HL Deb 20 October 2004 vol 665 cc844-7

(1) The Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 167(2E), insert—

"(2F) Regulations may make provision as to how the scheme is to ensure that disabled people in housing need—

  1. (a) receive timely and accessible information about existing or planned accessible or easily adaptable residential properties in the local authority area including the details of the access features, based on common definitions, relating to each property; and
  2. (b) are given reasonable preference in relation to such properties.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Amendment No. 183 has the same objective as the disabled housing service amendment moved at Committee stage, but it has been amended to address the Minister's concerns. Does the Minister agree that these core elements of a disabled housing service set out in this amendment are entirely compatible with choice-based letting; indeed, that they are vital if best use is to be made of accessible housing stock and disabled people's needs are to be met? Does he also agree that the cost of establishing these elements of a disabled housing service are far outweighed by the long-term cost savings that accrue to the local authority and the NHS? I hope that he will give a positive reply.

The current statutory framework does little to encourage the development of disabled housing services and, indeed, in many ways mitigates against it. It does not reflect this Government's strong commitment to removing barriers for disabled people. The requirement to meet access needs is not made explicit. I know that the Minister shares my concern and I hope that he is able to announce some positive steps forward in that direction. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I would like to give very strong but very brief support to my noble friend. We had a very helpful meeting with Keith Hill yesterday and I look forward to what the Minister is going to say. My only regret concerns the amendment that I moved on these lines at col. 1410 of Hansard in Committee to insert a mention of access needs in addition to medical needs, which would raise the profile of the social model of disability, which I think is important. Further, there have been instances where adapted dwellings have been allocated to someone with a medical need who did not need the access facilities. I did not want to put that amendment down after such a helpful meeting yesterday but I am chewing the matter over and I give notice now that I just might bring it back at Third Reading, so I would love Ministers to address that thought.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, I support very much the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. There are compelling reasons why we should support the measure. We know that such provision is working in some cities. There is strong evidence that it is not incompatible with choice-based lettings. That has been made quite clear. Therefore. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy the noble Baroness who so ably moved the amendment.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I have a long brief in response to the amendment which I have been busy editing and chopping down. However, I am not prepared to curtail my response to this amendment concerning disability after the House has just spent 45 minutes discussing Gypsies and Travellers on an issue that, by and large, the Government had conceded and on which they had brought forward a pile of amendments. It is unfair to the three noble Baronesses who have spoken on the amendment to curtail my response to a 10-minute period, and I shall not do so. I propose to set out the detail as I have some important points to make.

The proposed Amendment No. 183 is different in detail but clearly has the same purpose as Amendment No. 228 which we debated in Committee on 16 September. In that debate my noble friend Lord Bassam gave a commitment that we would be happy to reflect on the comments made during the debate to see what more could be done.

We have given this further consideration. As we said during the debate on that amendment, the Government are fully committed to ensuring that people with disabilities are housed appropriately and that they receive the right level of priority for housing which meets their needs. We are also committed to ensuring that we make the best use of our accessible housing stock. However, we remain unconvinced that it is either necessary or appropriate to introduce legislation to achieve this. Having said that, the Government do accept that there is ample scope for strengthening the statutory code of guidance on allocations which we provide to local housing authorities and we are certainly prepared to give a commitment today that we will do this. I will return to that matter.

The new Amendment No. 183 would give a power to provide by regulations how local housing authorities can ensure—through their allocation schemes—that disabled people receive timely and accessible information on existing or planned accessible or easily adaptable residential properties in the local authority area, with details of the access features relating to each property. Believe you me, I know the value of that having been a Member of the other place and having torn my hair out, along with my constituents in Birmingham, trying to locate people with regard to dwellings that I knew had been adapted. Getting access to that information was not easy.

While I appreciate that information about the stock of accessible housing is useful, we believe that it is more important that disabled people in housing need know about suitable accessible property which is actually available for them to rent. We believe that the key lies in social landlords adopting lettings schemes which offer tenants more of a say in choosing where they live. Such choice-based lettings schemes operate by openly and widely advertising available vacant properties. Under a choice-based lettings approach landlords can ensure that vacancies which are advertised are properly labelled as to the type and level of adaptations, so that those with disabilities can select appropriate housing at the time it is available to let. We think this is the best way to make sure, as far as possible, that disabled people are matched to suitable housing.

I recognise that some people with disabilities may need additional assistance or support to take part in a choice-based lettings scheme. They may need someone to advise them about the properties to bid for or assistance to visit the properties. They may need longer to consider an offer of accommodation for all the reasons that are self-evident. It is also important that information which is published, including property adverts, should be in accessible formats. A lot of good practice is being developed by social landlords who have implemented choice-based lettings schemes. We will ensure that it is shared, through guidance, with other local authorities and housing associations. That is another commitment that we are happy to make today.

7.30 p.m.

The amendment would also ensure, through regulations, that allocation schemes in fact gave reasonable preference to disabled people in housing need in relation to accessible and easily adaptable properties. The allocation legislation already provides that people who have a medical or welfare need to move should be given reasonable preference for an allocation. That can include people with needs arising from disabilities or particular access requirements, which means that they must be allocated housing that meets their needs. We do not think it necessary to spell that out in legislation. In the same way, we do not think that the legislation should draw a distinction between medical and access needs. Indeed, it would be counterproductive to do so. However, we recognise that the matter is something else which we should be able to address through statutory guidance. The current allocations code is silent on the subject of access needs.

We are happy to give a commitment to consider, in consultation with the Disability Rights Commission and other interested parties, what more we can do to strengthen the statutory guidance to ensure that disabled people are housed appropriately, and to make better use of properties which have been designed or adapted for disabled people. Although statutory guidance does not have the same force as legislation or regulations—there is no doubt about that—local authorities must have due regard to such guidance in exercising their statutory functions. They can be challenged if they do not take account of such guidance, or if they wilfully refuse to take account of it or ignore it. The benefits of statutory guidance are that it can be fully consulted on, and that it is more flexible, as one can cut corners. It can also be revised as circumstances change.

That is a fairly inadequate reply, and I have gone through it much too fast. However, I am more than happy to answer any further questions relating to it before we adjourn for dinner.

Baroness Wilkins

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for making those commitments to strengthen the guidance. There is a slight niggle about the fact that we would like to see access in the legislation, to show that it is moving with the times.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, we take the matter seriously. It has gone into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. There is a serious intent to deliver on it in substance, in a practical way that helps people with disabilities.

Baroness Wilkins

My Lords, I thank the Minister. He made the point that there was no distinction between medical and access needs, but access is different. I am most grateful to him for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.

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