Homes Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2001.

Standing Committee D

Homes Bill

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. This is a short Committee stage, but it is fraught with news and developments. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). He is presumably still finding it all a bit much as he is not in his place—he was a moment ago. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on his well-deserved elevation to Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the new Whip, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). My joy would have been complete had the Minister for Housing and Planning been transferred to the role of Whip—but one cannot have everything in life. With great sincerity, I congratulate all and sundry on their various promotions, new arrivals and so on.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Mother and child are doing extremely well and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington hopes to be with us this afternoon. I pass on his apologies to the Committee; he has had to go to a Select Committee to discuss the issue of water. Much more importantly, I join the hon. Member for Eastbourne in passing on to the Under-Secretary of State my heartiest congratulations. It has been a great deal of fun dealing with him as the Government Whip. I emphasise that all alleged deals are now off.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. In case it is misconstrued that there is a lack of enthusiasm among Labour Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and, perhaps more importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East on his elevation to the circle of Ministers.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am sure that all members of the Committee would enthusiastically endorse those sentiments. It has been a good time for births. We have had the excellent news of the arrival of the baby of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and of the birth of what I am sure will prove to be a most successful ministerial career. Can we now get on with our business? Clause 17 Homelessness reviews

Clause 17 - Homelessness reviews

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 10, line 35, at end insert

`and—

(d) the availability of housing advice within the district'.

I am delighted to move this amendment in the knowledge that the new Under-Secretary will respond to the debate. He is getting an early outing in Committee, which is always a good thing—although I admit that we are giving him a bit of a dolly one as an opener. We will come later to an amendment tabled by some of his hon. Friends on the similar issue of housing advice by local authorities. That is rather more taxing, and it will be interesting to see how the Minister responds to it—no doubt in a friendly and polite way.

The amendment proposes that, as part of the homelessness review, there should be a review of the advice offered to homeless people and those in danger of becoming homeless. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that the Government intend that the advice services offered by local authority housing departments should form an important part of the review, but that the amendment is not necessary—using the now infamous argument A as justification. I am prepared to accept that that argument has some validity, but only if the Minister gives a strong assurance that the issue of advice will be taken seriously in the guidance that is offered to local authorities.

The Committee will be aware that the availability of advice tends to vary widely throughout the country. Under the Housing Act 1996, local authorities are required to provide advice, but, sadly, there is clear evidence from Shelter and other organisations that the advice is variable. If the Minister tells me that the guidance will provide local authorities with a detailed explanatory note on how they are expected to deliver advice and that it will give examples of best practice throughout the country from which other local authorities can benefit, I will be reasonably happy.

The Minister for Housing and Planning has already provided us with an early draft of the guidance notes and unfortunately they make little or no mention of advice. If the Minister looks at the notes, he will see that the pages are unnumbered, but in the suggestion box that refers to the review of activities that prevent homelessness, there are the two words: ``advice services''. No details are offered.

I may be prepared to accept a suggestion from the Minister to withdraw my amendment, but only if I am given a clear assurance that there will be much greater coverage of advice in the guidance that is provided to local authorities and that the guidance will specifically include examples of existing good practice throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. We look forward to his response.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and other Committee members for the good wishes that have been offered to me in my new position. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North has assumed my previous position and is riding shotgun on the Bill. I am sure that he will do a better job than I ever did and I congratulate him.

Before I deal with the amendment, I want to let the Committee know that I have had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I told him that we had been updated constantly on progress at home. He said not to believe a word that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, because he was told nothing. That may give us an insight into how the hon. Member for Bath approaches other things—I do not know. He said that we would come later to a more taxing amendment tabled by my hon. Friends. It does not surprise me that Labour Members are capable of tabling more taxing amendments than the Liberal Democrats—that comment should totally ruin our old relationship and let us make a new start.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Bath has raised the important issue of advice, but he has anticipated my response. It is our intention that the provisions should not only address the consequences of homelessness, but help to avert it. Prevention through advice, assistance and multi-agency working will be an important aspect of all homelessness strategies and reviews. The availability of housing advice, its quality and extent, should and will have to be considered as part of homelessness reviews.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are on the well-trodden path of argument A. We are not persuaded that every issue addressed in the review should be listed in the Bill. We take the view that housing advice falls clearly under clause 17(1)(b)—the requirement that reviews should look at the activities carried out for purposes relating to homelessness and its prevention. We will, however, ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised code of guidance.

The hon. Gentleman says that he has seen the code of guidance and that it does not make the appropriate references. I accept that it might have helped had the pages been numbered, but under homelessness reviews, halfway down the page, the first part of the suggestion box says:

``Sources of data on homelessness . . . —evidence from advisory services (eg Housing Advice Centres, Citizens Advice Bureau).''

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Of course I have seen that section. That is the section for the provision of data to help the authority develop its homelessness strategy. The issue that we are dealing with here is a range of advice, not only to help those who are homeless, but to help prevent homelessness. That is why I referred to the box headed:

``Review of activities which help prevent homelessness''

which specifically refers to ``advice services''. My point is that we need much greater guidance for local authorities about how they go about that, together with some examples of good practice.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The suggestion box reads:

``Review of activities which help prevent homelessness''.

Many services, both statutory and non-statutory, contribute directly or indirectly to the prevention of homelessness. We think that the point is covered. To avoid a confrontation with the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that we will try to ensure that it is. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We appreciate that this is the Minister's first outing and well done to him for making a good fist of it following very much in the style of his predecessor. In the spirit of complete friendliness, I should point out that having the words ``advice services'' in the guidance does not give guidance to those advice services. The point that I was hoping that he would be prepared to address was the need to give housing authorities guidance on how best to provide those advice services.

Some local authorities provide that advice themselves; others use voluntary agencies. Many subcontract the work to citizens advice bureaux. Some of those who provide advice tend to provide it to only certain categories of people. Others have addressed an issue that worries Help the Aged and have tried to ensure that elderly people, who could also be vulnerable to homelessness, are provided with a full range of advice. Some others seem almost to miss out that category. There are examples of good practice. I hope that we can expand the guidance notes to local authorities so that we can give them greater guidance about how best to provide that advice.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the notes will be incorporated within the existing code? I understand that the advice he mentioned will be incorporated within that document, but I shall check it, and perhaps he will do the same. If we are still in dispute we can talk about it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's helpful suggestion. To make life easy for the Committee, perhaps he will circulate the guidance. If we do not have the document when we discuss the amendment tabled by his hon. Friends, perhaps we may return to the issue later. I am delighted that we will discuss it.

I am grateful for the Minister's helpful assurances and pleased to know that he accepts the spirit of the amendment. We will find a way of ensuring that local authorities' housing departments provide the best possible advice to homeless people and those who may become homeless in the future.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amdt No. 62, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—

`(d) providing for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons.'.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this we may take amendment No. 63, in clause 18, page 11, line 18, at end insert—

`(d) providing for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons.'.

These probing amendments relate to the esoteric but not insignificant issue of the welfare of animals in the charge of homeless people. There is no reference in the Bill or in the notes to the way in which local authorities and housing bodies deal with pets.

This could be described as a double-edged sword because the problem has two aspects. Many rough sleepers have dogs, as anyone who walks along the streets in the evening knows. Often, a dog is their only companion, which helps them through difficult circumstances. The less attractive side is that many people who sleep rough and beg on the streets have dogs because they are good for business and help to bring in the money; members of the public tend to be more sympathetic to the pet than to the person sleeping rough.

In the 1990s, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) was a housing Minister. He did much good work—it was a bone of contention last Thursday when statistics became available—in taking many rough sleepers off the streets by providing hostel accommodation for them. Many hostels refused to take the dogs, which meant that people were reluctant to leave their patch on the streets. However, one of the new hostels, in east London, catered for rough sleepers with pets. That hostel was a great success. There may be other such hostels, although I am not aware of them.

Has the Minister considered rough sleepers being offered alternative accommodation where they are allowed to take their pets—provided of course that they are not just stringing a dog along for the sake of extra takings? In addition, if families or single people who own a dog become homeless, their choice of alternative accommodation might be greatly restricted. All hon. Members will know of constituents who are facing homelessness, perhaps because they are in arrears with their rent and are being ejected, thus becoming priority homeless for the local authority. If only bed-and-breakfast accommodation were available, they would be unable to take their pet with them.

If such people were lucky enough to be offered a flat or other accommodation, it might be at the top of a tower block, where it would be wholly inappropriate to keep pets, even if doing so were allowed under the housing association or local authority byelaws. It is generally the case in high-rise accommodation that pets can be kept only if their owners inhabit the ground floor. That can cause problems. People often flout the rule and it is difficult to enforce, but many people are concerned about the welfare of pets—perhaps a big Alsatian dog—kept on the 10th floor of a tower block where there might be, at best, only a balcony to provide outside access, because that is unfair on the animals and does nothing to help their welfare. It can also have an adverse impact on neighbours who have to put up with dogs barking. We all know the consequences.

That is not a small, but a significant issue. I have encountered several cases of single elderly people whose spouse has recently died and the dog, which has been part of the family for many years, is all that they have for companionship. Such people might face a choice between bed-and-breakfast accommodation, a high-rise flat or a small house in an area where the housing authority will not allow pets. It is a real problem—after all, we are a nation of dog lovers. There are two questions to be asked: should there be better guidance for people in that position; and what measures should be taken to dissuade them from having pets, especially when they face difficulty acquiring accommodation for themselves and their family, let alone their animals?

It is difficult when the dog is such an important part of people's everyday lives, but we must take cognisance of that and find a way of accommodating such people. Those given a choice between giving up their dog or taking bed-and-breakfast accommodation without it might well end up as rough sleepers on the streets. The amendment is a preventive measure for people in those circumstances. These are probing amendments. Will the Minister explain how the Government's guidance to strategic partners dealing with homelessness strategies will deal with the issues that I have raised?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

This is an important issue, and local authorities should endeavour to ensure that those placed in temporary accommodation are able to keep their pets, whenever that is possible and reasonable. The matter is of particular concern to many elderly people, and it is important that local authorities make proper provision and deal sensitively with it. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said, the problem might be a barrier to helping rough sleepers off the streets.

We must recognise, however, that it will not always be possible for local authorities to make provision for animals in all circumstances, especially when the animals are many in number, dangerous, or in poor health. Not all accommodation can be made suitable for pets, and circumstances vary a great deal. Authorities should consider carefully their arrangements for dealing with the welfare of animals and review the facilities available for accommodating them, but they will also have to balance such a demand on their resources against other important claims. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman says that the amendments are only probing amendments. Circumstances vary so much that it is inappropriate to place a requirement in primary legislation or to make the issue more prominent than others that local housing authorities will have to address when reviewing or drawing up their strategies.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rough sleepers. Attachment to pets is often a substantial barrier to helping people off of the streets and local authorities often make specific provision to deal with the problem by reducing numbers in their area, for example, by providing kennels within night shelters, or removing the ``no animals'' clause from registered social landlord agreements. We are aware of specific provision made for pets in hostels and move-on accommodation in Leicester, Manchester, London and elsewhere. Some provision is made in England for pets to remain with their owners when they come off the streets into hostels or permanent move accommodation. The rough sleepers unit actively encourages local authorities and hostels to be flexible, so that they can provide accommodation for couples and pets when having a pet might be helpful in encouraging people off the streets. Local authorities have made such provision in Cambridge, Leicester, Manchester and in other hostels across England, including the rough sleepers unit rolling shelter programme in London.

The Government's position is that local authorities should cover this issue, along with others, in the guidance that they draw up as part of their strategy. It should not be built into primary legislation because of the rigidity that that would impose.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for the Minister's comments. As I said, these were probing amendments. It is right to treat the issue with sensitivity. I shall not press the amendments, but I regard the Minister's examples of hostel accommodation with kennels attached as good, but patchy. I agree about the dangers of building a requirement into primary legislation, but we need stronger guidance to encourage local housing authorities to take the matter into consideration. It should be left to local authorities to assess local circumstances and requirements, but the profile of the issue should be raised up the ladder in the guidance.

There may be a case for treating animal welfare charities—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other smaller organisations—as potential strategic partners, especially in city centres where the rough sleeper problem is rife. How local authorities deal with pets in high-rise accommodation is an enormous grey area, about which the Government should give guidance. The problem cannot be pushed under the carpet and ignored. Tenants need clear guidelines to explain what they can and cannot expect; they must then weigh up within that equation the likelihood of their securing acceptable accommodation if they keep their pet or buy a new one.

I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged that the issue is an important one and I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I make a plea for the issue to be given greater priority in the Government's guidance to local authorities on homelessness strategies. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Homelessness strategies

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 11, line 45, after `organisations', insert

`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority, tenants' groups'.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 79, in page 11, line 45, after `organisations', insert

`local people, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness'.

No. 95, in page 11, line 45, after `organisations', insert

`people living within the authority's area including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.'.

No. 90, in page 11, line 46, at end insert

`to include organisations recognised by the Secretary of State as specialist in representing people with physical and mental disabilities.'.

No. 70, in page 11, line 46, at end insert—

`( ) Before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy the authority shall consult any guidance given by the Secretary of State in relation to best practice with regards to housing and persons with mental health needs.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We move back to familiar territory. Subsection (8) states that

``Before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy the authority shall consult such public or local authorities, voluntary organisations or other persons as they consider appropriate.''

That raises the question of who the Government believe are the right organisations and persons to be covered by that provision. The amendments, which are similar to those moved by the Conservatives, propose that three categories of people should be considered: the first is our now familiar friend, the registered social landlord; the second is local people, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness; and the third is people with mental health needs. The Conservatives' amendment No. 90 adds an additional category, which I welcome, of people with physical disabilities.

We have dealt in some detail with the argument in respect of incorporating registered social landlords. The Committee acknowledges the growing importance of RSLs as the holders of an increasingly large stock of affordable or social housing. As we know, by 2004 they are likely to be the majority owners of such accommodation and they therefore merit specific reference in any consultation agreements. Another category, with which amendment No. 69 deals but which we have not discussed in detail, is that of tenants groups. I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge the importance of consultation with such groups.

I am delighted that the Minister's draft guidance has picked up the category of local people, in particular those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. A paragraph in the section entitled ``Duty to formulate homelessness strategies'' states:

``Before adopting or modifying a strategy, the authority must consult any local or public authorities, or voluntary organisations, as they consider appropriate.''

However, a paragraph in a later section states

``Before adopting or modifying a strategy, the authority must consult any relevant organisations. This should involve those who are participating in the strategy and those affected by its provisions. Where possible, homeless people, people who have experienced homelessness, and those at risk of homelessness should also be consulted.''

I am delighted that, since the tabling of the amendment, the Minister has given us a clear assurance that that category of people will be consulted. However, it would be helpful to place on record today—or, if he does not have the information to hand, later—examples of good practice of how that could be done.

I have talked to representatives of a number of local organisations who, while they acknowledge that it is important, sometimes have difficulty finding appropriate people to assist them. Shelter carried out a consultation exercise with such people, who were pleased to be consulted and provided valuable advice. I hope that that experience and that of other successful local authorities can be passed on so that all local authorities can benefit from it.

The final category, which comes in amendment No. 70 and is touched on in Conservative amendment No. 90, is people with mental health needs. This is a particularly important area that is not mentioned in the guidance notes. I hope that the Under-Secretary can respond to it positively. We are all well aware that people with mental health needs sometimes get themselves into difficulties with their landlords, be it the local authority, a registered social landlord, a housing association or other landlord. Some of them may simply have a phobia about opening documents and consequently do not respond in due time to their landlord's requests.

People with mental health needs can sometimes, to use the vernacular, go walkabout, without informing their landlord that they will be away from the property for some time. There are many examples—I am sure that many members of the Committee experienced it in their surgeries—of people who have fallen foul of their landlord in that way. I hope that the Under-Secretary can acknowledge the importance of consulting such people and the organisations that represent them such as Mind and many others. I hope that he will look favourably, if not on the words, at least on the spirit in which the amendment is moved.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This group of amendments includes two tabled by Conservative Members to which the hon. Member for Bath has already referred. Amendment No. 95 is similar to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 79. I will not repeat many of the comments that the hon. Gentleman made in support of that. It just seems common sense and obvious that homeless people should be added to the list of important bodies involved in the consultation exercise. The hon. Member for Bath is right; Shelter carried out an interesting study entitled ``Closing the Gap'', which provided a lot of interesting information taken from people who are at the sharp end of the problems dealt with in the Bill. I cannot see how bringing such people into the net could damage arguments A, Z, Q or whatever the Under-Secretary might like to throw back at us.

Amendment No. 90 is important. As the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, it goes further than Liberal Democrat amendment No. 70, which does not take into account the need to consult strategic partners with expertise in mental health and physical disabilities. I speak as the chairman of the Conservative disability group and my constituency includes Worthing, which contains the highest number of elderly people in the country, if not in the universe—and I am delighted that it does. Long may it continue.

Of course, physical and mental disabilities especially affect older people. Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of homeless people, including those who sleep rough, are over the age of 50, and there is evidence that older people are more vulnerable to the mental and physical ill effects of rough sleeping and unsatisfactory home conditions.

Elderly people and those with disabilities tend to lack access to mainstream services and accommodation because they are easily overlooked, although not as much as they were. Since 1995, welcome legislation on people with disabilities has, rightly, raised their profile. However, there is still some inflexibility between funding streams and a failure of collaboration between specialist teams in social services and voluntary groups and so on.

Suitable accommodation for physically disabled people must take into account their use of wheelchairs, for example, and the fact that they may be able to walk only a short distance. Doors must be accessible and easily opened and there must be ramps and rails to allow people to get into and around their homes. People with disabilities should not be housed on the third or fourth floor of tower blocks because of difficulties if the lifts are out of order and the type of flooring used must be considered when housing frail people who are not steady on their feet. Those are clear, physical conditions to be considered when housing a homeless disabled person.

There are social considerations, too, especially when the person involved has mental health problems. It is not enough merely to adapt a house or to have houses suitable for people with physical disabilities without considering their surroundings. We must ask questions such as, ``Who are they living next to? Is there someone who can keep an eye on an elderly, disabled person? What companionship can be offered to people? Are sheltered warden schemes available?'' The community around them matters a great deal to disabled people. It is no good putting people with mental disabilities next door to young families, for example, who may have a lower understanding of their difficulties and who may not appreciate the circumstances of a person's mental disability and its effects. That will make life more difficult for the family living next door and for the vulnerable disabled person who needs a bit of a leg up. The social and geographical aspects of appropriate housing for people with physical and mental disabilities must be considered.

I support the proposals made in the Local Government Association report ``No Place Like Home'' for dealing with people with disabilities. They include the following recommendations:

``Social services and, where relevant, health authorities, should be involved in the allocation plan for households deemed to be in particular need of settled accommodation on medical grounds or welfare grounds in order to ensure that the need for support is assessed and provided as part of the allocation process.

Housing, social services and health authorities should jointly agree hospital discharge planning arrangements.''—

we discussed the problems of bed blocking—

``Local housing authorities should maintain a register of wheelchair-adapted properties in the council and housing association stock and, when feasible, in the private sector.''

As a key part of its housing strategy, a local authority in my constituency in Worthing, has transferred to Worthing Homes—a registered social landlord—some well-adapted bungalows for disabled people that are especially suitable for those in wheelchairs. My constituency has more than the average number of people who are not as mobile as others.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Has my hon. Friend considered the reverse situation, especially with regard to some mental disabilities? There have been some disturbing cases in my constituency involving people with mental disabilities who did not take their medication or who were placed in flats in small blocks. They caused enormous distress and nuisance to the other residents in the block, many of whom were elderly. I urge my hon. Friend to remember that there is another side to the problem, especially when flats and houses are close together.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is absolutely right. It does not serve people with low-level mental disabilities or their neighbours if accommodation is offered without any sensitivity about its suitability, both for the disabled person and those who live nearby. Both sides are losers unless those factors are taken into account; putting people with mental problems in high-rise blocks, for example, is not a good idea.

The issue should be given greater prominence in the Bill as it involves a broad range of people. The amendments are not prescriptive; they want the authorities to have regard to the needs of people with disabilities. In view of the legislation on disability rights, it is appropriate that living accommodation, which is such an important part of the lives of disabled people, should be given greater prominence in a Bill that deals with that subject.

The amendments go further than the recommendations in ``No Place Like Home'', which we support, by stressing the need to involve specialist charities, which bring their expertise and experience to the sector's work. I commend the amendments to the Committee, especially amendment No. 90, which, as the hon. Member for Bath will agree, goes further than the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Once again, we sympathise with the amendment's aim, but differ from Opposition Members about how to achieve the desired outcome.

The Government have been consistent in putting people at the centre of our policies. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants and residents, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, to inform the homelessness reviews and to help in drawing-up the strategies. We expect local government to engage with people in the area, to work in partnership and to be customer focused.

It is not necessary, or desirable, to put every detail in the Bill, but we will ensure that the matters are addressed in the code of guidance. It will be important for the Secretary of State to offer clear guidance on best practice in respect of housing and persons with mental health needs. Local housing authorities should tackle those needs directly through their homelessness strategies. The Secretary of State will give guidance on best practice in respect of other vulnerable groups. It would not be appropriate to view one deserving group as more worthy or important than another. To include one group in the Bill would imply that its needs were necessarily more pressing. I share hon. Members' concerns about the welfare of those with mental health needs. We will ensure that they are carefully addressed in the code of guidance.

I shall deal with the need to include those affected by local authority strategies. The Government have been consistent in placing people at the centre of our policies. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants and residents—including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness—to inform the homelessness reviews and to help to draw up the strategies. Again, it is not necessary to place every detail in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Bath asked whether we would make a commitment to spread examples of good practice. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is carrying out research into best practice in developing homelessness strategies, the results of which will be available later this year. I hope that that covers his concerns.

The hon. Member for—[Interruption.] I will get the constituency right one day. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised various issues. The Housing Act 1996 specifically includes as a priority need category homeless people who are vulnerable as a result of mental illness. Any homelessness strategy should include provision for that client group.

The supporting people strategy is the Government's new approach to providing housing with support for vulnerable people. The guidance recently issued on supporting people states that there needs to be an integral link between the homelessness strategy and the supporting people strategy in any area. The latter strategy will draw in links with the appropriate specialists to which the hon. Gentleman refers in amendment No. 90, so his point is covered.

Having given those assurances, I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am delighted that the Minister has assured us that those issues will be addressed. More important, in a sense, is the news that the DETR is carrying out research into best practice, which will be published and widely publicised.

I noted the new Under-Secretary's difficulty in coming to terms with the constituency of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He said that he would get there one day. Unless things have changed and there is a different arrangement under the new Whip, we have but one day left for him to get it right, so I suggest that he practises hard over lunch.

I have another gentle point for the Minister. He referred to the Government's new supporting people strategy and the importance of an integral link between it and the homelessness strategy. The Minister for Housing and Planning has already told us that there will be a similar integral link with the council's housing policy. I suggest that we are in danger of over-burdening local authorities with the requirements to produce a wide range of different strategies.

The Under-Secretary will be aware that, during our deliberations some months ago on the Local Government Bill, we considered the requirement for local authorities to produce a community plan. The Government gradually but reluctantly agreed that, by making it a duty on local authorities to produce a plan, we were able to bring a large number of other plans within a single plan. Now that he has his new position, I hope that, with his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Under-Secretary will be prepared to consider again whether there would not be great merit in finding a way to require local authorities to produce a single plan that integrates those various issues. I assure him that local authorities would warmly welcome that in preference to the scattergun approach involving a range of different plans.

However, that is a side issue to the main point, which was to ensure that very clear guidance will be given to local authorities telling them that the range of people that they must consult includes registered social landlords, tenants groups, local people including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, persons with mental health needs and, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham rightly adds, people with physical disabilities. We have had a clear assurance from the Minister that we are going to receive that, and with that assurance I intend to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I appreciate the comments made by the hon. Member for Bath. We will not press our amendments, but I do have a couple of points to raise with the Minister. We are encouraged by his assurance that these matters will be addressed in a code of conduct and best practice, especially with regard to provision for disabilities, with which I am most concerned.

Mencap has produced some interesting literature on the problems and the resettlement needs of people with learning disabilities who remain in long-stay hospitals, in part arising from the absence of suitable accommodation for them on coming out of hospital. A lack of housing alternatives is forcing many adults with a learning disability to continue to live at home with elderly parents, which can result in considerable pressure. Like anyone else, such people are entitled to move away from family accommodation and to make their own way in life, but Mencap estimates that there is a shortage of at least 5,000 homes a year to give people in that position equal access to their own home. That is a serious problem.

It is not only a question of giving a certain group of people priority. The people affected are a large contingent of the population—far larger than any other special interest group that may want to be singled out. Therefore, I do not go along with argument A. Housing accommodation must to be tailored to people with physical disabilities in particular; otherwise there may be a surplus of housing accommodation that is no good because it is completely inaccessible to someone in a wheelchair. Special provision has to be made or accommodation will not be suitable for people with physical disabilities.

Amendment No. 90 is not designed to gain priority treatment for anyone. Its wording purely asks that disability organisations should be included as specialists who should be consulted. Therefore, even after an authority has consulted those organisations before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy, it may decide that disability requirements are a lower priority within that area. The amendment should not be read as giving priority to people with disabilities; it merely would include in the framework a provision that such people and the specialist organisations that know such a lot about them should be consulted as part of a homelessness strategy. The Under-Secretary is wrong to suggest that the amendments would give priority in allocation to people with physical or mental disabilities. I appreciate the recognition that he has given to the fact that people who fall under those titles have special requirements. That was the reason for tabling the amendments. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary looks as if he wants to rise before I have finished; he may want to intervene rather than make a speech after me.

I am not giving undue priority to the problem; there remains a case for including disability organisations in the Bill, though we shall not press the amendment to a vote. Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that he acknowledges the importance of the issue?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Hon. Members have raised some important points. I hope to give the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham some assurance. I am grateful to him for not pressing the amendment. Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 specifies categories of people in priority need of accommodation so we are not ignoring the problem: the categories are already listed in the Act.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the appropriateness of accommodation. I assure him that good practice guidance will include suggestions from the LGA report, one of which was that local authorities keep a register of properties suitable for people in wheelchairs or others with disabilities.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That was one of the recommendations that I highlighted. I do not dispute what the Under-Secretary says, but we are talking at cross-purposes. Section 189 of the 1996 Act refers to definitions of priority need for accommodation, but we are debating clause 18, which is about authorities drawing up homelessness strategies. If priority needs had been recognised within the strategies in the first place, there would be no need for a preventive measure. Citing the 1996 Act does not address my central concern.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

People in priority need must be taken into account. They are already mentioned in the 1996 Act so they will be at the front of consideration when local authorities draw up their strategies. [Interruption.] It is already covered.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hope that you will agree to a short stand part debate, Mr. Stevenson. Clause 18 deals with homelessness strategies, so it might be more appropriate to adopt a strategic view of what it says rather than pass rapidly on through it. We have already debated what should be included in the strategy and which bodies or organisations should be consulted.

Local authorities will face problems in formulating strategies. They will not be dealing with an ideal world, but with real problems faced by authorities today. Strategies will vary dramatically. It is almost possible to draw a line across the country and create two wholly different worlds of homelessness and housing—those who have a demand problem and those who have the opposite problem. I have already mentioned how long people must wait for housing in my constituency.

It is quite clear that the Government are panicking about rising homelessness figures. In last week's debate on the Bill—I do not want to rake over old coals—the Minister for Housing and Planning was forced to admit that homelessness had risen under this Government. In a spectacular own goal, having risen to correct the figures that I had quoted, he produced even higher figures. The figure for total priority homeless acceptances in 1997-98 was 102,650. The latest figure produced by the Minister was a staggering 108,000—a rise of nearly 6,000.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Will the hon. Gentleman now put on the record the number of priority homeless applicants who were accepted by local authorities in 1996, the last year in which the Conservative party was in power, rather than suggesting in this preposterous way that the Labour party inherited a figure after already being in government for a year?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It is no good the Minister throwing around $10 words like ``preposterous''. The figure is rising under his stewardship, and it is rising even faster than we thought.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Answer the question.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Minister is making a different point, which he is perfectly entitled to do, and more than capable of doing when he has his bite at the cherry. There is nothing he can say to contradict my figures, which show that during his stewardship there has been an increase of nearly 6,000. Consequently, the Government have panicked and only yesterday announced an extra £25 million to assist local authorities to house homeless households. Ministers have belatedly woken up to their failure to tackle homelessness.

It is quite instructive to look at the press release published by the Minister yesterday. It is headed:

``Raynsford welcomes extra money to help homeless''.

It talks about the £25 million being made available from April 2001 to assist local authorities and interestingly talks about local authorities being under increasing pressure

``in part due to the increase in homeless households who are asylum seekers given leave to remain in Great Britain, or former-asylum seekers.''

Clearly, despite some of the rhetoric that we heard in earlier sittings, asylum seekers remain a significant problem. They are a problem in London, of course. The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and I have crossed swords on this before, but we both agree that it is a factor. The Association of London Government seems to consider it quite a significant factor. There is also a knock-on effect. There is a major problem on the south coast in places like Eastbourne, which no one has yet addressed. Increasingly London boroughs, which we accept are under great pressure, are entering into private arrangements to accommodate asylum seekers in small guest houses and holiday lets. I have raised this more than once with the Home Secretary and his fellow Ministers. It was supposedly to be addressed by a consortium approach through the LGA, but so far nothing has happened to resolve it.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Let me just make this point. It is absolutely disgraceful, and I am sure that the h Lady, would agree that despite all the understandable pressures on some London boroughs—Newham is a good example, or a bad example, depending on how one looks at it—they are still following that course without taking the preliminary and essential step of informing the recipient borough or council. That puts an unfair burden on the range of services available in that area.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I just want to return to the point about asylum seekers. I wholly accept that the increase in the number of asylum applicants with whom local authorities are dealing is a factor in the demand. However, the accommodation problem in London and the south-east is caused by a long-term and sustained collapse in the supply of social housing. If he accepted that—and the fact that it is a responsibility that goes back for the best part of 20 years—we might have scope for common ground and a reasonable discussion.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We are debating the issues in the fourth year of a Labour Government. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and I have quoted the falling figures for new social housing produced under the current Government. Those figures make the situation clear and I do not need to dwell on it.

It is interesting that the first point that the departmental press release makes relates to the problem of asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North is right to say that there is a problem with supply of social housing. The good briefing from the ALG also covers that point. I see the hon. Lady waving at me—I assume that she wants to intervene.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I was actively involved in pressing the Government to provide local authorities in central London with some form of assistance with asylum seekers. The reason that it is an issue is that local authorities are in many cases accommodating asylum seekers in the private sector, where we face an escalating problem of cost. That is why we need additional assistance. The Audit Commission has been actively involved in helping us to identify that the issue of rental accommodation in the private sector is the core of our problem. We need to recognise that.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The hon. Lady is describing, probably unwittingly, the fault of a market. It is certainly not the fault of Conservatives that this country has a record number of asylum seekers—more than 75,000, and if one adds dependants the figure is heading towards 100,000. That is the result of a plain lack of so-called joined-up government—a phrase of which, funnily enough, we have not heard much of late, probably because it has so manifestly failed to be provided. It is no earthly good the Minister trying, with the best intentions in the world, to solve the problems of homelessness, particularly in large cities and such places as Eastbourne, if his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office are simply not doing their stuff.

I make no apology for mentioning Eastbourne; I use it as an example. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a deprived inner city area, yet the latest figures, which were debated with great concern by my local council only the other day, show that since April last year, 171 families or people have been housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, compared with 76 the year before and 50 the year before that. That is an enormous rise for a modest-sized south-coast resort, leaving aside what may be happening in other parts of the country.

If homelessness strategies are to mean anything, the Government must have a proper strategy of their own. Under the current Government, the supply of social housing has gone down while the homelessness figures have gone up. As the current edition of Housing Today reports, in an article entitled ``Labour's minimal impact on empties'':

``New Labour's record on reducing the number of empty homes has been dealt a serious blow after figures showed practically no movement four years after coming to power.''

I am expecting the Minister to leap up at any moment and challenge the DETR figures.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I challenge the hon. Gentleman to read the rest of the article.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I will not read the whole article, unless the hon. Gentleman insists. However, he is welcome to borrow my copy if he wants to read it all out.

DETR figures show that the total number of empty homes fell by just 4,300 to 762,700 between April 1997 and April 2000. The article goes on

``the number of empty properties owned by councils and housing associations actually increased during the period.''

If the Minister will not accept my arguments on the issue, will he accept those of Mr. Ashley Horsey, the chief executive of the Empty Homes Agency and a person well known to all of us? He is quoted, I assume accurately, in the article as saying:

``Over the four years that the current Labour government has been in power, and with speculation of a spring general election rising, the end of term report from the Empty Homes Agency on the government's efforts to tackle empty homes would have to be `has shown some promise, but only limited progress to date. Must try harder'.''

We therefore have a strategic picture of falling social housing provision, growing homelessness, growing numbers of asylum seekers—which the Minister accepts as a major, if not the principal, factor in many areas—and a failure to tackle the problem of empty properties. It is no earthly good the Government lecturing individual councils and local authorities about implementing strategies if they are so wholly at sea in terms of their own strategy—or lack thereof. When the strategies start to emerge, it will be extremely interesting and instructive to see how varied they are and whether there are dramatic differences between those of councils in the north and in the south. Such differences are, again, based on supply and demand as much as anything else, as the hon. Lady confirmed in an intervention.

We welcome homelessness strategies, as I think does every organisation involved. I hope that good councils already have a form of strategy, for their own consumption, which will just need to be dusted off and revamped to comply with the Minister's requirements. However, we must remember the situations that councils face as a result of the blatant failure of the Government's homelessness policy at almost every level.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: strategies will vary enormously from area to area. He slightly oversimplified the matter by saying that one would be able to draw a line between north and south and see fundamental differences between the two regions. He would be the first to recognise that areas in the south have problems of low demand; one example is Hastings, just along the coast from him, which has had well-publicised problems of that nature. Equally, some areas in the north have considerable pressures. However, I agree in general with his analysis that there will be significant variations between strategies in different parts of the country. That is all to the good and it is why we are encouraging strategies so that local authorities can develop an approach to homelessness that is appropriate for the needs of their area.

I hesitate to take us back into the territory of statistics but two statistical points must be made. Despite the best efforts of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the DETR figures that he was so pleased to quote show clearly and conclusively that when his party left office, local authorities had accepted 110, 000 homeless people in priority need categories. The latest figure is 108,000. I have said many times that that is too high and that we have much more to do in tackling the problem. It is simply untrue that we have more homeless households now than we inherited from the previous Government. That is a straightforward statistical point.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham fell into a similar trap in trying to interpret the figures on rough sleepers that were issued last week. I hope that he will not mind if I put the record straight. He quoted a figure of 286 rough sleepers in London at the end of the previous Government's term and implied that because there are now 546 rough sleepers in the capital, the number had, in his words, almost doubled. He is confusing unlike with unlike. The figure of 286 was based on head counts of people sleeping rough in a few selected parts of central London and did not cover the whole of the London area. Under the head counts instituted in June 1998, as a result of the Government's policy on rough sleepers, the number in London at that time was 620, which in June 2000 had reduced to 546. On a comparable, like-for-like basis there is therefore evidence of a reduction—not enough and there is still a great deal to be done, but it is a reduction. There were no comparable figures for London or, indeed, the whole of Britain. That was one of the reasons why, when in opposition, the Labour party wanted a more comprehensive strategy on rough sleepers. We supported the previous rough sleepers initiative, which did good work, but it was targeted at a limited number of selected areas. We take a more comprehensive approach.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am not sure what the Minister's point is. Is he claiming that this Government are more efficient at counting the number of rough sleepers? If so, that is not a great step forward. Otherwise, does he accept that, however one approaches the counting of rough sleepers, there is a substantial margin for error, even in the figures that he claims are more reliable?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have had ample opportunity to place their different figures on the record. I hope that, having done so they will move on.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I shall happily move on, Mr. Stevenson.

I found an aspect of the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne slightly surprising. In all his comments on yesterday's announcement about additional help for authorities that are meeting the needs of and accommodating homeless people, including asylum seekers, in private-sector accommodation, he did not acknowledge that it was a good thing that an extra £25 million had been secured to help local authorities. It was rather extraordinary that he referred to it and made party-political points, but could not bring himself to say that it was a good thing to provide extra help for authorities that have been under pressure.

That shows the difference between our two parties. The Conservatives are only too happy to identify and talk about problems, but when it comes to practical measures to deal with them, their party—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Surely the Minister would agree that it would have been even better to have given that £25 million three years ago, rather than three months before a likely election.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If the hon. Member for East Shoreham—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

No.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wants me to run through the investment figures since the election, I will happily give them to him and point out the increased investment that the Government have made through the capital receipts initiative, then the spending review and now the spending review 2000. However, I will not rise to that, as I fear that I would be out of order if I did so.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Does my hon. Friend remember that the first additional support for inner London authorities that were coping with those pressures was announced, I think, in June 1997? A number of different initiatives have helped the boroughs of Kensington and Westminster in my constituency over the past four years.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I well remember the Committee stage—it may have taken place in this Room—of the Bill that released capital receipts and honoured our election commitment to increase funding for local authorities. That was an early indication of our commitment to tackling the problems. We have made substantial progress since then and increased spending by a series of different measures, culminating in the spending review 2000, which has added substantially to investment for both the improvement of existing stock and a new generation of social housing.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne made perfectly fair points about the increased number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We recognise that that is a problem, which is why we have acted through the additional financial help that I have described. We have also recognised the need for a more strategic approach by local authorities with more emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. Clause 18 is about a multi-agency approach to ensure that there is more effective preventive work as well as more effective help for those who become homeless.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hope that the Minister will deal in some detail with the point that I made about asylum seekers. In his multi-agency approach, does he include his colleagues at the Home Office, who seem to be a major factor in a major part of the problem?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman has not given me an opportunity to get into my stride; I am trying to answer the various points. Of course I take my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office very much into account. We work extremely closely with them, and they are fully aware and supportive of the measures announced yesterday. Equally, we have been in close contact with them about the measures that they have taken to tackle that serious problem.

There is no secrecy about the figures, which I am happy to put on record. In 2000, there were 76,000 new applications from asylum seekers—up by 4,800 from 71,160 applications in 1999. It is a large number, but not as high as the figure suggested by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office had to tackle the appallingly inefficient system inherited from the previous Conservative Government, which had resulted in a huge backlog. The number of decisions taken by the Home Office increased from 33,700 in 1999 to 110,000 in 2000. The Government have taken action to speed up the processes, ensure that initial decisions can be taken quickly and reduce outstanding applications.

All that evidence demonstrates that the Government are tackling the problem with determination. We do not pretend that all the problems have gone away; we acknowledge their existence, and we are working to deal with them. The same applies to empty homes: yes, there are too many, but if the hon. Member for Eastbourne had quoted Mr. Ashley Horsey more fully, he would have revealed that the Empty Homes Agency warmly welcomed the Government measures. In common with any pressure group, the Empty Homes Agency rightly says, ``Can do better; should do more'', but it recognised that the Government had shown some promise. The hon. Gentleman missed out various passages, so neglected to mention that the Empty Homes Agency welcomed the changes in the rules on capital allowances for flats over shops to help to bring them into greater use. The reduced rate of VAT on properties being converted to residential use is another example.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Will the Minister quantify those two examples: how many flats will be brought into use over the five-year period, and how many houses derelict for more than 10 years will qualify for VAT exemption?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This is not a Finance Bill debate and the announcements to which I referred were made only recently. These are early days. The Conservative Government could have taken those measures, but did not. The present Government have taken them and they will make an impact, as the Empty Homes Agency acknowledges. The Opposition spokesman chose not to cite that passage in his selective quotation from the newspaper. It is typical of the Conservatives to use selective quotes to give a pejorative impression about the Government's performance rather than any attempt to establish the truth.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Perhaps I can selectively quote the Minister's colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who quantified the flats-above-shops relief as likely to affect no more than 5,000 properties over five years and who was unable to provide a figure for the 10-year derelict VAT exemption because its impact would be negligible. Before trumpeting those great measures, should the Minister not admit the truth that they are tiny scratchings off the tip of the iceberg?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The Opposition spokesman quoted Mr. Ashley Horsey of the Empty Homes Agency, who did not refer to ``tiny scratchings'', but welcomed Government action to tackle the problem. As I said, we expect pressure groups to encourage the Government to do more. We understand that: it is politics and life. It is wrong of the Opposition, however, to pretend that the Government are doing nothing. That is simply not the case.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I divine that the Minister may have moved on from asylum seekers, but I remind him of the widespread practice of London boroughs placing people in places such as Eastbourne without reference to the local council or other local agencies. How does the Minister propose to deal with that problem, which is certainly not being dealt with by the Home Office or the LGA? Will any sum from the £25 million find its way to places such as Eastbourne, which has a secondary asylum seeker problem, as I have described?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Obviously, it is important to encourage good working relationships between the different local authorities involved when people are referred from one area to another. Not all of the areas that face less intense pressure than some of the London and south-east authorities have been wholly supportive or encouraging in helping their colleagues in London and the south-east—I am not talking about Eastbourne. I hope that the Opposition, like the Government, believe that there should be a co-operative approach throughout the country and that authorities should try to help, especially if those that have supplies of housing that are not in great demand. I pay tribute to some authorities that have been especially good at identifying low-demand properties that might be available.

The £25 million package announced yesterday is not ring-fenced for any one particular area. It relates to the cost of accommodation, and although it is likely that the bulk of it will be for the benefit of London authorities, because that is where the pressures are greatest, there is no reason in principle why Eastbourne should not also benefit.

The Government accept entirely the other adage used by Mr. Ashley Horsey of the Empty Homes Agency: must try harder. That is what we are doing—the Bill and the clause are all about ensuring more effective work to tackle the problems of homelessness. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the good sense of the clause and that they will agree that it should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 12, line 20, after `intentionally', insert—

`(i) for subsection (2) there is substituted—

``(2) The authority shall provide the applicant with advice and such assistance as is reasonable in any attempts he may make to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation.

(2A) The Secretary of State may by order specify matters to be taken into account in determining whether advice and assistance which the authority proposes to provide is reasonable and make provision as to the procedure to be followed in the giving of advice and assistance.

(2B) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations representing relevant authorities, and other persons as he considers appropriate.

(2C) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.''; and

(ii)'.

The amendment returns to the question of advice, which we discussed in connection with an earlier amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. In particular, it deals with standards of service in respect of advice to people who are in non-priority need and to people in areas of higher demand who are unlikely to be able to gain access to accommodation. The amendment is designed to strengthen the current duty, which at present can be discharged according to what the authority considers to be appropriate; it would introduce a greater consistency into the standards of service across the country; and it would bring the worst up to the level of the best by setting a basic standard.

That is important: non-priority applicants are wholly dependent on the quality of advice and assistance that they receive from local authorities and other advice agencies, because there is no realistic prospect of them ever receiving a tenancy from a local authority or housing association. I have received many letters in respect of constituents in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and from Westminster carrying the chill words ``We are unlikely ever to be able to consider you for an offer of accommodation.''

The sort of people we are talking about are those who do not fall into the categories of vulnerability that currently give them priority. They are adult children who are being forced out of overcrowded accommodation; or people living in private rented accommodation that they can no longer afford—that recalls our earlier exchange about the cost of accommodation in the private rented sector, which has become wholly unrealistic for anyone on an average income; or people in the private rented sector coming to the end of their assured shorthold tenancy whose landlord is unwilling or unable to renew it. That demand is one of the principle sources of applications to housing assessment and advice in my own area. Such demand also commonly arises from family breakdown. One of the partners, usually the man of the family, leaves home after a relationship breaks down and wants, rightly, to stay within the location so that he has access to the children, but has no means of being able to do so.

Such people are dependent upon the quality of the advice and assistance that they get. They comprise a large group; it accounted for about a quarter of all applicants to housing assessment and advice last year, or around 55,000 people. Of course, that is likely to be a huge underestimate, because the overwhelming majority of people in that category in London and the south-east would not even consider approaching their housing department, because they know the pressures. However, despite the importance of the advice service to such people, quality of service varies greatly across the country.

I pay tribute to the staff in the housing assessment and advice units in the two boroughs that I represent because. They have a tough job. However, in practice, the advice that people in the categories I have listed usually received is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. In Westminster, it usually consists of a piece of paper listing local bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or a note suggesting that they look in the Evening Standard or Loot. That is the sum of the advice that they are given. In addition, extreme pressures on the paucity of other advice services in central London, such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres, they are left extremely vulnerable.

In its report ``Singles Barred'', Shelter found an extraordinary variation in the quality of advice and assessment in different parts of the country that could not be accounted for by high demand. Indeed, some of the best performing local authorities were those in high demand areas—Camden and Ealing were singled out for praise. Local authorities in areas of high demand and in areas of low demand were among those providing extremely poor advice. In some, people were turned away without being given an interview or any advice. Assessments were not made consistently, so that potentially vulnerable people, who might not appear so on paper and would not necessarily fall into any priority housing category, were missed. None of the applicants surveyed received a written notice of decision, nor were they informed of their rights to review.

Such poor service can cause people to lose their homes unnecessarily when they could have been helped to remain in them. Some will fail to get available accommodation, particularly in the private rented sector. Some may have housing benefit arrears but be unaware that they qualify for housing benefit—it is very common for people who are in work to have no idea of the existence of housing benefit as an in-work benefit. Some who face a gap between their rent and their housing benefit payments may not know that in certain circumstances they would qualify for assistance with exceptional hardship payments, or they may not be aware of the availability of assistance through rent deposit schemes. Such provisions would be available to them if the quality of housing advice were consistent.

I am especially concerned about potentially vulnerable people who are missed—a problem I have come across on several occasions. One example that springs to mind involves a young gay man whose partner had committed suicide in his privately rented flat. He was extremely vulnerable and believed that he might be HIV-positive, but had not felt confident enough to be tested. He was experiencing quite severe symptoms of psychiatric distress but because of his age and the fact that he had not been diagnosed as HIV-positive, he did not fall into a priority group. Such people get missed.

The amendment is designed to set a framework of standards. I understand the concern expressed by the LGA about it being too prescriptive, but I think that if authorities are to be made to be concerned about the problem, they must engage with us in dialogue about how to make standards consistent across the country. The sort of standards that I am looking for are those whereby all applicants are guaranteed an interview to ensure that vulnerable claimants are not missed out; all applicants are given accurate and up-to-date information about the options available to them; and people have access to information about where they can obtain benefits and quality advice about landlord and tenant law, for example. In addition, all applicants should receive information and a written decision about the right to review.

My amendment is a probing one, but I hope that I have made the case for its proposals. The issue is a minefield; we must consider what it is reasonable for the Government to prescribe and bear in mind the danger of being too prescriptive in placing duties on local authorities. The quality of advice, especially in areas of high demand, is crucial to people who are unable to gain access to social housing. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to state what can be done to ensure that the local authorities that provide the worst services are brought up to the standard of the best.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North was careful to describe the measure as a probing amendment—a comment that might have followed an in-depth exchange of views with the Whip. We do not know whether Ministers will accept the amendment, but I can state provisionally—because we must first listen to the rest of the debate—that we are quite taken with it and that, subject to the observations offered by other members of the Committee and the Minister, we are minded to support it. I hope that the four Labour Back Benchers in whose names the amendment stands will have the courage of their convictions in the event of a Division.

In the housing Green Paper, the Government promised councils an enhanced advisory role. It proposed to extend local authorities' duty to provide advice and support requiring them

``to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness''.

Conservatives in local government warmly welcomed that proposal. However, the Bill falls well short of the Green Paper's modest suggestions in two respects: first, there is no clear mention of the multi-agency approach to homelessness advice—strategic partners are needed in that equation. Secondly, crucially, the requirement to advise people is too narrow, referring only to those seeking allocation of housing.

If the proposals are to have the profound effect on homelessness that we and the hon. Lady want, the scope of the advisory role, especially its preventive value, should be much wider and help people to secure or maintain housing under any form of tenure, including owner occupation. The Minister will agree—they may be famous last words—that many people who fall into homelessness are owner-occupiers who get into difficulties. Many owner-occupiers have problems paying their mortgage and repairing and maintaining the property, or simply coping with the responsibilities of owner occupation.

It is telling that Labour Back Benchers felt it necessary to table amendment No. 80 to encourage the Govt to consider a wider role than that is proposed in the Bill as drafted. The amendment builds upon the existing provisions of the Housing Act 1996 to enable persons to gain assistance from their council while attempting to secure accommodation themselves, rather than simply getting advice as part of the allocations process, important though that is.

That is not a new theme; it was pursued by the Local Government Association, which is very much in favour of a properly enhanced duty of advice to prevent homelessness before it reaches crisis point. I do not apologise for quoting again from the document ``No Place Like Home'', produced by the LGA's allocations and homelessness task group, which states:

``The current duty to provide housing advice is only in relation to homelessness and the prevention of homelessness. The LGA Home Ownership Task Group has recommended a broader duty for local authorities to ensure the availability of housing advice on a range of issues in order to better empower and enable applicants to help themselves.''

The LGA regards the advisory role as a corporate responsibility and not solely a matter for the housing department or a particular section. I hesitate to use the word ``holistic'', which is one of the most overused words in current jargon, but there should be debt counselling, help with access to welfare benefits, grants and so on, and a range of sources of advice. The LGA feels that other departments, such as social services and environmental health, can also play a key role.

The association mentions the importance of education in teaching life skills and ensuring that young people have realistic expectations of the local housing market. The document ''No Place Like Home'' states:

``There is a considerable lack of understanding amongst young people about housing availability''—

the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North touched on that point—

``and the potential consequences of homelessness. Schools and colleges could play a role in local authority prevention strategies by helping to ensure young people are more aware of the issues and by helping them to develop life skills and self esteem.

The report concludes:

``Local authorities should be given a broader duty and the resources to enable them to carry out that duty effectively to ensure the provision of housing advice on a range of issues, including home ownership and the private rented sector, in their districts.''

A local Conservative politician, Councillor Paul Bettison, who is chairman of the LGA's housing executive and leader of Conservative-controlled Bracknell Forest borough council, spoke about the problems that face hon. Members and councillors of all parties in all constituencies in a recent speech to the annual conference of Crisis. He said:

``By `quality', we aren 't just talking about the quality of housing on offer to prevent homelessness, important though that is. We need to ensure quality across the full service and that, for example, is why so much thought has been given by housing experts to the range and depth of the advisory role that should form part of any homelessness strategy.

We can have high numbers of houses available; we can have a good choice of housing available; we can have good quality homes available. All this will count for little if those people most vulnerable to homelessness do not know about it, or do not know how to access it.''

Councillor Bettison spoke in warm terms of Shelter's homeless-to-home scheme and its effect. He said:

``Shelter has been at the forefront in getting across this message''.

Hon. Members have Shelter's briefing papers on amendment No. 80; they are quite long and I shall not quote from them extensively unless the Minister presses me to do so. They refer, for example, to the experience in their housing advice centres. Evidence from Shelter's research and the document ``Singles Barred'', to which the hon. Lady referred, is that many local authorities fail to provide a decent service. People are turned away without being given an interview receiving any advice; assessments of vulnerability are inconsistently applied and in some cases contravene statutory guidance. Many applicants do not receive a written notice of the authority's decision and they are told nothing about their right to a review—a matter that we shall discuss in more detail later.

Shelter states that the new power is clause 20 is most welcome and makes an important point that is the ghost at the feast in many of our debates, stating:

``In areas where demand for social housing is high, authorities are unlikely to have any available accommodation to offer non-priority homeless people, as most of it will go to households in priority need.

The reality is that in London , most of the south of England and many other parts of the country this power is unlikely to make much difference.''

The Minister should reflect carefully on what Shelter says and ask whether the power is merely theoretical, given that in many parts of the country, especially in London and the south of England, it will have no effect. Shelter also mentions other categories of people at risk, of which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North gave some examples. It says that

``there are many other circumstances where people can lose their homes but will not be deemed a priority: in cases of extreme poverty, unemployment, sexual and physical abuse, family disputes and relationship breakdown.''

Shelter gives useful examples, but I shall mention one statistic first. As a result of reports from its housing aid centres, Shelter concludes that the level of homelessness services is extremely variable—to put it mildly—particularly for people not in priority need. It says:

``In 1999/2000 over 50,000 non-priority homeless people approached local authorities for assistance.''

I am not sure where Shelter got that figure, but it is quite a lot of people. If even a minority of them did not receive any help or useful assistance, that is a serious matter.

Shelter quotes several examples, but I shall give only one, because I do not want to detain the Committee. One of four volunteers involved in the research posed as a 30-year-old woman fleeing domestic violence. Shelter says:

``At one London authority Homeless Persons Unit, the applicant was told by the receptionist that a passport was essential, before he could pass on her details . . . The applicant was also informed that the local authority required a police or doctor's report to prove that it was unsafe for her to remain in her present accommodation. She was told that she was non-priority because she was single, without children and not pregnant. The applicant was left with no choice other than to return home.''

That was a piece of research, but had the applicant been a real person in those circumstances, she would have been forced to return to the place where she had suffered the problem of domestic violence in the first place. The unit did not give her any information. The one thing that it did manage to do was to give her a customer satisfaction survey to fill out as she left the premises—obviously, one box was ticked on that occasion.

The applicant went to another London authority and presented the same set of facts. Shelter says that

``the applicant was asked by the receptionist whether it was her first time there, and if she had somewhere to stay that night. She was then told that she would have to go to one of their Housing and Council Tax Customer Service centres first, where her needs . . . could be assessed. They would then refer her back to the Homeless Persons Unit.''

That is a significant number of hurdles for any of us to overcome, let alone someone who, in the real world, would be very distressed.

When the applicant presented at a metropolitan authority, a proper assessment of her needs was made. Shelter says:

``She was given a choice of emergency accommodation...and told that if the direct access unit was unable to find her a place in a hostel that day (nothing was available at the time), she would be offered a sofa there.''

Finally, the applicant went to a rural authority, where she was

``given a housing application form to fill in. She was told by the housing officer that, she could only assist and advise. The applicant was given contact numbers for a local women's centre and a list of . . . homeless accommodation . . . She was told that she was not a priority because she did not have children.''

She was given advice about not putting up with domestic violence, but at the end of the day she was still left with nowhere to go.

There are examples of other categories and types of cases in the document, to which I am sure most hon. Members have access. Again, Shelter has done useful research and produced some fairly hair-raising results, which show the enormous variability of the service offered.

On amendment No. 80. the Association of London Government says:

``While we support best practice guidance on advice and assistance to households not in priority need, we have reservations about the Secretary of State having the power to direct local authorities on the form such support should take.''

I certainly see the force of that argument. It is another of the ``damned if you do, damned if you don't'' arguments, which seem to crop up with alarming regularity, certainly in this Committee. How prescriptive should we be to deal with a practical, real-world problem? The ALG goes on to say:

``London boroughs will face significant additional costs relating to the extension of duties to households in priority need, and, in those authorities under the most severe pressure, resources are not available to meet additional costs to support non-priority households.''

That echoes Shelter on the simple fact that in large parts of the south of England and London, the new power may make no difference whatever. We sympathise with the points made by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends and I hope that the Minister will deal with them sympathetically and constructively.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

In response to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I rise to support the amendments, though I am always mindful of delaying the Committee and do not want to repeat the arguments. As a London Member, however, it is important to highlight some of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North.

London and the south-east are high-demand areas. We recognise the new power in the Bill to allow authorities to house non-priority cases, but it is unlikely in the short term to have any real impact in the Greater London area. There are substantial numbers of non-priority homeless—about a quarter of all homeless, amounting to 54,000 cases last year. Evidence suggests—and Shelter confirms it— that that could be a significant underestimate.

If we cannot provide accommodation, we should be able to provide a decent level of advice and assistance. On the basis of my experience as a London Member, approximately a quarter of all the cases at my surgery are housing-related, a significant number being non-priority cases.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North in noting that my local authority is under considerable stress. I recognise its difficulties, but the service that it provides can be variable. People often come to my surgery without any understanding of their own circumstances and the authority has failed to provide them with any helpful advice. Clearly, many such people are priority neither for housing nor for advice and assistance. That must change. The response of some local authorities to requests for assistance is to give the telephone number of Shelterline rather than to offer proper support .

We should examine ways of strengthening the current duty. Frankly, it hardly exists because authorities are asked only to provide advice and assistance ``appropriate'' in the circumstances, which leaves it wide open to interpretation. The weakness of that provision was demonstrated in the consumer exercise in the Shelter survey. Two of the authorities mentioned were in the London area.

The survey showed that the advice and assistance was variable and sometimes very poor indeed. That is hardly surprising when we know that some people were not even interviewed. How advice and assistance can be provided without interviewing people to ascertain their circumstances is a mystery. Sometimes no advice whatever was offered and no one was interviewed about their level of vulnerability or asked to check that their interpretation of the guidance was correct. I know of such cases from my constituency surgery.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned the provision of a written notice and telling people that there is a review mechanism. We need to look at that. While accepting local authorities' concern about being too prescriptive, there are areas on which the code of guidance will need to advise on what the advice and assistance should be. Everyone would accept that one needs to interview the person concerned to ascertain his or her housing needs. We should also provide information and advice on the availability of accommodation. If the local authority and the social sector cannot assist people with that, general guidance should be given to assist them in finding their own solutions to their housing problem. As has been said, there is also a need to provide assistance with benefits entitlement. In the London area, much accommodation is unfurnished and people need help to find out where they can obtain furniture if they want to move into such accommodation.

Giving a written decision and having it reviewed are important rights that should be available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, the Bill should strengthen the rights of non-priority homeless people because of the stress that exists in high-demand areas. I hope that the Minister will be able to do something to help with that.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had an excellent debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have a deep understanding of the issues and want better provision for the homeless have made clear and passionate speeches. I pay tribute to not only their contributions but those of Shelter, an organisation that has campaigned for many years on behalf of homeless people and has provided back-up, research and expertise to advise hon. Members on how to improve homelessness policy and how to draft amendments most felicitously to achieve some of its objectives.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am delighted that the Minister's appreciation of Shelter has moved seamlessly from Opposition to Government. I associate my party with his endorsement of Shelter, an extremely helpful organisation to which we are all grateful. There is a cross-party—indeed, all-party—consensus on these matters.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have listened with interest to the points raised by hon. Members and agree with much that has been said. Authorities should take seriously their responsibilities to those who are unintentionally homeless but not in priority need. It is not acceptable for authorities to send such applicants away without adequate advice and assistance. Shelter's recent study, ``Singles Barred'', which has been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, reported on the variable, inconsistent and sometimes inadequate quality of local authority advice and assistance. The hon. Member for Eastbourne singled out the passage dealing with the 30-year-old woman and highlighted the different treatment that she received in different areas. He pointed out that in one area she was told that she was not a priority because she did not have children.

The hon. Gentleman, like all members of the Committee, will know that the Government are determined to change that situation, which is why we will introduce an order that will extend the categories of priority need to include women fleeing domestic violence even when they do not have children. That demonstrates the Government's positive response to that situation, but of course it goes wider, as it covers people who will not be within the priority categories even when they are amended and who should receive better and more consistent advice than they are getting at the moment. There is merit in strengthening the current duty to move away from the subjective requirement for the authority to provide

``advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances''

and move to a more objective test. Of course, nothing is ever quite as simple as it seems, at least not when considering amendments. The wording

``such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances''

does not just appear here. It appears in four other locations in the 1996 Act, and it would be inconsistent to agree one amendment without making comparable amendments elsewhere to ensure consistency throughout the legislation. For those reasons we do not intend to accept the amendment, but I do intend, if possible, to table an amendment to schedule 2 for the Committee to consider on Thursday.

I am less attracted by the second part of the amendment, which would have the Secretary of State specifying matters to be taken into account in determining whether advice and assistance that the authority proposes to provide is reasonable. There is such wide variation in the circumstances of different local authorities in different parts of the country that it is simply not sensible to specify nationally how authorities should respond in the light of local circumstances. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, there are enormous variations and we must recognise that. We do not wish to be unduly prescriptive, and we recognise the concerns that have been expressed in some quarters of local government about an excessively dirigiste approach if this part of the amendment were to be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North who moved the amendment, acknowledged that it might be a little over-prescriptive. In those circumstances, we believe that it is right to table an alternative amendment to enable the Committee to debate it on Thursday. That will be located in schedule 2. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment.

I must respond to one or two of the other points that have been made during the debate. The hon. Member for Eastbourne expressed concern that there was no reference to a multi-agency approach. We have been debating that for most of the morning. A multi-agency approach is fundamental to the way the Government want to see authorities discharge their responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry South-West—

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

North-East.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

North-East—got it! My hon. Friend made the point very effectively.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne was a little unwise in highlighting the problems of owner-occupiers facing homelessness. He will recall the legacy of the previous Government who, in the early 1990s, managed to create a crisis of repossessions and the worst crisis of confidence in the home ownership market that this country has ever seen. I am pleased to say that the number of repossessions and the number of people plunged into negative equity have reduced consistently under this Government. Therefore, the extent of the problem facing owner-occupiers is significantly less than it was under the Government he supported. However, I accept that we need to do more for those home owners in difficulty in just the same way as we need to do more for other people in difficulty. That is precisely the purpose of this legislation.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to the legislation building on the 1996 Act. That is not an accurate description. This legislation amends some of the defects of the 1996 Act, which in certain respects significantly weakened the responsibilities for the homeless established in the 1977 legislation. If he has done his research, he will know that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1997 was introduced as a private Member's Bill by a Liberal Democrat Member with the support of the then Labour Government and that it was opposed by the Tory Opposition, even though three Conservative Members had sponsored the Bill. The official Conservative spokesman at the time took the interesting view that because it was in his view a Government Bill, the Opposition would oppose it. That is perhaps a comment on the Conservative party's lack of vision at that time. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 established the proper framework of responsibility for homeless people. We are now not just restoring it from the ravages of the 1996 Act, but enhancing it through the improvements set out in the Bill and through the extension of the priority need categories that I have already described.

I end on a point of agreement with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He rightly highlighted the need for high-quality services and he quoted Paul Bettison, the chairman of the LGA housing committee, with whom I have worked closely and harmoniously in recent months. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Paul Bettison's constructive and positive approach on this. We are happy to work with the LGA to carry forward the policies in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) spoke with feeling of his experience and described how a quarter of his surgery cases involve housing or homelessness problems. He recognised the variable standards of service offered in his area, while at the same time acknowledging the difficulty that his local authority faces because of local pressures. It is undoubtedly true that all authorities can do more and certainly those authorities that face less pressure than his can do a great deal more. We hope that with a clearer duty to provide advice and assistance to those not in priority need, we will enhance and improve the quality of homelessness services throughout the country. I urge my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North to withdraw her amendment.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am grateful for the support that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, although to echo the Monty Python four Yorkshiremen sketch, I just dream of only one quarter of the people coming to my surgery having housing problems. I am also grateful for the supportive remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, although a little hintette of mischief-making just at the outer margins slightly undermined their generosity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his supportive remarks and his recognition of the needs that I outlined. I look forward to seeing the wording of the proposed new amendment that will move us on from the subjectivity of the present definition.

In light of the spirit of acceptance for the first part of the amendment, I will seek leave to withdraw it. I understand why the LGA and others have reservations about the potentially prescriptive powers in the other parts of the amendment, but I stand by the thrust of my comments about the need to iron out some of the worst practice. I hope that the DETR will continue to work with the local government and housing organisations to do what they can to raise the profile of best practice so that we deal with the deficiencies. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move Government amendment No. 85, in page 12, line 28, leave out `homeless' and insert `threatened with homelessness'.

Briefly, the amendment is typical of the Government amendments, being designed simply to improve and enhance the Bill. It would change ``homeless'' to ``threatened with homelessness'', which is, as all hon. Members will immediately understand, technically the correct drafting in the clause. It has no other significance beyond that.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Abolition of minimum period for which an authority is subject to main homelessness duty

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I thought that the Committee should tease a little more detail out of the Minister before accepting the clause, because it represents a significant change to the 1996 Act, in its abolition of the minimum 24-month period and the changes that it imposes on section 193 of that Act.

At the time the 24-month criterion was established, various fallback positions were provided. It was a controversial measure. Under that Act, local authorities are required to provide accommodation for the households they accept as statutorily homeless for a minimum of two years. As long as they confirm every two years that the household remains entitled to assistance, they may provide accommodation on a continuing basis; and if they cease to provide accommodation after two years, the household may reapply for assistance under the legislation. In short, it was not as though families—or whoever—were set adrift after the minimum two-year period had expired. Fallbacks and a route for reapplication were built into the legislation.

I have a briefings from two local authorities that state what has happened in practice. The first comments:

``The two-year limit has never really been implemented. In reality, homeless people are not able to find private rented accommodations and local authorities will assist until they can be placed in social housing.''

The other says:

``The two-year duty is to be repealed. However, in practice, in London authorities either deal with cases within two years or continue to deal with them after two years have expired.''

Shelter freely admits

``In practice, most authorities usually provide settled accommodation within the 24-month minimum period set out in the 1996 Housing Act, and continue to provide temporary accommodation where this is not possible.''

Therefore, I query why the Government feel that it is necessary to change the legislative terminology, given that, in practice, the fears expressed by many of their colleagues during the Committee stage of the 1996 Act have not come to fruition, and a number of fallbacks and safety nets were enshrined in that Act. I am genuinely curious to learn what has changed, or how that section of the 1996 Act has gone wrong and so prejudiced people that the changes proposed in clause 21 are necessary.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman has a curious way of putting his argument. The first authority he quoted in his defence was someone saying that the two-year duty has never been implemented; if that is true, he should understand that it is entirely appropriate to remove from statute a provision that has clearly fallen into disrepute because more than two years have passed since it came into force. I accept that in many areas it has not been applied because it is inappropriate: local authorities know it is not the right way to handle their responsibilities toward homeless people. Unfortunately, however, in some areas there has been a belief that it is a statutory requirement and therefore the authority has to go through the curious bureaucratic treadmill of reviewing people's cases after a two-year period has elapsed.

Of course, problems can arise. Consider the problems that may surround a family that has been accepted as a homeless family with children if, in the course of two years, the children have passed the age of 16 and are no longer children; the family might have ceased to be regarded as being in priority need. All sorts of things could happen that could have an adverse impact on the individuals involved. In the ``No Place Like Home'' report the LGA makes the point very clearly that:

Reviewing the circumstances of priority homeless households after two years has created additional bureaucracy without uncovering, in the majority of cases, any significant change in the applicants' eligibility for rehousing.

On very simple grounds, the provision is undesirable because it is based on a completely erroneous conception of the nature of homelessness, it is ineffective and it imposes unreasonable bureaucratic burden. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government that it is high time that it was swept away by clause 21.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Events which may cause the duty to cease

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, page 13, line 16, at end insert

`and states that the offer shall remain available to the applicant for not less than three working days from the date of the offer, or such longer period as the authority consider reasonable in all the circumstances.'.

The amendment would provide for a minimum period of three working days during which an applicant may accept or refuse a final offer of accommodation from a local authority. That offer may consist of either a council house tenancy or nomination to a registered social landlord.

The purpose of building in a statutory minimum period is to try to end the practices that we know occur in a number of local authority areas, whereby applicants are given as little as 24 hours to make a decision. I suspect that all members of the Committee will appreciate that a 24-hour time limit will, in many cases, not give the applicant enough time even to view the premises, let alone sort out the range of domestic issues that may be necessary to the decision to accept or reject the property; those include the effect on work or the schooling of any children involved.

I welcome Government's clear intention, expressed by part II and echoed in the housing Green Paper, to increase the amount of choice available to the homeless. However, it would be wrong to tolerate other measures that at the same time militated against choice. My argument is that allowing the practice whereby some authorities allow applicants only 24 hours to decide seriously militates against choice.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am slightly horrified by the hon. Gentleman's words. Can he give us any specific examples illustrating how widespread are such practices—which strike me as verging on sharp practice? I cannot imagine any reasonable local authority having a problem with three days or even a few more, if necessary.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will deal with the Department's research on the way people are currently treated. That research has gone some way towards influencing the Government in their determination to find ways of increasing the amount of choice. I am delighted that there is to be improvement.

I am also delighted that the Government are to fund a number of projects around the country where local authorities wish to explore different ways of improving choice. I would say gently to the Minister that my local authority, Bath and North-East Somerset, is anxious to work with the Government to explore ways in which greater choice can be afforded to homeless people. Improving that choice includes being able to give more than one offer to homeless people before considering that the duty to them has been sufficiently exercised. I referred to the research done for the Government by H Pawson and D Levinson. It was published by the Department only a few weeks ago and was entitled ``Local authority policy and practice on allocations, transfers and homelessness''. That research shows that homeless households are likely to get fewer offers of accommodation and less choice of where they live or the type of accommodation. They are also likely to be more heavily penalised for refusing an offer. They might be removed or suspended from the register for longer than other applicants. The research shows that since 1991 there has been a sharp increase in the proportion of authorities operating one-offer only policies. It shows that in 1991, 29 per cent. of homeless applicants were allowed only one reasonable offer and that by 2000, that had increased to 75 per cent. That is very different from the approach to non-homeless households, where very few are restricted to only one offer.

The second issue shows very clearly that, nationally, 79 per cent. of authorities always take into account the area preference of applicants who are not homeless when making an offer. That compares to only 47 per cent. of authorities where homeless applicants' area of preference was always taken into account. The research also demonstrates clearly that homeless households are less likely to have taken into account their aspirations in respect of the type of house in which they would like to live. It points out that one fifth of local authorities currently consider that if an applicant refuses their maximum number of reasonable offers, they are deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless.

This comes to the point raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. In areas where housing pressure is particularly high, the evidence suggests that there is a shorter time limit for homeless households to make their decisions. There is a real difficulty when there is limited time because the homeless household must have an opportunity to view the property. They must be able to see how accepting that property may tie in with work patterns or with any educational requirements that may apply. There is also a problem in that some local authorities do not carry out any repairs and maintenance to a property until the new occupant moves in. The home seeker needs a period of time to get assurances from the local authority that the required repairs and maintenance will be carried out. There is a clear need, for a reasonable period of time to be offered to families before they make a decision.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Homes Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good afternoon. I notice that the Committee has made rapid progress during my absence, which must say something. I am sure that we shall maintain both the fairness and the pace of the discussion this afternoon. Clause 22 Events which cause the duty to cease

Clause 22 - Events which cause the duty to cease

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

There will be an argument that my proposal could lead to an increase in the length of time that properties remain vacant. The average void time for local authority properties is currently six weeks. I believe that the amendment would not seriously alter that situation, about which many of us ought to be concerned and which should be addressed.

Amendment No. 72 would allow a minimum of three days for a homeless household to decide whether to accept or reject a final offer. I think that I have made a fairly clear argument. In many cases, a shorter period gives the applicant insufficient opportunity to consider all the factors that may influence his decision. Those factors may relate to the impact on working life or to the education of any children who might be involved. The applicant may need to find out whether the landlord will improve any defects in the property.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) pointed out in an earlier intervention, it would be unfair for any local authority to allow an applicant only 24 hours to make a decision. The hon. Gentleman, who was obviously shocked that such behaviour could exist, asked me to provide him with examples of councils that operated in that way. He will be disappointed to hear that, sadly, there are a number of such authorities. For example, in London alone, the London boroughs of Newham, Lambeth and Waltham Forest operate in that way.

The London borough of Southwark also operates the procedure, but allows the wonderful extension of an additional 48 hours if the applicant requests it, thereby increasing the period to three days. In Southwark, however, three days is the maximum, not the minimum, as I propose.

I could not confirm the precise arrangements, but it is understood that the London borough of Camden usually allows 48 hours and that the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea operates a similarly tight schedule.

We can look elsewhere in the country. I have been advised that many authorities in Suffolk and Essex operate a similar procedure and that some give less than 24 hours. In some authorities, the applicant is required to turn up almost immediately. When he arrives, he finds a housing officer on the doorstep with the tenancy agreement form and is required to complete it there and then.

The practice of very short notification does exist, but I genuinely believe that it must be stopped. We need to have a minimum time of three days for the reasons that I have given. That would be fair and right, and would meet the Labour party's specific commitments in its manifesto, in the housing Green Paper and in subsequent Labour party documents. I hope therefore to receive a positive response from the Minister.

I am delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). I was sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is not feeling well at the moment; we wish him a speedy recovery so that he can at least join us for the last day of deliberations when, we understand, that both of the Ministers will have at last got their act together as to the name of the constituencies of hon. Members.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, let me say that, in my haste to get proceedings under way apace this afternoon, I omitted two things. First, I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. We wish him and his new family—and his old family—well. Secondly, I failed to notice that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) has moved two paces smartly to his left, geographically of course, not politically. I congratulate him on his elevation; it is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Gentlemen to the usual challenge.

Oona King (Labour, Bethnal Green and Bow)

I congratulate this Committee on perhaps being the most compassionate that I have ever come across, issuing more congratulations and condolences than any other that I have served on thus far.

While I would not want to press the amendment to a vote, I would wish to press the Minister to reconsider the issue. In my own local authority of Tower Hamlets, we have a 24-hour deadline for homeless people. As we have heard, homeless households are among the most vulnerable, and often constituents turn down offers because they have only 24 hours to make a decision, and they are unable to get the advice that they need or be reassured that repairs that need to be done to the properties will be carried out.

One constituent told me that, when he went round to view a property, the body of the previous tenant had only been moved out an hour earlier, and it was on that basis that he rejected it as unsuitable. One can understand the problems that might arise with such haste. While I am concerned about meeting our targets for reducing the numbers of voids, we also have to try to meet our stated aims of increasing choice for homeless people and not having a policy that works through coercion, for want of a better word. If homeless families are to have only one offer, as is the case in Tower Hamlets, they should at least be able to seek better advice.

Shelter's research has shown that 76 per cent. of homeless families are lone parents, and I have many women coming to my surgery saying that they have turned down an offer as being unsuitable because they think it is wrong to have to step over a heroin addict to get to the lift. I have to explain to them that that does not come within the law but, if they are unable to get advice, they cannot make an informed decision. I do not wish to detain the Committee but we do need to look towards having a system that allows informed consent instead of the rush job that many homeless families have to deal with at the moment.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Thank you, Mr. Gale, for your congratulations and warm words on my geographical move to the left.

I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, which is to ensure that, under part IV, applicants have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer from a local housing authority. Applicants need time for deliberation, and possibly to consult relatives, friends or advisers on the options available. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has made some good points in relation to the time that it can take to explore educational opportunities in an area and to secure undertakings on repairs.

Those are important matters that enable applicants to make informed and sensible choices, but we must be careful not to burden the Bill with too much detail, which might obscure its principal purposes. In addition, I fear that the effect of legislating for a minimum period of three days would be to make three days a standard and, in effect, a maximum period as well. That would considerably worsen the situation in many local authorities. In most instances, three days would be too short a period: authorities need the flexibility to adapt to particular circumstances.

We recognise the problems that hon. Members have raised. Some authorities operate in far too restrictive and bureaucratic a way and are totally inflexible in their allocations policy. DETR research has been heavily quoted, but it only highlights the need for the legislation that we are here to discuss.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Yes, all right.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Minister is allowed to say no, although it is not always advisable to do so. Does he agree that the difference between the practices of local authorities depends on the supply and demand equation in that area? If there is enormous demand for a relatively small supply, a short time scale may be appropriate; whereas authorities with lots of supply and relatively little demand can afford to take a slightly more relaxed approach.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That may be so and it is one of the reasons for not being over-restrictive. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is too short a period in which to expect a person to decide on a final offer.

I was saying that local authorities can be too restrictive in their allocation policy, but I would say to the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) who expressed some concern, that not everything is negative. More than 90 authorities have bid for funding to operate choice-based letting schemes—an excellent response that shows that local government recognises the need for change. We will evaluate the success of those schemes over the next couple of years and disseminate the lessons learned to promote good practice. I am confident that authorities will develop schemes that promote choice, but we will review their performance following the pilots and if progress is not satisfactory, we may have to look at the framework again.

It is also worth nothing that the substantial increases in capital investment that we are making will expand social housing stock in areas of greatest demand. That will make it easier for authorities to operate choice-based schemes, but it will not happen overnight. If the hon. Member for Bath thinks about the parts of the research that he quoted and the period in which it was shown that those restrictive practices had grown, he will see that it coincides with a period of falling capital investment. That is surely a big part of the problem.

The hon. Gentleman quoted from a number of authorities that he suggests are behaving badly, but his approach does not appear to have been totally comprehensive. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow is taking up the issues with her local authority in Tower Hamlets, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman explores the policies in Bath and North East Somerset, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, as are Sheffield, Sutton and Islington. Perhaps the sin lists presented to the Committee should be more comprehensive to improve their credibility.

In making offers, authorities must act reasonably: demanding instant decisions is not reasonable and could be challenged. A three-day minimum, if built into primary legislation, could too easily become a standard or even a maximum. I have already given assurances about monitoring the pilots and taking any necessary action after they have been evaluated.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As the Minister is close to winding up his speech, will he put firmly on record his views regarding the authorities, including Bath and North East Somerset council, which currently operate a 24-hour policy? He has already made it clear that he regards three days as too short, so what does he think about 24 hours? Will the Minister tell us whether it is appropriate to urge those authorities to reconsider their actions?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I have already said that in the overwhelming majority of cases three days is unreasonable. The same applies—again in the majority of cases—to the alleged 24-hour deadline. However, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances, and we do not want to put into the legislation a specific limit that could become a standard or a maximum that put pressure on authorities that are behaving far better to lower their current standards.

I hope that, with my assurances about monitoring the pilots and taking any necessary action, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. If not, we shall have to vote against it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for supporting the principle behind the amendments and for acknowledging that her local authority, Tower Hamlets, operates a similar policy. I was not seeking to hide one authority from another: I provided examples of all political persuasions in London.

The Minister referred to the 90 bids for choice-based letting schemes. He will be aware that the Bath and North East Somerset council is concerned about its current procedures, which is why it is one of the 90. When the Minister reviews his decision on which bids to accept, I hope that he will take my council into account. We have an opportunity, by getting involved in the scheme, to help put right some of the problems that I have mentioned.

I understand the Minister's argument that building any time scale, such as a three-day minimum, into the Bill might lead the vast majority of authorities to regard it as the maximum. However, a maximum of three days—if that is what it became de facto—would still be better than the 24-hour system operated by many authorities; it would be progress of sorts. I accept the Minister's assurance that a 24-hour period is acceptable to the Government only in extreme circumstances. He acknowledged that people often need time for discussions with their friends, families and advisers about issues such as jobs, education, repairs and so forth in order to make an informed and sensible choice.

The amendment is not about all the different offers that might be given by an authority to a homeless family, but about the final offer. It is a serious decision to take in the knowledge that a subsequent appeal might not be successful. Some people have to take that decision with far too little time to reflect on it. Too many authorities adopt that practice. The Minister referred to some, but he was wrong to say that Bath and North East Somerset council is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. Sadly, that is not the case. I can assure the Minister, however, that we are not far short of overall control and that we are working hard to achieve it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

In your dreams.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. The reality of Bath and North East Somerset council is that the Conservatives can only dream of gaining more than the two or three councillors that they currently have in my area. Over the years, Conservatives have been wiped off the face of the earth by excellent Liberal Democrat councillors.

The Minister referred to councils that operate a 24-hour policy as being on the sin list—his phrase, not mine. I hope that that sin will be widely reported and that relevant authorities, including my own, will be advised to get their act together. The Minister spoke about the importance of taking informed and sensible decisions. I want to come to an informed and sensible decision about whether to take the matter further, and I require at least 24 hours to reflect further on it; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Abolition of duty under section 197

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Before the clause whizzes by at a rate of knots, I should like to raise a few points to which I am sure the new Minister will be delighted to respond—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No, the old Minister.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I see, we are back to old Labour now.

The clause deals with section 197 of the Housing Act 1996. It effectively repeals the local authority's duty not to secure accommodation, but to provide an applicant

``with such advice and assistance as the authority consider is reasonably required''

to enable him to secure ``other suitable accommodation'' in the district. That provision will be replaced by a general duty to secure accommodation if nothing else suitable is available.

Shelter has expressed concern that the existing legislation has led to a wide variation in the standards and levels of advice and assistance provided by local authorities. It is very poor in places with applicants sent away with little more than a list of bed-and-breakfast locations. Shelter says:

``the quality of advice and assistance is not necessarily dependent on the amount of stock available and there are numerous examples of good practice achieved in areas of high demand.

Likewise, there are authorities where, despite low housing demand, the level of assistance provided is poor.''

I share Shelter's hope for a more uniform and uplifted level of service for homeless people across the country.

How does the change in duties tally with the strategic multi-agency approach—according to the Government, the rationale for part II—particularly if other agencies within the strategic partnerships have access to accommodation? How does the new measure tally with the enhanced strategic advisory role that we debated in our proceedings this morning? How does it tally with efforts to reduce empty homes more logically and undogmatically? How does it work in districts where there is no local authority housing? Surely the key is to secure suitable housing for homeless, or potentially homeless people by whatever means possible. Might the measure not restrict that? Perhaps the old Minister would comment on some of those concerns.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I, too, take the opportunity to extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and welcome him back to our discussions.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) asked a number of pertinent questions about how clause 23 tallies with the other measures in this part. The purpose of the clause is to remove section 197 of the 1996 Act, which was heavily criticised at its introduction and has subsequently proved problematic. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman conceded that in referring to the Shelter report, which highlighted the wide variations in the assistance provided by local authorities, which we fully accepted in the debate this morning.

Therefore, it is necessary to ensure there is an effective duty on local authorities towards people who are homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. That duty is to secure that they obtain accommodation, or, if they are threatened with homelessness, that they do not cease to have accommodation.

The relationship with the multi-agency approach is clear. An individual who is threatened with homelessness can be assisted in a variety of ways, including through advice and assistance from a range of different agencies. Someone who is experiencing difficulty in budgeting may be helped by a welfare rights or money advice centre. I think of some of the examples that the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Eastbourne discussed, where individuals, possibly with a history of mental illness, are located in a block of flats where they could cause difficulties to neighbours. Good advice and support from social services may make it possible for such a tenancy to be sustained, which otherwise could be problematic.

That tallies well with the wider multi-agency approach, but it contains a long stop that ensures that the local authority has to secure accommodation and cannot simply say, ``We think that there may be enough alternative accommodation available. We will give you a list. Go out and find something for yourself.''

That is not a satisfactory solution.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked how the measure would help to tackle the problem of empty properties. It will act as a further incentive to local authorities to explore effective means of getting every property available to them back into use. It will also encourage them to liaise with other providers in the area, such as registered social landlords and the private sector, on where lettings might be available. It will require an assured tenancy, not an assured shorthold tenancy. We will make some technical changes to subsequent clauses to give effect to that. Nevertheless, it is still possible for someone to be housed on an assured shorthold tenancy on an interim basis and then to transfer to an assured tenancy. The whole purpose of the policy is to secure permanent accommodation for homeless people, so that they are not caught in a revolving door of repeated homelessness, which can be extremely traumatic.

I apologise to the hon. Member, but I cannot recall his third question. If he reminds me of the content, I will happily try to answer it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What about districts in which there is no local authority housing?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. In cases where the authority has transferred its housing stock to another landlord, there has to be, as part of the transfer, an agreement with the receiving body, the registered social landlord, to accept nominations to enable the authority to meet its homelessness obligations. That contractual relationship between the local authority and the large-scale voluntary transfer authority—in some cases, the relationship could be with a number of other RSLs—is the mechanism by which the authority can refer homeless applicants to such accommodation.

Certainly, as part of their homelessness strategy, which is dealt with in one of the earlier clauses of this Bill, it is obviously necessary for local authorities to ensure that they have good relationships and arrangements, whether contractual or simply a voluntary understanding, with registered social landlords in their area to enable them to have access to the necessary number of premises and to meet their obligations.

I hope that the Committee will accept this sensible clause .

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Abolition of duty to maintain housing register

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 15, line 19, at end insert

`and is entitled to apply to a local housing authority for an allocation of housing accommodation.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 82, in clause 26, page 16, line 36, at end insert

`, and, accordingly, a local housing authority's allocation scheme shall not be framed so as to exclude any person falling within section 160(A)(2).'.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

These amendments would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that local authorities cannot exclude eligible households from social housing at the point at which an application is made. In some ways, they are attached to amendment No. 83, which we shall be dealing with when we consider clause 27.

Opposition Members have talked in glowing terms of the Housing Act 1996, section 161 of which has a number of stipulations. The first is that authorities have to draw a single housing register, on which only qualifying persons can be placed. Qualification can be related to statute—for example, it can include asylum seekers and those subject to immigration control. The Act also has an explicit power, which allows authorities, under their allocation scheme, to specify whole classes of persons that do not qualify to be put on the register. Local authorities have used this type of exclusion for many years. Since the introduction of that Act, there has been a significant expansion of the number of excluded persons, as a Shelter survey in 1998 confirmed. A favourite form of exclusion—used widely by local authorities in the case of people whom they already house seeking a transfer—is to exclude those in rent arrears. A recent Shelter survey showed that 89 per cent. of authorities exclude anyone seeking a transfer who is in arrears.

Of course there are other mechanisms to exclude people, including criminal conviction, anti-social behaviour—let me come back to that—and even those who have refused offers of accommodation from the local authority itself. Often, these restrictions are not justified by the individual circumstances in which people find themselves. Rent arrears are often caused by the inefficiencies of the housing benefit system.

RSLs concerned about the growing backlog of housing benefit payments are serving notices of possession on their tenants, not in order to scare their tenants but to push their local authority along to provide housing benefit. A consequence of that will be that many authorities will not allow their tenants or an RSL tenant to be re-housed because of the notice seeking possession.

We are also aware that local authorities sometimes use motoring offences as a reason to stop people being placed in housing. Of course, ``antisocial behaviour'' has a whole Pandora's box of interpretations, many of which are unjustified and unproven allegations.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that some of the most upsetting and intractable cases with which hon. Members have to deal are those involving people behaving antisocially towards their neighbours. A track record of significant antisocial behaviour—I am not talking about the odd explicable incident—should be taken into account. We could argue about the mechanism for doing that but it must be done, otherwise another set of neighbours would be condemned to the same problems.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

There is widespread recognition of the difficulties about which the hon. Gentleman speaks. If there is significant evidence of such a track record, perhaps involving a court case arising from antisocial behaviour, action must of course be taken. We would not wish all the neighbours of such a person to be blighted for many years.

Many people who find themselves excluded by those blanket policies are in extreme need. Such policies work against the objectives of the Bill, which is supposed to take a preventive approach to homelessness. According to the housing Green Paper, we should continue to give priority to meeting housing need. Paragraph 9.13 states:

``We do not believe that anyone should be permanently excluded from social housing. We therefore propose to remove the power to impose `blanket' exclusions from the housing register.''

Yet that is exactly what is happening. In its current form, the Bill will not effect significant changes to such behaviour, which is extremely widespread. The Shelter survey that I quoted earlier estimated that upwards of 200,000 people were excluded or suspended between 1996 and 1998. Only four of 65 housing organisations surveyed had a completely open register; all the others offered some form of exclusion. Of 74 housing authorities surveyed, a separate study showed that only 25 per cent. of those with an exclusion policy stipulated the length of that exclusion and limited it in any way—meaning that they could exclude people permanently. I agree with the argument in the Green Paper that reductions in priority or suspensions of applications for housing should occur only in exceptional circumstances and be applied individually. The current blanket policies cannot continue.

Clauses 25 and 26 give applicants the right to apply for housing and all authorities must consider applications from eligible households. Under clause 27, individual households can be de-prioritised in certain circumstances. If the Bill is to stop exclusions, we must look closely at the wording of clause 26, which states that applications must be made in accordance with an authority's allocation scheme. The problem is that that will allow an authority to continue to exclude those who may be in genuine housing need. Of course, it is because the Bill also allows a much more permissive allocations framework that it could extend the number of those who could be excluded through the allocation scheme in a blanket form.

If we want authorities to change the way in which they act, the Bill should be more tightly drafted. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 to clause 26 will provide some of those safeguards. For example, amendment No. 81 clarifies the fact that anyone can apply for housing, strengthening that particular part of clause 26. Amendment No. 82 will require authorities not to frame their scheme in such a way that anyone will be excluded at that stage in the application.

I believe, and I hope the Minister will look very carefully at these amendments, that they will prevent people from being excluded at that initial application stage, but not prevent the authority, through clause 27, from being able to de-prioritise or suspend someone individually in exceptional circumstances, where the evidence clearly shows that that should be allowed.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Curiously enough, my remarks on these amendments start where the remarks of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) finished, which is on the question of how much difference the amendments would actually make. Looking at our friends from Shelter's excellent, detailed brief on these amendments, looking at the last paragraph before I read the middle paragraph, Shelter make the very point which the hon. Gentleman has just made. That point, as Shelter and I understand it, is that the amendments relate only to the point of application, so there is nothing to stop an authority, even with these amendments incorporated in the Bill, from de-prioritising or suspending applications from an individual applications, once that application has been considered—whether on the basis of antisocial behaviour, rent arrears or anything else.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I said at the start of my contribution that amendment No. 83 to clause 27 would strengthen the limitation on the way in which people could de-prioritise or suspend applicants, so we should look at amendments Nos. 81 and 82 in conjunction with amendment No. 83. Together, they provide the safeguards to ensure that housing applicants are not treated as they have been up to now.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful for that and I know you would not wish me to go too far down to the question of amendment No. 83, Mr. Gale, as we will certainly come to that and the major issues to which it relates when we debate clause 27. At least the hon. Gentleman and I agree that, taking amendments Nos. 81 and 82 on their own merits, that seems to be their effect. It is certainly the effect claimed or disclaimed for them by Shelter in its briefing. Having said that, Shelter says, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, that the amendments are there to strengthen the Bill:

``to ensure that local authorities cannot exclude eligible households from social housing at the point at which an application is made.''

In a sense, the debate on the amendments is circular, because an authority that has a strict policy on de-prioritisation could still apply it on the basis of these amendments without prejudice to amendment No. 83, to which will return to on another day.

``Quality and Choice: a Decent Home for All'' makes clear the Government's intention to:

``remove the scope to impose blanket restrictions preventing groups of people from applying for social housing.''

We all have sympathy with that. In any walk of life there is a lot of perceived unfairness if people feel that their individual circumstances have been caught up in some blanket restriction, whatever the true situation may be. Shelter's concern, which I suspect is what brought us to the debate and the amendments, is that clauses 25 and 26 would allow local authorities to continue to have a sort of blanket exemption along the lines that the hon. Gentleman described in proposing the amendments. Shelter thinks that the amendments will ensure that households cannot be unjustifiably excluded again at the application stage. It dwells on four particular areas: outstanding rent arrears, criminal convictions, allegations of antisocial behaviour, and refusing an offer of accommodation from the housing register.

If we focus on the first three, we can all agree that substantial rent arrears, or a history of them, with no good reason, such as a problem with the housing benefit system, should be taken into consideration. With regard to criminal convictions, no one would defend a system, as quoted by the hon. Gentleman and by Shelter, where a fine for speeding would count against someone when being housed. Antisocial behaviour is an issue in itself, which will be dealt with in detail under clause 27. Suffice it to say that there clearly can and must be justification for taking account of antisocial behaviour to a certain degree in allocations policies. If people have a serious track record of anti-social behaviour, making their neighbours' lives a misery, they should not simply be moved on to make another set of neighbours' lives a misery. That leads inevitably to the question of what happens to such people, who clearly have to be housed somewhere. However, we cannot simply forget about antisocial behaviour. The Shelter briefing, as one might expect, talks about what it calls ``entirely spurious reasons'' being put forward. Again, one cannot disagree with that. It goes on to say:

``Many authorities operate blanket policies to exclude people with criminal convictions.''

It refers to one authority that can rely on motoring offences. It also talks about households being excluded for what it calls

``entirely unproven and unjustified allegations of anti-social behaviour.''

Again, in our daily and weekly work as Members of Parliament, we all come across such disputes, whether between neighbours in social housing or owner-occupiers in rather smart streets. They can be equally problematical, and it can be difficult to get at the real truth. Having seen one party to a dispute in my surgery one week, I dread seeing the other party on the rota the following week. Given that we all have to face re-election from time to time, that adds a completely different dimension to arriving at a kind of Solomonesque solution to such problems.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

An even worse scenario is when both sides of a dispute arrive at the surgery at the same time.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

That has never happened to me, thank goodness, but it sounds like a nightmare.

On a serious note, such appalling situations sometimes blight people's lives for years, yet the police, the local council, the social services and a range of agencies and organisations seem incapable of dealing with a problem. People suffer ill health, mental problems and many other problems. It is no good moving straight on, as Shelter does in its briefing, to talk about social exclusion. If people are simply incapable of living in a social setting with their neighbours, there is a case for social exclusion.

The Government's stated aim was to remove those blanket restrictions. I do not honestly believe, for the reasons that I have stated and the reasons set out in Shelter's background briefing, that the amendments have that effect. Shelter says:

``amendment 81 would strengthen clause 25 so that it clearly states that anyone can apply for housing''.

It adds:

``amendment 82 would require authorities not to frame their scheme in such a way as to exclude anyone at the application stage, thereby requiring every application to be considered.''

Again, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Edmonton and Shelter, that may be a wholly Pyrrhic victory in terms of helping individuals.

I should like to mention a couple of examples that I found interesting in the background briefing from Shelter. It makes the obvious point that the real extent of exclusions from housing is unclear. It is extremely difficult to get reliable figures. It estimates that as many as 200,000 people have been excluded or suspended from social housing and have developed into what it terms an underclass who simply cannot get housed anywhere. I read in one Shelter publication that the whole problem has been aggravated in recent years by the development of joint registers between RSLs and local authorities, which means that people cannot be excluded by one and find their way on to the other.

Shelter mentions a mysteriously described ``northern authority'', which

``in March 1999 had an active rehousing list of over 16,000 households, while over 53,000 were suspended for various reasons . . . The same authority is widely quoted as having a surplus of around 20,000 properties.''

Some authorities have quite strong policies on this subject. Without wearying the Committee too much, I shall quote just two examples from the many that Shelter cites. The first states:

``A lone parent with three children applied for housing benefit from her RSL home in February 2000. The local authority lost the claim and refused to accept she had made the claim''—

a situation we have all come across in our mail bags.

``She then reapplied for housing benefit in May, but was told that it would not be backdated to February. The claim was processed and eventually paid in September. As over £1,000 of rent arrears were outstanding...the RSL sought repossession. She was not represented at the case and the court issued a repossession notice. She applied to the council as homeless. They refused to accept her as `she made herself intentionally homeless' by not paying her debt. She was not allowed to join a housing register as she had over £100 worth of debt. She sought advice from the local Shelter housing advice centre.''

Eventually, with its help her debts were cleared and she was accepted as homeless. That shows the Kafkaesque situations that people can get sucked into.

Another example states:

``An authority in the north east has suspended a women's application for housing from the register due to arrears, despite the fact that she had been accepted as priority homeless as she had to flee violence from outside the home.''

Yes, we support the principle that blanket exclusions, particularly where they produce wholly artificial results, should be looked at again. We do not want to see a situation in which individual cases cannot be taken into account, whether it be individual cases of merit, like the couple that I have just mentioned, or individual cases where there are genuine reasons why people should not be given priority for social housing. That is a wider debate to which we shall return. For all those reasons, not least the first which is that I cannot see that they would make much difference, the Opposition are not minded to support amendments Nos. 81 and 82.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton for raising an important issue and allowing us an opportunity to consider one of the most complex passages of the Bill. The concepts themselves are not difficult, but the way in which the new Bill relates to the existing legislation is necessarily complex. I said earlier, in a private conversation, that it is relatively easy to write legislation from scratch; it is much more problematic to amend existing legislation—which is what we do in this place most of the time. This Bill is no exception to that.

My hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of giving effect to our Green Paper commitment to end blanket policies that exclude whole categories of applicants, arbitrarily and unfairly, from entitlement to housing. I understood the hon. Member for Eastbourne to concur entirely with that objective, which we all want to secure. The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised the reasonable issue of antisocial behaviour. He asked whether an authority should be obliged immediately to rehouse people who have been evicted for making their neighbours' lives a misery—only to cause misery to others? That is a fair and valid question. I do not want to pre-empt the full discussion that we should have on the issue on Thursday—and incur your wrath, Mr. Gale—but we believe that there are mechanisms for ensuring that authorities deal individually with people who have behaved in such a way and for when it is not appropriate to give priority to rehousing. Safeguards can be provided in individual cases without applying a blanket policy. Our objective is to ensure that there are no blanket bans on whole categories of people.

The problem was brought home to me graphically in a rather shocking case in one of my constituency surgeries recently. A 19-year-old woman told me that she had been debarred from consideration for council housing because she had been evicted for antisocial behaviour three years earlier. I was shocked that she had had a tenancy of a council property at the age of 16, but it transpired that she had been sharing the tenancy with an older person, her partner at the time—someone with whom she was no longer associated—who had behaved in an extremely unpleasant and antisocial way. I am not making a judgment on the individual case, although I felt that that young woman had a reasonable case for consideration, but the obvious question to ask is whether, where someone has been debarred from consideration because of a previous unsatisfactory pattern of behaviour, that mark of Cain should rest with them for ever or whether there is a point at which he or she can be reconsidered.

That is the nub of the individual rather than the blanket approach. A blanket approach makes it quite likely that people will be debarred, not necessarily for ever but for a long period of time, without taking account of changes in attitude, behaviour and circumstances that would justify reconsideration of the case.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Does the Minister accept the other side of that coin that, to encourage better tenant behaviour, consideration may be given to individual cases where there are genuine concerns about people's behaviour? The problem on some estates is often that the system seems to rush to help people who behave badly, while abandoning those who are responsible and do their best.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I agree wholeheartedly that it is absolutely right that all those involved in the management and delivery of housing services should be extremely vigilant about supporting honest, reasonable members of society who find themselves the victims of antisocial behaviour. We introduced the new provisions of the antisocial behaviour orders to give additional powers to local authorities to enable them to take action against people making their neighbours' lives a misery. I wholeheartedly concur that action should be taken.

However, that is slightly different from the point that I was trying to make—perhaps not as well as I should have done—that people involved in antisocial behaviour at one stage in their lives can change, reform and become law-abiding citizens who should be eligible for consideration in future. The danger of a blanket exclusion is that it might prevent consideration being given to such people. I think that we all agree that it is right, as a policy objective, to try to ensure that local housing authorities cannot operate blanket exclusion policies. That is our intention and I shall not say any more about why we seek that.

That is not to say that there will never be circumstances where an authority will have grounds for refusing to allocate accommodation to an applicant, even though it might have vacant properties. Each application must be assessed on its merits. There may be cases where an applicant's previous behaviour and current unwillingness to reform make an authority's refusal perfectly reasonable, but that is an individual consideration, Such decisions require careful consideration. All relevant factors must be balanced, including the degree of housing need, the hardship that will be suffered if accommodation were refused, and the applicant's past and likely future behaviour. Blanket bans preclude such a process, undermining an elementary principle of justice.

Amendment No. 81 seeks to provide all eligible applicants with a right to apply. Such a right arises necessarily from the changes that we are making to part VI of the Housing Act 1996 and is expressly recognised in the terminology of new section 166(1)(a) inserted by clause 26. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton will recognise that the terminology refers to the right to make an application. That is explicitly recognised in the new Bill. But that provision, like the proposed amendment, only goes so far. What is essential is that any application should be given proper consideration, and that is secured by the new section 166(3), also inserted by clause 26.

My hon. Friend asked about new section 166(3) and I shall try to answer my hon. Friend's concern by quoting the clause and interpreting it to the best of my ability. New section 166(3), as inserted by clause 26, states:

``Every application made to a local housing authority for an allocation of housing accommodation shall (if made in accordance with the authority's allocation scheme) be considered by the authority.''

There are two points to stress. First, that places an obligation on the local authority to consider every application, and that is part of the framework that prevents blanket bans. Secondly, it ensures that the authority can require people to apply in accordance with a particular arrangement, for example, filling in a form. If someone has not provided the authority with the necessary information by filling in a form, it is released from the obligation to consider it until the person has provided that information. That is the purpose of new section 166(3). It prevents a blanket ban on an individual, or groups of applicants, from being imposed via the back door. It is a procedural arrangement to enable the authority, perfectly reasonably, to require a certain amount of information to be provided upon which it can properly assess an application. To use new section 166(3) as a vehicle for prescribing classes that could be excluded would be entirely unjustified, would be challengeable and would be likely to be struck down as unreasonable. That is all part of the complex process of interpreting the provisions.

That brings me to amendment No. 82. Hon. Members are concerned that new section 166(3) and its requirement that applications must be made in accordance with an authority's allocation scheme might be used by an authority to frame its schemes in such a way as to operate a blanket exclusion. On first hearing that argument, I shared their concern, and I asked my officials to consider it carefully. As a result of further advice and detailed discussion, I am now reassured and satisfied that that is not possible. I shall try and take the Committee through this necessarily complex subject to try to satisfy everyone as to why it cannot be used as a vehicle for operating a blanket ban.

I start with the current position. Some authorities are operating blanket bans and that is made possible by section 161(4) of the 1996 Act. That is repealed by clause 25 of the Bill. Once that repeal is effected, there is nothing in part VI of the 1996 Act, as amended, that empowers authorities to make blanket exclusions. Only that provision enabled them to do that. A section 167 scheme is about determining priorities and procedures for allocations. I am advised that new section 160A(2), which provides that anyone can be allocated accommodation, and new section 166(1) and (3)—the implicit right to apply and the right to consideration—when read together with section 167, as amended, which is the framework for preferences and priorities, do not permit local authorities to operate blanket exclusions as part of their allocation schemes. An application by an eligible person has to be considered on its merits. He may be accorded greater or lesser priority, but he cannot be excluded from consideration completely. Of course, he may fail to be allocated a property, particularly if authorities adopt provisions such as that in new section 167(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, but that, of course, is a different question.

Nevertheless, in view of my hon. Friend's concerns, and bearing in mind the complexity of the issues—I confess that it took me a little time to get my head round them—I am more than happy to look once again at the Bill, in the light of what has been said this evening, to ensure that authorities cannot operate blanket exclusion policies under part VI of the 1996 Act as amended by the Bill. If I am not satisfied, I undertake to bring forward Government amendments to secure that result. However, I hope that, even if the intellectual process was somewhat tortuous, I have shown that there are good grounds for feeling confident that our new provisions achieve our stated policy to prevent blanket bans. With that, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the detailed explanation of the various clauses that intertwine on this particular subject. I bow to his superior knowledge. I also thank him for his reassurance that he will look again at the Bill, and that the words:

``if made in accordance with the authority's allocation scheme''

in clause 26, new section 166(3), will not allow local authorities in the new permissive regime for allocation schemes to continue with blanket exclusions. That is a difficult and complex area. I will look closely at the record of today's proceedings. No doubt we will talk again about some of those issues, but I am sure that in the end we will achieve the objective of both sides of the Committee of ending blanket bans. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 15, leave out lines 20 to 25.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may take amendment No. 74, in page 15, leave out lines 26 to 28.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I begin by thanking you, Mr. Gale, and other hon. Members for their congratulations. For once, my late nights are nothing to do with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). [Laughter.]

To pursue the serious matters in hand, I rise to support amendments Nos. 73 and 74, which would implement the Government's philosophy set out in the housing Green Paper. That philosophy has been expounded by the hon. Members for Edmonton and for Eastbourne and by the Minister. The housing Green Paper made it clear that the Government intended to remove the power to impose blanket exclusions from the housing register.

A blanket exclusion applies to asylum seekers. I am aware of the complexity of the overlap between immigration and housing legislation. The amendment would make a substantial impact and require other legislation to be examined, but it is worthy of debate.

Many asylum seekers will have escaped harrowing events in their countries of origin before reaching the United Kingdom. Many subsequently have to undergo the humiliation of poor quality accommodation in this country. One of my constituents was literally sent to Coventry—a wonderful city, but not the best place to live if someone works in Croydon. The accommodation used for asylum seekers is often in the private sector, which can be more expensive than council accommodation. Houses in multiple occupation are also used. Local environmental health officers would be unlikely to approve them if they were informed which properties were being used, but lack of communication between local authorities and the National Asylum Support Service is a real problem.

In the case of vouchers-only asylum seekers, severe overcrowding can arise. Someone in my local authority earlier today told me that one of our properties was heavily overcrowded with vouchers-only asylum seekers. The owner had told them that they could use that address, so they would not be moved around the country, but it led to severe overcrowding.

If local authorities could build the required social housing—I am afraid that there is nothing in the pipeline yet—and asylum seekers were subject to the same assessment of need, it would be a much fairer system. At the moment, the most vulnerable asylum seekers with the greatest degree of disability are being sent halfway across London to visit the local authority on the rota for doing assessments of need and are then shunted to and fro. That is happening to the asylum seekers who are least able to bear it.

Ensuring that asylum seekers follow the same rules of allocation would lead to a fairer system. They would then be subject to an assessment of need that works reasonably well. It might be cheaper than the present heavy reliance on private accommodation and it might even be a safer system in which local authorities would have greater control over accommodation.

These are probing amendments. I hope that the Minister will tell us what consideration he has given to the issues and about the reforms that the Government intend to introduce in relation to NASS and the problems that I and many other hon. Members have identified in the system. What reforms are in the pipeline? If nothing is planned, will the Minister reconsider the position of asylum seekers and the rules of housing allocation?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

For a variety of reasons, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendments. First, they would have serious implications for the level of homeless people who did not qualify as asylum seekers and their access to accommodation. Secondly, I think that they would also contravene the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, certainly in spirit if not in practice.

Recent figures have made us only too aware of the level of the asylum seeker problem. Last year, 76,000 principal applications for asylum were made. The inclusion of dependants takes the number up to virtually 100,000—a 7 per cent. increase on 1999 and the largest number in the European Union. We now represent some 20 per cent. of all asylum seekers in the EU. The figure here is more than double the level of asylum seekers in the United States, despite the terms of the 1999 Act and previous legislation. I gather that the biggest increase is in asylum applications from Iran and Iraq.

Most of those applications for asylum were made once the people were in the country. Last year, of 110,000 asylum seeker applications, fewer than 10,000 were recognised as political refugees. Some 66,000 applications by asylum seekers are still in the system, which is a considerably higher number than that left in 1997 by the previous Government, despite all the promises of changes to and investments in the system.

That is the context in which the amendments should be judged. This is not only a London issue. I represent a constituency in west Sussex. Local authority figures for the level of asylum seekers show that west Sussex has one of the highest numbers— if not the highest—of all the shire counties in the country, with a much higher level than many London boroughs. The fact that Gatwick airport is in west Sussex is often overlooked. A high number of asylum seekers come through the airport, which puts considerable pressure on local authorities in west Sussex to produce homelessness strategies and on social services and particularly those dealing with refugee children. Social services' budgets have been severely stretched—but I am straying slightly from the subject.

Westminster is a central London borough with a high number of asylum seekers. It produced a report about a year ago, but the examples that it gave are still relevant. Westminster highlights the cost of temporary accommodation in the capital that is used for housing asylum seekers among others, and the enormous rise in the cost of temporary accommodation. According to the report, London Research Centre figures show that the average nightly cost per homeless household of bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen from £38.70 in 1997 to £46.60 in 1998—an increase of 20 per cent. in only one year. That trend has continued.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

In the light of those figures, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would join me in warmly welcoming the special grant that was announced yesterday, which the Minister had a hand in delivering? It will provide at least £25 million to health authorities, precisely like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, which are facing the real problem of accommodating asylum seekers in very high value property.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Precisely like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, but precisely not like west Sussex, which as I have said, has a very high level of asylum seekers. The amount received in my county was negligible. The pressure on resources is considerable. Money is being taken by social services for those reasons, quite aside from the homelessness problem. It means that money is being taken away from the education budget and from social services provision for elderly people of which west Sussex has the highest level of any county in the country. The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) may well want to triumph at that figure, and I would join in her congratulations if there were a rather greater spread of those spoils around other parts of the country that do not happen to be Labour areas but which do have considerable problems. The impact on the marginal London seats around Westminster, as the Minister knows, is considerable, yet in west Sussex we do not get those benefits.

In April 2000 the Home Office introduced the new dispersal system where local authorities and housing associations across the country assist the Home office in assessing accommodation. The problem with those new arrangements is that they do not deal with the housing needs of asylum seekers currently accommodated by the London boroughs. As the backlog of asylum seekers currently awaiting a decision on their application is reduced, many more asylum seekers will qualify for permanent housing. The figures in the report show that, currently, 689 asylum seekers in Westminster are being accommodated under Housing Act duties. My interpretation of the Liberal Democrat amendment is that it would place a much greater duty back on local authorities to deal with asylum seekers. That would greatly increase the queues of asylum seekers, alongside other priority homeless cases such as those we have been discussing.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noted my reference to the fact that local authorities would need greater resources should the amendment be accepted. These amendments touch on the quality of housing provided for asylum seekers. Does he believe asylum seekers should be housed in accommodation that is not fit for human habitation? Does he believe that poor quality housing should be used as a deterrent for potential asylum seekers?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Not at all. That was not my point and it is not the point of the amendment. It does not deal with the quality of the accommodation. In clause 25(2) it seeks to strike out subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new section 160, which relate to people covered by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what his amendments are about. I have already made the case for a fairer distribution of the additional resources, but yet again the Liberal Democrats make a case for additional resources without telling us from where those additional resources are to be funded.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if asylum seekers are not eligible to access the local authority route to accommodation, they will have to fall back on whatever accommodation they can find? That often means that, because of the pressures on housing to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred, they are forced into lower quality accommodation. The issue is very much about housing quality for asylum seekers.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Under the new arrangements, post April 2000, the dispersal is operated through the Home Office. We are told that greater resources are being put into that and, hopefully, advantage can be taken of areas in which there is less pressure on accommodation and the standard of accommodation is adequate to deal with all homeless people, let alone asylum seekers. However, we still do not know where the additional resources that Liberal Democrats always tag from their one penny on income tax are going to come from, unless they are reintroducing a problem which the two asylum Acts did at least try to address. I am sure that Minister agrees.

We cannot see how the amendments would help. They would only add to the pressure on local authorities dealing with the other categories of priority homeless that we discussed earlier. As such, I do not think they would be a helpful addition to the Bill. If the Minister is minded to reject them, as I think he is, he will receive our support in doing so.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington expressed concern about the current arrangements for asylum seekers. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham expressed a rather different view about the pressures imposed by asylum seekers. We covered that issue in some detail this morning and I do not propose to repeat what I said then, other than to point out that this country has a long tradition of having provided a safe haven for people who have suffered persecution and serious misfortune in other countries. That policy remains very much the same today. I, like most members of this Committee, know from personal experience the number of asylum seekers who have been welcomed into this country, often after having suffered appalling persecution. The hon. Gentleman referred to the middle east and I can personally testify to some appalling examples of people who have been tortured by the Saddam regime and who have found a safe haven in this country. I am proud that we continue to provide that necessary provision.

Nevertheless, it is important that we put the issue in perspective, because the provisions that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington proposes are not limited to asylum seekers: they make changes to the rules relating to persons subject to immigration control. Most persons subject to immigration control are not asylum seekers, but are short-term visitors and persons given leave to enter the United Kingdom on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds. It would be utterly preposterous to undermine that provision by making the amendments, because to do so would contradict the whole of Government policy on immigration. We cannot seriously entertain such a proposition.

There is no question of any change in Government policy. The provisions are necessary because of the change effected by the Bill, which does away with the provision for a housing register. It is therefore necessary to have a new statement of the existing policy, which is achieved by the provisions that the amendments would amend. On the basis that the measure is a simple continuation of existing policy, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for his response. I will withdraw my amendments. However, I shall continue to monitor the existing arrangements and hope that, if he hears about problems, the Minister will propose suitable improvements. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, page 15, line 46, at end insert—

`(9) The notice shall also inform him of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.

(10) A request for review must be made before the end of a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he is notified of the authority's decisions and reasons, or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow.

(11) There is no right to request a review of the decision reached on an earlier review.

(12) On a request being duly made to them, the authority shall review their decision.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New Clause 5—Procedure on a review—

`.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under section 160A and nothing in the following provisions affects the generality of this power.

(2) Provision may be made by regulations—

(a) requiring the decision on review to be made by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision, and

(b) as to the circumstances in which the person concerned is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom he may be represented at such a hearing.

(3) The authority shall notify the person concerned of the decision on the review.

(4) If the decision is to confirm the original decision, they shall also notify him of the reasons for the decision.

(5) Provision may be made by regulations as to the period within which the review must be carried out and notice given of the decision.

(6) Notice required to be given to a person under this section shall be given in writing and, if not received by him, shall be treated as having been given if it is made available at the authority's office for a reasonable period for collection by him.'.

New clause 6—Right of appeal to county court on point of law—

`.—(1) Section 204 (right of appeal to county court on point of law) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the end there is inserted ``or such longer period as the authority and the applicant may agree or as the court may allow.''

(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) for ``may'' there is substituted ``shall''

(b) at the end there is inserted—

``If the local authority is satisfied that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success in an appeal under this section, it shall notify the applicant accordingly. In any such case, the applicant may apply to the court to require the authority to secure that accommodation is available in accordance with the provisions of this section.''.'.

New clause 11—Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need—

`( ).—(1) Section 188 (interim duty to accommodate in case of a apparent priority need) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) at the end there is inserted—

``in any case where the authority are satisfied that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success in the review''.

(3) After subsection (3) the words ``The authority may continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review'' shall cease to have effect.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The amendments highly technical and will need careful explanation. I apologise in advance if I stretch the Committee's patience, but I must explain clearly and precisely why they are important.

Sometimes when considering legislation that changes existing legislation, we can throw away some of the good bits of the legislation almost by mistake. The general purpose of the group of amendments is to address one such case, because I genuinely believe that the new proposals will remove important safeguards. That is particularly true of amendment No. 75 and new clause 5, but also applies to new clauses 6 and 11. I believe that the Government have not gone far enough to improve matters that they sought to improve in their amendments to the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment No. 75 and new clause 5 would amend the Bill to include a right of review of local authority decisions on the allocation of accommodation at two points in the allocations process: first, when decisions are taken on eligibility and, secondly, when decisions are taken to reduce the priority given to an application. The amendment would introduce a right of review of decisions on whether an applicant is eligible for consideration under an authority's allocation scheme. The Bill sets out the same criteria for local authorities to use in determining eligibility as the 1996 Act; asylum seekers and others subject to immigration control are not eligible to be considered. However, in sweeping away much of the old allocations framework, the Bill also removes the right of review on decisions of eligibility contained in section 164 of the 1996 Act.

The rules on eligibility are enormously complicated. The Department's guidance to local authorities includes 45 pages of explanation and there is no single formula that can be applied. Case law illustrates the changing situation, not least as it affects individual cases, and there is the added complication of different interpretations in the European Court of Justice. To illustrate the complexity, I remind the Committee that most asylum seekers are ineligible, which is what the Government intend. However, if an asylum seeker is from a country with which the United Kingdom has an agreement on reciprocal social security rights, he or she may be eligible. For example, asylum seekers from Turkey may be eligible because Turkey is a signatory to the Council of Europe social charter.

There are many other complications. For example, a common error made by some authorities is to rule that someone with exceptional leave to remain is ineligible, even though such people are entitled to apply under the complex eligibility criteria. There is a complex set of arrangements for eligibility but no right of review if someone is declared ineligible, thus denying a basic human right.

New clause 5 would introduce a right of review of a decision to give low priority to an application. That is complicated because the Bill makes significant changes to the way in which social housing is allocated, not least by removing the requirement to maintain a housing register, and introduces the right to apply for accommodation. Under a number of criteria, the Bill, therefore, allows a local authority to use its discretion to give lower priority to some individuals. Those criteria include rent arrears, allegations of excessive noise and antisocial behaviour.

The 1996 Act gives applicants a right of review when they are excluded from the register as a result of those criteria being applied. I acknowledge that there is no right of review when the applicant is merely suspended from the register but it exists for those who are taken off the register.

It strikes me as wrong that a right of review has been removed in what could be contentious cases. Applications may be denied because applicants have not paid their rent, even when they have not done so because housing benefit has not been received. I suspect that Committee members will be familiar with that situation from their constituency surgeries. If no right of review exists, there is no opportunity for such applicants to make their case. The purpose of new clause 5 is to reinstate the right of review that existed in the 1996 Act.

Hon. Members may be concerned that the new clause will lead to a large number of such cases. However, the Department's research, which examined the arrangements under part VI of the 1996 Act, demonstrates that only a small number of such cases arose. Very few reviews were sought but, significantly, when they were sought, about 50 per cent. of decisions were overturned. That shows that when local authorities examined cases closely and had access to additional information provided by the applicant, they discovered that mistakes had been made; perhaps more information came to light that proved that rent arrears had occurred due to non-payment of housing benefit. Mistakes are made, and they can be rectified in a review. New clause 5 is important in those circumstances.

New clauses 6 and 11 deal with decisions about homelessness, such as whether the applicant has a priority need or whether he or she is intentionally homeless. Those issues are covered in part VII of the 1996 Act and the two new clauses seek to build on that legislation.

The 1996 Act allows an applicant a right of review of homelessness decisions taken by a local authority. The applicant can go further and appeal to the county court on a point of law if the application is unsuccessful. The local authority also has the power, not the duty, to accommodate an applicant during the review and appeal process. New clause 11 argues that local authorities should be required to accommodate an applicant—except in what might be deemed hopeless cases—pending the review of a homelessness decision. New clause 6 would extend, in certain circumstances, the fixed 21-day time limit that is currently allowed for lodging an appeal with the county court. As with new clause 11, it would also require a local authority to provide accommodation pending an appeal of a homelessness decision, except in hopeless cases.

There is much confusion about the appeal and review process. If the person we talked about earlier were given 24 hours in which to decide about a final offer of accommodation, refused the offer and was then removed from the list of people whom the local authority must help, that person could appeal. If he were unsuccessful in that appeal, that would be the end of it: he would have to fend for himself. However, if that person were to accept the offer, despite being unsure about it, the current arrangements would allow him to appeal anyway.

The arrangements are unfair, and that leads to complications. Our proposals would solve some of the difficulties. No one benefits from such difficulties: neither the person appealing for help, nor the local authority that might be required to give it. New clause 11 requires the authority to provide accommodation pending the review of the authority's decision under the homelessness legislation.

We know that the existing legislation empowers local authorities to provide accommodation but the evidence shows that that power is rarely used. It is difficult for people seeking reviews if they are not housed. In most cases, they will give up and move somewhere else, which means that the review will never take place. The vast majority of reviews simply never happen because people give up when the local authority fails to provide accommodation. That causes additional difficulties, because such people are back to square one, which can affect their mental and physical health, and further increase their vulnerability. They might present to another local authority later, starting the process all over again.

I hope that the Minister will accept that argument and recognise that the problem does not concern only the time in which people have to request a review. If a review is granted, the authority has eight weeks to decide. People could wait three months, and sometimes more, without any accommodation while the review takes place. It is a long time to wait and, as I said, most people decide not to bother.

A requirement on the local authority to provide accommodation during the review period would provide greater opportunity for reviews to go ahead and to check whether the right decision was made in the first place. I stress that there should not be a blanket requirement because there will be reviews that, in the local authority's view, have no chance of success. New clause 11 would provide a get-out clause for the local authority.

New clause 6 has two purposes: first, to provide an opportunity to extend the 21-day limit and, secondly, to provide that the local authority shall make accommodation available, pending an appeal. The combination of such a rigid time limit and lack of accommodation is a huge detriment to an individual who is seeking an appeal to the county court on a point of law. The situation was easier before the 1996 Act and the leave for judicial review following the case of R. vs. Cardiff city council ex parte Barry in 1989, which I mentioned privately to the Minister earlier. At that time, the ``usual concomitant'' to pursuing an appeal was that temporary accommodation would continue to be provided to an applicant.

People will have little or no opportunity to take their case to appeal if improvements to the legislation are not made. There are four separate measures in the amendment and new clauses. The first two are designed to put back measures that have been swept away—perhaps by mistake—by the Government's proposed changes to the 1996 Act. They provide an opportunity to reconsider eligibility or the status of the appeal. The other proposals would extend current legislation to give a genuine opportunity to review homelessness cases and to allow county court appeals so that mistakes can be rectified.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I shall be brief. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bath could be accused of taking short cuts in his speech. He usefully dealt with the points from the Shelter briefing, and, no doubt, one or two others. We share some of his concerns and our starred amendments Nos. 103 and 104 have a similar thrust to some of his proposals.

It is a matter of principle that, whatever detailed system is put in place for social housing allocation policies, it must be transparent. Applicants should be clear about whether they are eligible for housing, for what type and in what area; how to apply for it; how priority is awarded; and how to appeal or seek a review if they are not satisfied. They must also be clear about the information that they are entitled to receive during the process.

As the hon. Member for Bath said, we are discussing the 1996 Act. Section 164 gives the right to a review of an authority's decision to exclude a person from the housing register. Section 204 gives an applicant the right of appeal to the county court on a point of law if the review finds against him. Section 202 allows a right of review of an authority's decision under the homelessness provisions.

We are not the only people who are concerned. At the meeting of the all-party homelessness and housing group to discuss the Bill on 15 January, Mr. Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter, described the removal of the right of appeal as a ``cause for concern''. We share that concern. Shelter eloquently set out its concerns in its briefing, and the hon. Member for Bath has, perhaps less eloquently, taken us through that.

I refer again to the LGA report ``No Place Like Home''. It says that

``The key criterion for allocation schemes is the need for a transparent and fair system in which applicants are kept fully informed and which ensures sufficient flexibility at local level in order to balance the needs and rights of both the individual and the local community.''

We agree with that as a principle, and do not see how the part that relates to the right of the individual can be maintained by removing the right of appeal and review. We therefore support the amendment and new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Bath.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendment and new clauses relate to appeals against decisions by a local housing authority about an applicant's eligibility for housing accommodation, and to duties owed to the applicant by the authority. The issues are complex and I will address each in detail.

I first make some general points. It is difficult to achieve the balance between securing robust rights to review and ensuring that review arrangements do not become too unwieldy, protracted and costly. We want a framework that allows unsound or borderline decisions to be reconsidered effectively but does not provide perverse incentives to request reviews that have little prospect of success. That is not easy—there are no perfect solutions.

I am reluctant to accept amendments that would force authorities to continue to secure accommodation for those seeking reviews of decisions. It is right that local authorities should have the discretion to make such arrangements, but they should use that discretion reasonably.

Amendment No. 75 would enable an applicant whom the local authority had found to be ineligible for allocation of housing accommodation to request a review of that decision. New clause 5 would empower the Secretary of State to specify by order the procedure to be undertaken in such a review.

The purpose of clause 25 is to establish eligibility for allocation of housing accommodation. The broad principle—discussed in the previous debate—is that all are eligible except certain persons subject to immigration control and persons within a class prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Those exceptions correspond with those in section 161 of the Housing Act 1996, which apply to qualification for the housing register. However, unlike the ``qualifying persons'' provision of that section, new section 160A gives local housing authorities no discretion to determine classes of eligible or ineligible persons. That is an important point.

A local housing authority will have to decide, first, whether an applicant comes within the statutory exclusion in new section 160A(3)—that is, whether he or she is subject to immigration control—and, if so, whether he or she falls within any of the exceptions to that prescribed by regulations made under the same subsection. For example, current exceptions include persons who have indefinite or exceptional leave to remain in the UK, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out.

Secondly, the authority must decide whether a person who does not fall within the terms of 160A(3)—that is, he or she is not subject to immigration control—falls within another class of ineligible person prescribed by regulations made under new section 160A(5). Those dealt with under the equivalent current regulations, made under section 161(3) of the 1996 Act, are applicants not habitually resident in the common travel area—the UK, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland.

An authority will have to apply the provision made in primary or secondary legislation to the facts of each case. Authorities do such things every day across the range of their functions. If an applicant were to contact an authority and show that relevant facts might have been misunderstood or that a wrong decision might have been reached for some other reason, I hope and expect that the authority would have another look at the case—effectively, review it. That is good administration and we shall say more about it in guidance.

If an authority failed to do that or, having looked at it again, did not change its view, it would be open to the applicant to bring judicial review proceedings if he could show that the authority had misdirected itself by taking wrong factors into account, failing to take account of relevant ones, or contravening the well-known principles of administrative law. That is the general remedy for such cases. We have not yet reached the point where local authority decision making is subject across the board to statutory review procedures laid down by central Government. I suspect that most hon. Members would not want us to.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is beginning to acknowledge that judicial review is hardly an option for most people, for some of the reasons that I gave. Given that he said that he would hope and expect a local authority, when challenged, in effect to review a case, and that the Housing Act 1996 provides for review, why is he now seeking to remove that provision, given that it is what he wants to happen?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is not following my argument, or perhaps I have not expressed it clearly. Unlike the 1996 Act, the Bill offers no scope for a local authority to apply blanket exclusions that it determines itself. There is no such discretion for the local authority, as there was under the 1996 Act. That was, properly, subject to a review. Under the exclusions to which I have been referring, the local authority has to apply the law in relation to the facts of each case. If it does so correctly, it would be preposterous for someone to seek a review of such a decision. I am afraid that the arrangements that the hon. Gentleman proposes would encourage such reviews.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

What would happen in the case of the Turkish person I described earlier? Although complicated, the legislation makes it clear that an asylum seeker from Turkey is eligible. If the local authority did not understand that, made a mistake and deemed that person to be ineligible, what course of action would be available to that individual to take the matter forward? The Minister's answer is judicial review. Is that the case?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Like me, the hon. Gentleman must have dealt with many applicants who question whether their local authority has correctly interpreted the law, not on an area of discretion but on the application of a point of law. I normally advise people to seek legal advice from a solicitor if they have the means to do so. If not, they should go to a law centre, which will give free advice. I have good relations with my law centre and no doubt the hon. Gentleman does with similar organisations in Bath. That normally produces a short, sharp letter to the authority reminding it of the legal position, which leads rapidly to a reversal of the decision.

That is very different from a request for a review of an area where the local authority has the discretion to take a decision. The problem with applying a review procedure to an area where the authority is correctly applying the law is that one is encouraging people who are ineligible because of the law to seek a review of something that cannot be reviewed. That would create a cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming appeal procedure for no good purpose, as I tried to explain earlier.

Where the finding of ineligibility on statutory grounds is clearly correct, I see no reason to provide a mechanism allowing an appeal against that decision. Under the new provisions, unlike section 161 of the Housing Act 1996, we are not concerned with local authorities applying their own policy discretion with respect to exclusion from allocation. Rather than go down the road proposed by the hon. Gentleman, I think it best to rely on authorities to follow the principle of good administration, with the possibility of judicial review if they get it wrong and ignore the letter from the law centre, to which I have just referred.

New clause 6 seeks to amend the provisions on the right of appeal to a county court on a point of law under section 204 of the 1996 Act. It would allow for an extension of the appeal period, which is currently 21 days. It would place an obligation on authorities to continue to secure accommodation for an applicant, under sections 188, 190 and 200 of the Act, during the period in which an appeal could be lodged and during the hearing of any appeal.

The current 21-day period for an applicant to decide whether to appeal is not unreasonable, and it provides authorities with some assurance that decisions will be made in timely fashion. Nor am I persuaded that the discretionary power that authorities currently have to continue to secure accommodation for applicants who appeal against adverse provisions is inappropriate. A similar proposal is made in new clause 11.

New clause 11 would, in some cases, have the effect of placing a duty on authorities to secure accommodation for an applicant to whom they have concluded that they either did not owe a duty or owed one of the lesser duties. It would affect applicants who request a review of the authority's decision on their case where the authority is not reasonably certain that its decision will be upheld by the review.

Authorities already have the power to continue to secure accommodation for an applicant pending a decision on a review, and I would expect an authority to use that power if it had doubts about what decision might be reached. However, the amendment would deprive authorities of their right to exercise discretion, and that goes too far. Authorities should take care when making judgments, and I would not expect them to reach manifestly unbalanced conclusions, but it would be unreasonable to limit an authority's right to exercise discretion and replace it with the precise test that is proposed by the hon. Gentleman. To do that would also encourage more appeals against authorities' decisions and have resource implications for authorities, which might result, in some cases, in the perverse consequence of applicants with lesser needs securing accommodation ahead of those with greater needs.

As ever, it is essential to get the balance right. The new clause pushes the test too far against the efforts of reasonable authorities to make fair and balanced judgments. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I thank the Minister for his response, disappointing though it was. However, he made some interesting points. I shall reflect on them, in particular on his strenuous use of the argument that if a local authority has no discretion in a matter, there is no need for a review process. The corollary of that is that if a local authority can exercise discretion in a matter, a review process is needed. I am, therefore, surprised that he has chosen to lump together, for example, amendment No. 75 and new clause 5, because local authorities have much discretion about the level of priority that is given to applications. One of the purposes of the Bill is to maintain within the legislation the range of circumstances that are covered in proposed new subsection (2A) in clause 27(3), which states that local authorities have the opportunity to consider

``(a) the financial resources available to a person to meet his housing costs;

(b) any behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which affects his suitability to be a tenant;

(c) any local connection (within the meaning of section 199) which exists between a person and the authority's district.''

Local authorities have much opportunity to exercise their discretion. For example, as the Minister will be aware, a quarter of local authorities that use rent reviews as a way of reducing a person's priority have no specific written guidance about the level of arrears that should be taken into account. The same is true for some of the other criteria to which I have referred.

Bearing in mind the time, I will take the matter away to reflect on the illogicality of the Minister's argument—a logic that leads him to say that amendment No. 75 is inappropriate, but, at the same time, to reject new clause 5.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Let me the hon. Gentleman in the nicest possible way that, as I understand it, new clause 5(5) covers eligibility rather than the actual process of allocation. That is a different issue and one on which he will perhaps reflect in the days ahead.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister, but I hope that he will reflect on his interpretation of the amendment. I am encouraged if the Minister is indicating that his interpretation might be incorrect and that he might support me. To allow time for the Committee to reflect, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 1 February at fifteen minutes to Ten o'clock.