considered that they ought to be on the security risk list of that authority? In other words, if those people are moving around—many of them are—whose is the responsibility? Very often, it is not even a problem for the social security department but becomes a problem of mental health and of the hospitals themselves. That responsibility needs to be quite clearly defined.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that it can be all that clearly defined. It is difficult when one is trying to devise a theoretical model and another qualification on the theoretical model is added in order to bring me back to my feet. If, for example, we are talking about someone who used elegantly to be described yesteryear as having an unsettled lifestyle, then thanks to funding from the Department of Social Security there are a number of charitable and voluntary organisations around the country which provide quite excellent facilities for such men. I have been round a few of them because that is one of my departmental responsibilities. I should have thought that in the kind of scene that the noble Baroness has brought to our attention, such a person may well be directed by social services to one of the voluntary organisations which
356
provide the accommodation that he would need and, in the cases that I have seen at least, the support needed as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We all appreciate the Minister's helpful tone. I do not feel that there is any difference between us in recognising the problem. But, as the Minister's replies have gone on, I have become more and more worried by what I now understand to be the situation. I wonder whether he can think about this matter and come back at Report stage. There is now a real set of problems for some extremely vulnerable people and a gap opening up in front of us in the Bill.
It is clear that somebody, by definition of being homeless, comes on to the waiting list and because he exhibits other characteristics, such as mental or physical health problems, or has dependent children and the like, the local authority is required to give that person reasonable preference. That is found in Clause 148. Clearly, for someone to qualify for "reasonable preference" in that situation the local authority will have had to have assessed his mental and physical health. The Minister is right that in the case of someone who has, for example, recently come out of a long-stay hospital or whatever, the local authority would be very unwise (and, in my experience, would not expect) to offer an independent flat in a mixed community without being assured through the social services that that person was capable of sustaining himself or herself in that accommodation. That is all right. There is that protection on that route.
But the problem that is opening up is that when people are on the ordinary waiting list, there is no such review mechanism. Such people will serve their time, get their points and be rehoused. It would be bad enough if, in the course of one, two or three years or whatever, they exhibited bizarre behaviour and evictions resulted. But the Government have attached introductory tenancies to the provision, so that such a person whose bizarre behaviour may be due to physical or, more likely, mental health problems has no protection at court because under introductory tenancies the local authority has the right to gain repossession and—five minutes ago the Minister told us what was not clear last night—that person has made himself intentionally homeless and therefore the local authority has no responsibility to rehouse.
Therefore, somebody coming through the priority route will be reviewed and, we hope, treated suitably sympathetically and supportively. But if somebody coming up through the waiting list is found to have, for example, schizophrenia—that was the case we used last night—which reveals itself in the first year, the local authority can seek possession. The court cannot refuse. It cannot require the local authority to rehouse and, as the Minister said, the person will be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless so there will be no ongoing duty.
I believe that we have opened up a hole for some of the most vulnerable people, particularly in the first year of the tenancy. I am not saying that where there are good and supportive local authorities working together between the housing and social services divide, they

357
may not be able to overcome the problem. But when we put all the strands together—the waiting list without a review, introductory tenancies with no rights for the tenant and the fact that they would be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless so the local authority has no duty to rehouse them—we have a problem, particularly under community care packages where someone may be coming up through the ordinary waiting list.
I see the Minister has some notes from the Box. If they add to our discussion I shall be grateful. I am worried about the position. Some people with mental health problems are not always regarded as attractive neighbours in a settled street. There will be pressure on the local authority in that regard and we are trying to obtain a balance. If the Minister now says that the local authority has no ongoing responsibility because those people made themselves intentionally homeless, then they lose all rights. Perhaps the Minister can help us.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We must be careful. The noble Baroness has now moved us back into a different scenario from the one drawn by her noble friend Lady Fisher.
This debate illustrates the importance of doing things in guidance which can set out these matters in detail. For example, the current guidance contains seven or eight references in the index to mental illness or handicap. There is nothing between the noble Baroness and I in that we both wish to deal with these difficult problems, though they arise infrequently. We are looking at the guidance. We are talking to people about what to include in the fresh guidance, and if there are any cases that appear to fall between different provisions, then we shall certainly be interested in hearing of them. We can then consider what we need to do about them.
We will certainly reflect on the various points made this afternoon to try to make sure that they are either picked up in existing guidance and therefore carried forward or are picked up in the guidance that is to come. With the assurance that we will look at the kind of scenarios being portrayed and how we can resolve them, either in the current or future guidance, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment and allow us to proceed.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may add that I have been listening with great care to the debate. I take the point made about the relevance to mentally ill people of what we are discussing.
What puzzled me from the beginning was that the amendment did not seem to provide a solution to the problem before us. What my noble friend the Minister said in relation to guidance makes a lot of sense, in which case there is no need for the amendment. There is a need to debate the issue. But the amendment does not achieve what is needed and the Bill, with the guidance, deals with the problem completely. It therefore does not need to be amended.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish that were true. We will only know that there is a problem of the kind
358
I suggested when somebody faces eviction. The amendment would stop us ever reaching that point. It must surely be better to go for prevention of the problem—assessing someone's needs when he or she is about to be rehoused—rather than trying to see what needs should have been met at the point of eviction and, because that person's needs have not been met, he or she is now to be evicted. That is the difference between us.
The Minister says that the Government will look at the issue. Perhaps the Minister or his officials could consult the directors of social services as well as the local authority associations. The guidance will need to spell out the situation, particularly in the context of introductory tenancies and the protection of tenant's rights, and also the situation where medical evidence is discovered afterwards which should have suggested that support mechanisms should have been in place from the beginning but were not. The Minister indicated that he is taking these points very much on board and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263H:
Page 90, line 31, leave out ("it appears to them") and insert ("they are satisfied").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 263H stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It concerns the circumstances in which a local housing authority can remove someone from the housing register or, perhaps more accurately, the prompt for it to do so.
If a request is made, then the name will be removed. Under subsection 4(b) of the Bill as drafted, if it appears to the authority that the person in question is not a qualifying person, then it can remove his name. The amendment proposes to introduce a level of objectivity, suggesting that the local authority be "satisfied" that the person is not now and has not been a qualifying person, and to ensure that arbitrary decisions are not made by the authority.
The clause provides that the authority "shall remove a person" in the circumstances set out. There is no discretion available to the authority and yet the applicant must only appear to be non-qualifying. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody could go on and off the register in an unhappy game of tag in those circumstances. I am concerned that the Bill does not provide, for instance, for it to be a decision reasonably arrived at by the local authority, though the Minister may assure me that that is implied.
The criteria for qualification and the bars to qualification are in many cases likely to be complex. There is a lot of potential for inaccurate decision making. As we have already discussed, immigration status and a decision whether somebody is in breach of immigration law are often complex issues. There is the possibility of bad decision making, with local authority housing officers, whose first responsibility is not immigration law and practice, taking different decisions. It is possible for them to misinterpret information contained in passports. The test of habitual residence will depend on a number of factors which can change

359
over a short period and be interpreted in different ways. It is possible, for instance, for there to be a refusal of income support on the basis of failing the habitual residence test but the award of housing benefit when the same test is applied by local authorities.
Those are but two examples of what may be a challenge for local authority housing officers. It is therefore appropriate that they be required to carry out proper investigations to satisfy themselves of an applicant's status before removing that person from the register. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: Would not the local authority be considered to be behaving unreasonably if it did not satisfy itself that the action it was about to take was correct?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I may turn to my noble friend's rather brief question, I suspect that we may be discussing that point when we come to the next series of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They refer to the right of someone who has been refused admission to the register or been removed to request a review. Perhaps that is the point at which I might address my noble friend's question. The areas the amendments cover are reasonably close.
As I may be saying when we come to the next series of amendments, I understand the concern which has prompted this amendment. However, I think that it would place undue restrictions on an authority's ability to form its own view on the matter of whether someone is a qualifying person. It is important to ensure that, in admitting a person to the register, an authority is able to form its own view of his or her entitlement on the best evidence available to it. If the authority subsequently becomes aware of new information that leads it to revise its view, then it should be in a position to remove that name.
When the matter was discussed in another place, it was pointed out that the amendment would impose a stronger test for the removal of a name from the register than is required to place a name on it. There should be symmetry between the two processes. The noble Baroness has not, quite understandably, tackled that problem, but for the sake of symmetry the words used to govern getting on to the register ought to be the same and the test should be the same for being removed from it by the local authority. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. We can then go on to discuss the question of the potential for review in the case of someone who is aggrieved at either not being put on or about being taken off.
Baroness Hamwee: I am all for symmetry where it is fair. I asked in the middle of my speech the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because one should understand whether reasonableness is implied by this provision. I think reasonableness should be implied generally in local authorities' decisions. We are left a little in the dark. I am content for the moment to leave the issue because, as the Minister said, we shall consider the question of review in a few moments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
360
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263J:
Page 90, line 35, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Where a local housing authority—

(a) decline a person's application to be put on the register, or

(b) remove a person from the housing register,

they shall comply with such requirements as to the right of the applicant to request a review as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 263K which is a fuller version of the same point. As the Minister has already anticipated, this amendment seeks to create a right to request a review of a local authority decision to remove an applicant from the register or to refuse an application to go onto the register.
Authorities have wide powers to remove a person from or to refuse access to the register. Access to the register is access to housing. I believe that the powers should be open to scrutiny through some form of review procedure. A review procedure is proposed in the next part of the Bill for decisions about homelessness. I am suggesting that that should be extended to decisions on access to and removal from the register.
The register is the route to permanent affordable accommodation. Someone who is refused an application or is removed is denied access to housing. I should have thought that as a matter of justice and practicality it is right for an applicant to be able to request a review of the authority's decision and to require the evidence to be taken into account where the person concerned believes the authority has made a wrong decision. Some local authorities will have a review procedure as a matter of good practice. However, given the impact on the individual, it is right that all housing authorities should be directed to have one. It will also encourage better informed decisions and reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions. The more checks there are, the better the practice in the first instance, given the scrutiny that might follow. Housing authorities are publicly accountable bodies. It is right that their decisions should be scrutinised. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment. The Minister has accepted that the Bill embodies a review procedure for decisions on homelessness in Part VII with regard to those whom the local authority should rehouse. But as the only route to that rehousing is via the waiting list, a similar right of review must apply there. If the local authority makes a mistake at the waiting list point and the individual applicant has no right to have that decision reviewed, he never, so to speak, gets to first base at all. If he cannot get onto the list, he can never be rehoused off it. He cannot make use of an appeal mechanism at the point of allocation of housing if he has not been able to get on the list in the first place and has not been able to have that decision reviewed.
When this matter was being discussed in the other place the Minister seemed to think that the amendment was unnecessary because he thought that "entitlement to

361
be on the register" was based on hard facts. He was quite right. Often that is so. But in quite a large variety of circumstances discretion comes into play; and even where it does not, there may well be faulty information. If a local authority has made a decision on faulty information and that cannot be scrutinised by review, the person will never be rehoused. Their immigration status and the habitual residence test are obvious examples. But someone who has been an owner occupier but is in the process of divorce and in the process of losing the matrimonial home may seek to go onto the waiting list. There may be a dispute again about the hard facts of the situation.
In the name of fairness we should encourage good practice to become required practice and ensure that any person who is not permitted onto the waiting list and will therefore never get access to housing should have the right of review.
Lord Monkswell: In speaking in support of the concept of review, perhaps I may suggest another argument for it. If there is no mechanism for review, the chances are that the applicant will be tempted to go to the law. The applicant will presumably get legal aid because he or she will almost by definition tend to be at the poorer end of society and will probably go for judicial review. I am sure it is not the Government's intention that there should be an explosion of legally aided judicial review cases to do with housing. There are probably enough difficulties with housing without introducing that element. It would be useful to have a review mechanism that would prevent the use by applicants of the courts.
Lord Swinfen: I support the principle behind the two amendments. Whether they are the best way of achieving this purpose I am not sure. This is another case where housing authorities can act in an arbitrary manner, as they can, as we were discussing yesterday, with the removal of an introductory tenancy from an individual whom they did not think was behaving properly. I feel that the Minister should look at this point seriously before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have listened with care and with a certain amount of sympathy to the contributions of the two noble Baronesses and the two noble Lords on this issue. The argument that they have put forward is that we should establish a formal procedure for requesting a review of a decision to refuse to put someone's name on a register or to remove it.
When similar propositions were made in another place they were to go further and establish a right of appeal to a county court against decisions about access to the register. It was very much with that in mind that my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing said that he could not accept the Opposition's amendments. I believe that the allocation of housing necessarily requires the exercise of discretion and that it would be unrealistic to give every applicant the unfettered right to test that in the county court. However, the noble Baroness has rather cleverly limited her proposal to a right to an internal review. I am grateful to her for that and for bringing out this very real problem.
362
There are a number of alternative avenues already in existence. For example, a person may go to their local councillor in respect of the decision-making process and not the decision itself. It is often that the process reveals a mistake; for example, perhaps all the facts have not been made available. When dealing with housing cases I often found that not all the facts had been properly addressed and accounted for in the points system that my authority ran. The matter can be taken to the local government ombudsman if the person feels even more aggrieved. The ombudsman handles a large number of housing allocation cases and generally does so very speedily and at little cost to either party. I suppose at the end, if the person feels really aggrieved and knows about these things, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, pointed out, he can go for judicial review. Despite there being those avenues which people undoubtedly pursue at present and which they will continue to be able to use, I would like to consider further the points raised by the noble Baroness and others.
In its present form Amendment No. 263J is unsatisfactory since it restricts the scope of the regulation-making power to matters concerned with the review. As drafted Clause 146(6) envisages the regulations extending to matters such as notification of removal of a name from the register. I believe we want that. I yield to temptation in saying that in this case the noble Baroness is quite keen to give me regulation-making powers. I understand the principle. One is happy for the Government to make regulation-making powers when one agrees with what they may do; one is not so happy if one is suspicious of what the Government may do and does not want them to have such powers.
Amendment No. 263K seeks to place on the face of the Bill the requirement to notify the applicant of a decision not to place him on the register or to remove his name from it. I doubt whether there is much between us on the need for a formal procedure for notifying unsuccessful applicants, but I believe that such provisions are better dealt with in regulations rather than by primary legislation. We may, for example, want to consider giving applicants a statutory period in which to reply before their names can be removed. We shall be discussing these matters of detail with the local authority associations.
I hope that the noble Baroness and others who have spoken will feel that I have responded in a positive way to their anxieties. I shall be reflecting on the further points she made. We shall consider bringing forward alternative proposals at a later stage of the Bill. With those reassuring remarks, certainly about the first amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that response. I would prefer something that is important to be in regulations rather than not to appear at all. I was hoping to tempt the Minister to do something. Perhaps I may pick up a theme which has been running through the debates. If the Government do not feel that they can bring forward an amendment to appear on the face of the Bill referring to

363
a review, perhaps the Minister will give some indication before Report stage as to how the matter might be dealt with in regulations. That would be helpful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to give the noble Baroness that assurance.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 263K not moved.]
Clause 146 agreed to.
Clause 147 [Information about housing register]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263L:
Page 91, leave out line 6 and insert ("person without the prior consent of the applicant.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the divulgence of information on a register to people who have no real business to know it. Clause 147(2) restricts the information by saying that it,
"shall not be divulged to any other member of the public".
I am proposing that it shall not be divulged without the applicant's own consent. Information held on a register would otherwise be available to people who are not members of the public; for example, local authority employees, councillors and organisations which have access to the information but which are not involved in the applicant's case. Information is likely to be sensitive and should be treated as confidential unless there are good reasons to treat it otherwise. Its disclosure, through someone discovering it or inadvertently referring to it, might even put the applicant at risk. For example, an applicant may have fled a violent partner. Her safety—possibly his, but more usually hers—could be jeopardised if her whereabouts became known. I know of a number of cases where violent partners have pursued a person who has left in what seems to rational people to be an extreme fashion. It is not just a question of threats; sometimes extreme violence is suffered.
Another example is that an applicant's housing need may be based on HIV status. People who suffer HIV are subject to widespread discrimination. I do not believe that it is right for that information to be available, for instance, to members of a local authority. In another place the Government indicated that they were willing to reflect on this point. I do not believe that they have yet shared their reflections with others. I ask what they intend to do to safeguard confidentiality. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment would allow information about an entry on the housing register to be disclosed to another person if the applicant had given his prior consent. By contrast, the clause prohibits disclosure to any other member of the public. There are two concerns which the noble Baroness has brought to our attention; first, that the wording of Clause 147 allows too wide a right of access to the information held on the register, and secondly, and conversely, that it narrows the matter down too much and
364
prevents, for instance, members of the applicant's family legitimately acting on the applicant's behalf. I know that the matter was discussed in the other place and that assurances were given then by my right honourable friend Mr. David Curry and in a letter to the honourable Member for Greenwich, and probably to other Members. If the noble Baroness has seen that correspondence, she is clearly not reassured by it. I hope to give her some of the reassurance that she seeks this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Baroness that applicants for social housing should be entitled to privacy. That is what the clause is about. That is why Clause 147 is cast in terms that would entitle only a person on the register to see his or her entry on it, and to be informed in general terms about the state of the register—to enable him to assess where he stands, in relation to others on the register, as regards priority for the allocation of housing. The question of how long someone might have to wait is a legitimate concern which people on the housing waiting list rightly raise.
There is deliberate intent behind the use of the words
"other member of the public".
We all agree that it is right that information on the housing register should not be disclosed to any old Tom, Dick or Harry, but it may be important that information should be disclosed to official bodies with a proper interest in it. These could include a social services department which is making a community care assessment, for example, or a voluntary body considering whether to refer an applicant to a housing department or a registered social landlord with whom the authority has a nomination arrangement or participates in a common housing register. I do not think that in those circumstances the applicant's consent should be needed to allow such bodies to look at the register.
The noble Baroness asked me a difficult question to which I do not know the answer, so I shall check. I believe that the noble Baroness appreciates that it is right that such bodies, as bodies, will be able to ask to see an individual's application on the register. However, she asked what would happen if a member of one of those bodies sought to do that as an individual. I think that that would make the person,
"any other member of the public".
I am pretty certain that that is the case, but the moment the noble Baroness raised the point I recognised that it was a good and legitimate question. I am sure that I am right in saying that if that person is wearing a "corporate hat", if I may put it like that, he or she comes within the provisions of the Bill. However, if that person seeks to see the register out of nosiness or whatever, I do not think that he or she would have the protection of a corporate hat and would therefore be considered to be
"any other member of the public",
and would not have access to the register. If I am wrong about that—
Lord Swinfen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I wonder what would be the position of a doctor looking after a patient? There are still some doctors in this country who work on their own in a single-person practice rather than a group practice. I am sure that the Minister intends to cover doctors who are trying to help

365
individuals, but I am wondering about the rare instances when an applicant's GP may not be covered although he is trying to help that person.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can now say that the answer that I have just given to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is indeed correct, and that the distinction between somebody asking to see an entry in his corporate role and doing so in a private role is as I have set it out. That person would be covered by the legislation if he was "corporate", but he certainly would not be covered by it if he was acting as an individual.
My noble friend goes a little further and asks me about doctors. I am not entirely certain about the circumstances in which a doctor might want to see the register but, as I suspected, I am now advised that when acting in his professional capacity the doctor would be covered by the definition that I have just given the noble Baroness. He would be able to see the register as a professional, but if he was acting out of nosiness, if I may describe it like that, he would not be entitled to see it. Do not ask me the next question, about how to distinguish between the two! I think that it is a pretty clear distinction.
To get back to the serious point, there may be other rare instances when we might all consider that a public body would have a legitimate interest in knowing who was on the register, for example, if that person had a history of child molestation and was seeking accommodation on an estate with a lot of young children, or if he had a history of violence against a former partner now lodged on the estate. Clearly, the social services department would certainly have an interest in such cases. I do not think that any of your Lordships would want to stop such departments having access to the register in such circumstances.
In considering an amendment of this kind it is important to bear in mind that the same kind of proprieties apply to the release to third parties of personal information held by local housing authorities about their tenancies. The Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989 and the Data Protection Act 1984 are examples of legislation that is already in place to protect information about individuals.
On the second concern, which comes from the opposite direction—namely, the prohibition on members of the public, and the question of whether that would exclude a friend or relative from acting on behalf of an applicant—perhaps I may advise the Committee that because that person would be acting for the applicant, he or she would not be considered to be a
"any other member of the public".
Therefore, somebody acting on behalf of an applicant would be able to see the register and the entry for that individual. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness enough reassurance on both sides of the argument to enable her to withdraw her amendment and to leave in place the protection and the rights provided in Clause 147.
Baroness Hamwee: I find this a difficult issue. My instinct is that there should be complete confidentiality and that any information which is required to be
366
disclosed should be disclosed through other mechanisms. At the risk of being teased by the Minister, may I ask whether the Government have it in mind to give guidance to local authorities as to any undertakings on confidentiality that are to be signed by those who look at the register when wearing their "corporate hat", as the Minister put it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can assure the noble Baroness that we intend to give guidance on Clause 147 and how it should be interpreted. I shall consider the point about how we can validate the hat that someone is wearing when they ask to see the register. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on that.
Baroness Hamwee: I appreciate that the Government are well apprised of the need for a means of enforcing the restrictions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 147 agreed to.
Clause 148 [Allocation in accordance with allocation scheme]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 91, line 17, at end insert ("including disabled people occupying inaccessible or unsuitable housing").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the allocations criteria for priority in social housing includes disabled people living in inaccessible or unsuitable housing. The Bill sets out clearly in Clause 148 the priorities for local authorities when allocating social housing. Although the new system would give priority to some disabled people, it could result in many disabled people in extreme housing need receiving a low priority. The proposals would give "reasonable preference" to people in six different categories. The first group comprises,
"people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions".
Often, that provision would not cover the situation of a disabled person living in inaccessible or inappropriate accommodation. The general term "unsatisfactory housing conditions" covers issues such as disrepair and fitness of the property. Although some disabled people would receive priority under a later category concerning a need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, it is important that the particular needs of disabled people living in inaccessible accommodation are recognised. That is particularly so as the Government's original consultation document made it clear that the priority categories are cumulative and that the more criteria a person meets the higher the priority.
There must be some mechanism for making a distinction between a person who requires settled accommodation who is currently in reasonable accommodation and a person who requires settled accommodation who is currently in completely unsuitable accommodation. The inclusion of disabled people living in inappropriate housing in the first category would meet these concerns. As the allocation scheme is currently set out, a disabled person would receive reasonable preference only because he had a particular need for

367
settled accommodation. He would receive no greater priority because his current accommodation was inappropriate in view of his disability.
People in many other situations would have a greater priority because of the cumulative nature of these categories. For example, a non-disabled person living in temporary accommodation, who would have difficulty because of his economic circumstances to secure settled accommodation, would receive reasonable preferences under categories (b) and (f). Although he might well have considerable housing need, he would probably be given a higher priority than a disabled person who was living in permanent accommodation which was inaccessible. An example of this would be someone with limited mobility who was living on the upper floors of a property with no lift. That person would receive reasonable preference under (e) only if he had a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds. The additional difficulty of inaccessible accommodation would not be reflected in the allocation scheme for reasonable preference.
If reasonable preference is given to non-disabled people for a variety of reasons, including living in unsatisfactory housing conditions, the same preference must be given to disabled people because they are living in inaccessible housing. The amendment would ensure that the allocation system fairly reflected the needs of disabled people and that the present housing conditions of disabled people were adequately reflected in the priority system. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment, or a version of it, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The assumption behind anyone who goes on a housing waiting list, let alone anyone who goes through the homelessness route, is that he or she does not already have secure or settled accommodation. Therefore, one looks at the circumstances in which the accommodation occupied at present is inadequate by virtue of overcrowding, dependent children or the like. What is not covered either by access to the housing waiting list or by being given reasonable preference within it is the situation of owner-occupiers, particularly elderly ones. Their accommodation may well have been satisfactory in the past but perhaps their health has sharply deteriorated and they require different accommodation. If such a person sold his or her house—perhaps a very modest Victorian terraced property—it might not be sufficient for that person aged 60, 65 or 70 to buy a bungalow or a ground-floor flat that he or she needed.
At the moment, it is very unlikely that somebody who is an owner-occupier will have access to the housing waiting list; therefore he or she cannot come up through the register and be housed in that way. Equally, because such a person is in settled accommodation he or she will not have access through the homelessness route and be given reasonable preference. What does the Minister expect local authorities to do when an owner-occupier's health sharply deteriorates and he or she is physically disabled? The individual needs different accommodation from that presently occupied. The need may be acute.
368
He or she may be confined to one room downstairs and be unable to get upstairs, but there is insufficient equity in the property to enable that person to find suitable alternative accommodation. Perhaps the Minister can help us on this point.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Swinfen has, as always, spoken eloquently about the needs of people with disabilities for suitable housing. I fully understand his concerns and those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It would be odd if any of my Bills went their whole length without my noble friend becoming involved. I should probably welcome him to this one. I hope to be able to persuade him that his fears are groundless and there is no need to add anything to Clause 148 to deal with the problems to which he has referred.
The allocation criteria set out in subsection (2) of Clause 148 are designed to ensure that the allocation schemes established under Part VI of the Bill take proper account of a whole range of housing and social needs. The particular criterion to which my noble friend wishes to apply his amendment is the first one which refers to people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions. He would then add the words as set out in the amendment. The words that we have are derived from Section 51 of the 1935 Act. Normally, they are taken to refer to physical housing conditions. Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) refers to priority being accorded to households containing,
"someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds".
This criterion is intended to ensure that just the kinds of people whom my noble friend has in mind receive proper priority. My noble friend appeared to believe that the disabled would be accorded priority only on ground (e). I believe that they could also fall within ground (a). The words "unsatisfactory housing conditions" would cover a disabled person who occupied inaccessible or unsuitable housing. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness. She referred to a person who occupied a house which was perfectly satisfactory in every way but, for example, the bedroom accommodation and the toiletry were on separate floors and the occupier could not get up and down; or perhaps the living accommodation was separate. In those situations the person would fall within both (a) and (e).
My noble friend indicated that it was an all-or-nothing priority. Most local authorities would seek to implement the clause via some kind of points system. Therefore, there will be differences of degree within each category. While somebody may well not qualify under very many of the headings (a) to (f), if his or her qualification under that heading is a severe one (if I may so describe it), the individual will perhaps accumulate the maximum number of points available under that heading. The problem posed by my noble friend is usually resolved by the local authority housing allocation points system working in that direction.
Conversely, it would be quite wrong—I am sure that my noble friend does not intend this—to give such priority to the group in which he is interested that people

369
with families and dependent children who occupied temporary accommodation on insecure terms would be placed in a comparatively poor position because the priority had been given overwhelmingly to another group. That is one of the good aspects of a points system. I do not wish to go into the merits of such a system. Although it may sometimes result in rough justice, it is the best kind of justice that I have come across as far as concerns the allocation of housing when the factors in play for one person are often quite different from those in play for another. One has to strike a balance between them.
I believe that many if not all housing authorities already make special provision for disabled people in the way that they run their housing allocation policies. The provisions in this part of the Bill represent a thorough overhaul of the allocation criteria, with the aim of ensuring that everyone with a real need for settled accommodation receives proper consideration wherever they live in the country. Because this represents a more comprehensive legislative framework for the allocation of social housing, later on in this clause we take powers to issue statutory guidance to local authorities on how they should apply the legislation. I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinfen that that guidance will draw the attention of local authorities to their responsibilities towards people with both physical disabilities and other forms of incapacity.
I hope that that assurance about the guidance, and my indication of how the six priorities will operate in favour of a disabled person in the kinds of circumstances presented by my noble friend, will enable my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that most local authorities, especially the larger ones—I know Birmingham in particular—work closely with the housing association movement, which often specialises in one or other disability. I am involved with one which deals only with blind people. For that reason a local authority will normally operate a quid pro quo with the housing associations: "Will you take this one for us, because you have got that kind of facility? We will have one of yours". That goes on continually in the Birmingham local authority. If one is on a housing association list one is placed automatically on the council list. That obviates some of the problems faced by many disabled groups.
Lord Monkswell: Will the Minister address the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham? One of the points that we need to recognise about the housing market is that once a large number of people who lived in local authority accommodation could sensibly look forward to transferring to more suitable accommodation as they became older. For example, if they were in a three-bedroomed house there was probably a good chance of their being transferred to a ground floor flat or even a bungalow in the local authority sector as they became older or perhaps disabled. Because of the right to buy, many have bought their houses and become householders. They no longer have that route into local authority accommodation which is more suitable for their needs. Their houses may not be worth enough to enable them to sell them and buy suitable accommodation locally
370
to meet their needs. To include a specific category for disabled people within the allocation system would provide a route into the right sort of accommodation for their needs. At the same time it would free up their own accommodation which has probably become unsuitable. That would make that accommodation available for a young family.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I had answered the question asked by the noble Lord's noble friend by pointing to paragraphs (a) and (e) and to the guidance that we intend to issue. His noble friend Lady Fisher explained the current position perfectly well. Where authorities agree on a voluntary basis between themselves and the housing association movement, a common register is one way to do it. The noble Baroness reminded me that the situation that my noble friend envisages will probably require specialised housing. It may be to the sheltered housing association movement or something similar, or to sheltered housing provided by the local authority, that the individual will be looking for housing accommodation. It all depends upon the individual's circumstances and the house.
We believe that paragraphs (a) and (e), especially paragraph (e), cater for and cover the situations which have been mentioned this afternoon. In addition, as I said, we shall be issuing guidance on this matter to local authorities. It is only fair to say that my experience of local authorities is that they are very understanding of such cases.
Lord Swinfen: I am well aware of the position set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, because I am associated with the John Groom Housing Association which deals specifically with accommodation for physically disabled people. Because of that I am fully aware, as will be my noble friend the Minister, that there is currently a shortage of some 330,000 wheelchair-accessible housing units nationwide.
I moved the amendment to ensure that disabled people are not isolated and left to live their lives on a desert island. However, I shall read with care what my noble friend said, and if I feel it necessary to come back at a later stage of the Bill, I shall do so. I said, "if I feel it necessary, I shall come back". My noble friend is looking thoroughly disturbed, as though he may have to listen to me once again. I bore myself at times as well as him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264ZA:
Page 91, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) any young person aged 16 or 17.").
The noble Earl said: First, I must offer my apologies to the Committee, and especially to my noble friend Lady Hamwee and those other people who are interested in the business, for not having been here for a number of amendments which were down in my name. That is the result of attendance at a very prolonged meeting of a board of examiners. Attendance at that makes a three-line Whip look trivial. I must apologise also to the Minister, although he may be slightly less distressed by my absence

371
hitherto than I might have wished, for having put him to the trouble of preparing answers to amendments which in the event may not have been moved.
The amendment attempts to insert in the list of those to whom local authorities should give reasonable preference in allocating housing people who are 16 and 17. Before saying anything more on the subject, I should like to say how very much I regret the absence of the late Lady Faithfull who has had so much to say on this subject, who has indeed taught me so much about it and done so much to increase understanding of it in all quarters of this place. I miss her regularly, particularly now.
The Minister, I am sure, knows well enough my general opinions on 16 and 17 year-olds and could easily answer them in his sleep. So I am not going to begin by making my usual point. I am going to begin in a way the noble Baroness would have done if she had been here: with the problem of people leaving care.
It has been the general basis of government thinking that 16 and 17 year-olds ought to be at home. But of course people leaving care do not have a home to go to, and judging by what we have been reading in the newspapers recently, in some cases, even if they could go back, it would be the last thing in the world that they wanted. So, they are out on their own.
Practice among local authorities varies considerably. There is a responsibility under the Children Act for which we have to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but the actual administration of that is at present rather patchy. A good many local authorities have not been able to give the sort of priority to people coming to them under the Children Act at 16 and 17 that one might have liked.
So one finds, among any group of homeless people, in particular among those who come in at Centrepoint in central London, that large proportions of them are people who have formerly been in care. They are not people who are the best equipped with social skills. They are not the best people to be left unprotected on their own, and they are of course extremely vulnerable to exploitation. They must make a living in one way or another. When honest ways of making a living are not easily come by, there are sometimes others which can be come by which one would not wish them to be forced into. That is one part of the problem.
There is of course another part of the problem about people who have left home. It has been, since the days when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister, a central point of government thinking that people who left home at 16 or 17 did so because they were adventurers trying to do something interesting. That does not actually appear to be the case. The Government's own MORI report published in 1991 shows that 65 per cent. of those who left home did so because they had been thrown out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the debates on the Family Law Bill, waxed very eloquent on the subject. However, when one looks at what happens among animals perhaps moralism is not altogether the most useful reaction. The human being has an artificially
372
prolonged infancy. There have always been cases where parents, like birds putting fledglings out of the nest, have tended to believe that people are fit to fend for themselves perhaps a little sooner than they should. It is not all a problem of evil, wicked step-fathers. Much of the problem is that of a relationship being prolonged longer than in the past which is putting considerable strains on many families.
I refer to a case discovered by McCluskey, reported in a book published in 1994. The person was thrown out of the family home as a result of family breakdown. He ended up homeless, sleeping sometimes on friends' floors, sometimes rough and at times using a hostel. Eventually he became involved in drug using and theft. He did not like that much. He went to social services but was told there was nothing they could do.
I have met, passing through Charing Cross station to and from work, people who are in exactly that situation. Recently, one of them told me, "There's nothing I can do now. I'll have to hang around like this until I'm 17." He should not have had to say that. It would have been much better if he could have got a job. But, of course, we all know how difficult it is to get a job if you have nowhere to sleep. As my noble friend Lady Seear once said in this House, we should not expect people to go to job interviews in clothes in which a noble Lord would not garden.
If the Minister invokes the interest of the taxpayers, about which I am as concerned as he is, I say to him that the thing that is most in the interests of the taxpayers is to increase their number. That means that we shall probably do more for taxpayers by giving many of those people a chance to do a decent job of work, as they would like, rather than keep them on the streets where they cannot get up to any good. At best they suffer; at worst they may get up to anything. Giving them some reasonable preference—and reasonable preference is all I ask—in the housing market would give them a chance to get started in the world and become good and useful citizens, as most of them would like. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I welcome the noble Earl to the debate. I was not thinking anything as uncharitable as a feeling of relief that he was not here earlier today but I may change that view in two or three hours. We are discussing 16 and 17 year-olds in whom the noble Earl has taken a great interest. It is fortuitous that he should arrive among us just as we move on to this amendment.
The amendment is prompted by representations from organisations—the noble Earl is in contact with many of them—concerned with the welfare of young people who are forced to leave home. I hope that I shall be able to assure the noble Earl that we do not need the kind of provisions that he proposes and that the problems he raises can be dealt with between the legislation and the guidance.
In assessing priority for housing, local authorities should consider factors which can contribute to a need for a settled, independent home. The fact that someone is 16 or 17 is not in itself an indication of a need for an

373
independent tenancy. For the majority of young people, it would be better for them to live with their parents or with relatives where they can receive the shelter and support they need.
I am concerned that a provision of the kind envisaged in the amendment would do more harm than good. It might send the wrong signals both to local authorities and to applicants themselves and could risk creating false hopes among young people who believe that they might like to leave home, get on to a council's housing list and gain an independent house that way. If that were to be encouraged, other people in greater need might be pushed aside.
What should be at issue is whether a young person is in need of assistance in establishing a settled home. Local authorities should concentrate on helping the minority of young people who are vulnerable and for whom there are no better alternatives. But that is primarily a matter for the social services department. There is a duty of care on social service authorities under the Children Act until at least the age of 18. There is a duty on housing authorities to co-operate where reasonable. There is also provision in Part VII of the Bill for housing departments to secure accommodation for young people if they are vulnerable and become homeless unintentionally.
There are difficulties in providing a tenancy to a minor who neither has the capacity to enter into a contract nor can be liable for his debts. Many people at that age need ongoing support and assistance from the social services department. When we issue guidance on the operation of Parts VI and VII of the legislation we will address such questions. I know that the noble Earl was not in the Chamber earlier when I referred to the code of guidance for local authorities on homelessness which we intend to update. One of the reasons that it requires updating, in addition to the legislation before us today, is that it pre-dates the Children Act. However, even a document made up in 1991 contains a fair number of paragraphs referring to youngsters in exactly the position which causes the noble Earl concern. I do not wish to read out the guidance which exists, but perhaps I may refer him to it. I strongly suspect that he already has the document: he will find clear terms laid out in paragraphs 6.13 to 6.17.
I hope that my assurance that the new guidance will incorporate, perhaps in an updated form, what already exists will allow the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will feel able to leave the matter to guidance, to a co-ordinated approach between housing and social services and to the fact that the Children Act lays an obligation on social services to deal with those children whom the noble Earl has in mind. I hope that with that assurance, and with my reference to the guidance notes which he can read, the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: One does not want to send out a signal to all 16 and 17 year-olds that they are eligible for inclusion on the housing waiting list and therefore for allocation. However, at present 16 and 17 year-olds are denied benefit, except those who are suffering severe hardship. I believe that approximately 14,000 youngsters are in receipt of severe hardship payments from income support on the grounds that they
374
are not living at home, are not gainfully employed, and are vulnerable, at risk and suffering hardship. Will the Minister consider including in any guidance that youngsters who are suffering hardship and who are at risk will be eligible for inclusion on the housing waiting list?
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps, before the Minister responds, I may ask a related question. How are these issues linked to the sentence at the end of subsection (2) which refers to someone who needs settled accommodation on welfare grounds? I may have missed a reference to that in his response to my noble friend, but it appears to be a wide provision.
Lord Hylton: It is possible that the noble Earl has tabled this amendment slightly too early in the Bill. It may be that something needs to be written in later on Part VII.
Nevertheless, he has raised some very important points which include in particular the situation of young people emerging from the care of local authorities. We know that the arrangements which exist for them at that point in their lives—when they cease to be in care—are extremely variable. Some are reasonably good. In some cases, voluntary organisations work in with local authorities and provide a kind of bridge into normal adult life. But that does not apply universally across the country.
The second case to which the noble Earl rightly drew attention is to young people who have been forced to leave home, very often because of domestic violence or abuse in their parents' or relatives' home. Those young people leave apparently of their own free will, but in reality they leave under pressure. There is almost no escape hatch or safety bridge for them, hence the importance of the spirit and principle of this amendment which I support.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for his reference to the code of guidance. He is right that there are many good things in that code. The difficulty about relying on that is that it merely asks local authorities "to have regard" to it. Some time ago in this Chamber the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, observed that the phrase "have regard to" means almost exactly nothing. While in general terms that may be a slight overstatement, my own local authority, the London Borough of Brent—and I say this regardless of what political control it happens to be under at the particular time—says that it has had regard to the code of guidance and is doing exactly the opposite. Therefore, in cases where it is most needed, the Minister cannot rely on the guidance to provide the answers which we need because it just does not do the job.
I was extremely disappointed by what the Minister said about sending the wrong signals to 16 and 17 year-olds by encouraging them to think that they might like to leave home. That is not what is going on. The Minister has doubtless noticed that hitherto I have exercised great self-restraint in not mentioning the issue of benefits. But in the face of that reply, I cannot continue that restraint because, of course, people in that situation do not have a right to benefits and therefore do not have the opportunity to obtain housing by lawful means which older people have.

375
The youth training allowance has not been uprated since 1988. I can find no sign that the Department for Education and Employment even thinks about whether or not it should be uprated. I hope that it will be uprated next time, but I do not have great confidence that it will be. That is not something which leaves people in a good position to find somewhere to live while they have food in their mouths.
Now that that issue has been introduced, the Minister will doubtless rely on severe hardship payments. But those are discretionary and temporary. They normally need to be renewed every eight weeks. Therefore, people receiving those payments are not in the same position as homeless older people. Even without challenging the policy on benefits, which is wide of this amendment, it means that those people are likely to be in much greater need than anybody else and in a much worse situation to cope with that need. That is why it would be perfectly reasonable for local authorities to allow them reasonable preference.
The Minister relied quite heavily on the Children Act 1989. I should like to quote some figures. It appears that 25 per cent. of local authorities do not have a policy to assess all homeless 16 and 17 year-olds and 41 per cent. of authorities do not consider rooflessness as a ground for accommodation. That suggests that in the present situation the Minister has relied too heavily on the Children Act, much good though there is in that Act.
Of course, the present situation is not where we shall be next year. It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that under the asylum Bill and attendant regulations, very large numbers of children will become the responsibility of social services departments because the Department of Social Security has washed its hands of them. So the strain falling on those departments in a year's time is likely, especially in some areas of London, to be immeasurably greater than it is now. Therefore, if they are not coping now, how much less will they be able to cope in a year's time?
I clearly have not made the Minister see that there is a problem. I wonder whether I have been more successful with the Committee. I should like to seek its opinion on the matter.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 264ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

McNally, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

376

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Aldenham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Berners, B.

Lucas, L.

Blake, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

McConnell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bridgeman, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mersey, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleridge, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

O'Cathain, B.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cuckney, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Feldman, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Flather, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gisborough, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Greenway, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holdemess, L.

Teynham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Inchcape, E.

Trumpington, B.

Inglewood, L.

Vinson, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kimball, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 264ZB:
Page 91, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) persons to whom the authority are, or have been, subject to a duty under sections 169, 172, 176 and 179 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: I realise that we are close to the dinner hour but I hope that the Committee will allow me to develop my arguments on this amendment. I believe this is one of the core amendments in this part of the Bill. Clause 148 spells out the allocation scheme a local authority must adopt, and requires that it should be constructed so that reasonable preference is given to those listed in the Bill; that is, those occupying insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing and

377
the like, people living in insecure accommodation, families with dependent children, applicants who have medical or welfare needs for permanent housing or those whose economic and social circumstances make it difficult for them to find settled housing.
However, nowhere on the face of the Bill are homeless families as such to be given reasonable preference. Why is there this silence? I suggest that the Government may have two arguments: either that someone who is homeless is already included in the categories of applicants listed—in other words, it is unnecessary to refer to homelessness as such—or that to include homelessness in the categories would encompass additional people whom the Government do not think merit reasonable preference. In other words, the homeless are in some sense undeserving of preference if they do not fit into the categories listed in the Bill. Which argument are the Government using? Do the Government think that reference to homelessness is not necessary, or do they think it is undesirable? Let me assume that the Government think it is unnecessary because it is covered by the other categories. I really believe that that is not true. Earlier this year the Department of the Environment published important research which followed 2,500 homeless applicants from when they first made their applications to a period 18 months later. It was a unique and important study of 2,500 applicants.
What that research of the Department of the Environment showed is that being homeless constitutes an additional pressure and strain over and beyond all the other factors involved in unsatisfactory housing. It is not just that accommodation is temporary and insecure—that applies to any six months shorthold tenancy—but that the people concerned are usually living in someone else's home and can be thrown out at 10 minutes' notice after a row. That is the degree of insecurity which a homeless family may experience and which someone living under a shorthold tenancy would not experience.
Nor is it just a matter of homeless people experiencing overcrowded and insanitary conditions. Often an entire family of three or four people might have to share one bedroom in a friend's house. Nor is it just that their economic and social circumstances make it difficult to find alternative accommodation, because if they have no fixed home they have no job, and if they have no job they can get no fixed home. It is not even simply that they are unsettled. As the DoE research has shown, many will have made something like six or seven moves between long-suffering family and friends in a couple of years, spending two months here, three months there, with all the stress that that imposes on children and family.
I seek to argue tonight that the experience of homelessness, and of having nowhere to call home, is worse than any situation—short possibly of violence—that anyone else in the categories listed in the Bill will experience. If an applicant in the categories listed in the Bill is living in a home, however poor, overcrowded or temporary, at least it is a home of some sort or other. I suggest that being homeless is qualitatively worse and qualitatively different from any other housing experience and therefore should be included, on its own
378
grounds in Clause 148. How can the Government ignore the fact that homelessness is different? I emphasise that I do not seek to say that homeless families should jump the queue. I suggest merely that they should be listed with those who have other forms of housing need to whom reasonable preference must be shown.
I fear the Government will resist this key amendment not because homelessness is already covered in the categories but precisely because it is not. Precisely because it is such an extreme and desperate situation any reasonable authority would use its best endeavours to offer such a family a permanent home immediately. They would then—in my view rightly—take preference over other groups in housing need, thus undermining the Government's insistence on a common waiting list. My argument is that they simply cannot wait. Hence the Government's insistence that they must be parked in temporary housing, and their needs then assessed along with others. Rather than allowing local authorities to meet their needs and build more housing, the Government require local authorities to construct a conflict between different victims of the housing crisis.
In another place, the Minister called this distinguishing between the symptoms and causes of housing need. That is a distinction without a difference. The symptoms are one and the same: the absence of a home.
Let us remember to which homeless people local authorities will still be obliged to offer temporary accommodation: those who are unintentionally homeless through no fault of their own; those who have children; those who have been in care; or those who have mental and physical health problems. Those people have tried to help themselves. Two thirds of the homeless have made efforts to help themselves, as the DoE's research indicates. Even so, more than any other category, the homeless listed in Clause 148 have been buffeted from pillar to post. They have lived out of suitcases and on the charity and tolerance of friends. They cannot be sure that they will even have a home for their children next week. Why refuse them access to the waiting list? Why visit on them even more misery for the sake of ideology? Why cannot we respond decently and allow such people to be included in the local authority's allocation scheme. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: Although it may be argued that the subject of homelessness is covered elsewhere, in particular in regulations, nevertheless, in drawing up their register according to agreed criteria, there is a need to ensure that local housing authorities recognise that homelessness is one of the criteria that should be considered when reasonable preference is being determined.
The Government's 1989 review of the homelessness legislation stated:
"There is little doubt that [homeless] people would and should expect to have priority in any system of housing allocation based upon need".

379
The amendment does not ask that homeless people should have automatic priority but that, alongside the other criteria, homelessness would be acknowledged as a legitimate factor to be taken into consideration when assessing reasonable preference.
The allocation of housing and the determining of priority needs will be helped by the register, but only if it reflects a consistent and adequate list of the variety of needs and circumstances affecting people in need of housing, as well as a full picture of housing accommodation currently available within the authority. The objective is to ensure as far as possible that the allocation is fair and open and that those with the most acute problems are assisted.
I believe, as do many involved within the Church and voluntary sectors, that the amendment recognises that homelessness is a legitimate factor to be taken into consideration when compiling a list of criteria to ensure that the local authority allocates housing accommodation in a manner that reflects the true priorities of those who are homeless. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: From comments that I made earlier, it must be obvious that I, too, support the amendment on the simple grounds of fairness and reasonableness.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 264ZB seeks to give reasonable preference in the allocation of housing to people who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation. I do not think that the noble Baroness will be in the least surprised when I tell her that I do not find her amendment appropriate. It goes to the very kernel of our proposals to change the current position and to try to bring into being a housing allocation system which is even-handed between those people waiting patiently on the housing list and those who have become homeless.
It is our firm view that the needs of homeless households are not necessarily the same as those of people who require long-term housing. But having said that, I would point out that something like three-quarters of those people who become homeless are already on the housing register. We do not believe that just because they become homeless they should then jump over the other people waiting patiently above them on any list in order to gain the next available house. For those people who become homeless, the overriding need is for accommodation to be made available immediately.
The noble Baroness painted her usual lurid pictures, quite oblivious of the fact that some time ago I pointed out that only some 2 per cent.—a very small number—came into the homeless category on a roofless basis. Therefore, the proposition that people were being put out at 10 minutes' notice may be good dramatics but it
380
does not accord with the great bulk of the cases that come to local authorities as homeless. They come because they foresee that they will become homeless.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Given the number of local authority acceptances for homelessness, will the Minister tell the House the number of people that that figure represents?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not see the total number on my piece of paper. I cannot answer. It is not insignificant—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How can the Minister tell the Committee that it is a trivial number if he does not know the figure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: When one considers the range of people, 2 per cent. is trivial in terms of the total number of people applying. I should have thought that that was perfectly clear. There is a huge divide between us. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will wish to divide the Committee on this issue. I shall, therefore, continue.
We are talking about 2,400 people in total. That is 2 per cent. of all the people who present as homeless. Therefore, the picture painted by the noble Baroness is not one which applies to the great bulk of homeless people. That is the point I made; and I think that it is a fair point considering the noble Baroness's suggestion that almost everyone who became homeless was thrown out "at 10 minutes' notice". That is simply not the case.
People who are about to become homeless can be dealt with in a number of different ways. In a significant number—a good deal more than 2 per cent.; in fact the figure is 10 times greater—an arrangement is made by the local authority to keep those people in their current accommodation until an alternative can be arranged. The scheme is called Homeless at Home. Various other methods are used in order to find people temporary accommodation up to at least two years' duration if that is what is required. Under our proposals anyone who is given assistance under the homeless legislation will receive that assistance for up to two years in the house to which they go. I do not think that that adds up to a huge army of people who will be insecure once they become homeless.
Once these medium-term needs have been met and those people have been found accommodation by the local authority, the nature of the requirement changes. Whether they have been homeless or threatened with homelessness is no longer an issue. They have been provided with accommodation under the homelessness legislation. That seems perfectly reasonable. What is then at issue is their present and future needs for long-term housing compared with those other households on the housing register and the extent to which their present accommodation meets these needs.
Part VI of the Bill is intended to establish a single consistent route into social housing so that all applicants—homeless and non-homeless—can be sure that their needs will be assessed fairly. It has always been our view that such assessments should be on the

381
basis of an applicant's present and future needs. What has happened in the past should not influence their priority for housing.
Clause 148 goes into detail on the priorities that ought to be sought when people are being considered for social housing. We have discussed some to date and I believe they cover in a reasonable and broad way the people who require long-term social housing. Part VI of the Bill will ensure that the needs of everyone on the housing register are assessed fairly, regardless of whether they have become homeless. A formerly homeless household may receive a degree of priority under the allocation scheme on a number of grounds. These could, for example, include insecurity of tenure or the fact that the applicant has dependent children or has a pressing need for a settled home on medical or welfare grounds. In many cases, formerly homeless households will get priority because of the limited economic opportunities available to them. If the applicant is in greater overall need than other households on the register, then he or she will get priority accordingly.
The noble Baroness seeks to suggest that homelessness of itself should give people priority. Therefore, if someone becomes homeless they should be able literally to jump the housing queue over other people whose needs are every bit as great but who are waiting patiently. They may have tried to arrange their own accommodation in which to wait until they reach the top of the council's list. Their position may be every bit as serious as that of the person who has been declared homeless. Once that person is homeless—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that people would jump over the heads of those whose needs were as great or even greater than those on the list. Can he tell me whose needs would be even greater than those of a homeless family?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness once again predicates the position where the homeless person is roofless, out on the streets, with nowhere to go. As I tried to explain, but clearly failed, under the homelessness legislation the local authority will have attended to that person's immediate needs. It will have found that person accommodation of some kind and ensured that he or she is properly accommodated, so there will not be an immediate pressing need any greater than for the person waiting at home, perhaps with parents. There might be a young married couple, living with parents and waiting to reach the top of the list and get a house. The needs of the homeless person may be no more pressing than those of the young couple, with or without children, who may be in the same position.
The noble Baroness tries to pick a totally artificial argument. People who are homeless will not be camping in the street; their needs will be dealt with. Their position with respect to long-term housing will be considered in exactly the same way as other people in the community who are waiting patiently for the same long-term housing. I wish to make that important point again and again. The noble Baroness tries to lull the Committee into believing that homeless people will be
382
so totally disadvantaged that they should be given absolute priority over everyone else waiting patiently on the list and who may have taken the precaution of not becoming homeless because they made arrangements. They may live with their family or in rented accommodation which is not entirely suitable. That is the kernel of the change we are making.
I ask the Committee to consider this. Is it right to give priority to applicants just because they have become homeless and are now being looked after temporarily but perfectly well over other people who are in exactly the same position but have looked after themselves and found their own temporary accommodation? Is it right that one group should receive priority on the housing list over another? I do not believe that it is. Their position in the housing list will not be disadvantaged because they are homeless but we do not believe that it ought to be advantaged. That is the difference between us.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I followed what the noble Lord said, but he was talking about getting to the top of the housing list. It is not just one list. Different people need different types of property. I come from the City of Birmingham. There, 50 per cent. of the people who are said to be homeless may have been staying at the houses of relatives and friends. Fifty per cent. are on the housing register and have been on it for a long time because they have nowhere to live. Some may be quite high on the register.
It is a big problem. Last year in Birmingham 11,879 people put themselves forward as homeless. When they went through all the interviews, 1,717 were declared not to be homeless. That left the local authority with 10,162 families who were homeless. In that way, some housing goes to people who are perhaps not the most deserving, as suggested by the noble Lord. Furthermore, nearly 2,000 of those declared homeless had left home because of violence from their partner in marriage. Obviously one must deal with those cases quickly.
I am seriously worried about the Housing Corporation. Far more money is given to it than to local authorities, yet it is not being called upon to take on the homeless. That is important. The Bill concerns the responsibilities of local authorities. I hope that at a later stage the Minister will put forward actions that the Housing Corporation must take regarding social housing.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that the noble Baroness was not supporting my position at the beginning of her intervention. My figures are greater than hers. She suggested that 50 per cent. are already on the waiting list. Many will be high up, I agree, and I shall not knock them down; if they are on the list they get their house. However, my advice is that something like three-quarters are already on the waiting list.
The kernel is not whether such people are on the list but whether they ought to be given immediate preference over other people on the list. If such people had inspected the register, they might expect a house within the next two or three weeks, or a month or two. The position is that they do not get it. The homeless on

383
the waiting list have their position accelerated. The waiting time for those rehoused who were on the waiting list averages about 14 months whereas for those rehoused as homeless the period is more in the region of seven months.
To be declared unintentionally homeless accelerates one's ability to obtain social housing. We do not believe that that is fair. It is not that such people should not be housed; they are housed immediately in non-long-term accommodation under the homelessness provisions. They then take their turn with other people in getting access to long-term housing. The proposition that I put forward seems to me to be reasonable and it is in no way damaged by the rather vigorous language used by the noble Baroness in order to pretend that there are armies of people out there on the streets. They are not on the streets: the homelessness legislation prevents that happening. Quite right, too. What we believe should not then happen is that the homeless person promptly receives priority on the housing list so that he or she moves ahead of people who have waited patiently, perhaps in similar circumstances, but have not been declared homeless. I do not anticipate that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment because it is the kernel of the debate between us upon the Bill. Therefore, if we have a Division I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I always regard it as a sign of the weakness of the Minister's argument when he tries to attribute to these Benches arguments or language that they did not use. The Minister has done so repeatedly in his answers tonight. Therefore, I wish to correct the record. He said frequently that the amendment asked that homeless people should jump over those waiting patiently. He obviously enjoyed using the phrase because he repeated it several times.
I never once said and I believe no one else on this side said tonight that we sought that homeless people should jump over those waiting patiently. Had the Minister been listening, he would have known that we made it clear that such people should be given reasonable preference—no more and no less—over any other category. The right reverend Prelate repeated the phrase. Yet the Minister chose to ignore it in order to create an argument that was not being advanced so that he could seek to knock it down. If the Minister had any confidence in his own case, he would not have needed to invent one on behalf of the Opposition. We did not say that homeless people should "jump the queue", that they should go over the heads of those who are more deserving; we said that they should be given reasonable preference along with those who are also in housing need. I hope the Minister accepts that correction in language; that is one of the gulfs between us.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If "reasonable preference" does not mean that people will get a council house before somebody who would otherwise, so to speak, have beaten them to that council house, then I do not know what it does mean. That seems to be the same,
384
putting it in rather more common language, as saying it is "jumping the queue". That is how people waiting patiently think of it.
Baroness bolus of Heigham: How does the Minister define people in the categories listed in Clause 148? Is he telling us that people under subsection (2)(a)—those occupying insanitary and overcrowded housing—are not jumping the queue on his definition? Are those who occupy housing accommodation that is temporary not jumping the queue? Are families with dependent children not jumping the queue on the Minister's new definition of queue-jumping? Are families in which someone is expecting a child not jumping the queue? The same applies to families with a particular need on medical or welfare grounds? I could go on.
Every argument that the Minister has adduced against homelessness applies to his own Bill. Which will the Minister have? Are people in these categories jumping the queue; or will he accept that what we are asking is that homeless people should be treated as an additional group, along with those in this category, as being entitled to reasonable preference? I ask the Minister to answer that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not responsible for the terminology that the noble Baroness uses. I am clear about my terminology and I am clear about my case. I believe that the preferences outlined in the Bill are the proper preferences. As I said, these preferences will be counted for someone who is homeless. I do not believe the additional factor of becoming homeless necessarily entitles someone to extra points or extra privileges.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has now said that those groups who come under Clause 148 are entitled to proper preference, but if there is a more extreme form of housing need—namely, homelessness—people are not entitled to proper preference. Is that what the Minister is saying?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall not indulge any more in this little to-ing and fro-ing. I have made my position clear and the noble Baroness makes hers clear. I do not think we shall ever agree on this matter. I am clear. The qualifications in the Bill are those that we believe a local authority should look at in order to decide the balance as to who has priority. Normally, that is done according to a points system. That is perfectly fair. It is rather silly to ask whether that means that somebody who has children is trying to jump the queue. That is quite a different situation. I am saying that the homeless are housed by the local authority under homeless legislation. I do not believe that they therefore need preference, acceleration or whatever term one cares to use, when it comes to long-term social housing. They should take their place with others who consider themselves equally in need of long-term social housing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We entirely agree. I should be delighted to have the homeless considered along with others who are in need of long-term housing

385
as listed in Clause 148(2). That is all we ask—that they be listed alongside those people, just as the Minister said, unless the Minister wishes to withdraw his words.
For 20 years the responsibility to house homeless people has rested on local authorities. For longer than that the condition of homelessness has been recognised by local authorities. It has certainly been recognised since the 1870s and 1880s as a condition to which they should pay attention, and since 1945 as one to which they attach particular responsibility. Everybody, except apparently the Minister, recognises that the homeless are at the most acute end of housing need.
The Minister has chosen to wipe the reference to homelessness off the face of the waiting list preferences. The onus is on him, after 20 years in which it has been enshrined in law and 50 years during which it has been enshrined in local government policy and practice, to show why now, suddenly, the homeless should be wiped off the face of the Bill.
Despite the Minister's best endeavours to attribute phrases to us, nobody is saying that the homeless should queue-jump. To wipe them off the face of the Bill and say that a homeless family cannot be considered alongside those in overcrowded housing or those with dependent children for reasonable preference on the waiting list, is deeply indecent. At the core of our argument is that homelessness represents an extra dimension of desperation and need over every one of those listed here.
Nobody is denying that those in the categories under Clause 148(2), in insanitary, overcrowded or insecure housing, do not need reasonable preference. But for every person who needs that, it is even more the case for somebody who is homeless, going from roof to roof, home to home, bed-and-breakfast accommodation to car, back to a family's flat, back to a friend's floor, back into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, each time trailing children in tow. Homelessness is a qualitatively different experience. It is not fully covered by the categories listed. Homeless people should be included in this list.
I am very sorry that the Minister's case is so weak that he has to attribute to us arguments that we have not used. We have said that homeless people should have reasonable preference along with other people in housing need. They should not queue-jump; but they should have reasonable preference. And why? Because homelessness is qualitatively worse than any other form of housing experience. I can only assume that the Minister has not personally experienced it. If he had, he would know that to be the case.
Despite the Minister's remarks, I shall not press this amendment to a Division tonight. However, I promise him that we shall return with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Amendment) Order 1996
7.26 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Stansted is the UK's and Europe's fastest growing international airport—and has been for the last four years in succession. A total of 41 scheduled destinations are served by direct flights from Stansted, operated by 13 carriers. Air UK, a British airline, is the biggest operator at Stansted, with 20 routes, mainly to European destinations. The airport is very popular with passengers, and the new terminal has won over 25 awards for design, passenger comfort and environmental friendliness.
Stansted has outline planning permission to around 15 million passengers per annum (mppa) but when that permission was given it was decided that development should be phased in line with the rate of growth of demand and the development of the associated infrastructure. The first phase was to allow development up to 7 to 8 mppa.
This draft order will, if approved, enable Stansted Airport to reach an annual throughput of 8 mppa, and therefore the full potential of the first phase of development. The order will amend the existing Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit Order 1987 by raising the air transport movement (ATM) limit at Stansted Airport from 78,000 movements to 120,000 movements per annum.
The existing ATM limit of 78,000 movements per annum was intended to equate to a throughput of around 8 mppa, and assumed that average aircraft loading would be around 100 passengers per aircraft. In fact, the airlines operating commercial passenger flights from Stansted Airport since 1987 have chosen to use smaller aircraft than had been anticipated, with the result that the average number of passengers per aircraft is far lower than had been calculated in 1987.
This means that the current ATM limit of 78,000 movements will in fact equate to just over 5 million passengers per annum, which is likely to be reached in around 1997. In addition, the number of movements at the airport means that stand space on the existing two satellites will become increasingly congested and development of a third satellite will soon be required.
In July 1995, BAA plc, the airport operator, applied to the Secretary of State for Transport to raise the limit from 78,000 to 150,000 movements per annum. BAA plc assumed that the 150,000 movements would be reached in about 2008, and envisaged that it would be equivalent to the passenger throughput of 15 million passengers.
The Secretary of State decided to consult on that limit and indeed on a lower limit of 120,000 movements. That lower limit was based on adjusting the existing ATM limit upwards to take account of the lower than expected average aircraft loading but retaining the link to 8 million passengers per annum. Based on the latest information about passenger loading, an ATM limit of 120,000 movements would enable Stansted to achieve a throughput of 8 million passengers per annum.
A total of 70 responses to the consultation exercise was received and they played an important role in the decision-making process. When all factors had been carefully considered, it was decided to recommend to the House a revised limit of 120,000 movements.
The draft amending order is in just two articles. The first determines when the order shall come into effect and the second substitutes the figure of 120,000 for 78,000 movements in Article 2 of the earlier order.
The revised limit of 120,000 will meet concerns expressed by local authorities in the consultation exercise that the development of Stansted should be phased with the development of local infrastructure and is consistent with the conclusions of the planning inquiry that the timing of the further development of the airport should depend on the rate of growth of demand; but it will also allow BAA plc to continue to develop terminal facilities as business grows.
I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I strongly support the approval of this draft order, which, as my noble friend explained, will authorise the combined total of aircraft landings and take-offs at Stansted Airport to be raised by 42,000 units per annum. Having listened to my noble friend's speech, it seems to me that that "phased" increase—that it the word he himself used—strikes an equitable balance between BAA (Stansted's owners) and the concerns of local communities. As he pointed out, there has been no lack of consultation.
My noble friend mentioned that Stansted is the UK's and Europe's fastest growing airport and he cited the past four years. My memory goes much back further than his brief. It goes back to the mid-1970s when Stansted, then as now, was the London airport of choice for almost all the Scandinavian charter airlines that served London. In those days, London was Scandinavia's second or third most popular charter destination.
Stansted, largely with the help of the Scandinavians, had perhaps 400,000 passengers in a good year. For the Scandinavians, it was very much the airport of choice because it was outside the potential congestion of Heathrow and Gatwick. It was a matter of in or out over the North Sea. In those days, they generated up to 70 per cent. of Stansted's traffic and if they caught a cold, Stansted more or less went into intensive care.
388
Since then, there has been the Roskill Report in the early 1980s; the choice of Stansted as London's third airport; the planning inquiries; the prize winning terminal building; the popularity with passengers; and the awards. The last were mentioned by my noble friend. There has been the success story that he described in his speech and I would like to add to that a tribute to Air UK, Stansted's dominant carrier, as having contributed to the airport's success.
But looking beyond the past and the present there are reasons for supporting the order. My noble friend mentioned 41 destinations—I suspect that he and his officials have the same source materials as I have. The 27 European and the three intercontinental destinations are the ones that concern me. The three intercontinental destinations—I count Israel as intercontinental—disappoint me. But it seems to me that by increasing the opportunities for small and medium-sized aircraft to come to Stansted on short haul flights the opportunities for long haul traffic will also increase, and Stansted cannot lose. If we accept that the Channel Tunnel Stratford station terminal proposal creates opportunities for East Anglia, we must accept the same arguments for Stansted.
Furthermore, I believe that intercontinental open skies will come. A step forward was taken last week with the proposed BA-American Airlines alliance. That will generate additional demand in the London area—additional demand both for airport capacity and by outgoing passengers. Intercontinental growth and short haul growth together have made Gatwick into the success story that it is. I hope that with the growth of Stansted short haul (if I may call it that) and allying that with open skies, Stansted long haul will also grow.
Thinking further ahead, as does this order, it is nice and prudent to take a 10-year to 15-year timescale. Furthermore, I believe that if this order is approved, it will add—I stress the word "add"—to the remarkable success of this Government's airport and aviation policy. Hence, I strongly support my noble friend's Motion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order. I do not feel that we should be drawn into a widescale debate on aviation or airports as a result of what is an order of very limited effect. But we need to have such a debate, particularly in the light of the extremely important developments which occurred last week, to which the noble Lord referred. I do not wish to be drawn into a conclusion about that issue, nor, I think, would the Minister. That is extremely important—I mention it in a sense peripherally so far as the order is concerned—since a decision may well be made when this House is not sitting. I hope that the debate will be conducted with the maximum measure of transparency possible in the circumstances.
I discussed the issue informally with the Minster and he knows how I feel. I do not at all wish to put those discussions on the record. However, there are major issues on which the consumers, the travelling public, are entitled to have all points of view expressed as openly as possible. On any showing or any conclusion, it is an

389
extremely important matter for British aviation and the passenger traffic in the United States and this country. I shall not say any more than that.
So far as concerns the very limited order that we are considering, I entirely agree with what the Minister had to say. Stansted has an extremely attractive and in many ways remarkable terminal building. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, I agree that Air UK has helped in a measurable way in ensuring the success of the airport. It deserves commendation for that.
The limited but desirable effect of the order is an important way of being able to promote the completion of the first phase of the development of Stansted, a development which I, as a former aviation minister, thoroughly believe is absolutely essential for a coherent regional and national airport policy. In due course we shall have to consider the potential and limits of all London airports within a framework of national transport, not simply air transport, policy. But that is a debate for another day.
We have to recognise that some of the people around Stansted who were extremely anxious about the potential of that airport before it was built have had those anxieties allayed by experience; others remain anxious about even the limited development that is contemplated. They are worried about the supporting infrastructure, congestion and compensation for disturbance. I hope that the points raised in another place by Sir Alan Haselhurst relating to compensation will be taken very seriously by BAA plc. It is intolerable that there should be unnecessary and undue delays in the payment of compensation for disturbance. It does not help in creating confidence for further development. That is something to which I hope the company will pay proper attention, and it is something which the Minister in another place, Mr. Steven Norris, was urged to take up. I believe he said that he would pass on those representations to the company. Perhaps the Minister could let us know whether he is in a position to do that tonight; otherwise he may like to write to us as to the effect of those representations on BAA plc. I emphasise that it is an important element in building confidence, and that is the significant point.
One must recognise that there is always another side to the coin and the development of Stansted has led to enhanced employment and better access to an airport more people want to use. It is convenient for many more people than the other airports in the London regional area, including Luton, which is an important part of the London airport scene. What all of us who have an interest in this matter want to see—I am sure the Minister will use his best endeavours to see that his influence can be brought to full effect in this regard—is Stansted becoming more effective, attracting new services and playing a major role in the development of aviation in this country.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have had a wide measure of consensus in relation to the order under consideration this evening. It paves the way for a phased increase in the amount of activity at Stansted and a phased development.
I agree that we must aim for an equitable balance for development, and that has been the thrust of the contributions that we heard this evening. I welcome the
390
contribution of my noble friend Lord Mountevans, who gave us a little more history about the airport, including the all-important charter market and the links with Scandanavia. My noble friend felt that his memory went back further than my brief. In the interests of those who occasionally assist in compiling the brief, I must say to him that my brief goes back to around 1940. However, we can discuss this at a later date.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned the negotiations on liberalisation with our American colleagues and also the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, about which we have heard so much in the press. The Government's position is that we were interested to hear of this; we have been kept broadly informed and we look forward to studying the matter in more depth. I agree with the noble Lord that there are major issues to be dealt with which deserve further consideration.
The noble Lord also asked me about the British Airports Authority. I cannot speak on its behalf; I can only make sure that the discussions in your Lordships' House are brought to its attention. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.44 to 8.30 p.m.]

Housing Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 148.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264ZC:
Page 91, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 264ZD, 264ZF and 264ZG. Although I know that that sounds like an alphabet soup, these are really all one consecutive amendment. They are part of a series of amendments which I had hoped to move if I had been here a little earlier in the day. They follow on from what I was unable to speak to, which is Clause 144(2). The question they raise is why the Secretary of State is taking the power to control all the principles under which housing allocation is carried out. I ask why he is doing this in a very real curiosity and I hope to get a few of the answers.
I am a little reminded, looking at the powers the Secretary of State is taking over the allocation of housing, of the description in 1066 and all that of Poyning's Law, which was that the Irish were to have a parliament but the English were to pass all the Acts in it. Similarly, it seems to be the policy of this clause that local authorities are to have a housing authority but the Secretary of State is to do all the allocation in it. If you have housing powers in local authorities it really does seem a little superfluous for the Secretary of State to take such complete control of them himself. It is, in the

391
nice 17th century phrase, the Secretary of State keeping a dog and barking himself. I really do not understand why he is doing it.
Is it because the Secretary of State knows best? It seems a little improbable because he is not actually there in every local authority in England, Scotland and Wales. Or is it that the Secretary of State has an agenda and intends to impose that agenda on local authorities, whether they like it or not? And if he does have an agenda, will we by any chance be entitled to know what it is? That is an interesting question because people might wish to discuss it.
The clause also raises the question: should the principles of housing allocation be the same everywhere in the country? I do not think it is by any means self evident that they should. The Minister will recall the university amendment to Clause 9 of the asylum Bill to which he gave an extremely generous and welcome answer. That dealt with areas of the country where local authorities have let blocks of housing to universities because there is no great demand for the housing in those areas. The noble Lord, Lord Goold, mentioned the Gorbals in that context. So, clearly, demand is different in some places from others. Demand for housing in Islington or Brent is very different from demand for housing in a former pit village where there is now no employment to speak of. And if there are these differences, as I believe there are, is the Secretary of State really the best person to observe them, or might they just possibly be better observed by those who live with them every day and actually have to notice them as they go about their business? If a local authority perceives a particular pattern of housing need in its area and wants to respond to it, why does it have to ask the Secretary of State whether it is allowed to do anything about it?
In subsection (3) of Clause 148 the Secretary of State takes power by regulations to,
"specify further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given as mentioned in subsection (2)".
In fact, because he is taking a very detailed set of powers, he has to say to himself very correctly, "Maybe I have forgotten something", so the more detailed the power he takes, the more detailed also the power he has to take to vary it. This is an infinite regression. Great powers have little powers upon their backs to bite 'em, and little powers have lesser powers, and so on ad infinitum.
In subsection (3)(b) we have a Henry VIII clause, and those the House is well known not to view with very great favour. The Secretary of State takes the power to,
"amend or repeal any part of subsection (2)".
In fact, once again, the more detailed the legislative power that is taken, the more detailed the proposals have to be to allow the Secretary of State to vary it. It is really a rather fusspotty style of legislation. It is the style of legislation of the housewife who can always see a speck of dirt where no one else can possibly see it. It creates a constant itch to change.
In subsection (4)—this is one of the provisions I am most curious about—the Secretary of State,
392
"may by regulations specify factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account in allocating housing accommodation".
Why not? If the authority thinks that is the need, why should it not respond to it? What sort of restrictions does the Secretary of State intend to impose under this regulation-making power? He must have something in his mind that he wanted to do with it or he would not have asked for it. Or is he just asking for it in case he should want to make a fuss in the future? We really must know, when we are approving powers of this kind, at least what it is presently intended to do with them. We should also consider what some future government might do with them.
I know the Minister does not like the argument of what future governments might do with regulations. But if we put these powers onto the statute book and leave them there, then someone—perhaps 20 or 30 years hence—will use them in ways which we might find absolutely outrageous. It would be perfectly possible, for example, in a country with less generous attitudes to the old than we have at present, for some future government to say that everyone over the age of 75 would not have any entitlement to local authority housing. And in this House of all places I think that that might be a little unpopular.
The Minister will of course say that no government will ever do that. I am not accepting that argument. For many years I told pupils that no government in this country would ever again introduce a poll tax and that they had learnt that it did not work. Since then the boundaries of what no British government will ever do have been moving so fast that I have been unable to keep up with them. Seven or eight times in a Session something is introduced which I thought no British government would ever do. Since I do not know where the boundaries are, I am not prepared to give any weight to that argument.
Subsection (5) simply states that,
"the scheme shall be framed in accordance with such principles as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations".
It is the same point again, and I do not understand why it is being done. The words I wish to delete from subsection (6) under the last of the amendments are simply consequential. If I ever heard of a nanny state anywhere, I heard it in this clause. Why? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In proposing these amendments the noble Earl, Lord Russell, revisits a general issue of principle we have discussed on a number of occasions. I wish to look at it against the background of the three subsections which his amendments seek to delete from the Bill and explain how we envisage our use of them and the possible impact on local authorities. Before I come to that, the idea that somehow or other the Secretary of State is going to be involved in every single housing allocation in every part of the country is simply not true. Nor indeed is it true that allocation schemes should be the same everywhere in the country. However, the principles on which they are based should be the same. Against those principles it shall be for each local authority to decide on its scheme, on the criteria it uses and the level of need that it applies to each of the factors

393
in Clause 148(2). Most local authorities operate what is called a points scheme; it will be for them to decide how points are allocated for different priorities. So this is not a device which the Secretary of State will use to control every housing allocation in the country.
Amendment No. 264ZC seeks to remove Clause 148(3). The subsection enables the Secretary of State to change any of the principles which local authorities must observe in determining how priority should be given in their allocation scheme. This is an important provision. It will enable us to add further categories to whom preference must be given and will also enable us to amend any part of the provisions for determining priority.
We believe that the principles in subsection (2) are appropriate and wide-ranging measures of housing need. However, our experience of past and present legislation, which contains a number of provisions dating back to 1935, shows that housing need can change. Conditions which were prevalent in 1935, such as the widespread lack of basic facilities, may no longer have the significance they once had.
Other factors, one of which was raised by the noble Earl, include, for example, old age and also family breakdown, a fairly new phenomenon. Not long ago it could reasonably be assumed that one family would occupy one house. Unfortunately, with divorce, a fairly significant number of families are now split and require two houses. In fact, it is one of the underlying causes of the pressure on the housing stock. These are indications of change.
There is the advent of community care where we like to see people looked after in the community and no longer placed in long-stay large hospitals, especially hospitals catering for mental illness and mental handicap. These are all factors which have changed quite dramatically over time. Who can tell what changes there will be in the next two or three decades?
We believe that the regulation-making power in subsection (3) will enable governments in the future to keep the legislation up-to-date as regards changing demographic and social conditions without the need for primary legislation. In recognition that the power in subsection (3) is wide ranging and that it would amend primary legislation, the regulations under the subsection are to be subject to the affirmative resolution of each House. I believe that this is a sensible provision and that we have taken adequate safeguards to prevent the power being used lightly.
Amendment No. 264ZD seeks to remove subsection (4) which specifies the factors which must be disregarded in allocating houses. This power will enable the Secretary of State to prevent authorities from taking account of factors which would discriminate unfairly against particular groups of applicants. We hear from time to time of cases where an authority discriminates against certain applicants, for example, by giving excessive priority to children of their own tenants or by refusing to give proper consideration to applications from single people. By having the powers in regulations the Secretary of State will be enabled to act quickly to
394
prevent abuse of the new provisions, should that prove necessary. Regulations under this subsection will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 264ZF would remove the Secretary of State's power to specify the principles governing the procedures to be followed in allocating housing. One use of this power, which was discussed in the January consultation paper and discussed in Committee earlier today, would be to restrict the involvement of elected local authority members in allocation decisions on individual cases. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales has indicated his concern that this practice is still prevalent in some local authorities in Wales. There has been support in some circles for similar provision to be made in England. Regulations under this subsection could disqualify members from involvement in certain decisions; for instance, those relating to housing in their own wards. These are likely to cover matters of detail.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Lord give me any advice? Would some of the things he is saying have affected Westminster City Council? Would that council have been in the dock with the Government if these regulations had been in force then?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government are not in any dock.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Westminster City Council is!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that that council was making decisions on that basis. When I joined a local authority some members of it, including members of the party opposite, rather liked the privilege they had of deciding who should or should not receive a house. There was a list with a points system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can see why the noble Lord left and came to Westminster.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps the noble Baroness will contain herself. That was a very unsatisfactory position. When I joined the authority I combined with a member of the party opposite who took the same view—
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may once again ask the Minister to withdraw the phrase "the party opposite", especially when speaking to an amendment from these Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I was looking fairly clearly at what I mean by the "party opposite". If the noble Earl wishes to begin splitting the parties opposite, I shall deal with that in a moment. A senior member of the Labour Party and myself combined together to get rid of what he and I thought was a pretty iniquitous practice and brought forward a points system. That meant that the service was delivered on a much fairer basis. The noble Earl has tempted me. I must tell him that the proposal was fiercely resisted by

395
one member of his own party who rather liked the privilege of dispensing council housing in a slightly more personal way than I thought was right and proper.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister has been casting aspersions at Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. Just to set the record straight, the Minister may like to know that when I was a city councillor in Manchester I was aware of a situation where a Conservative councillor so terrorised local housing officers into allocating housing for his chosen constituents that something had to be done about it and it was. I hope the Minister will recognise that as regards local government and housing allocation, it is not dealt with in the way the Minister paints it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was not trying to paint it in the way suggested by the noble Lord. I was simply saying that I have had experience of a local authority with a rather antiquated way of dealing with the matter. The noble Earl tempted me to reminisce on the subject of political complexions, but as everybody stood as an independent I am not sure where that leaves us.
We are all agreed that the allocation of council housing should be decided on a transparent basis and, in my view, that is best operated by some form of points system. However, that is to get away from the point about one of the things that we might want to do using the power which Amendment No. 264ZF seeks to delete. Regulations under subsection (5), which the noble Earl would remove, could disqualify members from involvement in such decisions. Such regulations are likely to cover matters of detail and I think that secondary legislation, with the negative procedure, is the right way to do that.
As the noble Earl said, Amendment No. 264ZG is consequential on the previous amendments and would disapply the main principles for determining priority in allocation under subsection (2). An authority would thus be able to allocate housing entirely as it chose without any reference to the principles for meeting housing need which are at the heart of our provisions. The one thing about which I am pretty certain following all our hours of discussion today is that most noble Lords believe that such principles should be specified. Much of our debate has concentrated on whether more principles should be laid down in statute than those which are already on the face of the Bill. I do not think that there is much disagreement on that, unless the noble Earl thinks that local authorities should be able to allocate housing without any regard to any of the principles in Clause 148(2). I am sure that that is not the noble Earl's intention, but that could be the result if his amendment were accepted.
The provisions of the three subsections are important. We are taking the proper steps to ensure that they are used carefully. The procedures are there. The most important power given to the Secretary of State can be exercised only by affirmative resolution. The others operate under the negative procedure. My understanding is that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which considers matters of secondary legislation, has not
396
commented on these matters. With that explanation of why we envisage that we may need the power, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am quite used to people who begin a book at the last page; what I am not quite so used to is people who begin absolutely in the middle, which is what the Minister has done tonight. He has given a detailed and, I think, perfectly reasonable justification of why, if the Secretary of State is to decide all the priority categories, the powers of subsection (3) are needed.
However, that was not the question that I asked and that is why I was not particularly dismayed—or, indeed, particularly surprised—by the fact that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee did not refer to the clause. I am not making a purely drafting or constitutional point; I am asking a question about policy. I am asking the Minister why the Secretary of State is the best person to determine categories of housing need. I have not had an answer to that and, before I decide what to do with the amendment, I hope that I shall have an answer.
The Minister said that housing allocation has to be fair and orderly. That is agreed. A general requirement that it should be done according to housing need, together with the power of judicial review, will do a great deal of what is wanted. Curiously, yesterday I was complaining of the Government relying on judicial review where legislative restraint was more appropriate; here they are relying on legislative restraint where judicial review (which is all about the requirement of basic procedural fairness) is more appropriate. That is all that we need here. We do not need the Secretary of State taking all these decisions himself and I do not see how he is competent to do so.
If there is discrimination against certain broad categories, that will be caught by the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act. Beyond that, it would be caught by the requirement for procedural fairness. We do not need to quote party examples. I think that we are agreed that all power tends to corrupt and, without commenting on any individual case because I am not surprised if it happens in any context, perhaps I may say that it happens at Westminster too.
Can the Minister tell me why the Secretary of State is competent to have those powers? And can he tell me another thing that he did not tell me? In subsection (4) why does the Secretary of State want to specify factors which shall not be taken into account, and what sort of factors does he mean? I did not hear an answer to that and I should like to hear one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I had explained what subsection (4) might be used for. I indicated that it would be used where authorities had decided to discriminate against certain applicants, such as by giving excessive priority to children of their own tenants or by refusing to give proper consideration to applications from single people. I gave those two examples to illustrate that, if such practices occurred in local authorities, the Secretary of State might decide that he should take some action.

397
I am asked why the Secretary of State is the proper person to do that. Somebody has to take those actions on behalf of the United Kingdom Government who, after all, put a lot of taxpayers' money into public housing. Therefore, it seems right that Parliament and the Government—and the Secretary of State on the Government's behalf—should take a close interest in how that housing is allocated. I said that the Secretary of State is doing that by means of the priorities that are set out in Clause 148(2).
There is a good argument for saying that central government has a role to play in both the detail and the principles. That is the role that this clause seeks to enact. The powers that we are now discussing would be given to the Secretary of State, who is always accountable to Parliament, to use in the future where circumstances have changed and where he decides—in consultation with his colleagues, I have no doubt, and with the agreement of Parliament—that some change should be introduced. That is the reason and I thought that I had addressed it—although perhaps at the end of my contribution, not at the beginning.
Lord Monkswell: Does the Minister recognise that the examples that he quoted would be significantly different in different local authority areas? As I read the clause, I can see no mechanism to enable the Secretary of State to set different priorities in different local authority areas. There would have to be a national scheme. One would have to be careful in drafting such a national scheme to ensure that a scheme that was set up to deal with a particular housing problem in a particular area did not prevent something desirable from happening in another area.
Earl Russell: The Minister used a dangerous argument about public money. Public money goes to all sorts of bodies. It does not follow that the Secretary of State is the best person to decide how that money should be used. Public money goes indirectly to the Royal Shakespeare Company, for example—I am glad that it does—but that does not mean that the Secretary of State is entitled to give directives on how best to play the part of Iago. I would not presume to suggest that he was the person best qualified to do that.
The Minister should think again about this because I do not think that he has entirely understood the question. I shall have to return to it later, by which time I hope that the noble Lord will have thought a bit more about what I am trying to ask him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 264ZD to 264ZG not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 148 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: I take this opportunity to ask a question on the paragraph at the end of Clause 148(2) which provides that,
"The scheme shall … secure that additional preference is given to households within paragraph (e) consisting of someone"—
398
in the singular—
"with a particular need … who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future".
I am not sure whether the use of singular and plural in this paragraph represents political correctness or whether the words import more than I had understood in the first instance. Is the Minister able to inform the Committee whether a household can comprise one person for the purpose of this paragraph and, if so, whether the "themselves" can be a "himself' or "herself', as I believe is intended?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not usually accused of political correctness. I doubt whether this is a case of political correctness. Of course, a household can consist of one person; otherwise, a single person would never be housed if he or she was not considered to be a household. This provision is an attempt to ensure that authorities make special provision for the most vulnerable sections of the community. We have in mind here very vulnerable people such as those discharged from psychiatric hospitals or those with learning difficulties who can manage to live independently with a degree of support but cannot be expected to find their own accommodation. Paragraph (e) is in the clause to address that kind of person. I do not believe that there is any significance in the move from singular to plural. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not a matter of political correctness on my part. It may be political correctness on the part of the draftsman. I will ask about it.
Clause 148 agreed to.
Clauses 149 to 151 agreed to.
Clause 152 [False statements and withholding information]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264ZH:
Page 92, line 36, at end insert—("unless in either case he has a reasonable excuse.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 264ZH and speak also in support of Amendment No. 264ZJ. This part of the Bill is concerned with the offence that may be committed if a person knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or withholds information. The purpose of Amendment No. 264ZH is to provide that it shall not be an offence if the individual concerned has a reasonable excuse for giving false information or withholding information. The purpose of Amendment No. 264ZJ is to lower the level of penalty should anyone be fined for committing this offence.
I speak first to Amendment No. 264ZH. On certain exceptional occasions people may withhold information or possibly give false information for perfectly proper reasons in putting their names on the housing register. I shall give a couple of examples, both of which are in my experience in recent years.
I take, first, the example of a woman with one or two children living on a council estate whose husband was convicted of a criminal offence relating to drugs. Some of his friends believed that his wife had given information to the authorities. They made serious threats against her. She left the flat and found temporary

399
accommodation in another borough. That woman might, in trying to rectify her housing situation, have wished to withhold details of her whereabouts because she was under threat; she might not give full and proper information.
I also came across an instance where a woman who had been battered by the man with whom she had been living sought safety in a refuge and ended up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. A woman in such a situation might wish, quite properly, to keep confidential either her identity or whereabouts. In both instances those people have to get their names on the register and may wish to conceal information about themselves and their whereabouts so that they cannot be identified by those who may be hostile to them. I am sure that other Members of the Committee can think of similar examples.
For perfectly proper reasons there may be pressure on the individual in exceptional cases not to give full information, and thereby they commit an offence. As my examples show, these people may be victims of violence or in fear of violence, harassment or abuse. They may also be people who as responsible citizens have given information to the authorities or acted as witnesses in the courts and find themselves under threat. Domestic violence is an obvious instance. Sadly, there are quite a number of such cases. All that is required is a small let-out so that it does not automatically become a criminal offence if one has given false information or withheld information. The examples that I gave were not ones where the offence had been committed with a view to furthering a claim for housing which would otherwise not have been valid but for rather different reasons.
I turn now to Amendment No. 264ZJ. This is concerned with the level of fine that may be incurred if a person is found guilty of an offence under Clause 152. Subsection (2) provides that the fine should not exceed level 5 on the standard scale. That would mean a fine in the region of £5,000. That is the same level of fine which can be imposed, for example, on a landlord who commits an offence in connection with failure to ensure safety in houses in multiple occupation. It would be difficult to suggest that the two offences compare in seriousness. A landlord who endangers persons living in houses in multiple occupation may threaten their well-being and possibly their lives, whereas a breach of Clause 152 is surely not as serious an offence.
The proposed amendment would lower the level of the fine from £5,000 (level 5) to £2,500 (level 4), which is surely sufficient for the gravity of the offence in Clause 152. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 152 is in similar terms to Section 74 of the Housing Act 1985 (re-enacted in Clause 186 of this Bill) to which we will come later which creates similar offences for applications under the homelessness legislation. Social housing is a valuable asset and it is important that people who seek it should not misrepresent their circumstances. That could cause them to receive preferential treatment at the expense of other applicant
400
households. One of the essential principles behind Parts VI and VII of the Bill is fairness in the allocation of social housing. In order to deter people from making false statements or withholding relevant information it is important to have some sanction in the form of a fine.
Amendment No. 264ZH would moderate each of the two offences created by Clause 152. It would enable someone to make a false statement, or to withhold relevant information, and to avoid committing the offence by pleading "a reasonable excuse". What constitutes a "reasonable excuse" could lead to litigation.
I do not consider that those offences should be watered down in that way. The similar offences in Section 74 of the Housing Act 1985 have stood the test of time. It is a serious matter for a person to gain a public good by misrepresenting his or her circumstances.
Moreover, an application for social housing through the register is a more complex matter than applying for assistance under the homelessness legislation. It is not merely a matter of establishing whether or not the local authority owes a duty to the applicant. The applicant for social housing may want to persuade or induce an authority to believe, for example, that he qualifies to appear on the register or that he warrants greater priority under an allocation scheme than the authority has given him. In practice, the withholding of information—for example, where someone is afraid to disclose threats of violence—is likely to reduce rather than increase the priority that an applicant might otherwise attract. It is unlikely that someone would be penalised for withholding sensitive personal information in that case.
We should remember that the information given to the local authority is to be kept confidential. We discussed that point earlier today. It should not be disclosed to other members of the public. The authority should be able to have the information. There is no good reason under the sensitiveness heading why the information cannot be given.
If an applicant under duress gave information which increased his or her chances of being allocated the accommodation, I am sure that a court would take that into account. Someone has, so to speak, to pull the trigger on a prosecution. I am pretty certain that the local authority would take it into account. Local authorities, after all, have to make the decision as to whether they should bring in the law in that regard. Obviously they will not necessarily and automatically do so in every case. As I have said, they already have powers, and there are very few prosecutions. Local authorities would prosecute only if they felt that it was a deliberate try-on to gain considerable advantage on the list.
As to the maximum fine, we have picked a fine which we believe reflects the seriousness of the offence. Level 5 is generally the right level of penalty for offences of giving false information or withholding information. If one looks across at similar offences, a level 5 fine is what we find. For example, it applies to offences of failing to disclose information requested by the corporation. The seriousness of the offence derives from the degree of intent rather than the consequences.

401
Because the level 5 fine exists, that does not mean to say that, even if the local authority decides that the case should go to court and the court finds the person guilty, the court needs to fine that person at the top of the level. But it means that if the intent to deceive is serious then a serious penalty exists. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I listened to what the Minister said. I am bound to say that parts of his response seemed to be more in support of the amendments than against them, although his conclusion clearly came out against them.
The Minister said he thought that in some of the circumstances similar to the examples I quoted an individual was unlikely to be penalised. He then said that he thought that the court or the local authority would take such circumstances into account. That was the purpose of the amendment, which adds the words:
"unless in either case he has a reasonable excuse".
It is precisely in order to allow the local authority and the court to take the matter into account and have a sensible statutory basis for doing so that I tabled the amendment. By adding those words one would be achieving precisely what the Minister said he hoped would happen.
My aim is exactly the same as the Minister's. I thought that by putting those words on the face of the Bill in relation to a specific offence I was making the position clearer. I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept that. Will he consider putting the aim, which he and I share, into guidance to local authorities? That might be helpful and might achieve the point of my amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot consider it as regards giving guidance to the court if the local authority took the matter to court. However, in the spirit of helpfulness, I am prepared to look at the point which the noble Lord makes. The problem is that when the words appear on the face of the Bill they appear to water down the offence in some way. However, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord said and take advice.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 264ZJ not moved.]
Clause 152 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 153 [Regulations]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264ZK:
Page 93, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) No Regulations shall be made under this Part in any case where the Secretary of State is satisfied that discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 will result.").
The noble Lord said: The issue of discrimination is likely to arise as a result of defining qualifying persons on the basis of immigration status. We discussed earlier
402
the question of asylum seekers and immigration status. The fear is that, by making local authorities apply fairly rigid tests as regards entitlement to appear on the register and entitlement to be helped in respect of these provisions, discrimination may creep into the process. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the proposed regulations did not put local authorities in breach of their statutory duties to provide services without discrimination on the grounds of race.
The Government propose to prescribe categories of persons from abroad who are to be excluded by local authorities from appearing on waiting lists and therefore excluded from being allocated social housing. There is concern that that might lead to some discrimination against black and ethnic minority applicants for housing, even those who in all senses are entitled to appear on the register and be considered for such housing.
The difficulty is that defining the status of a person under immigration law is an extremely complicated business. I doubt whether any Member of the Committee would be totally confident as regards deciding whether an individual in particular circumstances was eligible. The difficulty is that as a result sometimes the regulations lead to mistakes. My concern is that in order to avoid mistakes local authorities might in some instances act in a discriminatory manner.
The difficulty is that there are seven sets of regulation-making powers in this part of the Bill. That is part of the complexity I am addressing. I shall not go through them all but they include, for example, information that is to be held on the housing register; who are and who are not qualifying persons; the cases where provisions about allocations do not apply; and the procedures to be followed in allocations. Those are all complicated matters and when linked to immigration status the potential for wrong decision-making is fairly clear. The fear is that local authorities may indeed discriminate, as I have said. I feel that by adding this provision there would be a greater safeguard and the Secretary of State would have to be assured that the effect of any regulations which he makes would not result in such discrimination. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has explained his intention in relation to this amendment. I should start by making it perfectly clear that the Government would not wish to promote any legislation, whether it be primary or secondary, which would result in racial or sexual discrimination on the part of local authorities.
For their part, local authorities are under a general duty, under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, to promote racial equality and we encourage them to do so.
The Commission for Racial Equality has published a useful Code of Practice in Rented Housing, to which I would expect authorities to have regard. Authorities' housing activities could also fall within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Were an authority to adopt an allocations policy that was manifestly in breach of its obligations under the relevant

403
non-discrimination legislation it would be open to challenge in the courts. Of course we might consider acting against that by regulation.
The noble Lord raised his concerns about entitlement to social housing which is based on immigration status. He was concerned that that may lead to racial discrimination. I remind the noble Lord that the parallel screening procedures for identifying ineligible applicants in the current homelessness code of guidance were drawn up in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. We have not heard any evidence that current screening procedures for persons from abroad have led to any discrimination. The guidance which we expect to publish in relation to Part VI would follow the same model as that already in existence which has been drawn up, as I mentioned earlier, in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not totally convinced by it but perhaps we had better see how the legislation works in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clauses 154 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 155 agreed to.
Clause 156 [Homelessness and threatened homelessness]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264ZL:
Page 93, line 31, leave out ("or elsewhere").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove a condition, which I understand is novel in our housing legislation, that somebody is not homeless if he has accommodation anywhere in the world.
At present, the stipulation is that an individual must not have accommodation in Britain. But that has now been extended in this legislation to anywhere in the world. I believe that that imposes an almost unrealistic burden on a local authority in terms of finding out whether that applies.
I believe that that provision is too wide. It is liable to have discriminatory implications. In practice it will be very difficult to implement. When I represented a constituency in another place, I remember that the local authority there had questioned somebody's entitlement to housing because it was argued that he had made himself intentionally homeless in Pakistan. That was before this legislation but it caused all sorts of difficulties. As far as I remember, in the end the local authority dropped that particular requirement. However, it was a little difficult for someone, as it were, to establish the circumstances under which he had lived in Pakistan; the circumstances under which he had or did not have the relevant accommodation any more; and whether or not he had left it on the basis of making himself intentionally or unintentionally homeless. It was
404
a complicated matter. I cannot believe that the Government would wish local authorities to have to put applicants through that sort of a test.
What I think would be useful is if the Government could give an assurance that homeless persons officers, when investigating the homelessness status of asylum seekers, will not be required to carry out investigations as to whether it would be reasonable for them to have continued to occupy certain accommodation. That, in a nutshell, is the desirable outcome in all this. If the asylum seeker is then given full refugee status, the Home Office, having done that, will have accepted that the person had a well founded fear of persecution in his own country. Therefore it could hardly be construed that that person had made himself intentionally homeless. The matter would depend on the outcome of such an application. But even if that were not the case, and the person was given exceptional leave to remain, it would still be difficult for a local authority official to determine the basis on which the individual had fled his country to find safety elsewhere. This proposal puts us in a difficult situation. I believe that the amendment, if accepted, would restore the present position. I believe that would be sensible. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: There is sense in the proposition that we are here because we are here because we are here. That proposition applies to the homeless just as much as to anyone else. If someone is homeless in this country, it really will not be of immediate assistance to that person if he may possibly have a place where he might be living in Pakistan or Nigeria, because the person is here and here is where he happens to be homeless. If there is to be an insistence that the person withdraws and occupies the accommodation in Pakistan, Nigeria or wherever, he may have a good deal of difficulty in getting there. That may involve the Home Office finding the costs of deporting the person. That is really quite unnecessary.
We are not only concerned here with asylum seekers. Plenty of people—perhaps British subjects who have gone to live abroad—may perhaps come back to this country for such an innocent purpose as visiting their aged mother. Let us suppose that she dies and the place that she was occupying is on a life tenancy. The person who visited her may find himself suddenly homeless and may need, even if only for a period of two months—possibly for a temporary reason to do with his work—accommodation in this country. I do not see the useful purpose to be served by putting him on the street rather than allowing him to have the same attention paid to his housing need as anyone else who lives here. If people are here, they are here, and the Government have to deal with that fact. They cannot pretend that those people do not exist. This is an excellent amendment and I hope it will be accepted.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support my noble friend on this amendment, I paint a slightly different scenario. A young man of 19 or 20 is born in this country and has probably grown up here and lived here all his life. However, his parents have emigrated to Australia. For most of his life he lived with his parents. The local authority to which he applies because he is

405
homeless may have to ask that young man whether he has any relatives living anywhere in the world who could put him up. I wonder whether it is really the Government's intention to create a situation whereby an Englishman, who has every right to live in this country, is required to travel to the other side of the world because he can obtain some accommodation there through his family.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As noble Lords have indicated, the amendment seeks to remove the phrase "or elsewhere" from Clause 156. The original 1977 Act contained no such definition. The reason for putting the provision into the Bill is that there is no reason why someone who has voluntarily left accommodation in another country in which he or she could have continued to live should be regarded as homeless for the purposes of domestic United Kingdom legislation.
The suggestion was made that the clause could impact on people with family connections outside the United Kingdom but who have lived and worked here for many years and who may have children who were born here. Furthermore, fears were expressed, in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and elsewhere, that black and ethnic minority applicants were likely to be affected most, although the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, seemed to think that it might affect Australians.
That is not our intention, nor do I believe that the provisions can be misinterpreted in such a way. The purpose of the clause as drafted is simply to ensure that a person with accommodation overseas should not be able to leave it voluntarily and then rely on the homelessness legislation to gain a second address in this country. The clause will not interfere with the right to assistance under the homelessness provisions for those applicants who have a right to be housed in the United Kingdom.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made much of "he's here because he's here because he's here", saying that one could not pretend that the situation did not exist. Equally, one cannot pretend that a house elsewhere, which that person could perfectly reasonably occupy, does not exist. The house may be in Europe, possibly France. We may all know people who have houses in France or in southern parts of Europe. In what will be only a minority of cases—the number will be small—I do not believe that it is right to turn a blind eye to the fact that the person has a house that he or she can occupy.
For example, last February there were press reports of a woman of dual nationality who had been given a grant under the DoE sponsored "cash incentive" scheme which she used to buy a house in her country of origin. Those grants are no longer available for overseas purchases. She lived there for a while but then returned to this country and subsequently presented herself as homeless. The High Court found that she was owed a duty under the homelessness legislation, a decision which Camden Council described as "bizarre". That is exactly the situation the Government wish to avoid.
406
We fully accept that a local authority has a duty towards someone returning from abroad who has been made homeless there unintentionally. We have no plans to change that.
As regards asylum seekers, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, introduced the catch-22 concept. Clause 157(4) states:
"Accommodation shall not be regarded as available for a person's occupation unless it is accommodation which it would he unreasonable for him to continue to occupy".
Clearly, if he pleads asylum on the grounds that he would be under personal threats in his country of origin, where his house was, the subsection of that clause would be his "out"—if I may so describe it. He would not fall to be considered as someone who had a house elsewhere which he could occupy. I fully appreciate that argument. I hope that my reference to the subsection in Clause 157 helps the noble Lord.
Earl Russell: I am surprised at the depth of the localism of the Minister's picture of the world. It is rather like the Hampstead alderman in the days before Camden who said, "Do you mean to say that our ratepayers are paying rates to pay for public conveniences for the convenience of people from other boroughs?" People cross boundaries a great deal more often than the Minister suggests.
Let me take a concrete example. Let us suppose that the present Secretary of State at some future time should be without employment. Suppose at some future time his present house should be burned down. Would it be reasonable to say that the Secretary of State would be entirely unentitled to help because he had a home elsewhere in France? That place is not his normal centre of business, nor where he would look for future employment.
That kind of localism is remarkable. With the increasing freedom of travel in the world, people move about it: they have relatives in some parts of it, business interests in other parts of it, and occupations in other parts. If we are to go back to a world where everyone has to be shut in within their own little boundaries, we will do a great deal to discourage economic growth, culture and interchange. We will go back to a picture of this country under the old Poor Laws where everyone was sent back to their home parish. The Minister shakes his head, but the cases are exactly parallel. If that restraint had gone on, all the economic growth which the country experienced during the Industrial Revolution would have been impossible. It is exactly the same kind of localism as is being put forward here. In neither case is it capable of working. The Minister should notice how the world works. It is not like that.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps the Minister could help me in the case that I suggested. The parents of a young man of 20 had emigrated to Australia. They have to be contacted by the local authority to see whether they can accommodate their son. They have a reasonable sized house with a spare room, so they are in a dilemma. If they say: "Yes, we can accommodate our son", the local authority will not be required to treat him as homeless. On the other hand, the parents could lie and even though

407
they could accommodate their son, they could say: "No, we can't accommodate him". In that case, the local authority would accept the young man as homeless. But those parents would have been telling a falsehood. Would they be liable for the fine up to level 5 which is delineated in Clause 152? Would they suffer that jeopardy?
Lord Dubs: Having listened to the Minister, I wish that I had Hansard in front of me. I thought he said something interesting when he referred to Clause 157(4), stating that if an asylum seeker made a claim for asylum, it would be all right because the provisions of the paragraph would apply. I was delighted to hear it because he spent most of the earlier debates saying that many asylum seekers did not have a proper claim. In any case, until the claim was properly tested and accepted by the Home Office, they would have no entitlements. I believe that the Minister has made a concession, if I heard him properly. Perhaps he wishes to rebut that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is becoming confused between the homelessness regulations and the right to access to the council house waiting list.
Lord Dubs: No, I am not getting confused. I accepted as a general principle what the Minister said about the right of people who claim asylum to certain entitlements. I thought it was a good principle. However, perhaps I should not pursue it too far in case the Minister withdraws what he said.
There are difficulties. I understand what the Minister said, that if someone clearly has a home and no particular reason to leave it but arrives in Britain asking for accommodation, then there is a difficulty. The trouble is that most examples are likely to be the other way. At the least, they are likely to put local authorities in a difficult position. I give the Minister one example. Suppose a family arrives from Iraq, claiming asylum. The local authority may well say: "We are not sure about your claim, you have a perfectly good house in Baghdad, what are you doing here?" The danger is that an investigation by the local authority as to the circumstances in the country that the people left might well be damaging to them or to other members of their family who are still there. It would cause all kinds of difficulties.
I do not suggest that local authorities would actually do that. They would have the sense not to. But there may be other examples in other countries where a simple investigation which might be innocuous in some countries could be quite lethal in its consequences for the relatives or friends of the individuals who fled. So there are difficulties.
I fear that the Minister is not to be persuaded. He is adding to the statute book a measure that will mean great difficulty for local authorities. It will place upon them a burden out of all proportion to any possible benefit and will do a lot of harm to most people who
408
are affected. I wish to think about what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 264A not moved.]
Clause 156 agreed to.
Clause 157 [Meaning of accommodation available for occupation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 264AA:
Page 93, line 43, leave out from second ("occupation") to end of line 45 and insert ("both by him and by any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to insert slightly different words at the end of the clause, leaving out a reference to people who normally reside with the applicant. The purpose is to ensure that, in assessing whether a person is homeless, account is taken of family members and others, perhaps carers, who do not at that time normally reside with the applicant but who would normally reside with the applicant were it not for a lack of suitable accommodation.
The effect of Clause 157(2) is that a person is homeless if he or she does not have accommodation where he or she can live under the same roof together with other members of the household who normally reside together. The policy is clear: it is to enable people who are separated for want of a home to be treated as homeless, albeit that one or other of them has separate accommodation.
As I understand it, the wording is the same as that in Section 58(1) of the 1985 Act; but there have been problems in practice. The emphasis on people who "normally reside" together excludes those who would have resided together—for example, an engaged couple expecting a child, a family who need accommodation with an elderly parent in order to care for that parent, or a terminally ill person who cannot manage without a live-in carer. The amendment therefore borrows alternative wording from Section 75 of the 1985 Act and, to a very modest extent, widens the scope of those whom the local authority should consider a separated household. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment. Perhaps the Minister in replying will say whether the wording of the amendment will cover cases such as that where a child has been fostered or taken into care and where it is extremely desirable that it should return to its natural parents.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 157 defines when accommodation is available for a person's occupation. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness would alter the definition of availability so as to refer simply to accommodation being available for occupation both by the person,
"and by any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him".

409
The amendment is unnecessary. As drafted, Clause 157 already provides what the amendment seeks to do; namely, to provide that accommodation must be available not only to the applicant but also to,
"any other person who normally resides with him … or in circumstances in which it is reasonable for that person to reside with him".
for it to be regarded as available for the applicant's occupation.
The amendment would also remove reference to,
"other persons who normally reside with the applicant as a member of his family",
having to be taken into account in determining availability. That removal is not desirable. In fact, it might impinge on the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. While family members of the applicant's household would fall within the wider category promoted by this amendment, it is desirable and appropriate that they should appear as a discrete group on the face of the legislation. So, not only do I not believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is necessary, but worse, I believe that the way in which it would operate, because of what it takes out, would in fact not be desirable. With that explanation, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: That is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 264AB:
Page 94, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a tenancy, he is unable to comply with the terms of the grant of the tenancy and the terms of the tenancy at the time of the grant, having regard to his own resources and such public assistance as is likely to be available to him, or").
The noble Baroness said: I expected this amendment to be grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I shall try to be brief, given the lateness of the hour, but it is an important amendment and I do not feel that I should withdraw it.
The amendment seeks to ensure that available accommodation is available. If, for example, the tenant cannot afford to gain access to it, the accommodation is not to be regarded as available. In other words, it is reasonable for him to be regarded as not having access to it.
That problem will occur more frequently with the new conditions of sixth-month shorthold tenancies. First, there is the cost of access in itself. Most private landlords require a month's rent as deposit and then a further month's rent in advance. That means that with the help of friends or family prospective tenants must seek to raise perhaps £800. Having done so, if they can, there is still a second problem of meeting the cost of the rent. Housing benefit comes three or four weeks in arrears—that is assuming that it comes on time. Even so, now housing benefit does not cover the full cost of
410
the rent in 40 per cent. of cases either because the rent is excessive or because the property is regarded as over-large for the tenant.
Further, the new regulations on housing benefit will mean that housing benefit will not cover the market rent for that property but only the local reference rent, which may be considerably lower. Yet we know that 80 per cent. of homeless families need housing benefit.
Put all that together and there will be a growing problem of homeless families who are unable to afford privately rented housing. We need such an amendment to ensure that they are not regarded by local authorities as intentionally or deliberately homeless if they refuse to accept such accommodation, which they cannot afford, or if they leave such accommodation, which they cannot afford, because of the cost of access to it and the cost of staying in it.
I know that the Government believe that if they cap benefit the price of accommodation will fall. The last time that they seriously did that, the opposite was the case. The Salvation Army surveyed the effects of the 1985 capping of bed-and-breakfast payments, whereby, instead of having a maximum by discretion of £110 a head per week, the amount was capped to £70. If the Minister's theory of market economics worked, the cost that bed-and-breakfast hotels charge would fall accordingly. There were something in the order of 780 bed-and-breakfast hotels and as a result of those changes by the Government thereafter only 382 were willing to continue to accept homeless people. Of those 382, only 60 brought their price down to £70 a week. The rest in fact raised their charges by 15 to 20 per cent. The result, as the Minister may know, was that local authorities had a crisis in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
I hope we are wrong, but we fear that the same thing may happen this time and that capping costs merely takes the accommodation out of the market. It does not reduce its price because it is a landlord's market and there are other tenants who are anxious to rent the property. Therefore, we believe that currently there is and in future there will be a growing problem of people who are unable to afford access to privately rented accommodation or are unable to afford it thereafter. We want to ensure that, if they have to leave the accommodation or if they are given a list of addresses but when they go to inspect the accommodation they find that they cannot afford it, they are not thereby regarded as making themselves intentionally homeless. In all good faith, they cannot afford the rent. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments relate to affordability. It would clearly be wrong to assume that someone can continue to occupy accommodation, and therefore not be considered homeless, if he cannot meet the terms on which a tenancy was granted. An obvious case would be where he can no longer meet the.rent himself—for example, as a result of a change in the rent—and the rent charged is above the local reference rent for that type of property, with the result that housing benefit is not necessarily

411
payable in full. The local authority has a discretion (within limits) to top up the benefit, but may judge that that is not appropriate in the circumstances.
The order-making power that we are seeking under Clause 158 is intended to allow us to address such cases. We are reflecting on precisely how to use that power, and the range of cases it should cover. In that context, however, whether it is reasonable for a person to continue to occupy property is likely to cover a range of attributes, including whether the accommodation is of the right size and whether it is (where necessary) affordable for someone on housing benefit. The place to address affordability is in an order, provisions for which are in Clause 158. The more detailed issues raised by these amendments are not appropriate for the face of the Bill.
With the assurance that we will be addressing those issues in the orders we make under that clause, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That would be fine if I knew what the contents of the order were likely to be. In other words, can the Minister give us some indication to suggest that there is little distance between us? Though I would prefer it on the face of the Bill, I would have no choice but to accept what he says. Can he give us some indication of his thinking on the matter? Does he accept that, given that housing benefit does not cover, in 40 per cent. of cases, the full cost of rent let alone some of the other costs, that that will not be regarded as grounds for declaring that somebody has made themselves intentionally homeless and therefore the local authority has no responsibility towards them?
The test of excessive rent is an extremely tough one. If a couple without children seek to rent a two-bedroomed flat, that is regarded as excessive space and the housing benefit will cover only a portion of the rent of that property. If there is no one-bedroomed accommodation available and all they have is two-bedroomed accommodation and the couple seek to go into a two-bedroomed flat, by definition they will not receive housing benefit to cover their rent if they are on income support. They are therefore faced with the choice of going without accommodation, having that income support top sliced, getting into debt or being declared intentionally homeless. Can the Minister give us a sense of what his thinking may be and what the shape of the order may look like?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like to try to be helpful to the noble Baroness; I do not believe that there is a great deal of distance between us. As I indicated in my original contribution, we are currently reflecting on how we can use that power. I am not in a position to deliberate on the direction those reflections are moving. Therefore I cannot be more helpful, though I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety.
This is one of those issues where detail will be needed. It is a matter of balance. Although the noble Baroness gave us a case just on the other side of the balance, in fact many people not eligible for housing
412
benefit have to make a judgment as to what they can afford and temper that against what they would like. Many people have to accept, if they are a couple, that it is economically wiser for them to take one-bedroomed accommodation.
All those matters must be balanced. I could ask the noble Baroness whether she would be content to pay housing benefit to the couple if they decided to move into a four-bedroomed flat in a pricey part of the City of Glasgow or the City of London? Of course not. It is that kind of detail which we need to address, accepting that there may be problems with which we have to deal in the regulations which we will be able to bring forward under the clause.
I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful. If I discover that the process of reflection has continued a little further at the Department of the Environment, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may raise a problem for the Minister in the sense that he is suggesting that regulations can be made under Clause 158. My reading of the clause is that it refers only to persons being able to continue to occupy. There is no mechanism within it to determine what the requirements would be for someone looking for accommodation. It is not just someone who cannot continue to occupy a place because the rent has gone up or because his financial circumstances have deteriorated; it is also the situation where people are literally homeless and the local authority tells them they are not homeless because private rented accommodation is available. However, they do not have the money for the deposit and they cannot afford the rent. That is what the amendment attempts to sort out. If I have misunderstood the meaning of the amendment or the meaning of Clause 158, I am happy to be fully informed by the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps it is my fault that in trying to make up examples I have led the noble Lord to the wrong conclusion. The clause is entirely about continuing to occupy the property; it is not about finding accommodation. We also have to take into account when reflecting on this matter that there is a considerable amount of existing case law which obviously has a considerable bearing on giving local authorities guidance.
Lord Monkswell: To rely on case law when we are now writing an Act of Parliament seems a rather curious way of trying to get out of the situation. We are in the process of producing a new Act of Parliament which will presumably supersede the case law built up on the basis of previous Acts of Parliament and the way courts have interpreted them. We are talking about a new law which will supersede and override previous case law.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My understanding of these matters is that case law does not necessarily touch on one Act of Parliament and one Act only. It can be read across and it can be read backwards—not literally read backwards but one can look backwards to previous legislation and the case law that comes from

413
it. That, in a way, is why case law is important. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that one can in Parliament legislate for every case. We try to lay down some principles, and case law, ministerial guidance and secondary legislation all have their part to play in the interpretation of those principles.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to emphasise one point and then I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. The noble Lord speaks throughout as though somehow it is a tenants' market and that if tenants get a two-bedroom flat they can, if they are being realistic, shop around for a one-bedroom flat and get one. It is not like that. I do not know the position in any particular London borough but certainly in the part of the world I come from unfurnished rented accommodation at a reasonable rent that is salubrious and safe is like gold dust. If a recently married couple found a two-bedroom flat that was clean and affordable they would find themselves fortunate. The notion that somehow they can shop around and find a one-bedroom flat is simply not true. The Minister persists in believing that there is equity of bargaining power between tenant and landlord. There is no such thing. The bargaining power is all with the landlord, particularly when one talks about a young couple on income support. The Minister asked me rhetorically whether I would support a young couple going into a four-bedroom flat in Glasgow. If the alternative was being homeless and if there was not a realistic chance of a one, two or three-bedroomed place that they could go to then, yes, I would agree to it. That is the question: what is the supply of accommodation? What is it reasonable that they can seek and get, and can they afford it? If it cannot be afforded, then we need from the Minister an acceptance that that is a reason for saying that the couple have not made themselves intentionally homeless.
This is a very important issue for many young couples, particularly if their financial circumstances fluctuate, given the current state of the economy. We shall have to revisit this matter at Report stage. I hope that the Minister will have a slightly clearer idea that he can share with the House at the moment as to what the Government intend by financial accessibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264AC:
Page 94, line 6, at end insert (",or
( ) it is so severely damaged by fire, flood, terrorist action or other cause that it is no longer fit for human habitation.").
The noble Earl said: I do not intend to speak to this amendment. I move it only in order to open up the group behind it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: That seems to be a hint for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 264CB and 264CC. The first of these amendments is intended to ensure that occupiers of unfit housing are dealt with in a fashion where they are accorded priority for rehousing. The amendment is to add a category to Clause 158 for those who are living in accommodation which the council
414
itself has declared as unfit for anyone to live in. The fitness standard is in Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. A house or flat will only be declared unfit if the council's own officers are of the view that it is not reasonably suitable for accommodation.
The amendment is intended to avoid the uncertainty which can arise if the council's housing officers certify that a property is not reasonable for continued habitation and designate it as unfit within the definition. Subsequently, when the occupier applies as homeless to the same council, the homelessness officers have to ask themselves whether that is accommodation which it would be reasonable to occupy. The amendment proposes a uniform test when unfit premises are being considered.
Although the second amendment deals with whether it is reasonable for a person to continue to occupy certain accommodation, the situation is rather different. I am proposing that it is accepted as not being reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation if possession proceedings have started, but the person has no defence against those proceedings. This is intended in part as a practical response to a not unusual situation. It is to avoid people who are threatened with homelessness having to go through the ordeal and expense of a court hearing in circumstances where they have no security of tenure and there is no defence against possession being granted. I mentioned costs. This provision will avoid costs generally being incurred and the landlord would claim costs against a tenant in such a situation. I hope also to reduce the load on the court in having to deal with possession orders where there can be no defence, and to save the time of a great many individuals. The current position is that many people are being forced to live in accommodation where there is no security of tenure. By definition, a characteristic of that is that the tenant has no defence against possession proceedings if the landlord takes such proceedings.
The department's own code of guidance on homelessness asks the following questions:
"Has an applicant with no security of tenure left accommodation following a notice to quit…? Should an applicant have gone to court if it was clear to him/her that there was no defence against possession being granted? In these circumstances the authority should start to process the application and to make (if appropriate) arrangements to secure accommodation immediately".
I think that that explains the situation as quickly as I can and I shall not take up the time of the Committee in elaborating on it. My noble friend has moved his amendment, so I hope that that explanation of my amendments is clear.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Amendment No. 264CB might be the one on which I can hang the case that I want to raise with the Minister. I refer to the situation where a council is using accommodation in a hotel for many people, including homeless families, but the premises are in an unfit state. I do not know whether they qualify exactly under the categories listed by the noble Baroness, but on 25th April this year, the sub-lessee pleaded guilty to breaches of management

415
regulations and was fined £32,000 plus £5,000 costs. Several statutory notices remain outstanding and works in default are being carried out by the council.
What concerns me greatly is that the council needs that accommodation. Something like 250 people live in that property—not all of whom are homeless—which the officer's report describes as "appalling". The council is advised that if it decides to apply for a compulsory purchase order simply because the landlord flatly refuses to do anything and the council is having to carry out some works in default, there is a strong possibility that it will be obliged to pay substantial compensation for the loss of business. The amount quoted is approximately £1 million.
It seems scandalous that a person running an unfit property and ignoring or refusing to comply with council orders then has the right to compensation. I wonder whether the Minister will consider introducing further provisions under this clause to cover such situations. It seems wrong that if the property is not run in accordance with the standards that are expected and necessary and if regulations and notices are simply flouted, the sub-lessee should then be entitled to claim massive sums of money in compensation, resulting in the council being unable to proceed to make the property fit for human habitation. I feel that that point relates to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although not specifically connected with them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments all relate to the availability of accommodation for occupation and to whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy those premises. In deciding whether or not to accept a person as homeless, a local authority takes account of the quality of the accommodation that the person is occupying. If it is not reasonable for him to occupy or to continue to occupy it, for example because of its physical condition after fire, flood or terrorist action—as in Amendment No. 264AC, which was not spoken to—the authority owes that person a duty under the homelessness legislation.
Fitness is, of course, a matter of degree. The Government would not wish to suggest that authorities should be aiming for anything less than property that complies fully with the fitness standard. Nevertheless, one must be realistic. Being unfit in one particular regard does not necessarily mean that the property is not "reasonably suitable for accommodation". For example, in an early case on this subject it was held that a broken sash cord on one window of a property led to statutory unfitness, although it was not suggested that the property should be abandoned as a result. In 1991, there were around 1.5 million properties that were in some way statutorily "unfit".
This amendment would, if accepted, place local authorities under much more severe restraints on the sort of accommodation they could use for discharge of duty and oblige them to use more expensive alternatives. Clearly, this would result in an impossible situation, with considerable knock-on effects. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has reminded me on one
416
or two occasions that this is not a perfect free market in terms of supply. If this amendment were accepted, local authorities would face a very difficult situation. More broadly, local authorities are, and will continue to be, required to provide suitable accommodation which must take into account the state of repair of the building.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for interrupting him. The law on this matter is quite clear. A house may be unfit if it does not meet the eight-point, 10-point standard, 16-point standard, or whatever. The test is whether the property can be made fit at reasonable expense. In the example that the Minister gave of a broken sash cord, clearly the property could be made fit at reasonable expense and therefore that would not be an issue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was not exactly praying that case in aid as a fundamental defence of my position in not accepting the amendment. I was just illustrating some of the problems that could arise in discussing whether a property was fit or unfit.
The point to which I was turning when the noble Baroness rose to speak was that local authorities would continue to be required to provide suitable accommodation which must take into account the state of repair. The word "suitable" is defined in Clause 183 of the Bill, which includes order-making powers. There is a considerable amount of case law as to what is defined as "suitable".
Amendment No. 264CC relates to proceedings for possession. The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that authorities should not require applicants to fight possession orders where there is no chance of success before accepting that a household is being threatened with homelessness. The Department of the Environment's recent study on evaluating the code found that almost all—something like 94 per cent.—authorities would take a notice to quit or notice of seeking possession as evidence of impending homelessness. There are, however, many different forms of tenancy and of grounds for possession. There are also many defences which can apply in particular cases. Given that existing arrangements are shown to be working well and can be re-enforced in new guidance, the Government do not wish to introduce a new requirement which at the margin in a difficult case would require the local authority to anticipate the decision of the courts.
The Housing and Planning Act 1986 amended Section 69 of the Housing Act 1985 to require authorities to have regard to the parts of that Act which deal with slum clearance, overcrowding and houses in multiple occupation. The new order-making powers in Clause 183 will allow the Secretary of State to specify further circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable for someone, and matters which are to be taken into account or disregarded in determining whether accommodation is suitable for someone. The appropriate place for further defining the suitability of accommodation is in that order, not on the face of the Bill. I do not think that Amendment No. 264CC is desirable.

417
My noble friend Lady Gardner asked me a question, on which I find it difficult to comment in terms of the particular case she has raised. Broadly speaking, local authorities have a duty to take action in respect of properties in their area which fail the test of fitness for human habitation. Under provisions of the 1985 Housing Act, to tackle an unfit property an authority may require the owner to carry out the repairs (as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said in her intervention) or, in extreme cases, require closure or demolition. Another possible option is a compulsory purchase order. I am not an expert on housing policy and law, and I do not wish to go any further than that this evening. However if my noble friend wishes to give me further details I will consider the points that she has raised and write to her.
To return to the amendments, I have drawn the attention of the noble Baroness to Clause 183 and the position therein. I have explained what I hope is the present reasonable position and is likely to be in the future. I hope that those involved in these three amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Before the Minister sits down, will he copy the letter that he might be sending to his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, because I, too, am interested in how someone who is apparently operating a business illegally can walk away with 1 million for his troubles when the council feels that the business should be taken over and run properly? A number of us will be interested in the Minister's answer to that.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, is there any possibility that the case raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes could be sub judice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should have to look at that before I replied to anyone.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Try parliamentary privilege!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I doubt whether parliamentary privilege covers a letter from me to my noble friend or even the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to whom I shall happily copy the correspondence.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not entirely sure whether, in referring to this ubiquitous guidance, the Minister is indicating that he goes along with the thoughts which I have expressed. In particular, is Clause 183, which deals with suitability of accommodation, an appropriate reference when one is dealing with an applicant who faces repossession and has no defence to that? I am not immediately persuaded that the two clauses interlink in a way which is as effective as I should like to see.
The Minister referred to 94 per cent. of local authorities apparently following the section of the code of guidance which I quoted. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that that should be reproduced and that the other 6 per cent. should be persuaded that they should
418
take the same attitude. I do not know whether the Minister can give me any further indication that he has, at any rate, sympathy with the points that I am making.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I see the point that the noble Baroness makes. Shortly after I talked about the 94 per cent. which would take a notice to quit or a notice seeking possession as evidence of impending homelessness, I said that there were different forms of tenancy and different grounds for possession. We would not wish to introduce a requirement which, at the margin in difficult cases, would require a local authority to anticipate the court's decision. Of course, we could use an order under Clause 157 in relation to possession orders if we wished to.
Earl Russell: When John Locke in 1681 drew up the first Whipping lists for this place, he classified noble Lords of the day under V for vile, W for worthy, and in more extreme cases, VV and WW: and in the most extreme cases VVV and WWW. Listening to the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I wonder whether we should classify properties as unfit, very unfit, and very, very unfit. But I shall not follow the Minister any further into that thicket.
The amendment formally before the Committee at the moment is my Amendment No. 264AC. I put it down solely because I hoped to hear the Minister say that it was unnecessary. He did. I should like to thank him for doing so, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 157 agreed to.
Clause 158 [Whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264B:
Page 94, line 12, after first ("from") insert ("or to").
The noble Earl said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak briefly to the amendment and with it to Amendment No. 264C which is practically the same amendment. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 158(1) which in its present form says a person cannot be required to occupy premises if their occupation will lead to violence from some other person residing in it. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has sought to add the words "or to" after the word "from". The effect would be to extend the protection offered by the clause to people who have been victims of ouster orders under Clause 4 of the Family Law Bill. Members of the Committee who have followed that Bill know that this is a very necessary power and will welcome it warmly.
However, it is an extreme power and if, after men have been subject to ouster orders and have had to leave, they are then to be found to be intentionally homeless one might think that that had something in common with double jeopardy. The campaign against domestic violence is necessary and I am glad to say that it is gathering steam. However, if it is to be successful it must be pursued with concern for safety and justice.
It must not be allowed to become vindictive. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, tabled these proposals. I am glad that he did so. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 264BA and 264CA which remove the condition that the violence must be from a person residing in a dwelling. The two amendments stand in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has referred to the unhappy position of someone fleeing from domestic violence. I too have known that a violent husband—it is often the husband—will continue to pursue his wife despite the separation. There have been some horrendous experiences in, for instance, women's refuges where a husband, unable to accept the fact of separation, has appeared and threatened violence and has been violent. That situation should be accepted in the drafting of the provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We fully accept the important role of the homelessness legislation in providing assistance for those fleeing domestic violence. When this Bill was considered in another place my then honourable friend, now my right honourable friend, the Minister for Housing accepted the proposition made by the honourable Member for Greenwich that perhaps the present provisions do not cater adequately for all circumstances as they relate only to violence within the home. He agreed to consider what more might be done to safeguard the interest of those women who are under threat of violence from a former partner no longer living there. Subsequently he wrote to the honourable Member for Greenwich confirming that we would be bringing forward amendments at a later stage to extend the domestic violence provisions so that a person would be regarded as homeless if he, or more usually she, were under threat of violence from a partner or former partner whether or not he was living at the same address.
I regret that owing to the changed timetable for the consideration of this part of the Bill we have not yet been able to table those amendments, but it remains our intention to do so. I imagine that means that we shall do so on Report. I hope that that explanation goes a long way to addressing the problems. However, it does not go the whole way in addressing the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She would like the provision to extend to any violence, whoever the perpetrator. I must say that I have some difficulty going that step further. If a person experiences violence or abuse outside the home there are many more remedies open to them, and to the authorities, to help deal with the problem than are available to someone experiencing domestic violence. Threatening behaviour and assault are already punishable offences under criminal law; if people are caught in the net they will be arrested. It would not be unreasonable to ask someone experiencing violence outside the home to pursue available legal remedies in the first instance.
The court will be able to attach a power of arrest to injunctions obtained by social landlords where there has been violence or threats of violence. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurance that we shall address the central part of her concerns.
420
The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would have a different effect. The noble Earl is asking that the perpetrator of violence should be capable of being regarded as homeless and entitled to assistance under the legislation.
I cannot accept that. There are remedies in law for excluding a violent partner from the family home. In the absence of those, it would be open to the victim, or potential victim of violence, to flee the home, seeking assistance under the homelessness legislation initially and subsequently seeking to gain sole access to the property through the courts.
To give someone the right to be accommodated under this legislation if, of his own initiative, he offers violence would be a licence, if not an incitement, to commit acts of violence. That is not sensible and I do not believe it is what the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are seeking.
There may be circumstances in which someone suffers a real mental breakdown and needs to be removed from his home for both his own safety and that of others. In those circumstances, there may be a case for assisting him to find other accommodation. If he left the property voluntarily but in the interests of the safety of others, it may be that the local authority would take the view that he was not intentionally homeless and would therefore be willing to offer him assistance under the homelessness legislation.
I hope that the noble Earl will understand why I cannot feel able to accept the amendments, but I assure the Committee that I shall return to the issue of domestic violence on Report.
Earl Russell: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, as well as on my own behalf, I thank the Minister for the reply to my noble friend which I was very glad to hear.
However, the second part of my noble friend's amendment raises wider problems than those which we discussed. Those problems interact with those raised on the social protection amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which was discussed last night. The Minister is quite right that there are all sorts of other ways in order to protect people. But as we discovered last night, they do not always work. There is a case for a fall-back which is worth further thought.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which I moved, it is rather misleading to describe being forcibly excluded from one's home as an incitement to perform the act which led to it. The exclusion is a severe punishment but a right one. The Minister knows that; I need not repeat it. But once that is done, the person who has been excluded still exists. Being accommodated under the homelessness legislation is not so attractive that it is likely to be an incitement to anyone.

421
Since many women remain compassionate towards the men who have done these things, often unwisely compassionate, if there was some sort of place where those men could go rather than sleep on the streets, women might be more ready to employ the powers given to them under Section 4 of the Family Law Bill than they would otherwise be. Therefore, the system might work a good deal more effectively and humanely if that power were included in it. but I certainly shall not press the point this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264BA to 264D not moved.]
Clause 158 agreed to.
Clause 159 [Duty of local housing authority to provide advisory services]:
The Chairman of Committees: In calling this amendment, I must point out that if Amendment No. 264E is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 265.
[Amendment No. 264E not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 265 not moved.
Lord Swinfen: I would actually like to move Amendment No. 265 if I may, but I shall do it as briefly as possible.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 94, line 28, at end insert ("taking into account the particular needs of people with physical, mental and sensory disabilities").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account by local authorities when they secure that advice and information about homelessness are available to every person in their district.
Disabled people, including those with physical, mental or sensory disabilities, have a range of particular needs when seeking housing information and advice. The premises of agencies giving advice and the format in which advice is available must be accessible to disabled people. This not only means, for example, that office accommodation is wheelchair accessible but also that information is available in accessible formats for visually impaired people.
Many advice organisations, statutory and voluntary, are aware of these needs and cater for them in their provision. However, the inclusion of this amendment will make apparent the particular needs of disabled people and ensure that local authorities guarantee that all advice agencies make suitable arrangements. Housing advice is particularly important for disabled people because of the need for suitable housing related to their particular disability. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He was sitting there most patiently, as always.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen seeks to
422
require local housing authorities, in providing advisory services on homelessness, to take into account the particular needs of people with physical, mental and sensory disabilities.
The new provisions requiring authorities to secure that advice is available are not intended to be unduly prescriptive. It will be for each authority to determine how best to fulfil this duty, and how best to take account of the special needs of any particular group of people. That includes the particular group my noble friend is concerned about. The Government would not wish to see further prescription on the face of the Bill, but, rather, intend to issue guidance on the provision of advisory services. This will enable a fuller explanation to be given to authorities of the particular needs of the various groups, and to direct authorities towards best practice for dealing with those needs effectively. I am sure that guidance is the more appropriate and flexible vehicle for tackling such issues. I hope that with that assurance and explanation of how we propose to deal with this issue my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for his response to the amendment and will certainly withdraw it. I hope that the Disability Discrimination Act we have recently passed will help go a long way to satisfying my demands. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 265Z4 and 265ZB not moved.]
Clause 159 agreed to.
Clause 160 agreed to.
Clause 161 [Terms and conditions of assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 265ZC and 265ZD not moved.]
Clause 161 agreed to.
Clause 162 agreed to.
Clause 163 [Application for assistance]:
[Amendment No. 265ZE not moved.]
Clause 163 agreed to.
Clause 164 [Inquiry into cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness]:
[Amendments Nos. 265ZF and 265G not moved.]
Clause 164 agreed to.
Clause 165 [Persons from abroad not eligible for-housing assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 265ZH and 265A not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 265AA:
Page 96, line 35, at end insert—
("(1) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall render ineligible under this Part any claimant pursuing an appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.").
The noble Lord said: During debate on the amendment dealing with whether or not people had accommodation abroad, the Minister reassured the Committee by saying that if an asylum seeker had accommodation elsewhere but had fled for safety, the provisions of the Bill would cover his application. Yet Clause 165 denies that proposition. The amendment

423
seeks to ensure that any claimant who pursued an appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Bill would be eligible under this part.
I agree that the issue is a little narrower than the point made earlier by the Minister. However, the amendment deals with the difficulty that arises when a claim made by an asylum seeker has been turned down and, quite properly, the asylum seeker exercises his right to appeal against that decision. In a number of instances he will win his appeal. The difficulty is that there is a gap in terms of entitlement under a range of provisions between the Home Office turning down the application and a successful appeal. The period of the appeal process can be lengthy. The amendment ensures that during that period an asylum seeker would not lose his entitlement under this part of the Bill. We believe that that is natural justice; otherwise we deny people the right which they may win back if the appeal is successful. They may experience serious housing difficulties during what may be a lengthy period.
It is a difficulty which runs through the Government's proposals on asylum. However, it is in sharp relief in this provision. I assume that people would lose any accommodation that they might have obtained from the date that the Home Office informs them that the appeal has been unsuccessful. Presumably upon winning an appeal, those people will gain the accommodation back. The situation is confusing; it is unsatisfactory. The amendment would make the position clearer. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The right to appeal against an unfavourable asylum decision is becoming a little like the proverbial right to have tea at the Ritz: everyone has the right to do so, and a great many people are unable to do so.
The difficulty in exercising legal rights is a constant phenomenon. We do not want to make it any worse than it is. If the right of appeal is to remain meaningful, the right to live somewhere while one exercises that appeal necessarily has to go with it.
It is a little difficult to serve papers in "cardboard city". Addresses within it are flexible. While the Minister admires flexibility in all sorts of places, I do not think that he takes his admiration quite that far.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment. It seems quite wrong that a person should be consigned to a housing limbo, or possibly a housing hell, simply because he or she has exercised his or her right of appeal under asylum and immigration law.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 265AA, which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, moved—he did not speak to the other amendments grouped with it—would prevent persons who were appealing an adverse decision by the Home Office on their asylum claim from being prescribed in regulations as ineligible for assistance under Part VII.
424
Perhaps I may go back a step and remind the Committee of where the amendment arose. When people apply for asylum at the port of entry they are eligible for benefits. They are also eligible for consideration under the homelessness legislation. We got into difficulty earlier with that, but I am clear about it. Those people who apply in country are eligible neither for the benefits nor to be considered under the homelessness legislation. After some months—we hope fewer with each passing month—the Home Office makes a decision. If it is adverse—for example, in 1995 it was adverse in 79 cases out of 100—and does not grant refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, the next step for that person is to appeal.
I shall be quite open about it. I have already explained to the Committee that one of the problems is that it is a no-lose situation for the asylum seekers. Until recently, if they put in an appeal, they simply stayed on benefits and were considered under the homelessness legislation for as long as the appeal took. It could take quite a time, partly because of the considerable numbers we have experienced coming to the country, and also partly because in a number of cases the applicant was able to spin it out by asking for adjournments. So there was almost a perverse incentive for people to appeal and draw out the appeal because it enabled them to remain in the country with benefits.
The Government decided that, given the number of people who at the end of the appeal procedures are found still not to merit refugee status, we had to act against a clear abuse of the system. The outcome of the appeal procedures in 1995 was that only 3 per cent. were successful. Yet all the others could have eligibility to benefit.
In the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 which your Lordships approved and which came into effect last February, the changes we made mean that asylum seekers who have received a negative decision on their asylum claim are not entitled to benefit. That includes housing benefit. It encompasses all those who appeal against the decision. As an aside and for clarity, asylum seekers who make their claim for asylum in-country rather than at the port on their arrival here are not entitled to housing benefit at all.
We are squaring the homelessness legislation with the decision that we have already taken in the social security legislation, in particular on the housing benefit system, where payments are not made during the course of an appeal. The amendment would mean that a person could, on appeal, continue to claim under the homelessness legislation and the local authority would be obliged to assist them. That would run contrary to the principles of the policy which we have brought in regarding entitlement not only to the benefit system but also to homelessness. For all the reasons I have argued in the Committee today and previously, we cannot move in that direction.
I am asked by the noble Earl, as I have been asked on a number of occasions, "What happens to people in those circumstances?". My answer remains the same. They are in no different position than they have been in

425
until now when after some time their appeal was turned down, as it was in the vast majority of cases. They are no longer eligible for any of the benefits or for consideration under the homelessness legislation. It may well advance that day, but it does not change the arithmetic to any great extent. The majority currently are left at the end of the appeal process in exactly the same position as the noble Earl described. As I have argued before, I believe that by taking this step we will concentrate the minds of people who appeal. We will remove the perverse incentive to appeal. We hope we will then be able to deal with backlogs and process applications and appeals much more quickly than we have been able as the numbers have built up over the past decade. So while I understand the noble Earl's point, I believe the position that the Government have taken is entirely consistent and logical and accords with the figures that we have seen over the past few years.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am sorry; I am afraid that the Minister's reply to my argument is not true. These people are not in the same position as those whose appeal has been taken through a hearing and they have lost. The difference is that these people, if they are destitute—as they normally are by this time—cannot leave the country as they do not have the means to do so; whereas people whose appeals have failed can leave the country at Her Majesty's expense or, I believe, sometimes at the expense of British Airways. They can be deported. But we are dealing here with people who cannot be deported; they do not have the means to leave the country; and, because they are trapped in this country, any support they may get will be in this country.
Can the Minister show me anything in his proposals as he advances them which discriminates between those whose appeals are found to be justified and those whose appeals are not found to be justified? I do not quite see how he could do that, because we do not know until the hearing takes place whose appeals will succeed and whose will not.
I was brought up in the belief that it is better for 99 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be condemned. I know that nowadays that is regarded as an old-fashioned view, but I afraid that I still hold to it. The requirements of justice demand it. That principle applies equally to those who are seeking asylum and have appealed against a refusal.
If anyone else were to introduce restrictions on the judicial process quite this sweeping, Ministers might possibly consider accusing them of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I do not intend to do that. However, I do believe that this measure is a very severe hindrance to the course of justice. The Minister has made out no case for it, except one that rests on a presumption which in some cases is certain to be false; and he has no idea in how many cases it will be false, or indeed in which cases it will be false. The logic of that position is very poor indeed.
Lord Dubs: I wish to make two points in relation to the Minister's remarks. First, whatever the argument about the number who will, or will not, win an appeal—I concede that at present the majority do not—the fact is that the justice of an appeals system is denied. If people are unable to function, if they have nowhere to live while awaiting an appeal, then it may be very difficult for them to stay in this country and exercise their right of appeal.
As the noble Earl said, there are wider issues at stake than simply the technical point made by the Minister that people are using the time it takes to reach appeal as a way of staying here. The implication is that some appeals have not been very well founded.
Justice has its price. The price of justice is surely protection of the rights of all individuals so that those who will win an appeal are not penalised because of others whom the Minister says should not have their rights while waiting for the appeal date.
My second point concerns the number of people who will be affected. I am trying to remember some of the details of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, with which the Minister will be as familiar as anybody. It contains changes to the appeals system as a result of which fewer people will be allowed to exercise an in-country right of appeal than would have been able to do so. The Minister's argument loses some of its force if the Asylum and Immigration Bill goes through in its present form. Therefore the rights of justice would seem to me to loom larger than they might otherwise have done.
The Minister's position is not very convincing. I wonder whether he would care to comment on the fact that the effect of the Asylum and Immigration Bill will be to reduce the number of people who can give effect to a right of appeal in this country and therefore he need not be so worried as he said he was about people who might be abusing the system in his terms.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am having some difficulty at the moment in running two Bills at the same time. I am afraid that I cannot immediately give the noble Lord an answer to the particular point he raised at the end of his remarks. It is certainly true that anyone who appeals in country for asylum does not receive any benefit and is not eligible to be considered under the homelessness legislation. They are still considered by the Home Office for eligibility for asylum or exceptional leave to remain. Certainly, if they are refused, they are able to appeal, although they still do not get onto the benefit system. Perhaps the noble Lord is thinking of the fast tracking system. That is what I jotted down. To be honest with the noble Lord and the Committee, I cannot just recall the appeal procedure on the fast track, and so I cannot confirm or deny what he said.
I was beginning to wonder whether the lateness of the hour was affecting the noble Earl when he asked how I could tell who was going to be successful and who was not. I then realised that he asked the question in order to answer it himself; the answer being, of course, that I could not tell. That is true. If we could

427
tell, we should have been able to make a much finer judgment on the whole question of asylum seekers and their continuing right after they had been turned down by the Home Office for the first time. Would that there were a method by which we could look into the future and foretell the outcome of their appeal! But there is not. I do not feel that it is a question of guilt or innocence. It is simply a matter of whether or not the person satisfies the various international legal definitions which give them the right to be considered as asylum seekers or give them exceptional leave to remain in this country. I do not believe that it is quite comparable to the law.
Moreover, it means that people from abroad—asylum seekers—are put on all fours with ordinary citizens of the United Kingdom who wish to appeal against a decision on benefit. As Members of the Committee will know, during the course of that appeal UK citizens whose application for benefit has been turned down do not get benefits. So, in fact, persons from abroad seeking asylum to that extent are on all fours with United Kingdom citizens lodging benefit appeals.
I know that both noble Lords who have spoken do not agree with me on that point. We have been over it a number of times and I have tried to explain the logic of the Government's position, which I believe is well founded. If we could only get the numbers down and begin to clear cases much more quickly than we are able to do, with the very considerable numbers who have been coming over the past few years, we should be able to make much more rapid decisions.
Earlier today, one noble Lord pointed out, in response to a suggestion that people could disperse themselves around the UK, that people from abroad—asylum seekers—by and large want to live in that area of the country (usually in the city) where their compatriots have settled and will be around them. It seems to me that in the majority of cases it is to those compatriots that people can and do look for sustenance during the course of their appeal and indeed during the course of their original application if they apply in country.
Earl Russell: At this time of the night it was a little perverse of the Minister to tempt me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, into the byway of discussing the way appeals against refusal of benefit are treated in this country. I shall resist that temptation.
I am grateful to the Minister for his admission that he cannot know whose appeals are going to succeed. In making that admission, he admitted that he is going to do injustice to genuine claimants. Having made that admission, he should withdraw the Government's proposal.
Lord Dubs: I do not find the Government's argument to be in any way persuasive—not because he is not totally familiar with the details of the legislation (I am sure none of us are on top of the
428
details of that), but in terms of the principles the amendment seeks to address. But perhaps I can make one brief point.
It is not good enough to say that because refugees and asylum seekers coming here are supported in many instances by refugee community organisations, those organisations can look after the consequences of people who have nowhere to live because of the Government's measures. With the best will in the world, refugee community organisations are poor. They provide valuable work for asylum seekers and refugees and valuable support in a cultural, linguistic and religious sense. They do not normally have the resources with which to house people and it is disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that. He is not to be persuaded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 265AB to 265ZBA not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 265BA:
Page 96, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: This amendment proposes to delete from the Bill the condition which ties entitlement to help with homelessness to the housing benefit regulations. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 265BB grouped with it, which states:
"The regulations shall not apply to a person who is not unlawfully in the United Kingdom".
That seems to me to be the nub of the whole issue. If people are entitled to be here, then they are entitled to help. Indeed, one might say that if they have to be here, they are entitled to help.
It does not make sense to let people come here and then make them starve when they have got here. I simply cannot understand why the Government think that those are consistent things to do. Or at least I can understand it: they cannot deny those people the right to come here because they are bound by international law; but they believe, quite possibly wrongly, that they are not bound by international law to afford them any social protection when they come here. That will become a matter of a great variety of cases in a great variety of international tribunals, and the Government may well lose some of them.
I really must say that of all the things British governments have done in my lifetime, I cannot remember any which have made me quite so ashamed of my country as this has done. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may first apologise to the noble Earl. I tempted him into thinking that he had to deal with Amendment No. 265B because I had it mixed up in my notes with the two amendments to which he has just spoken.
We have already gone over a good deal of this territory. The main purpose of the provisions on eligibility for assistance under Part VII is to enable

429
entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation to be aligned with entitlement to housing benefit.
Since 1994, under social security regulations, certain categories of person from abroad have not been entitled to housing benefit. The descriptions of person that the Government intend to prescribe in the regulations under Clause 165 as being ineligible for assistance under Part VII will be precisely the categories of person who have no entitlement to housing benefit. In other words, we are aligning the two descriptions—the homelessness description with the housing benefit description.
Broadly, these are: first, a person who requires leave to enter or remain in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971, and who is: an illegal entrant, an overstayer or a person given temporary admission; or a person who sought asylum after entering the United Kingdom (except where an asylum claim is made within three months of a declaration by the Secretary of State that his country of origin has undergone an upheaval) and who has no other leave to remain in this country; or a person whose claim for asylum has received an adverse decision by the Home Office—we have already discussed that case—or a visitor, student or other person given limited leave to enter or remain on the basis that he could support and accommodate himself without recourse to public funds; or the subject of a sponsorship agreement made within the previous five years, and whose sponsor is still alive; secondly, a person from abroad who fails a test of habitual residence in the UK; and, lastly, a person who is a citizen of a member country of the European Economic Area, and who is in breach of a European Community right of residence directive.
Those are the categories we propose to deal with in the regulations. It is important that entitlement to homelessness assistance and entitlement to housing benefit are in alignment, not least because of the implications for housing authorities' costs if they are not. To secure that aim we need the very provision that the noble Earl would in a rather narrow way attempt to remove. Amendment No. 265BA removes a secondary, but nevertheless important, provision which allows the regulations to make reference to the housing benefit regulations.
We have been over this ground today on a number of occasions. I rather fear that the noble Earl and I will not persuade each other. I have explained why we believe the entitlements ought to be aligned and I have given a very clear description of the categories we intend to bring within the scope of this part of the Bill. While I do not expect my arguments to win over the noble Earl, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: I should like to invite the Minister to reflect between now and the next stage of this Bill or between now and the appropriate stage of the asylum Bill on the situation of those people who come to this country with the intention of claiming asylum but who fail to do so at the port of entry. There are
430
many good reasons why they should fail to do so. For example, they may be in total ignorance of British asylum law; they may lack any command of the English language; or there may be no interpreters at the port of entry at the time they arrive. Those are the kind of reasons why people sometimes fail to make their application at the point at which they are supposed to make it. Many of them then go on to apply for asylum within a reasonable period after arrival.
Earl Russell: In trying to persuade me that I should follow the example of the housing benefit regulations, the Minister is trying to convince me that two wrongs make a right. I am not persuaded of that. I say one thing more to him. He occasionally reproves me for raising arguments about powers by saying, "No British government would ever do this." He is here doing something which, as recently as two years' ago, I believed, with the greatest confidence, no British government would ever do.
The most improbable examples I use in that area seem to me no more improbable than this seemed to me only very recently. I do not expect that I am going to persuade the Minister any more than he expects to persuade me. Since this seems the wrong time of night to have recourse to the Division Lobby, there is nothing else I can do but to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265BB not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 265BC:
Page 96, line 42, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the position of spouses of asylum seekers. It is quite familiar ground that under the 1977 legislation single people do not enjoy a claim to priority homelessness. Clause 165(4) states that,
"no account shall be taken of any other person… [who] resides…if that other person is a person from abroad who is ineligible for housing assistance".
In other words, if one marries an asylum seeker one is treated as being single. I do not usually spend a great deal of eloquence on the defence of the family, but I believe that people who want to live in families should be allowed to do so without wanton attempts by the state to prevent them.
People who wish to marry asylum seekers, as they do from day to day, should have just the same rights to be able to have a family, live at peace with it, and enjoy the protection of the state, as any others. By making spousal contact with an asylum seeker an infectious condition like a kind of plague so that it puts one out of the protection of the state the Minister is doing something which has racial connotations which I find extremely unsavoury. I am sure that that was not the intention. I am sure that it was the usual Treasury intention which simply does not take into consideration these categories at all. But that is the

431
effect of what the Government are doing. It is an outrageous proposal and I hope that they will consider withdrawing it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment would remove Clause 165(4) which ensures that, in assessing homelessness applications, authorities cannot take account of a person who normally resides with the applicant if that person is someone from abroad who is not eligible for assistance under Part VII. If my memory serves me rightly, we discussed the matter this afternoon, which is rather a long time ago. The circumstances are the same here as they were then as regards eligibility for the housing list.
Clause 165(4) is an important provision. A large proportion of homelessness applicants do have dependants. In their own right, these people do not have a priority need for accommodation. That is conferred upon them and their application by the presence of those dependants.
Our policy on eligibility for assistance under Part VII is clear. I have already explained it. Persons from abroad who are not entitled to housing benefit should not be entitled to homelessness assistance. That must apply equally to people who are the dependants of others. If the question of whether there is a priority need turns on the presence of a dependant who is not eligible, then it is logical that a duty should not be owed in those circumstances. I hope that I have made the position clear. I appreciate that it is yet another message that the noble Earl is not going to agree with, but I do not believe that he will be surprised. He may not have heard me earlier today on the subject because I believe I spoke to it before the noble Earl joined the Committee. He will not be surprised because of the nature of my other defences on the matter.
Earl Russell: I fear that the Minister has made the position clear. He has made it clear that asylum seekers are unclean and that one should not associate with them. That is the only way in which I can read what he says. Before we leave the subject, I ask him to give some thought as to whether his proposals infringe Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a right to privacy and to family life. It seems to me that a British subject who marries an asylum seeker is not in any way less entitled to the protection of that convention than somebody who marries another British subject or, indeed, an Australian, an American or whatever. It is a loss of the right to family life if one loses the protection of the homelessness legislation for marrying one person and not another.
I know that there are certain people within Her Majesty's Government who are becoming increasingly allergic to the European Convention on Human Rights, but this country, under a Conservative Government, did choose to enter and to ratify that convention. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in this Chamber explain that he was in part responsible for the drafting of that convention. The noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest respect, is not the sort of
432
person Conservatives usually regard as a dangerous ideological foreigner, and what he regarded as fundamental rights I think are rights that we should take extremely seriously.
I am sure that the Minister will reply that the Government are confident that this interpretation is not true. I am no lawyer, and I am not certain, but when the Government say that they are confident we often find that that confidence is misplaced. Sooner or later this will go to court and one hopes that rather more attention will be paid to the court than is being paid to the arguments that we make here tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 165 agreed to.
Clause 166 [Asylum-seekers and their dependants]:
[Amendment No. 265BD not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 265BE:
Page 97, line 15, at end insert ("and
(c) for the purposes of this subsection, a person's claim shall be treated as being finally determined where he is granted a period of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to clarify the question of what is the final determination of an asylum claim within Clause 166(2)(b). That provides that a person ceases to be an asylum seeker and therefore ceases to be subject to the disadvantages and disbenefits imposed by the provisions at the time the claim is recorded as having been finally determined or abandoned.
Many asylum seekers are granted exceptional leave to remain, even if they do not achieve full refugee status. Other noble Lords will know the effect of that better than I, but I should like to know the position of those who have been granted exceptional leave to remain although that leave is limited in time—at any rate, initially; it may be extended or become indefinite. If a decision has been made to allow somebody to remain in the UK without restrictions on working or having recourse to public funds, it seems appropriate that that person should not be subject to the effects of Clause 166. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 166, among other things, specifies when a person becomes, and ceases to be, an asylum seeker. Clause 166(2)(b) provides that a person ceases to be an asylum seeker when his claim for asylum has been finally determined (or abandoned). Amendment No. 265BE seeks to define "finally determined" as being the point where the asylum seeker is granted a period of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
As such, I suspect that this amendment is, if not technically defective, then inaccurate. I understand that a person's claim to asylum is not necessarily finally determined at the point where he is granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, since it is open to him at that point to appeal against the decision not to grant him refugee status. Most asylum claims—currently over 80 per. cent.—are

433
unsuccessful. Those include exceptional leave to remain cases. Of the remaining 17 per. cent. or so, the majority are exceptional leave to remain cases. I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness goes a little further than we would and almost implies that if an individual gains exceptional leave to remain he is not allowed to appeal. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness intends.
One of the important things that Clause 166 provides is a mechanism which enables the Home Office to notify local authorities when the asylum claim of a homeless applicant has been finally determined. The authority needs this information to determine what homelessness duty, if any, is owed to the person at that point. It is necessary, therefore, to have a definite point at which asylum claims are considered to be finally determined. In a practical sense this has to be the point at which all avenues of possible appeal have been exhausted. The amendment does not provide for this. Those people who are given exceptional leave to remain, as well as asylum seekers, are eligible for benefit and consideration under the homelessness legislation. I was not entirely sure whether the noble Baroness was casting doubt on that. I am happy to clarify it.
Since in most cases the final determination of an asylum claim does not result in the grant of exceptional leave to remain, I do not think that this amendment is a practical option. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it. I do not believe that the noble Baroness spoke to Amendment No.265BF, and I shall rest my argument at this point.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not seek to suggest that a person who was granted exceptional leave to remain had his further rights of appeal restricted by the amendment. I do not believe that that is what this amendment does. The amendment states,
"for the purposes of this subsection".
That would not be the only occasion on which there was a notional assumption of a situation to deal with the subject matter of the clause. It has nothing to do with whether or not the asylum seeker can continue with appeals under separate legislation. My point is restricted entirely to that person's position with regard to the homelessness legislation.
The Minister gave a quick assurance. Perhaps I should read it in the Official Report. I do not know whether he can add to it this evening now that I have perhaps explained the amendment a little more fully.
Lord Dubs: I should like to follow that line of argument. I hope that I do not repeat the question posed by the noble Baroness. With regard to Clause 166(5), it provides that the Secretary of State may give information to the local authority in order that it can carry out its functions under this part of the Bill. That information is related to whether or not the person has become an asylum seeker. Surely if an individual has been given exceptional leave to remain, the fact that he or she is entitled to certain housing
434
services is made more definite. Although at that stage the individual may still have a right of appeal in order to attain asylum status, surely the local authority will benefit from knowing that the person has been given ELR, because that means that its obligations to the individual are quite clear.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be that we are getting into a bit of a pickle. If that is my fault, I apologise. Clause 166 provides a mechanism which enables the Home Office to notify a local authority when the asylum claim of a homelessness applicant has been finally determined. Clearly when the Home Office has come to a view it will have decided either that the individual is eligible for asylum and is granted asylum or— I am not sure whether I should use "either/or" because I think that there are three possibilities: the person is granted asylum, is given exceptional leave to remain, or neither. The application has been rejected and the individual has not fallen into exceptional leave to remain. It is clearly right that the authority needs that information. That is what the clause does: it gives the Home Office the power to give that information.
I believe that we are all clear about the person granted asylum. The person granted exceptional leave to remain has also ceased to be an asylum seeker. That is the problem. He has ceased to be an asylum seeker, although he could still appeal. I think that is where my confusion has arisen. He has ceased to be an asylum seeker; he has become someone with exceptional leave to remain, and as such he has full rights.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265BF not moved.]
Clause 166 agreed to.
Clause 167 [Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need]:
[Amendment No. 265BG not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 265BH:
Page 98, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Irrespective of the applicant's request for a review, the duty of an authority shall cease upon written notification to the applicant, which notification shall contain reasons for the termination of the duty and shall inform the applicant of his right to request a review of that decision (see section 181)").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 265BL. Amendment No. 268ZAC is grouped with these amendments, and I leave it to others who may be able to find it to decide whether to speak to it.
Amendments Nos. 265BH and 265BL return to the subject of information in the context of a review. I hope that the Minister can give further assurances. The first amendment relates to the written notice provision and is designed to ensure that an applicant is informed fully of his rights to a review at an early

435
stage and, as a practical matter, in the hope that it will avoid unnecessary delay in making an application if an applicant is ignorant of his rights in that respect.
My second amendment is intended to ensure that a homeless person refused temporary accommodation is notified formally of the refusal and of the reasons for it. It is a matter of natural justice to which the Committee has been referred earlier, and again a matter of practical importance, reinforcing the duty of local authorities to deal with it in a correct manner and to account for the process by which they have arrived at an unfavourable decision. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern that an authority should be required to give written notification of its decision not to accept a duty to accommodate under the homelessness legislation. The homelessness duty is an important one, and a person refused that duty is entitled to know the full reasons for this, so that if he is unhappy with it he can seek redress through a review under Clause 181.
That is why we have provided in Clause 164 that written notice is given of the outcome of inquiries under this part. These provisions substantially repeat what is currently in Section 64 of the Housing Act 1985. They require an authority to give its reasons in writing. If the noble Baroness looks at Clause 164 I hope that she will see that what she is seeking in Amendment No. 265BH is contained in Clause 164(3) and (6) which provides:
"Notice required to be given to a person under this section shall be given in writing".
I hope that answers that point.
With Amendment No. 265BL the noble Baroness is seeking to require authorities to give written notice of reasons for refusing the interim duty. I question whether that is necessary or indeed practicable. Local authorities are approached by a range of people seeking assistance with their housing problems, many of whom are not homeless within the meaning of the legislation and some of whom, although they may pass the test of homelessness, are certainly not owed a duty. It would be unreasonable for a local authority to be required to give a written response with reasons to each and every inquiry it receives, however casual.
Local authorities take their duties under homelessness legislation very seriously. They consider each case on its merits. The disposition of the law is to require them to consider all applications and, where necessary, to provide interim accommodation where they have reason to believe that someone may be owed a duty. So the balance of advantage already rests with the applicant. The code of guidance stresses the need to consider all applications fully and we will maintain this advice when we issue a new edition. It would be unrealistic to require authorities to go further. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I remain a little concerned about the second point. It is dangerous to suggest that,
436
in an area as fundamental to people's well being as this, notice in writing should not be required. I should have thought that any sensible local authority would keep proper file notes of what it is doing and what its responses to any application for housing have been. If it does that, it is only a small further step to giving the notice in writing. If it is not given in writing, there is an awful temptation for people to behave rather carelessly. However, I think that it is rather late to pursue the matter now. I thank the Minister for both those replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 265BJ:
Page 98, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("( ) The authority shall continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the provision of accommodation pending a review. We know that the local authority has an interim duty to provide temporary accommodation for people in priority need while it considers whether people come within the remit of the Act and of local connection. If it decides that it does not have such a duty, the Government have sensibly agreed that the applicant should have the right of review.
This amendment does something very simple. It provides that the applicant should continue to stay in the interim accommodation while the review is being conducted and not be evicted, even though it is quite possible that the review may subsequently be found in his favour and he be reinstated again. We do not expect review cases to occur that frequently. But if they do, as a result of the amendment, the local authority will have to ensure that the proceedings take place as quickly as possible. However, a right of review is meaningless if, while that right of review is being considered or while the review is taking place, the applicant has been evicted from the accommodation he was in temporarily. If he has family or friend to go to, he will be fine. But if he has not, he may be in real difficulties. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Local authorities are generally very assiduous about the way in which they assess an application for assistance under the homelessness legislation. However, we see the new review procedure as an important safeguard for the rights of the applicant and we wish to see it as open as possible so that the aggrieved applicant can access it without specialist or professional help. We want authorities to conduct reviews as speedily as possible and we will be issuing guidance of the target times they might wish to set themselves for the turnround of appeals, although in many cases it will be several weeks before this can be arranged.
Nevertheless, given this situation, the amendment appears to be an invitation to anyone who is refused assistance by the authority to put in an appeal on wholly unmeritorious grounds with the sole objective of requiring the authority to accommodate him for a few more weeks pending the resolution of his appeal.

437
We have been over this ground of general principle once or twice this evening. Therefore, it will not come as a surprise to the noble Baroness that I am attempting to continue what I consider my logic, and what no doubt the noble Baroness considers my lack of logic, in relation to this appeals situation.
The existence of a continuing entitlement to benefit would, we fear, merely encourage appeals without foundation. Therefore, we prefer to follow the model which is applied to social security appeals where entitlement to benefit is withheld pending the outcome of an appeal which has been made against a decision to suspend benefit.
The authority has a discretion to continue to provide interim accommodation where it feels that that is appropriate. I believe that that should be a sufficient protection for somebody in a difficult position. That is a small chink in the otherwise impenetrable logic which I am attempting to throw up in regard to the way in which we treat social security appeals across the field. We do not believe that it would be right to do as the noble Baroness suggests, but I point out that the interim accommodation procedure exists if the local authority feels that that is appropriate.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am now left utterly confused by the Minister's reply because he was moving between this procedure, which is not a social security procedure, and social security procedure.
Let us go back to where we were. I am seeking to say that it may take a few weeks for a local authority to decide whether a person who is currently enjoying interim accommodation is unintentionally homeless, in priority need and has a local connection. During that time the person is in interim accommodation. A decision may then be reached that the person does not fall into one of those categories. The individual may then appeal against that decision. Do I understand the Minister to say that a local authority has a discretion to continue to extend the period of interim accommodation while the appeal is being heard?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I said that the authority has a discretion to provide interim accommodation where it feels that that is appropriate. Of course, the person appealing may still be in the original premises because a decision could have been made by the authority before the person has left the premises which he knows he will have to leave. As I suggested earlier, that decision is usually made in advance of the person leaving. In those circumstances, the person may not yet have left before the decision was reached. I should not like the Committee to think that in every circumstance the person will be in interim accommodation using the interim powers. However, if it helps the noble Baroness, I am prepared to underline the fact that the authority has a discretion to provide interim accommodation where it feels that that is appropriate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does it extend also to the situation in which somebody is appealing in a
438
shorthold tenancy, for example, and between the local authority refusing and the appeal being heard, that interim duty may then newly come into play?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In the circumstances which the noble Baroness has postulated, that the person is in accommodation but loses it, during the course of the appeal the authority has a discretion to provide interim accommodation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that this matter can be dealt with in guidance in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 265BK:
Page 98, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: To some extent, this is a linked amendment but again I shall try to be brief. For someone who is homeless and in priority need the local authority has a duty to provide temporary or emergency accommodation pending full inquiries into the case. But we are not now talking about the acceptance of a duty but rather the interim period during which a local authority determines whether or not a duty exists under the legislation in terms of someone being unintentionally homeless, in priority need and having a local connection.
I am concerned that the Government are steering local authorities into using suitable alternative rented private accommodation for the discharge of that interim duty. What I fear is that if local authorities send an applicant into private rented accommodation for the interim period while they make inquiries, those inquiries will not necessarily be made. They will regard themselves as having discharged their duty by putting someone into interim accommodation, however inadequate that may be.
While we are worried about this—it is too late at night to begin a full-scale debate on the adequacy or otherwise of the private rented sector to meet the homelessness duties of a local authority—nonetheless it is the case that, first, private rented landlords are fairly reluctant to let to families in these situations, particularly for a short and interim period which may last for only a few weeks. Secondly, evictions from the private rented sector are one of the most significant causes of homelessness. Anywhere between 15 and 30 per cent. of people coming into the homelessness group of the local authorities I have looked at have come out of that same private rented sector the Government are busy sending them back into.
Obviously circumstances differ, but I worry that the Government are expecting or encouraging local authorities to think they have discharged their interim duty by providing a list of addresses for someone who is going back into private rented accommodation. As a result, there will be no full review of that person's need for temporary accommodation other than keeping him in the interim accommodation he currently occupies. As I say, being the private rented sector,

439
that may well be entirely inadequate, particularly if he has problems of physical disability; if the house itself is not in a good condition; and if he has problems continuing to pay the rent for it. In the private rented sector—unlike the council house sector—rents are often not met fully by housing benefit. Will the Minister give us some help on this issue and not allow local authorities to avoid taking seriously a temporary duty by fobbing people off with inadequate private rented accommodation in order to meet their interim duty? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness explained, the amendment would remove the "alternative accommodation" provision in respect of the interim duty to accommodate pending inquiries. It would not seem logical to require an authority to accommodate someone itself on an interim basis when there might be a ready supply of accommodation available in the private sector. In accommodating applicants while an application is investigated local authorities may need to find accommodation quickly in an emergency and so make use of different types of accommodation. We would not necessarily regard bed and breakfast hotels as suitable interim accommodation for families except for the first few nights following a crisis, but in some cases such accommodation will offer a suitable interim solution.
Interim accommodation is generally not in use for very long. Local authorities are advised in the homelessness code of guidance that they should regard 30 working days as the maximum limit for completing their inquiries, except in exceptional cases, from the time they accept a duty. Recent research commissioned by the Department of the Environment-evaluation of the 1991 homelessness code of guidance—shows that on average authorities take 17 days to complete their inquiries. As we intend that revised guidance would continue to offer similar advice to authorities, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
As regards the kind of accommodation, interim accommodation must be suitable. We have discussed that situation with reference to other accommodation. I am trying to find my way through the main reasons for homelessness in the fourth quarter of 1995. I think I am right in saying that the end or loss of tenancy constitutes 21 per cent. of those reasons. Therefore I do not think it is quite the biggest factor, as I believe the noble Baroness suggested when she indicated that the loss of tenancy in the private sector was the biggest problem—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: One of the biggest problems.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not know whether 20 per cent. constitutes one of the biggest problems. In fact none of the categories is huge, so I suppose it is one of the biggest problems, even at 21 per cent. I am thinking on my feet. I shall not argue with the noble Baroness on that count.
440
I hope that what I have said about the need for the accommodation to be suitable and the way in which we hope and intend that the guidance will act will allay the noble Baroness's worries in this regard and show her that it would not be wise to remove the alternative accommodation provision.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify one point.
When he talks about housing being available, what does he mean by "available"? Does he simply mean that the housing exists; or does he mean that it is housing that the person could reasonably be expected to afford?
Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for taking an example that she has already used this evening. A couple cannot find a one-bedroomed flat on the market. Are they expected to take a two-bedroomed flat which is available even though housing benefit does not cover all the costs? Would such a flat be regarded as available within the meaning that the Minister used?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am in some difficulty in that these are details which will be in a code of guidance which will be fairly detailed. I think not, although I should need to study the question and look for the answer in a more detailed way, if the noble Earl does not mind.
The important point is that we are talking about interim accommodation. I mentioned earlier that authorities have a reasonably good success rate in managing to keep people in their existing accommodation while the problem of finding them alternative accommodation for up to two years is resolved. That is one way in which the authorities can deal with the interim position. They can find a way to negotiate or help tenants to stay in their existing houses rather than have them face the rather graphic situation which was referred to earlier of being absolutely roofless as well as homeless.
If the noble Earl does not mind, I shall examine the question and perhaps write to him about it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Judgment on whether accommodation is suitable can be made only after inquiries have been completed. Yet that judgment is having to be made before the inquiries are completed by the local authority.
If one considers Clause 167 in the context of Clause 168, the interim duty is not the same as for those on the housing waiting list. The local authority has a duty to ensure that interim accommodation is available where someone is homeless—it is virtually the only place in the Bill where the word "homeless" is used—eligible for assistance and has a priority need. The priority need categories are,
"a pregnant woman…a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside; a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability … or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency".

441
Almost all those categories in a more general sense are people with special needs. They are people for whom standard private sector accommodation is not available. Often it is exactly the type of accommodation from which they have come.
The Minister was not sure whether 21 per cent. was a particularly high figure. I suspect that if he checks the national figures he will find that eviction from the private rented sector is only surpassed as a reason for homelessness by a breakdown in relationship either with family or husband. Those are followed by mortgage repossessions and rent arrears, and one goes on down the list. I am reasonably confident that in all the local authorities I have studied eviction from the private rented sector is usually (although not invariably) not due to rent arrears. One of the largest single explanations for homelessness is that the accommodation is unsuitable for that person's physical condition as listed under priority needs. In the off-the cuff, immediate judgment, the local authority may believe that people come within the category of need. It will have to review the decision and make final inquiries in particular about the local connection. The Minister says that none the less such people must either stay put or go back into the local private rented sector, even though it may have thrown them into the condition of threatened homelessness and the private rented sector is largely unsuitable for the categories of people in priority need as defined in Clause 168.
Given that there is a presumption that by going into interim accommodation such people will go on to enjoy temporary housing, it seems to me that it would be prudent, wise, sensible and humane for the local authority to ensure that the accommodation is available pending the review. Can the Minister help us further?
11.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure what I am being invited to explore. The local authority does not have a pool of houses available somewhere which it can promptly use for someone who is homeless. Therefore, there is an effort to match the best possible situation for the interim. I am sure that that is what the authority will do. It will have to do the best it can. No one in their right mind could expect the authority to have available every possible variation in housing that may be required by someone who may become homeless. The authority will have to try to ensure that it is suitable and, I add, the best match it can make in the circumstances. After all, it is a temporary and interim position while the authority examines the case. If it finds that the case is genuine and falls to be considered under the homelessness legislation, it will go on to find more suitable accommodation. If the authority's inquiries show that the needs of the people involved are such that the accommodation found is unsuitable, then it must find new accommodation.
The matter cannot be too easily resolved because it is not an event that is easy to plan for. Local authorities will have to try to do the best they can in
442
the interim arrangements to match the family situation of the person with the best accommodation it can find to solve the interim problem. That includes trying to keep people in their existing accommodation until the situation has been resolved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, we will look to the Minister at Report stage for amendments which will put a duty on the local authority making available interim accommodation to ensure that it is suitable. "Suitable" should mean that it is both appropriate and affordable, following the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Further, it should be made clear that local authorities will not have discharged their duties to provide temporary housing under the homelessness procedures by finding a family interim accommodation and then saying that, because it is in that accommodation, the accommodation is appropriate and that discharges or relieves the local authority from all further duties.
The Minister gave us comfort in the thought that he would support the position. In that expectation, I am sure that we shall re-visit the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265BL not moved.]
Clause 167 agreed to.
Clause 168 [Priority need for accommodation]:
[Amendments Nos. 265BM to 265D not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 265E:
Page 98, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) a person who is fleeing violence or harassment").
The noble Lord said: Clause 168 indicates the categories that have priority need for accommodation under the interim duty to accommodate. The purpose of this amendment is to add one other group; namely, those fleeing violence or harassment.
In the experience of local authorities some of the instances of threatened violence or harassment involve racial harassment: members of minority ethnic groups find themselves under serious pressure and are, as it were, coerced into leaving their homes. The point of the amendment is to ensure that a local authority would identify victims of that sort of coercion or racial harassment as having a priority need for accommodation.
It is a simple proposition. The facts are well known. Sadly, there are members of minority ethnic groups who are the subject of this type of pressure. Those who suffer in this way have a very unpleasant time and it is understandable that such families feel that they have to leave their homes. They then find themselves homeless. If a local authority is able to assess them as being in priority need of accommodation based on the point in this amendment, the local authority could act more quickly to provide them with interim accommodation. The case is a very simple one. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is an important amendment. The reason for spelling out these two categories is that

443
they are both ones which local authorities from time to time ignore. Because such matters are extremely unpleasant, many of us do not like thinking about them, and do not like admitting that they exist. Therefore we tend to hide our heads in the sand and pretend that we do not have to do anything about them. A specific statutory requirement, certainly to my knowledge in the case of domestic violence and, I believe, in the racial case as well, is worth including.
Before we leave tonight's business, I wish to congratulate the Minister on the courtesy, good nature and patience that he has shown in handling business which has occasionally been quite contentious. I can say no more than that he is beginning to approach the standard set by his noble and learned clansman on the Woolsack.
Lord Hylton: It has been established that there is a considerable volume of racial violence and harassment which bears directly on housing and which tends to produce homelessness. Will the Minister tell the Committee what is being done to try to prevent that before it happens, or after the first symptoms have manifested themselves and before it has reached the point of producing homelessness? I think everybody, inside and outside Parliament, wants to avoid ethnic clearance in this country, even if it has not always been possible to avoid it in other countries.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, I thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks. I like to think that we all manage to conduct the sometimes very contentious legislation that I seem to take through this place in a civilised way. While arguments are undoubtedly deeply felt, I do not believe that we lose tempers as in the other place. That is only right and proper when considering such serious matters. Comparing me to my noble and learned clansman is indeed a high honour.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I hope he does not mind if I do not follow him too far down that track. He has opened up a debate that is rather wide of the clause. It takes us into a great many other aspects of how social services work, how the police operate, and so on, in cases of domestic violence. If I had the solution to preventing domestic violence getting out of hand, I should be in quite high demand by my colleagues in Whitehall, and indeed by a lot of people outside. It is a difficult issue. We have already discussed it. I hope that we are accepting it and identifying it as one of the reasons why a lady in particular—that is usually how it operates, though not always—may require to leave the family home, because she feels herself to be so threatened by a violent husband.
I accept that we are going a little further than that and looking at harassment in a wider field outside the home. We discussed that. Without repeating what I said earlier, there are other aspects of the law which have to be brought into play when one considers other forms of harassment. I do not think we can necessarily look to housing legislation to solve those wider problems.
This amendment in particular would extend the definition of priority need to include any person who is fleeing violence or harassment. Some individuals may be
444
vulnerable as a result of the psychological effects of violence, abuse or harassment, or for any other reason. Their need is recognised in the reference in Clause 168(1) to which I should draw the Committee's attention. Perhaps I should say before I do so that Clause 168 is unchanged from the 1985 Act. Paragraph (c) says:
"a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason".
That other special reason is important. Those three words are recognition of the problems about which we are talking—persons who are vulnerable to violence or harassment. We will elaborate on this in the guidance we issue on the new legislation. But I suggest that an open-ended reference to fleeing violence or harassment would not make sense in all circumstances. It would not take account of individual circumstances, and could lead to some perverse results. For instance under such a provision, if it was on the face of the Bill in the way suggested, a hardened drug dealer who wanted to lie low because some of his associates were threatening violence against him could claim a right to housing assistance from the local housing authority on the grounds of fleeing violence or harassment. That may be very true but whether the Committee considers that such a claim should be considered under the provisions of this part of the legislation, I am not sure. Certainly, I do not think I would think it. Nor, I suspect, would most Members of the Committee.
I recognise the concern behind the amendment and share all the points that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords have made about violence, whether it occurs on the street or in the home. However, I do not think that the solution to the difficulties which some people experience outside the home lies in extending the coverage of this legislation. When someone experiences violence or abuse within the home, it is not reasonable or logical that they should be expected to remain there and try to use the remedies of the law to protect themselves. We all know that that would not work and that the person would continue to be the victim of violence. A person in such a situation is and will continue to be considered unintentionally homeless and vulnerable as they are no longer able to live in their home.
I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear. Outside the home violence is another matter that I have already discussed. It takes a multitude of forms from a wide range of causes, and I believe that we have to be very careful before we make too sweeping amendments to housing legislation which would cover far wider issues than I think are relevant to the question that we are discussing about rights under homelessness legislation.
With that assurance, I think not for the first time today on the question of domestic violence and homelessness legislation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister's point about the drug dealer is well taken. It does not answer what I believe is a genuine need for a statutory provision. So before we reach

445
the later stages of the Bill, I wonder whether the Minister could possibly think about whether some tighter form of words might be acceptable which performs its purpose.
Lord Dubs: I endorse the noble Earl's point. When I read Clause 168, it did not, frankly, occur to me (I read it earlier than this hour in the evening) that the words "other special reason" would refer to people fleeing from violence or harassment from their neighbours or other people in their locality. It did not seem to me that that was the most obvious interpretation. Now that the Minister has pointed it out, it makes sense.
I concede that if the amendment had been inserted not at the end, but at the end of subsection (c), my argument would have been that much better because it would have been preceded by the words,
"a person who is vulnerable as a result of'.
That would have met all the Minister's objection to including it. Where it is now, it does not have those words preceding it and therefore it has a slightly different meaning from the one it would have had if the person had been vulnerable. That being the case, and given that the Minister is going to issue guidance to local authorities to that effect, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265F not moved.]
Clause 168 agreed to.
Clause 169 agreed to.
Clause 170 [Becoming homeless intentionally]:
[Amendment No. 265G not moved.]
Clause 170 agreed to.
Clause 171 agreed to.
House resumed.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment. The Commons amendments ordered to be printed.

Deer (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; it was ordered that the Bill be printed as amended.
House adjourned at one minute past midnight.