Housing Bill

HL Deb 25 June 1996 vol 573 cc802-34

5.25 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 172.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 266:

Page 100, line 2, after ("that") insert ("suitable").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 266B. Its purpose is to ensure that, when a local authority has a duty to secure accommodation which is available for a person who is homeless and in priority need, the accommodation shall be suitable for occupation by the applicant. Under this clause, a local authority has a duty towards people who are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. That duty can be met by the local authority securing accommodation that is available for occupation by the applicant.

However, there is no mention in the clause of the accommodation having to be suitable for the individual requirements of the applicant. For disabled people it is particularly important that any accommodation should be suitable for their needs because of their disability. There are certain areas in which suitability for the individual disabled person is vital. The first of these is access. Any offer of accommodation must be accessible. The requirement for access and the level of accessibility will depend on the needs of the disabled individual. However, that individual must be able to get into the property independently, move around the dwelling and use the facilities of the main rooms to include the living room, bedroom, kitchen, lavatory and bathroom.

The next requirement is safety. The property must be safe for the person. Again, the requirements will depend on the needs of the individual disabled person. The basic requirements would be to have adequate arrangements in case of fire or evacuation, safe access to facilities and adequate circulation space and, if necessary, lighting. Any safety features such as locks will also need to be suitable for use by a disabled person.

The next factors which have to be taken into account are facilities and care arrangements. Many disabled people need access to facilities such as particular schools, day centres or work. Arrangements to attend these can take a considerable time. It is important that such arrangements are maintained. For example, if a disabled child is attending a particular school it is essential that he should be able to continue attending that school if he wishes. Therefore, any housing should be in an area which will allow the child to continue attending the school straightforwardly. The same concerns are important for the care arrangements which should not have to be rearranged. Making such arrangements can be difficult and disruptive to the family.

There are other issues which many non-disabled people take for granted when considering whether housing is suitable; for example, transport. That is something that many people never consider when looking at housing. Many disabled people who cannot use public transport have to use a private car. Parking near their home is not only necessary: it is essential. Arranging a disabled parking bay can take several months and it is necessary if there are parking restrictions in the area. Therefore, the availability of parking for disabled people who cannot use public transport, but who are orange badge holders, should be considered when looking at the suitability of housing.

Any accommodation offered or secured by local authorities, whether it be permanent or temporary, must be suitable for the needs of the household or the individual it is being offered to. As I have already said, it is particularly important that disabled people, who often have specific requirements, should have suitable housing in terms of access, safety, facilities and care arrangements. The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the accommodation secured for homeless people is suitable for those who are disabled and in priority need. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

As this amendment stands in my name also, perhaps I may briefly add some words of support. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already explained it clearly and comprehensively, I shall not bore the Committee by repeating some of the physical, psychological and social effects that non-suitable housing can have on a disabled person and, indeed, a whole family. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.

Earl Russell

In supporting the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 266B which stands in my name. The word in both amendments is "suitable"; the difference is only that they purchase on different parts of the Bill. In my opinion the Bill needs both amendments because they achieve the same thing in different contexts.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, relates to the duty to secure accommodation, as he has explained. My amendment relates to the fact that if a local authority has made a single offer to a person and the person has refused it, the duty on the local authority ceases. That encapsulates what has been the practice of some local authorities, including my own, for quite a long time. There have been cases where a local authority has not wanted to house certain people. For a while that applied to victims of domestic violence who came from another borough. Local authorities did not like that. It has been the practice of certain local authorities to deal with people they do not particularly want to house by giving them the most unsuitable offer of accommodation that they can find. The duty then ceases because the people refuse the offer.

I recall a particular case of a discharge from a local refuge. That woman was offered a place on the most violent estate in Brent. The property had no bath; it was broken to smithereens. There was no lock on the door. If you have been a recent victim of domestic violence, you do not regard a place with no lock on the door as "suitable" accommodation. Moreover, that woman had received just that day on discharge from the refuge a community care grant of £600 from the Social Fund—I am glad to be able to acknowledge that on occasion the Department of Social Security can be generous. As she had no bank account, she was given the money in cash. On her very first evening in that new accommodation, which she had accepted for fear of being ruled to be intentionally homeless if she refused it, every single pound of that money was stolen. Naturally, the Social Fund did not feel like giving it a second time.

That is the sort of thing that can happen if the local authority is not under an obligation to make sure that the offer is "suitable". That is an actual case. I admit that it is unusual, but such cases can happen and if they have happened once, they can happen again.

In passing, perhaps I may agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about transport to schools. One does not always want to ask young children to cross very many busy roads, especially coming back from primary school. It is particularly important, especially for people who work unsocial hours, to have accommodation in a place from which they can work. If you have to be at work at 5.30 a.m. or have to leave work at the sort of time that we left this place last night, you need to be within travelling distance or have a car. Most of the people with whom we are dealing do not have a car. That is why I think that "suitable" accommodation must mean accommodation from which you can work.

Lord Mottistone

As the Committee probably knows, I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. I should like to support both amendments, and particularly the speech of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. Perhaps I may give the Committee one brief example of why it is particularly important that schizophrenic people should not be offered housing which is unsuitable. After four months in hospital, a person with schizophrenia was discharged back to a 16th floor high-rise flat where the gas and electricity had been disconnected and everything was in chaos. His family did not want him to return there and hoped that he would stay in the hospital until more suitable accommodation was available because his friend with a flat on the 21st floor of the block had committed suicide by throwing herself from it. Five weeks after being discharged, the schizophrenic person about whom I am talking did exactly the same and was killed.

That is just one example of many such occurrences. It seems to me that including the word "suitable" where suggested is sensible. It is a fact that the Government themselves have included the word "suitable" elsewhere in this part of the Bill, such as in Clause 169(1), twice in Clause 170(4), and in Clause 176(1), so it is not entirely unknown for the Government to include "suitable" in suitable places. I apologise for the pun. I hope that my noble friend will listen to what we have said and that he will perhaps gently accept the amendment.

Lord Northbourne

We have heard moving speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Mottistone, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), about people with various disabilities. I welcome the amendment because it would help certain categories of families, particularly families with children and particularly those with many children, as well as many other categories of disadvantaged people.

What worries me about the amendment is that it seems so sweeping that I fear that the Minister will turn it down simply because it will include too many categories of people and impose too heavy a demand on local authorities. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment—I urge him to do so—will he perhaps give us some encouragement to frame another amendment which would be slightly more limited to those who are genuinely in need?

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I have sympathy with the amendment, in that I would, of course, want to see disabled people in appropriate accommodation. I found the case of the schizophrenic tragic. I do not know from where that person was discharged, but there was a lack of liaison between the health authority which had been caring for him and the community care services or acute care services. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship does marvellous work.

My question on the amendment is: who determines suitability? Over the years that I have shown people accommodation, I have found that many people say, "Oh no, I would not live in that block because I am waiting for the new one up the street". There would have to be an objective assessment of "suitable". Other wording might be, "accommodation deemed by the local authority to be suitable". It must not purely be a matter of whether or not you like a property and whether the view is what you want. That is why I feel that the word "suitable" may be a little risky.

Earl Russell

Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness briefly. Normally the word "suitable" gives rise to a negotiation and once people know that they have to negotiate, they tend to become a bit more reasonable. If they do not, ultimately it is a matter for the courts.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I very much support the amendments. If the Minister is unable to accept Amendment No. 266, what he is saying in effect is that a local authority could discharge its duty by offering unsuitable accommodation. Clearly, that is not within the spirit of the legislation. The test of suitability can relate to the state of the property, particularly in terms of its physical repair. If a property is damp, it will be inappropriate, particularly for children with asthma or for an elderly person with a bronchial condition. A property might also be unsuitable in terms of space, given the age of the children, who might need separate bedrooms. It may be a question of affordability. We shall return to that point later. All of those can be important tests of suitability, but even more important is the fact that disabled people need to have ease of physical access to a property.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said that it may just be a question of the view. The point about including the word "suitable" is that the local authority would have been expected to offer a property which was "suitable" in the view of a reasonable person. That means that if a local authority offered a property that did not fit those requirements in terms of its physical condition, the number of bedrooms, or ease of access for somebody with a disability, it would be subject to judicial review. If a word such as "suitable" is not included the person at the receiving end is totally in the hands of those who make the offer, whatever it may be. If it is unsuitable and the person refuses it he or she will be deemed to be intentionally homeless and the local authority will have discharged its duty towards that person. I am sure that that is not intended by the Minister. I very much hope that the Minister can accept the amendment moved by his noble friend.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

Both amendments relate to an authority's duty to an applicant who it is satisfied is homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not homeless intentionally. Amendment No. 266 provides that unless the authority refers such an applicant to another authority it shall secure that "suitable" accommodation is available for his occupation. Amendment No. 266B relates to one of the circumstances in which an authority's duty to secure accommodation for such an applicant ceases. It would provide for the duty to cease where the applicant, having been informed of the possible consequence of refusal, refused an offer of "suitable" accommodation under the allocation provisions in Part VI.

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen deals with the issue of suitability of accommodation. I believe that that is covered perfectly adequately by Clause 182. That clause deals with the discharge of functions by local authorities under the homelessness provisions in Part VII. Clause 182 states: (1) This section applies in relation to the discharge by a local housing authority of their functions under this Part to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of a person. (2) The authority may discharge such functions … Each of the following paragraphs uses the words "suitable accommodation":

1. "(a) by securing that suitable accommodation provided by them is available,
2. (b) by securing that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person, or
3. (c) by giving him such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available from some other person".

If my noble friend reads the whole of that part of the Bill, in particular Clause 182, he will see that the word "suitable" in that clause qualifies all other provisions in this part of the Bill. In Clause 183 the issues to which the authority must have regard in considering suitability are set out. Further, it includes order-making powers by which the Secretary of State can specify both the circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable and the matters to be taken into account or disregarded in determining the suitability of accommodation. We are still considering how those powers may best be used.

My noble friend referred to access to schools. That is something that everyone must take into account in deciding where to live, whether it be under the homelessness legislation or, as in the case of the great majority, on their own account. It is not unique to those who are homeless. But the code of practice points to the need for good access to schools and other facilities. The current code already does that, and that point will be reiterated in the revised code.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave an example which I believe he had already referred to in this Chamber. I agree with the noble Earl that it would be wrong for a local authority to attempt to discharge its duty in a manifestly hard-to-let property of the kind to which he referred. We will cover that matter in the guidance. I apologise for giving the same answer again. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested that this amendment was too radical and something less radical was possible. Certainly, something less radical will appear in the guidance that we intend to issue.

Perhaps I may try to think up a question that has not yet been asked. It may be that your Lordships will ask about the status of the guidance and suggest that local authorities will ignore it. That point has already been made to me by the noble Earl. Of course, guidance is a general statement about how the statute should be applied. I believe that local authorities who ignore it do so at their peril. The local authority risks challenge in court where the guidance can be legitimately quoted by a person aggrieved by what the local authority has done in furtherance of its responsibilities under the homelessness legislation.

The amendment of the noble Earl seeks to amend Clause 172(7)(a). In considering this amendment, regard should also be had to subsection (7)(b) of the same clause. This provides that the duty ceases if the applicant refuses an offer of accommodation and the authority is satisfied that it is reasonable for him to accept it. The Government are inclined to the view that the test of reasonableness in that subsection is sufficient to ensure that the offer should be of accommodation which is suitable for the applicant to occupy. However, the Government are considering further the implications of subsection (7) to ensure that the element of reasonableness is carried through as intended. If as a result of that further consideration the wording is found to be inadequate, we intend to table the appropriate amendment at Report stage.

I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend Lord Swinfen that, reading Clauses 182 and 183 together and with the guidance that is to come, his amendment is unnecessary. In the light of my assurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. As far as concerns the amendment of the noble Earl, I hope that with my assurances in relation to subsection (7)(b), and the fact that we are looking at that subsection as a whole to ensure that it does what we intend it should do, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Earl Russell

I am most grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in responding to this amendment. I take his point about Clause 182 and am reassured by what he has said. I am not as reassured by what he has said about subsection (7)(b). I have no objection to the test of reasonableness. The problem is that it is the local authority which has to be satisfied as to reasonableness. The local authority is here made judge and party in its own cause. We have heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, how intense the pressure can be on a local authority when it is short of housing stock. That point was made most forcefully in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The tensions which gave rise to that case going to court arose largely from lack of stock.

A decision may appear to the local authority to be reasonable but it may not necessarily appear reasonable to anyone else. In the case that I mentioned—I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about guidance—it appeared to the local authority to be reasonable. In reply to representations the local authority insisted that it was reasonable. It did not wish to house the applicant because of lack of local connection. There are questions that the Minister has not answered, and it would be very much appreciated if he could give thought to them before the next stage.

Lord Swinfen

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, which has been useful in eliciting the responses of my noble friend. I am happy with his answer. Undoubtedly, I shall return to my amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I shall be interested to see whether my noble friend tables an amendment on the lines suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 266A:

Page 100, line 4, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 19 and insert ("shall take reasonable steps thereafter to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.").

The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may refer to this matter as the "Baroness Gardner of Parkes" amendment. It goes further than the amendment that we moved earlier. I believe that the noble Baroness encouraged us to go for this amendment. I hope I may have her support. This amendment seeks to require local authorities to continue to ensure that accommodation for homeless families does not cease after two years. At the moment local authorities have discretion to continue to ensure that housing is available. This amendment would make it into a duty.

That duty would include making provision for a secure tenancy if local authorities thought it appropriate. The government code of guidance, revised as late as 1994, says: If an authority is satisfied that an applicant is homeless, in priority need and has not become homeless intentionally, the authority then has a duty to secure that accommodation is made available. The legislation makes it clear that the authority's duty to such an applicant is to secure long term settled accommodation, commonly described as 'permanent'.

That was the Government's position as of 1994. All the professional housing bodies, the local authorities, the Churches, and voluntary organisations agree. Even the department agreed on the three previous occasions on which it reviewed homelessness legislation under Mr. Heseltine, Mr. Patten and Lord Ridley. Only the current Government, temporarily, do not agree.

Under this Bill we have a situation by which families will live in temporary accommodation for two years or more instead of local authorities being allowed the right not only to continue to provide temporary accommodation, but also to make it permanent accommodation, if they see fit. Children will be unable to put down roots. With the responsibility under the Bill of local authorities to introduce introductory tenancies the Government need have no fear that offering a secure tenancy, subject to the introductory tenancies rule, will advantage, for example, anti-social families or families who fail to pay their rent. Local authorities would still have the right to regain possession. Those families who lost their homes because the man was self-employed and his business collapsed during the recession will be able to get on with the rest of their lives.

People are faced with so much insecurity, as all the evidence around us shows. In this debate on the Bill in this Chamber we cannot do much about the insecurity of the job market caused by the global economy, but we can do something to mitigate the insecurity that faces people, and their children, when they lose their home. This Bill, as it stands, adds to their insecurity. The Government are creating insecurity through this Bill and they do not need to do so, hence this amendment. We are not saying that all homeless people should be offered a permanent tenancy after the two years if they have not reached a certain point on the waiting list.

With this amendment we are seeking, as the Minister said, to make a distinction between symptoms and causes. It may be that some homeless families are only temporarily homeless, perhaps because their house has been burnt down and they are waiting for insurance money. That was the example that the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, used on a previous occasion. Such a family would clearly only need temporary housing until they were able to make an independent home of their own.

Where the cause and the symptom are the same, that is to say, that homelessness is a problem by virtue of that family's need for a secure and settled home, this amendment would give that duty to local authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

This amendment is reasonably close, at least in subject matter, to the first amendment that we dealt with this afternoon. However, it goes a good deal further. If one takes out some of the negatives it would appear that local authorities should provide permanent accommodation. The words: does not cease to he available for his occupation seem to me fairly close to "permanent accommodation".

As I have already explained to Members of the Committee, a critical part of the Government's homelessness reforms is removing the link between providing assistance in a crisis, when a household finds itself homeless, and allocating life-long tenancies in local authority or housing association accommodation to people on the basis of underlying long-term housing need. If Amendment No. 266A were accepted by noble Lords the whole purpose of the reforms would be unfulfilled.

I am not convinced by the argument about insecurity, and insecurity in the job market. I recommend to the noble Baroness a recent speech by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and some research which shows that this is a much overstated situation in the job market in this country. It is also overstated in the housing market, where the majority of people are in permanent accommodation, either owned by local authorities or housing associations or, thanks to the Government's policy, in homes owned by themselves.

The present homelessness provisions were intended to provide a safety net for vulnerable people who become homeless unintentionally. A safety net cushions someone from a bad experience, and allows them to pick themselves up and get on with their life. Homelessness can be a temporary experience, the result of a confluence of unfortunate circumstances, perhaps temporary unemployment or the break-up of a relationship. By no means everybody who happens to become homeless at a particular point in time needs to be provided with accommodation for life, which is what is meant by getting permanent local authority accommodation.

For many years the present provisions were interpreted by the courts as imposing a duty on housing authorities to secure permanent accommodation for people accepted as statutorily homeless. This meant that acceptance could provide a fast track into a permanent social tenancy for life, often as I explained earlier, at the expense of people on the waiting list. Since the homelessness route offered such a valuable prize, it is perhaps not surprising that the number of people using it increased sharply.

Removing the unfairness of the fast-track proposals is a key aim of our reform proposals. The Awua judgment has clarified that the present provisions do not require housing authorities to secure permanent accommodation for people accepted as homeless. This illuminates one aspect of the duty but begs another question; what exactly is the present duty? This uncertainty in the wake of the Awua judgment needs to be addressed.

The provisions in Part VII, the homelessness part of the Bill, mesh with those in Part VI, the part dealing with allocation. Part VI provides a single route into social housing allocated by local authorities for everyone. Everyone's underlying needs should be assessed fairly and on the same basis. The allocation of long-term social housing should be considered separately from the emergency housing needs of people who find themselves in a temporary crisis and unintentionally homeless. Local authorities' duties under the homelessness legislation should be to provide assistance for a reasonable period to help people to make a fresh start. The two years provided for in Clause 172, coupled with the priority that such people are likely to receive on the housing register through Clause 148, is surely enough to achieve this.

This amendment goes directly against the intention of Part VII of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will not press it.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I must enter into the debate on this amendment, but I certainly should not have done so had not the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, described it as being my amendment. Nothing could be further from my wish. Either she misunderstood something I said earlier or we are at cross-purposes. When she talked about her previous amendment my view was that in no way would I want to see it mandatory for local authorities to continue to find accommodation for homeless people beyond a certain period. I thought that in that period they would either have moved on to accommodation they had found themselves or the local authority would have found secure accommodation for them. When I spoke earlier I made the point—I certainly make it now—that a local authority already has the power to convert the temporary accommodation that people occupy into secure accommodation if they are approaching the top of the list in terms of points. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but I raised that point and I asked that question of the department. I have had that answer from it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I should welcome it if the Minister would clarify the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes. When we argued it the other night, the Minister said that it was a remote possibility but that there might be the occasional exceptional case. But if, as the noble Baroness has argued, local authorities can use their discretion to turn a temporary tenancy into a secure tenancy within a two-year period, then that family will not need to be evicted, because it is fairly close to being housed in the usual way—I hope I am putting the point fairly. If the Government were able to say that they accepted that reading of the Bill, it would go some way towards meeting our concerns. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the position put by his noble friend, which is one I would welcome, is shared by the Minister.

6 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

Perhaps I may clarify that we are talking about the cases to which we referred in an earlier debate—those people whose points mean that they are just about to reach the top of the list. The other side of the argument on that amendment was that if undesirable accommodation were offered to people with more points, they would probably refuse it and, therefore, the people occupying it would be given it. When I put that question to the department, I was informed that local authorities have an element of flexibility, and could act in that way if someone were close to the top of the list. I did not hear that from my noble friend the Minister but from the department. He, too, may need to check that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, might have been confused, because earlier I asked my noble friend the Minister to give a commitment to make some special arrangement or concession to help authorities which were in an especially difficult situation. He gave an undertaking to look at that point rather than at the general, overall, blanket situation. I support the Part VI allocation system where homeless people earn points as does everyone else, which are the basis of the allocation. I cannot support the noble Baroness on this amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Perhaps I may invite the Minister to help us on this. He said on a previous amendment—he has been quoted again by his noble friend Lady Parkes—that where an applicant was near the top of the list local authorities had some flexibility. Will he give us more substance as to what that would mean in practice for a local authority? Could local authorities respond to the situation in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, as one would hope?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I should rather hear the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and then perhaps try to round up the debate.

Lord Monkswell

I shall try to oblige the Minister. The difficulty is that the point I shall raise is different from the one raised by the noble Baronesses. I thank the Minister for reading out his brief in response to the amendment, but the department has misunderstood the import of the amendment. My understanding of the amendment is that it would require a local authority to ensure that there was accommodation available for the homeless person after the two-year period, not that a local authority should secure the accommodation that the person is currently in after the two-year period.

If the Government can understand that that is the way we understand the amendment—I am glad to receive a signal of assent for my interpretation from my noble friend Lady Hollis—they may have some sympathy with it, although it may not be framed in the best way to achieve what we seek to achieve. A local authority has the responsibility to provide temporary accommodation for a homeless family. The way the Government interpret that is that the homeless family will be installed in temporary accommodation for up to two years. A homeless family provided with local authority accommodation for two years will have little incentive to seek some other form of accommodation, at least for the first 18 months, because, thank heavens, the family has some accommodation and it is secure for two years.

I do not believe that that is the Government's intention. I believe that the Government's intention is to say to homeless families that they will be accommodated temporarily but that they expect the family to find alternative accommodation. As to the temporary nature, it may be better to think in terms of six months or 12 months. There would thereafter be a continuing requirement for the local authority to find the family other temporary accommodation.

The homeless family would not be thrown out on the street after two years from accommodation which, on the Government's interpretation, would be relatively secure. It would not be a case after two years of, "Bang, you are out on the street". It may be better to suggest to homeless families that they have temporary accommodation and that the local authority may move them every six months or every year. That will be a signal to the homeless family that the accommodation is temporary, but that there is a continuing requirement—I believe we would all accept this as a civilised society—to ensure that a family is not thrown out on the street with no where else to go, especially by a public housing authority.

If the Government could accept our interpretation of the amendment rather than what we feel is their erroneous interpretation of it, there might be some coming together of minds on it.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but I am afraid that I have to accept what my lawyers advise me is the proper interpretation of an amendment. The proper interpretation of this amendment is the one to which I have spoken. There is the problem of returning, as I believe the amendment would do, to the general position where local authorities would find themselves obliged to house people endlessly in their own stock, if that is how they chose to do it, and therefore de facto it would be secure, long-term accommodation, even if it were not actually legally secure. I made that point earlier. People in such circumstances would have accommodation which did not give them proper security and the rights that other local authority housing tenants have, but I do not want to repeat an argument I have already gone over.

I stand firmly on my position. I believe that my noble friend Lady Gardner agrees with me. We do not wish to see people using the homelessness route to fast-track local authority housing.

The problem that I am being asked to address is what a local authority can do in exceptional cases if it sees, for example, someone just about to reach the top of the list. Of course if people come to the top of the list within the two years, their current house can be transferred from being a temporary way to resolve their homelessness to being permanent accommodation. That is fine.

I did say earlier in answer to my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Swinfen that I would reflect upon the treatment of exceptionally difficult cases. My noble friend Lady Gardner asked me about the exceptional case of someone who was so close to the top of the list that it was clear that he would receive permanent housing shortly after the two years, and what local authorities could do. There are exceptional circumstances which they could take into account.

I refer my noble friend and the Committee back to Clause 148. It provides the allocation principles—if one wishes to call them that—which underlie this matter. Subsection (2) states: As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given", and so forth, in the kind of exceptional circumstances—I underline the words "exceptional circumstances"—that qualification of reasonable preference would fall to be considered by the local authority.

I want to make it as clear as I possibly can at this Dispatch Box that that is using the word "exceptional" in its proper dictionary meaning. It is not to be construed as a general green light to local authorities to go back to exercising the policy that many of them felt they had a duty to exercise; namely, to give people who were homeless a fast track to permanent accommodation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Perhaps I may press the Minister on the implications of his reply. I have two points. He repeated that the circumstance was exceptional when someone was near the top of the list, as though it was a peculiar one-off. What does he mean? Would he say to local authorities that that applies if several families are within one, two or three months of being offered permanent housing? We must have some guidance and I believe that the Government are obliged to provide it. Many of us are concerned about the issue. The Minister emphasised "exceptional". What does he mean?

Secondly, what happens if the authority has hard-to-let property? May it go down the waiting-list as far as it needs to in order to ensure the letting of such properties under the conditions of exceptional flexibility? Can the Minister help us before we go further?

Baroness Hamwee

I wish to make similar points. We on these Benches are in considerable difficulty in knowing how far to press the amendment. So much of the Bill is dependent on guidance and on government advice as to how certain provisions are to be interpreted. The point made by the noble Baroness relates to accommodation rather than to people who are to be accommodated. As yet, I do not read into the Bill the possibility for the local authority to be using the accommodation in the best way possible; in other words, making it available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to hard-to-let accommodation being available because families higher up the list would be likely to turn it down. However, if the local housing authority has a policy of making only one offer that situation would not arise. I believe that the Minister must be clearer in assisting the Committee.

Earl Russell

The Minister continues to use the phrase "fast-track route" to council accommodation. I do not believe that that is accurate. I am not sure whether he was a Member of this House when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, moved his Motion on bed-and-breakfast accommodation on 24th July 1992. Incidentally, we are still waiting for an answer. Members of the Committee who were present will remember that, in many of the cases which we discussed on that Motion, homelessness was a tragically slow route to council accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has given the figures and we need not go into them again.

Though the constant harping on the unfairness to those on the waiting-list highlights a genuine concern, it mistakes the symptom for the disease. Clearly, the disease is the shortage of housing. If the supply is diminished enough there will always be a queue; and that queue will always grow longer. It is as though one were pulling down one block of the seats at Lords each day of the Test Match. It really does make it harder. The Minister, I am sure inadvertently, is not giving the Committee the full picture and I believe that we will get on a little faster if he does.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

As regards the more general aspect made by the noble Earl, I thought that we had that argument for about an hour and a half three hours ago. I am under no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, many local authorities considered that they had a duty to provide permanent accommodation. The powerful interventions of two of my noble friends and the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches (who were Members of another place) which drew on their experience in constituency work, was reinforcement of my argument that it was fast tracking. I can confirm that in my experience a great deal of fast tracking went on. My local authority was most unhappy about it but felt that it could do nothing other than what it considered to be the law. I make no apology for using "fast tracking". The fact is that many people who are homeless by their very nature are not accepted as homeless unless there are certain factors in their condition. Many of those factors will appear in their priorities regarding the allocation of housing through the normal list, which your Lordships see in Clause 148. Many homeless people will receive permanent accommodation quickly and certainly well within the two years.

I turn to the other point on which I was pressed by the noble Baroness. Perhaps one of the difficulties of trying to be helpful is that it might be easier to stand firm and not try to be helpful at all. I am being pressed to define something that is difficult to define. I have drawn the Committee's attention to "reasonable preference" which reflects the priorities which appear in the rest of the clause. I have gone back and forth so much with the Bill that I have now lost my place, but I refer to Clause 148. That sets out all the factors and the priority that is given to them. Obviously, it is difficult to give the kind of hard-and-fast definition which the noble Baroness wants. She wants me to give such a definition because she wants to trap me into opening up the whole homelessness issue and giving back to local authorities the right to fast-track people. I am simply not going to do that—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I thank the Minister for giving way. He accused me of trying to trap him into reversing the Bill and returning to where we were. On the contrary. The Minister in the other place used the same phrases which the Minister has used today. There has been no advance and helpfulness. The Minister has continued to reiterate the fact that there will be discretion in exceptional cases, including those people who are virtually at the top of the queue. We are trying to understand what he means by that and, as we are in Committee, we have a right to know what the Minister means by that phrase.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

It is self-evident that "reasonable preference" and "exceptional circumstances" cannot be defined in the abstract from this Dispatch Box, even in response to questions. It depends on the area, the housing list, the other demands and on how fast houses become available. Indeed, it depends on the number of priority points and ticks which the individual person has when looked at against the background of Clause 148(2). That is where the reasonable preference comes in and, frankly, I am not prepared to go any further than that.

I am underlining the point that the circumstance is exceptional. The local authority has to decide whether it is exceptional and whether, when it looks at the circumstances and the person in front of it, the condition of the house and so forth, it can decide that the person has a case which is so exceptional that it should ignore its own housing list. Local authorities draw up the scheme for the housing list according to their own rules provided that it is within the principles laid down in Clause 148(2).

Given the local circumstances, local authorities may draw up a rule about the parameters and the circumstances in which they consider a person to fall within the exceptional definition mentioned. In some places that may mean a short time but in others it may be a little longer. It depends on the area, the housing circumstances in that area and the circumstances of the person being considered for permanent accommodation. The local authority is asked to consider whether the fact that the two years is almost up and a person is so near the top of the list means that he or she should be granted a permanent tenancy. I advise noble Lords that I am not prepared to go further than that.

Lord Monkswell

Perhaps I could try to achieve some understanding of what the Government are saying. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that one of the big problems that we have at the moment is that certain people are fast-tracking their way into local authority housing. He has homed in on homelessness. According to the Minister, those people who are homeless get a fast track into local authority housing and that is bad. That is what the Minister is saying. It is bad and it must be stopped. Everybody should have equal rights in terms of time on the waiting-list.

However, the Government then point to Clause 148 which lists a number of categories to which the local authority can give "reasonable preference". Am I right in understanding that the Minister is saying effectively that homelessness, as a fast-track way into local authority housing, is wrong but the six categories of preference that are listed in Clause 148 are all right as a legitimate fast-track way into local authority accommodation?

That is further complicated because in subsections (3), (4) and (5), the Government effectively take upon themselves the ability to modify Clause 148. Therefore, the Government are saying that fast tracking into local authority accommodation through homelessness is wrong. They are proposing a different way in which to fast track into local authority accommodation. But they are also taking upon themselves the ability to change that. Is there a hidden agenda for the Government to say, "We don't like this fast tracking; we are suggesting a different sort of fast tracking", so that, at the end of the day, they can turn round and say that there will be no fast tracking at all, whether it be the Government's fast-tracking scheme or the current legal, local authority duty fast-tracking scheme? Is that a correct interpretation of the Government's position?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

We are in Committee and therefore we have every right to try to understand what the Minister intends by what he has said.

Lord Mottistone

That is the second time that the noble Baroness has said that this is Committee stage and we have a right to find out what the Minister means. The Minister has told us countless times what he means but, as far as I can see, that is not what the noble Baroness wants him to mean and she finds it easier to go on saying, "I do not understand". We have been 33 minutes on this simple amendment which I had hoped would be dealt with by two speakers.

It is the convention of this Chamber that we do not over-press. I have been on the Opposition Benches and I have irritated the party of Members of the Committee opposite when I was sitting on those Benches. But I did not go on and on like the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, have on a particular point. I have taken the view that the Minister has said the best that he can say and that that is it for the time being. There may be other amendments when the subject can be touched upon again. I do not know. But it is not within the convention of this Chamber to press quite so hard. It is rather a pity that we have taken so much time on this amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

This is a very important amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, felt that he had to make the remarks that he has just made. We are dealing with a tiny area of what may be local authority discretion in a Bill which chains local authorities to literal words on the face of the Bill. That tiny error of discretion will produce legal challenge after legal challenge. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that, if he has seen legal challenges over the past few days in relation to asylum seekers, that is nothing to the number of legal challenges which may arise on this legislation unless we have a clearer understanding of what the Minister is saying.

We have pressed the Minister, as we have every right to do in this Chamber, because he has not departed from his original statement except to say that it may refer to people who are nearly at the top of the queue. I asked an innocent question as to whether that refers to people who are one month, two or three months away from rehousing or whether local authorities will be permitted to use hard-to-let housing which people on the waiting list do not want. That is a perfectly reasonable question to which Members on the Opposition Benches as well as organisations outside and local authorities are entitled to receive an answer. We have every right to expect the Minister to give us an answer. The Minister in another place was pressed on this matter and we are revisiting an issue which the Minister failed to clarify.

Therefore, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, thinks that we are wasting time. I assure the noble Lord that organisations associated with homeless people, including local authority associations, believe that this is a pivotal point. I invite the Minister to define "nearly" and to tell us whether a local authority may go down the waiting-list to let hard-to-let properties, which are not wanted by those on the waiting-list, to homeless families in temporary circumstances. I invite the Minister to tell us what he means.

Earl Russell

I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I believe that I may owe the Committee an apology for reintroducing the concept of fast tracking. But in return for that apology, perhaps the Minister will accept that if he tries to persuade the Committee by means of information which I do not believe to be true, he leads me into temptation.

Beyond that, the point about legal challenge has force. We may save time and public money if we probe the matter further but we shall try to be abstemious.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that I do not define the priorities listed in Clause 148(2) as giving a fast track. Those are normal priorities which should underline the way in which local authorities will run their waiting-lists for local authority accommodation. It is for local authorities, on the basis of those priorities, to draw up their schemes. That is evident and I thought that that was underlined when we discussed Clause 148. That is the point.

The noble Baroness is doing as she did earlier. She is trying to say that her amendment seeks a tiny area of discretion. I have pointed out that a proper reading of her amendment provides a great deal more than that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The Minister is putting words into my mouth. I said that the Minister had offered us a tiny area of discretion. I accept that the amendment does not do that. I am trying to find out what that discretion encompasses.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I apologise if I misheard the noble Baroness but I wrote down that her amendment is not a tiny area of discretion. I thought she was addressing her amendment but I shall not fall out about that.

The noble Baroness now accepts that the amendment is one of considerable principle and would change homelessness policy quite radically. Here we are looking at an attempt by the parties opposite to draw from me hard and fast definitions of "exceptional". If I were able to do that, I should not be describing something that is exceptional. That is exactly why the word is used.

I draw the attention of the Committee to the basis on which local authorities could make exceptions to the general rule; that is, the "reasonable preference" which occurs in subsection (2). It is impossible to define it further. If I could do so, I should not have used that word. Local authorities must make the decisions looking at their area, the case in front of them, local circumstances and the circumstances of the person before them. It is their problem to decide what is exceptional. That is where I must leave it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I am sorry that some Members felt that it was a waste of time but I assure them that this will be a key area because, if the Minister cannot guide us on this and local authorities have different interpretations of what are exceptional circumstances, that will produce a recipe for legal challenge and judicial review. That is not desirable if we can possibly avoid it, which is what we seek to do.

I return to the substantive point of the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister cannot help us, but we will revisit the matter on Report and Third Reading in order that local authorities may understand what the Minister had in mind when he permitted local authorities a tiny amount of discretion in exceptional circumstances. It relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on hard-to-let accommodation and our concern over obtaining nearly enough points. We need that guidance, as do local authorities. We have not had it and it is a legitimate and significant point. I am afraid that we must revisit the matter, however cumbersome it may seem to the Committee. I regret it, but it is necessary.

On the substantive point, my noble friend Lord Monkswell was right. The amendment does not propose a fast track into permanent council housing. It requires local authorities to ensure that accommodation continues to be available after two years. It may be in permanent council housing in the sense of it being permanent stock, or the requirement may be to ensure that families are able to continue in private rented accommodation, in housing association places or in a leased flat. There are a variety of ways to meet the need of continuing to ensure that people have secure accommodation after two years. The preferable way would be for secured tenancy.

The amendment does not produce a fast track into permanent homes. Families will still have to wait in the usual way on the waiting list. We seek to avoid an insecurity that plagues people in the housing world and the world of work. However, I do not believe that we shall get far on the matter tonight, and with the leave of the Committee I shall withdraw the amendment and hope to return to it on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 266B not moved.]

6.30 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 266C:

Page 100, line 44, at end insert— ("( ) In any case where the local housing authority decline to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under section 173, they shall notify him accordingly not later than 2 months before the expiry of the minimum period.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Although it still comes under Clause 172, it is less contentious than the other amendments. Nevertheless, it is important.

The amendment proposes to create a requirement for the local housing authority to tell the applicant of its intention to end the temporary accommodation duty at the end of the two years. As the Bill is drafted, authorities can end their duty to accommodate after a two-year period. However, they do not have to notify the applicant. That is inconsistent with the authorities' other requirements to give notice under Part VII. It will also result in confusion, from which will come hardship for the households affected.

A number of other provisions in the Bill require notification. For example, Clause 172(7) states that if the applicant turns down an offer of accommodation the authority must notify the applicant of the position. Under Clause 173(4) where the authority carries out a review it must give notice of the outcome of the review. There are provisions in other sections. Where a household is accommodated for a two-year period and does not become ineligible or intentionally homeless or does not receive an offer under Part VI, the duty expires. However, the applicant is not informed.

Under the first draft of the Bill when it was considered in another place, there was a duty to serve notice. It has been removed and it will be helpful to understand the reason for the omission, particularly when authorities are required to notify the applicant of their intentions to continue to provide accommodation. That is the converse of the present position. It would be good practice, and we may hear that guidance will suggest that local authorities give notice. But it is not necessary to go into the detail of the confusion that can arise, for example, with people whose English may not be good or who are vulnerable in many ways. They may have mental health problems and so on. I may not be using the word "vulnerable" in its technical sense. There are people who do not understand what I find a complicated process. I suspect that if I were an applicant, with all the additional emotions which I would suffer, I should find it almost impossibly complicated. For those reasons, I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require that where an applicant was being accommodated by an authority under the two-year duty in Clause 172, two months before that period of duty comes to an end the authority must give the applicant notice if it does not intend to exercise its power under Clause 173 to continue to provide accommodation.

Clause 173 gives authorities a power to continue to provide accommodation when the two-year duty has come to an end. It is entirely at the authority's discretion whether or not it chooses to exercise that power. It seems onerous to give authorities a statutory obligation to give notice of a decision not to do something that they are not obliged to do.

Part of the purpose of the reforms in Parts VI and VII of the Bill is to make the homelessness legislation a last, rather than a first, resort and to encourage individuals to take more responsibility for making their own arrangements for accommodation. Where an authority accepts that it owes the two-year duty under Clause 172, it will inform the applicant of that by notifying him in accordance with the provisions of Clause 164. The applicant will be aware from the outset that he is being accommodated for a two-year spell.

I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect the applicant to take the initiative when the end of that period approaches. It will be open to him to make his own inquiries of the authority if he wishes to determine what the authority intends to do when the two years are up. If the authority's response is that it does not intend to use its power to continue to provide accommodation, it will be open to the applicant to make a fresh application for assistance which the authority must consider. If the applicant still meets the appropriate criteria—that is, he has priority need and is still eligible for assistance—and if there is no suitable other accommodation available in the district, the duty under Clause 172 would recur.

The noble Baroness asked why the duty to notify was removed from the Bill in the Commons. If she examines the clause and its precursor, she will notice that the whole architecture of the clause has been changed. The first draft envisaged an on-going duty, terminated by the notice after one year. Now there is the substantive two-year duty. So much more has changed than just the notice. The period has changed to two years. The noble Baroness will accept that that is considerably longer. It is felt that in those circumstances the duty could reasonably be removed.

For many people there will be no need for any notice of the kind the amendment envisages. Most of them will have been offered accommodation through the housing register long before the end of the two-year period. There is, of course, no inherent reason why the person accommodated in the private sector under the two-year duty need leave the accommodation at that point. It may well be that the landlord is willing to continue to accommodate him on a continuing basis. If not and if notice to quit is served, that will be sufficient reminder that he needs to take further steps to secure his own future. We hope it will be by seeking his own accommodation and solution or, if that fails, applying to the local authority under the homelessness provisions of Clause 172.

I hope that that explains why we decided, when altering the rest of the clause in a major way, to change this provision. When we issue guidance on the operation of the new legislation, we will draw authorities' attention to the need to ensure that people rehoused under Clause 172 are fully aware of their position right from the start. I hope that that is a better way forward. With that explanation, perhaps the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

The Minister says that the architecture of the clause has changed. The length of the duty may have changed. I do not follow that it has led to such a substantial change in the approach to the matter that there is a difference with regard to an applicant's potential confusion.

I accept that it is important that the applicant has his position clearly explained to him. However, it seems to me that the local housing authority will have to keep records. It must do so in order to operate the provisions. With modern technology one can have diary reminders. I should have thought it not inappropriate to share those reminders with the applicant. We are back again to what the guidance will provide. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 172 agreed to.

Clause 173 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 266D not moved.]

Clauses 174 and 175 agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Clause 176 [Duty where other suitable accommodation available]:

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 267:

Page 102, line 46, after ("accommodation") insert ("which meets the needs of the applicant in terms of affordability and size, and is accessible to, and meets the needs of, any disabled person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant,").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the local authority discharges its duty to homeless people in priority need by satisfying itself that other suitable accommodation is available the accommodation meets the needs of the household including any disabled member of the household.

The clause allows local authorities to discharge their duty towards homeless people in priority need by satisfying themselves that suitable accommodation is available in the district. It is important that that accommodation meets the needs of the household, in particular any disabled members of the household.

In practice local authorities could satisfy themselves that suitable accommodation is available by being aware that local lettings agencies have vacant properties or that local private landlords have vacancies. Their only duty is to provide the applicant with advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances in any attempt the applicant may make to secure such accommodation. Without some further regard to the needs of the household, in particular those with a disabled member, there could be considerable difficulties.

It is important that local authorities are aware of actual properties which would be appropriate for the real needs of the homeless household. Simply being aware of agencies having vacancies would not be adequate and could lead to homeless households having nowhere to go. A disabled person may well have very specific requirements for housing. Those could include access to the property and facilities within it, safety aspects of the property, location of the property near facilities they attend, and other issues such as access to transport or storage of equipment required because of the person's disability. Many general vacancies which lettings agencies may have are unlikely to meet those requirements. Therefore, the local authority must be aware of and have regard to the particular needs of the disabled person so that it can ascertain whether alternative accommodation which is available would be suitable.

Lettings agencies, or private landlords, cannot be expected to be aware of whether their property in general would be suitable for a disabled person. They will often have little expertise in disability issues and limited comprehension of the housing needs of disabled people. There is no national standard concerning, for example, accessible housing for people with limited mobility. I have been looking recently in London for wheelchair-accessible accommodation as part of my job. I received details of at least 300 units. From most of the particulars I could not tell whether or not they were accessible. Occasionally I could do so from a photograph. From telephone conversations with the agents, I boiled the search down theoretically to one flat in a block of flats which I was told was wheelchair accessible until I arrived to view it. I am sure that the flat was accessible once one got into the building; but there were steps from the street up into the block and so, alas, I am still looking.

Local authorities must satisfy themselves that suitable accommodation is actually available for the disabled person in order to discharge their duty. Otherwise they will simply be advising disabled people about accommodation which may not be suitable, causing the disabled person to have to spend large amounts of time and energy inquiring about and looking at inappropriate properties. As many disabled people have mobility limitations, and using transport can present difficulties, that is even more problematic than it would be a for a non-disabled person.

As the proposals currently stand, not only could a disabled person spend much time looking at properties which are not appropriate, but in desperation he could accept a completely inappropriate property. In the long run that could have endless consequences not only for the independence and quality of life of the disabled person but also for the duties, responsibilities and costs of the social services.

It is important therefore that the duty of local authorities ensures that the individual requirements of disabled people are taken into account when the local authority is considering whether there is suitable alternative accommodation available for that person. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I support the amendment. I was interested in what the noble Lord said about there not being a national standard; for example, for accessible housing for people with limited mobility. We heard the noble Lord's personal experience. I certainly know of that lack from trying to find a wheelchair-accessible hotel bedroom. One frequently embarks on an interminable hunt.

There are various definitions of an accessible standard. It is defined in a variety of ways by different organisations and government departments. Perhaps it would be a good thing for the government departments concerned and the disability organisations to get together to seek to arrive at an agreed acceptable standard of accessible housing for people of all disabilities. It would then be much easier to match people and property. It would assist us to ascertain what suitable housing is available, how much there is, and where it is.

Earl Russell

I support the amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, or the noble Baroness. I agree with them. I could not have put them better.

The point I wish to make is that the local authority may free itself from a duty to house the applicant if it can satisfy itself that other suitable accommodation is available in the district. We have heard about the pressure that local authorities are under. What concerns me is that the local authority may be rather easily satisfied. That is why I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is vital.

It is material to the amendment to probe the word "district" in line 47 on page 102 of the Bill. The housing benefit authorities, I know, treat Rhyl and Llangollen as being in the same district although the rent levels and housing patterns are very different. If I were disabled and living in Llangollen, I should be in some doubt—if offered accommodation in Rhyl—whether it was really in the same district. I should be grateful if the Minister will assist us on the point.

Baroness Hamwee

With regard to that last matter, I had intended to raise the definition of "district" at another point in the Bill and ask how it relates to the ability of the Secretary of State, when exercising his regulation-making powers, to make different provisions in different cases and for different areas. One is accustomed to seeing the term "areas" in connection with regulations, and "district" seems a natural term in connection with housing. However, I wonder how they relate to one another.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I appreciate the concerns of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Earl. This amendment would require that other suitable accommodation which was available in the district (under Clause 176) must meet the needs of the applicant as to affordability and size, and also meet the needs of, and be accessible to, any member of the household who was disabled.

These are of course very proper concerns, and I endorse the underlying sentiment. But this amendment is unnecessary because Clause 176 already provides that that other accommodation which is available must be suitable, and it is well established in homelessness case law that suitability must extend to all the aspects which Amendment No. 267 seeks to address. The Homelessness Code of Guidance already refers to the need to ensure that any accommodation provided meets the needs of disabled persons where necessary, and we shall be repeating that advice in the revised code of guidance that we shall issue after the passage of this Bill.

Additionally, we are taking a power in Clause 183 which will enable the Secretary of State to specify, by order, other matters which must be taken into account in determining whether accommodation is suitable for someone. We have not yet reached a final decision on precisely where we need to use this power, but we would not hesitate to use it to clarify that the type of factors referred to in Amendment No. 267 must be taken into account if it was evident that in practice local authorities were not doing so.

I was asked about "areas" and "districts". The Bill envisages that a local authority would exercise functions across its district. So the "district" is the district of the local authority.

I hope, given that assurance, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Swinfen

My noble friend has not told the Committee how the local housing authority will make certain that the accommodation is suitable, particularly bearing in mind that the estate agents to which it goes probably will not know themselves. During my career I have been in estate agency. The object of the estate agent when letting property is to act for the landlord and find a tenant as soon as possible. You include all the good points. If some aspect is particularly bad, you try not to mention it, but if asked must do so under the Estate Agents Act, put in place by the previous Administration, which in one small aspect, although not yet tested, is defective.

Is the local authority to go round all the estate agents and obtain details of all the properties? How are authorities to satisfy themselves that the property is suitable? That is the wording in the Bill as drafted.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am not sure I understand my noble friend's problem. I do not think local authorities have to go round establishing that every property they might consider is suitable for a disabled person in the generality of cases. I should have thought that when they have a case in front of them in which either the applicant or a member of his family is disabled, in that circumstance they have to satisfy themselves. I do not think that we can ask local authorities to assume that every applicant will require disabled facilities. It is the applicant in front of them for whom they must be satisfied the accommodation is suitable.

I understand the point that my noble friend makes. As a fall-back position, as it were, I indicated that there were powers in the Bill that the Secretary of State could take if we discovered that local authorities were not being at all sympathetic to people who were disabled. I find it hard to believe that local authorities would take that view. However, if they did so, the powers are there. I should have thought it a fairly easy thing to do in what will be a limited number of cases where disablement is a major factor and where the accommodation has to be such that it suits disabled persons. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied with that explanation.

Lord Swinfen

If my noble friend had said when he first replied that local authorities had to make certain that the accommodation was suitable for an individual disabled person, I should have accepted that. He neglected to say so. I am glad I pressed him a little further. He has now clarified the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 267A:

Page 102, line 47, at end insert (", or for authorities in London, in the Greater London area").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 267A, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 268D with which it is grouped and with which it is designed to be complementary. I must apologise to your Lordships for moving amendments to a housing Bill, and hasten to profess that I do not pretend to be a housing expert, as so many of your Lordships are.

The effect of these amendments would be to allow a local housing authority in London to place a homeless person or an asylum seeker in any London borough or anywhere in the Greater London area and not just in that authority's own area. I should perhaps declare an interest as a council tax payer in Westminster, because I understand that these amendments, if accepted, would reduce the tax burden in Westminster and perhaps in other London boroughs too. But my remarks are made with Westminster largely in mind.

It seems that Westminster suffers from an unusually high average rent per household, and it also attracts very much more than its fair share of asylum seekers. Average rents per week for temporary accommodation in Westminster seem to be three or four times more expensive than in boroughs outside London and quite a bit more expensive than the rest of central London. Westminster's private rented sector is one of the largest in the country, currently comprising some 35 per cent. of the total housing stock. It has, however, traditionally suffered from a distinct polarisation between the top end and the bottom end of the market. Even at the bottom end, rents are relatively expensive, often above housing benefit thresholds, with tenants consequently experiencing rent restrictions. So although the council is committed to making more use of the private rented sector, it simply will not be able to access sufficient properties in Westminster to meet the needs of the homeless.

So far as I can see, these amendments would not be to the disadvantage of other London authorities or authorities elsewhere, or of course to the homeless generally. I am advised that they would be of advantage also to the social services budget. So I hope that they will be regarded as sensible. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

I am slightly uneasy about these amendments. I know that they have the Westminster situation in mind, but they appear to allow local authorities to discharge their duty under the Bill by pointing to the fact that there may be suitable alternative accommodation somewhere else, outside their area. Why stop at Westminster? Why stop at the London boroughs? If this argument is valid, it is valid for Manchester and Liverpool and for the adjacent authority to my own city of Norwich, South Norfolk. Before 1977, local authorities used to do precisely that. In authorities in what has become North Norfolk social workers would put people on a bus with the bus fare to come into Norwich and tell them that Norwich would house them. That was why we passed the 1977 Act in the first place. The noble Lord's amendment would revisit that situation by allowing local authorities to churn the homeless outside their boundaries and expect some other authority and the resources of another authority to take responsibility for them.

I recognise the problem but do not feel that this is the right way to respond to it. My understanding is that the vast majority of the other London boroughs resist the amendment. They fear that it would simply allow Westminster to export its problems rather than respond to its duties.

Baroness Hamwee

I too have reservations about the amendment. I recognise that it may not just be a Westminster problem. The authorities around an airport will suffer similar difficulties. In the local authority finance regime that we have, it is a matter of assessing the requirements of particular authorities. I believe that that is how the matter is approached. I do not know how Bromley, for instance, could know whether suitable accommodation were available in say, Havering or Hillingdon, or authorities in other parts of the perimeter of London. It will be difficult enough for authorities to assess the availability of suitable accommodation in their own areas.

For those reasons and because of the implications for an applicant who could be required to travel immense commuting distances for work and whose children could be required to travel very large distances if their education is to be maintained in the same school or inevitably they must undergo a change of school, I join with those who ask the noble Lord to think again about whether this is the right approach.

7 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson seek to amend Clause 176 so that a London borough could apply the test of the availability of suitable accommodation not just to its own area but to the whole of the Greater London area. Amendment No. 268D would amend Clause 189 to provide that, in respect of authorities' homelessness responsibilities under the whole of Part VII, the London boroughs' joint area should be treated as one district. We come back to the definition of "district", about which I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Similar amendments were tabled in another place and my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing gave a commitment to discuss them with the local authority associations. That commitment has been fulfilled by discussions at official level, and it is evident to the Government and the associations that we share the view that it is not realistic to treat the London area as one district for the purposes of Part VII of the Bill. So I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend. I do not know whether wittingly or unwittingly he has given me perhaps the one opportunity I shall have this evening to be on the same side of both the noble Baronesses who have just spoken.

It is no small task for a local authority to determine what constitutes suitable alternative accommodation in its own area, as the last debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Swinfen illustrated. It requires a good knowledge of the local market and ongoing monitoring, which is what many good local authorities do.

Amendment No. 267A would, in effect, require London boroughs to determine whether there is suitable accommodation in another borough's area. I do not believe that that is realistic. One could not expect Hillingdon—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave the example, which I reaffirm—to identify such accommodation in, say, Barking.

Amendment No. 268D goes wider and seeks to make all London boroughs areas of one district for the purposes of the homelessness provisions. The same arguments apply to this proposal as to the amendment to which I have just spoken. London boroughs would still need to make judgments about the availability of accommodation in other boroughs.

In addition to the difficulty of determining availability of accommodation in other boroughs' areas, this proposal would have implications for assessing "local connection", for dealing with referrals and, in short, for all aspects of the homelessness part of the Bill. If it were incorporated into the Bill, a person applying to, say, Westminster, who had previously resided in, for example, Bexley, would be the responsibility of Westminster—or any other London borough to which he may choose to apply. Under this proposal, an applicant could claim a local connection in any or all of the London boroughs if London were to be one district.

While we recognise, as my noble friend outlined, that some London boroughs have particularly acute problems with homelessness, we do not believe that those problems will be solved by simply turning all the boroughs into a single district. We believe that this proposal would render Part VII of the Bill virtually inoperable. I know that that is not the intention behind the amendment. I understand the intention, but I fear that I must say to my noble friend that as a result of the discussions which followed on the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, clearly the solution proposed here would not be the right one and would pose many more difficulties to authorities than it would provide solutions.

With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, especially to my noble friend the Minister for revealing the result of the consultation process which took place on similar amendments tabled in the other place.

It has given me some pleasure to have produced the harmony that we enjoyed between the noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite and my noble friend on the Front Bench, even if I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that I feel that she was being a little rough on me when she suggested that I was about to put people on the bus to Norwich. I certainly did not intend to do that.

Perhaps I may go back to those who inspired the amendment and consult them. I may bring forward a slightly different amendment at another stage but I hope not to trouble the Committee further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol)

If Amendment No. 267B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 267C or 268.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 267B:

Page 103, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) In that case, their duty is to furnish him with such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 267C. Both amendments are in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. I hope not to disturb the peace that has broken out.

The purpose of the first amendment, which refers to furnishing of advice and assistance, is to strengthen the duty to make advice and assistance sufficient to secure that accommodation will be made available and to remove the discretion that the authority needs to provide only advice and assistance which the authority considers to be appropriate.

The duty under Section 176 is limited. It introduces a high degree of discretion—ironically so, given that a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend and myself, have been arguing for greater discretion in certain areas with regard to the provision of accommodation. However, it introduces a lot of discretion and potential variation between authorities in the assistance that they consider to be appropriate. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, they might discharge that duty by providing only a very minimal degree of advice and help. There are no standards by which the duty will be measured.

Of great concern is the fact that an applicant who fails to take up suitable alternative accommodation may be deemed to be intentionally homeless. If the authority has provided fourth-rate advice and assistance, it seems to me that that would be a more than unhappy outcome.

We have already referred to the assumptions on which the advice obligation is based: that local authorities will have a full knowledge of the local market; that accommodation will in fact be available; and that the local authority may be able to provide tangible assistance in the form of rent deposits and rent guarantees. I do not feel it necessary to repeat the arguments used in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on an earlier amendment. I simply explain that the amendment is to inject a degree of objectivity.

Amendment No. 267C seeks to ensure that advice and assistance remain available for a period of two years. In cases where accommodation does not last for the duration of the duty or where there is insufficient advice and assistance, the applicant can return to the authority and expect further help. If there is no suitable alternative accommodation, the duty to accommodate under Section 172 would arise. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford

I support the amendment which I regard as extremely important. I am concerned that under the clause as it now stands a local authority can do very little—perhaps virtually nothing—yet still claim that it has conformed to the letter of the law.

Clause 176(1)(b) says that the authority must be satisfied that, other suitable accommodation is available for occupation by him in their district. In that case, their only duty is to furnish him with advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances in any attempts he may make to secure such accommodation". It is possible to envisage a local authority simply putting a list of local accommodation into the hands of somebody and saying, "Get on with it". So far as I can see that would mean that the authority had conformed to the law. I would like to see an appropriate clause in the Bill to ensure that the intention of this excellent amendment is adhered to. The amendment says that the authority's duty is, to furnish him with such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available". I am sure that all Members of the Committee want to achieve that result and secure that suitable accommodation is available. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this important amendment.

Earl Russell

Subsection (2) of Clause 176 is another occasion where the local authority is judge and party in its own cause. It has only to satisfy itself. Most of us can do that; but we do not always satisfy other people. I am a little unhappy about the weak duty of "advice". One has uncomfortable visions of Dutch uncles. I also see a parallel to one of the most ungenerous provisions in all government legislation with which I have had to deal. The Minister may have been a little surprised to hear my praise for the Social Fund earlier this evening. I can assure him that normal service has now resumed.

The provision I had in mind is the one in the Social Fund provisions covering people who are too poor to receive assistance. The Social Fund has hitherto given them "money advice". That has always struck me as a peculiarly heartless provision. If this subsection were to give the local authority the power to do just about that, then it would join it in the list of the most unfortunate provisions we have had. There must be more duty on the local authority than to satisfy itself. I hope that the Minister can reassure us.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

Amendments Nos. 267B and 267C seek to amend the whole purpose of Clause 176. Amendment No. 267B would replace the whole of subsection (2) by requiring the authority to furnish, such advice and assistance [to an applicant] as will secure that suitable accommodation is available", rather than simply advising and assisting the applicant in his attempts to secure such accommodation. In addition, it re-states the requirement that such accommodation must be "suitable".

Amendment No. 267C extends the duration of an authority's duty by requiring it to continue with the duty to furnish advice and assistance under Clause 176(2) until the date that the authority carries out, or could carry out, a review under Clause 173 of its power to secure accommodation.

Clause 176 is an essential part of the Government's proposals for reform of the homelessness provisions. It is in effect a halfway stage between the full homelessness duty and the purely advisory role. It relates to a local authority's duty in cases where other suitable accommodation is available for occupation by an applicant in its district. In that context "suitable" covers a range of attributes, including whether the accommodation is of the right size; whether it is, where necessary, affordable for someone on housing benefit; whether the landlord is willing to take someone with children; and other points of suitability we discussed earlier.

If the authority is satisfied that such accommodation is available, Clause 176 limits the authority's duty to furnishing the applicant with such advice and assistance as it considers appropriate in any attempts the applicant may make to secure that accommodation. As authorities develop and improve their own private rented sector strategies, they will become familiar with what property is available to let in their area and will know where to direct people. They may forge links with landlords or agencies and may assist people by offering rent guarantees where that is appropriate. We encourage local authorities, through the housing investment programme, to have regard to the contribution that the private rented sector can make. Local authorities also have a general duty under the 1985 Act to consider the condition of housing in their area, including the private rented sector, at least once a year.

In brief, local authorities will already be familiar with the private rented sector in their areas through the rent deposits and rent guarantee schemes; through private rented fora which a number of local authorities have set up in order to forge relationships between private sector landlords and letting agents; through nominations where they enter into deals with landlords, agreeing, in return for nomination rights, to underwrite deposits, sort out benefit claims and so forth; through empty property strategies, operated by over 100 authorities; and through their work with housing associations as managing agents. There are therefore a number of ways in which a local housing authority will have a good idea of what the housing position is in its area.

The fears of the right reverend Prelate that Clause 176 is a way by which authorities can escape their responsibilities are not justified. Clause 176 requires the individual to take some responsibility for arranging his own accommodation. But it also requires the authority to be confident that the accommodation is available in the area. That is the point I was making in relation to how an authority will know what accommodation is available in its area.

Also, the authority must give the individual the requisite support. In context, simply handing out a list of advertisements taken from the local paper would seldom be regarded as sufficient to meet the requirements of the legislation unless the advertisements were extremely extensive and covered all kinds and variations of property in the market. By and large one would expect a local authority to do a great deal more than that. I thought the right reverend Prelate was going to suggest providing a copy of whatever was in the local paper and a handful of 10p pieces in order to phone up the agencies concerned. I can assure him that we would certainly not consider that to be an adequate way to fulfil their advice and assistance responsibilities.

We have already discussed the issue of "suitable" accommodation. The term already appears in subsection (1) and the appropriate definitions are found in Clauses 182 and 183. The term is not therefore needed in subsection (2).

In summary, under Clause 176 the individual has some say in arranging where he is to live. The clause also allows the local authority to take full advantage of all the housing resources available in its area. Amendment No. 267B would require the authority, rather than the applicant, to secure that accommodation is available. The element of choice is therefore lost to the applicant and the whole duty falls onto the shoulders of the authority.

The second amendment, Amendment No. 267C, seeks to specify that the duty to provide advice and assistance continues until such time as a review may be carried out. That is unnecessary. For the most part, other suitable accommodation is likely to be in the private rented sector on an assured shorthold tenancy. As I have already mentioned on a number of occasions, research shows that, on average, such tenancies run for well over two years and for approaching three years. It will clearly be in the authority's interest to continue to rely on accommodation in the private rented sector for this purpose.

Perhaps I should also make it clear that, if the applicant becomes homeless again from such accommodation and the same considerations apply, the authority's duty under Clause 176 may recur. There is therefore no need to specify the duration of the responsibility on the face of the Bill.

I know that this is not the intention, but the amendments would cancel out the proposals for this halfway stage between someone looking after himself and being considered homeless. I am sure we all want to encourage people as far as they possibly can to take some responsibility for their own housing accommodation. If that means getting some advice and assistance from the local authority on the way to do it, so much the better. It is certainly far better than being considered homeless and having to be dealt with entirely by the local authority. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell

The Minister continues to repeat the point about getting people to help themselves. I have no moral objection to that point. But does the Minister understand that these people may well have become homeless because, for some reasons which may have been perfectly good, they found that very difficult to do? Indeed, in many cases they may find it as difficult to help themselves as the Minister and I find it to convince each other.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

That is a fairly compelling argument for the noble Earl because we seem to have been unable to convince each other on a number of occasions. However, I am sure he agrees that it is important that so far as possible people are encouraged to help themselves. That is what the provision does. If there are problems with the individual—if he has, let us say, a mental health problem—and he is not in a position to help himself, the local authority would have to help him in those circumstances. I am sure the noble Earl will be able to remember better than I that that provision is there in the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee

I share the aspiration that people should be encouraged to help themselves—but also helped to help themselves. Indeed, I would go further and, to the extent that I might have detected it in what the Minister said, I more than agree that the prevention of homelessness should be a major objective of the Bill. However, it is not. Subsection (2) does not make the connection between the advice being appropriate and whether or not it helps to secure accommodation. What the Minister said could be regarded as amounting to, "Tee-hee, we, the local authority, know where the accommodation is but we are not necessarily going to tell you".

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am not sure whether it is instant conversion but perhaps I can help the noble Baroness a little and indeed other Members of the Committee who have spoken by saying that we are currently considering whether an amendment is needed to the wording of this clause to clarify the circumstances in which and the extent to which it is realistic for local authorities to rely on the availability of other suitable accommodation. We intend to put beyond doubt that the level of advice and assistance should reflect the level of ability, disability or vulnerability of the applicant in each case. That reinforces the answer I gave to the noble Earl. The level of advice and assistance must be sufficient to enable the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available. The Government intend to put forward amendments for consideration at the Report stage. I hope that that answer will go a long way to help those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate.

Baroness Hamwee

I think the Minister is trying to help those who are anxious to get on with the next piece of business. On that basis, I shall save the rest of my argument either for later this evening or for the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 267C not moved.]

Lord Lucas

I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.25 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.