Homes Bill

Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2001.

Standing Committee D

Homes Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee, particularly those hon. Members who intend to speak, that we shall rise this morning at 11.25, not 11.30. It may benefit the Committee to know that my co-Chairman will be in the Chair this afternoon, so, to avoid a rush at 11.25, I thank all hon. Members now for the courtesy with which they have conducted proceedings to date. I am confident that proceedings will continue in that vein. Clause 27 allocation schemes

Clause 27 - allocation schemes

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 17, line 3, after `are' insert `to be'.

The Committee may have noticed that there has been a change in tactics on the Government Front Bench. I am now the man who moves the crowd back before the Lord Mayor's show.

This is a technical amendment to correct the Bill's grammar. I am sure that hon. Members will see the sense in it and I commend it to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 17, line 21, at end insert

`but the scheme will not give priority to people being released from prisons at the end of a custodial sentence following criminal conviction.'.

I fear that this amendment is a little more technical than the two words of the previous one. It deals with a subject that is not addressed in the Bill, but which we want the Bill to address as regards allocation schemes and the classification of priority groups. We want to address the subject of preference being given to ex-prisoners. Although it is not in the Bill, Ministers have floated the idea quite strongly and it is likely to feature in forthcoming regulations on allocations.

This is a difficult issue. Of course, people who come from institutionalised backgrounds such as ex-prisoners may find themselves homeless. Figures from some charity organisations, particularly Shelter, show that those people are more vulnerable than others and that the chances of recidivism are greater if they are left in that condition. I will not take issue with some of the work, although it gives a mixed picture.

The Association of London Government has expressed concern that extending the priority need categories to include ex-offenders and others will significantly increase the number of households placed in temporary accommodation and therefore increase further the net costs of temporary accommodation.

At the previous sitting, we dealt with the subject of asylum seekers and people who were not permitted to stay in the country for longer than a certain period. I gave figures for the costs of temporary accommodation in London as surveyed by Westminster city council and for the sharp rise in the cost of temporary accommodation for homeless households, which had risen between 1997 and 1998 alone by some 20 per cent. That trend has continued. The ALG has estimated that extending the priority groups to include the ex-offender classification could increase homeless acceptances by about 10 per cent.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is precisely because of the particular problems often faced by ex-offenders released from prison that so many of them find halfway house accommodation of the sort provided by the Stonham housing association useful? I happened to be a trustee of one such hostel some years ago, when I was a councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend is right. I shall argue that there are other means and agencies for dealing with ex-offenders, starting with the institutions from which they have come. There is a duty of care on those institutions when releasing offenders, particularly if releasing them early and on parole, to have regard to the circumstances and surroundings into which those people are being released. If they simply open the door and turf them out on to the street without any regard to what will happen to them and what educational benefits and so on they have had in prison, surely the chances that they will reoffend and end up back where they started are that much greater. My hon. Friend mentioned the halfway houses, which have some expertise and a good record in dealing with some of this category of potentially homeless people.

Various institutions are worried that all housing will go to the homeless, with less for those who wait patiently on the register. More responsibility for the homeless is being passed to local authorities, with little extra money to meet the cost. Soundings have been taken from various councils. One says:

``We will have fewer choices on the way we run our register and allocate the Council's housing...This is further evidence of centralisation.''

Another says:

``If the groups of people''

that we

``must assist are extended then the choice available to existing priorities will decrease. We will be obliged to assist more people and this will be at the expense of the Council. Clearly more people will be placed in B&B accommodation. There are no new resources promised to help councils meet the extended obligation. This has clear council tax implications.''

Another says:

``The city council has concerns regarding the intention to place the duty on local authorities to rehouse those from an institutionalised background such as prisons and the armed forces. Whilst fully recognising that a number of rough sleepers come from an institutionalised background, we are nevertheless concerned that a broadly drafted requirement to rehouse such applicants without sufficient regard to vulnerability and need will place an unreasonable and costly burden on inner London boroughs.''

That ties in with what my hon. Friend was saying about liaising with other agencies, which have a specific expertise in this area quite separate from placing a general duty on local authorities.

I believe that it is all summed up by one of my own local authorities, which made the stark point that:

``All the powers and duties in the world will not make any real difference to people's chances without an increase in the supply of housing available to them.''

I fully recognise that there are specific problems with ex-offenders. There are particular problems with housing sex offenders, which need to be dealt with very delicately, using a host of agencies from the police and social services and specialised organisations. That responsibility should not just be dumped on local authorities because—despite what the Minister said on Second Reading, the logic of which is badly flawed—given the finite amount of available accommodation, any addition to the list of priority homeless people, however small, however big, however wide, however narrow, must mean that those who are not covered in those priority allocations, particularly those people who become homeless through no fault of their own and do not fall into one of the priority groups, will find themselves lower down the list or will be given the choice of less amenable and less suitable accommodation than they would have been.

The proposed change to the regulation that has been flagged-up by the Government sends out the wrong message. It suggests that those who have been in jail should receive priority over homeless people with unblemished records. That is the message for thousands of people who have been waiting patiently on homeless housing lists. They might now find themselves pushed down that queue because of priority being given to people from an institutionalised background. I would be delighted if the Minister would explain how those circumstances would not arise when there is a finite amount of housing stock available to accommodate all those different types of people. We have tabled the amendment because if the Government take the route that they have flagged up, it will send out the wrong message to those who have to wait far too long and still end up with inadequate accommodation.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I agree with only one point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and that is the need for more social housing. I cannot possibly support this amendment. Hon. Members know that ex-offenders are heavily represented among homeless people, and key factors in ensuring that they do not re-offend include stability in housing and access to employment. To exclude them in the way suggested is a recipe for more crime. We will certainly oppose the amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Since you will not be here for the usual eulogies at the end of the Committee, Mr Gale, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your enlightened chairmanship?

It comes as no surprise to the Opposition that the Liberal Democrats are rowing-in behind the Government on this issue. The Government have clearly taken fright on this because, over a significant period, they have heavily leaked the fact that ex-offenders would be among those given priority when regulations were made. If, in the light of comments made, the Government have had a damascene conversion, I should be happy to give way to allow the Minister to confirm that and then to move on to the next group of amendments.

As the Bill stands, there is no differentiation between a family with dependent children and a convicted offender being released from prison. Both fall under the catch-all category of ``particular descriptions of people'', which will be left to the discretion of a local authority or be a matter for regulation. There is something sadly wrong here. If we are to pass legislation of this sort, it is up to us to say broadly how we think these matters should be approached. I make no apologies for again quoting the Local Government Association report, ``No Place Like Home''. It says:

``There are real problems for local authorities in reconciling the housing needs of an individual with the legitimate concerns of a community, when considering certain types of applicant, such as sex offenders, ex-offenders and those with a history of anti-social behaviour. ``

I believe that that issue was pursued by the LGA representative at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on 15 January.

We have been concerned, as have others, at the floating of this idea in the press by unattributable spokespersons for the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, and no one will be happier than us if it turns out to be wholly untrue. I assume that, since the Minister has not taken the opportunity to intervene so far, there is some truth in the suggestion. The Opposition accept that everyone has the right to a decent home and we know that that can lead to genuine dilemmas for local authorities, among others. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said, with great care, we do not support the suggestion that those leaving prison should get priority—nor should we encourage the perception that they could—over law-abiding people who have been waiting patiently for housing.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The hon. Gentleman uses the term ``law-abiding''. Does he think that a consequence of accepting his amendment would be an increase or a reduction in crime?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

As we know, the Liberal Democrats are limp on matters of law and order and have an incredibly simplistic attitude to crime.

I want to deal with two issues. I think that we must all accept that, as a matter of principle, those who have been tried and convicted and served their sentence have paid their debt to society. However, 23,000 or more prisoners have been released early under the Government's early release scheme and a significant number have gone on to commit further crimes. I remind the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that that scheme had the full-hearted support of his party's Home Office spokesperson.

My second point is one that I made in an intervention, which is that many ex-offenders released from prison bring with them problems, some of which have been acquired while in prison. It could be a problem with drugs or a simple inability to manage their lives, having been locked in a cell for 23 hours out of 24 and having their entire life regulated. The drugs problem is very significant.

I do not know whether the Minister remembers, but in the late 1960s and early 1970s I was a trustee of the Stonham home in Hammersmith. It was an effective halfway house, principally for ex-offenders, and many of these problems were manifesting at that time. If anything, I am sure that the drugs problem in prison is worse now than it was then. That is an example of why the housing of ex-offenders must be handled sensitively in some situations. I am not suggesting that all ex-offenders have those problems. Many ex-offenders have no problems at all. Having served their sentence, they breathe a sigh of relief, get on with a normal life and never re-offend. We are talking about a minority, but a significant minority.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the large number of people from institutional backgrounds who find themselves on the street when released from their institutions. If we were to pass the amendment that he is suggesting, would that not consign those people to further time on the streets, where they will have to be picked up by the particular initiatives that we are now undertaking?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our amendment does not suggest that ex-offenders should be treated worse than other people—simply that they should not be given any preference over other people. That is perfectly sensible and acceptable. As so often happens with this Government, I suspect that they have floated an idea, more than once, found that it did not float and are now saying that they did not think of it in the first place. Last April, in a statement on the housing Green Paper, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions commented on media leaks and said:

``If I had leaked the statement I would hardly have said that I would give priority to prisoners. That would not be the leak that I should have wanted to give to the press''.—[Official Report, 4 April 2000; Vol.347, c. 817.]

We all know from recent events that even the Prime Minister has difficulties ensuring that his press spokesman says what he is supposed to say. Indeed, the press spokesman seems to have thought that it was his mission in life to rubbish the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when his job was to say what a wonderful asset he had been to the Government and to the country. So little mistakes can happen of course. [Interruption.] The Minister for Housing and Planning is getting terribly excited—it is very early in the morning for that sort of thing. I hope that he gets through the Committee stage without harm. If he can contain himself, I will conclude by saying that if the Government have genuinely had second thoughts about the issue, we will happily withdraw the amendment. We cannot support a proposal to give priority to ex-offenders—we are saying not that they should be put at a disadvantage, but that they should not be given advantages over other deserving people.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

This is a nasty, malicious little amendment; there are no other words to describe it. We made it clear on Second Reading that the Government have never said and are not saying now that convicted criminals should be given priority in housing. When the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that our proposals send out a message, he exposed what is happening: the Opposition's deliberate distortion of the Bill—for the most disgraceful reasons—sends out a transparent message. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said on Second Reading: there is no intention to give priority to released prisoners. Local authorities are already under a duty to give priority to vulnerable groups and all that is being proposed is that some people from institutional backgrounds who fall within the category of vulnerable people should be given consideration. Those are the facts. There is no justification for the Opposition's attempts at distortion.

The hon. Gentleman said that was another problem: because there is a finite amount of money, giving some people priority inevitably affects everyone else. What kind of a point is that from a supporter of the previous Government, with their record on housing capital investment? It is the current Government who are putting significant extra resources into housing investment—an extra £1.8 billion over the next three years. The Conservatives are responsible for the current dire straits of housing provision, so it is rich for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that our provisions will adversely affect housing provision for families.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested that we are lumping released prisoners into the same category as families—and then cleverly slipped in at the end of his contribution the acknowledgement that that will be left to the discretion of local authorities. The whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Local Government Bill and this Bill was that Conservatives were trying to act as the friend of local authorities, but his arguments today imply that the authorities are now totally incapable of taking sensible decisions about people in need and about who should get priority.

The strategy behind the Bill is to implement a multi-agency approach to provide people with accommodation that is appropriate to their circumstances and to give them choice wherever possible. Halfway house facilities of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman referred are examples of the facilities that we are discussing and they will be provided through the sort of approach that our proposals will introduce. There is nothing more to say about the amendment, other than that it exposes itself. It is a deliberate and malicious distortion, designed to create an impression that what is being proposed is something other than it is.

It is noticeable that no answer has come from the Member for Eastbourne to the question he was asked about his perception of the amendment's effects on crime levels. Before he replies, I remind him that that he was a supporter of the Government that presided over a doubling of crime in this country. The effect of his amendment will be to take out ex-offenders, put them in a category below and, even when they are most vulnerable, prevent local authorities from looking at their housing needs separately. That is what he says he is trying to achieve, and is presenting to the British people. If he believes that that is any sort of strategy for dealing with crime in this country, which is far too prevalent, he should answer the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and explain what on earth he thinks the amendment's effect on crime would be.

I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. It is clear to everyone concerned that it is a nasty, malicious amendment that is deliberately designed to distort the intent of the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have really touched a raw nerve. Neither the debate nor the amendment would have been necessary had the Government made absolutely crystal clear when replying to what they are now calling ``distorted'' or ``malicious rumours'' their real intentions for changing the regulation in relation to dealing with institutionalised ex-offenders. They failed to do that. The Minister for Housing and Planning did not make that clear on Second Reading, despite the claim that he did. It was patently unclear.

There was no follow-up to the stories in the press, which is why it was necessary to table the amendment to get to the bottom of the truth. Let us deal with the extraordinary claims coming—not unusually—from the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised two points. First, he asked would the amendment lead to an increase or decrease in crime? The amendment would have no effect on that. What we are not doing, as he again put it, is excluding people. The amendment would not exclude anyone. The people to whom it refers are already not included, so the amendment does not exclude them. That comment completely misreads the amendment. We are not saying that those people should be treated differently, separately or prejudicially. We are asking purely for a level playing field and for that to be clearly stated. A change in ex-prisoners' position would be the result of the Government's changing the regulation.

The Under-Secretary of State is out of touch with reality if he believes that people on homeless waiting lists up and down the country—there are many of them, but we shall not debate the exact figures again—think that everything is fine and dandy and that they are being treated fairly. He and I both know that many of those homeless people, some of whom come to our constituency surgeries, do not think that they are being treated fairly; they give examples of other people who seem to get their house faster, or who get a better flat or house. There is already a great feeling of inequity amongst many people in desperate circumstances. There is a view out there—put in the press before we ever tabled the amendment—that yet another class of people would be added to the priority classifications above them on their waiting list, that would add to that feeling of unfairness. That feeling exists, whatever Ministers say, or whatever we do in Committee. Unless the proposals on the regulations—which, we are delighted to learn, will not now be proposed—are scotched once and for all, that feeling of inequity will increase.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill is about homelessness? Does he accept that a fair percentage of street homeless are ex-prisoners and that many convicted prisoners have already given up a council house or a registered social landlord home because their sentence was too long and they did not have enough money to maintain their home?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Absolutely right, but whether and how soon they have their council houses back should be judged on the same basis as the cases of others on the waiting list in different circumstances; that is all that we are saying. The amendment is designed to make it clear that people coming out of an institution should not gain priority over others. There is no question of excluding people—the ludicrous allegation of the Liberal Democrats, who patently fail to understand the amendment. It is about including everybody on the same basis.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Does my hon. Friend agree that although our amendment would not deny housing to ex-offenders, the Liberal Democrat interventions and the Minister's speech demonstrate that the Liberal Democrats and the Government are stuck in a 1960s timewarp in which criminality is explained in terms of poor housing? Many people living in poor housing do not engage in criminal behaviour.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right again. That is the liberal elite establishment talking.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Gentleman is right about one thing. My constituency surgery probably reveals more than his the high number of people in housing need. Many of them feel that they are treated more unfairly than others, so the hon. Gentleman is trading on a feeling that is already there. The best way to deal with those feelings is to invest in lifting the quality and supply of housing and then to offer people as much choice as possible within the system. That is exactly what the Bill is designed to do. The amendment would simply exclude ex-offenders from consideration, even though they are vulnerable people.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Of course the second part of the Minister's statement is right. As was clear from the quotes that I read out, the only way to solve the problem for everyone—people who have lost their own home, people coming out of prison, rough sleepers and so forth—is to increase the supply of suitable, affordable, properly placed housing. We all know that. However, that does not apply now.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Why did you halve it?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Let me remind the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary of the figures. In the last four years of the previous Conservative Government, 95,000 social houses were built, compared with 59,000 in the first four years of the present Government.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I ask my hon. Friend not to subscribe too enthusiastically to the notion that if enough houses are provided, the problem of homelessness is solved. That is not the case because problems of competence come to the fore. As John Bird, the founder of The Big Issue, said, the last thing that homeless people need is a home. He was referring to the process of training to help people to cope with life: the house comes at the end of the process. Providing many houses does not necessarily solve all the problems associated with homelessness.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My right hon. Friend is right and provides an appropriate balance to my comments. It is not just a question of bricks and mortar; it has everything to do with conditions for people, having come from a homeless background, to have a sustainable home. I think we are agreed on that. The Minister has a nerve to try to trot out the figures on crime going back to 1979, for which there are a host of additional reasons on which we could talk and go completely out of order—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

No we could not.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We shall avoid doing so, because I know that you would very quickly haul me back into order, Mr. Gale.

Entirely missing from the Under-Secretary's comments was any reference to the fact that violent crime has risen sharply. Last year, the crime figures went up for the first time in six years, with 191,000 additional crimes. Many of these crimes are being committed by people who are out on early release. Who is contributing to the problem? Who is exacerbating the problem of people coming out early and perhaps less prepared for a stable housing situation? The answer is, the Government.

The Under-Secretary has a nerve to talk about who is the ``friend of local authorities'', because we are the ones who are saying that choice and discretion over local circumstances and local priorities should be given to local authorities. The amendment merely takes away an extra prescription. In clause 27 the Government are prescribing more categories of people who should be treated as a priority, regardless of whether the local authority likes it, has that problem locally or even has the local circumstances to deal suitably with those priorities. Central prescription is what the present Government are about, but it is not within the terms of what we are saying. If the Government really trusted local government, there would be less prescription of who local authorities should deal with, how and on what terms.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

If the issue is prescription, will the hon. Gentleman tell me where in the Bill it says that local authorities must house convicted prisoners, and can he explain why his amendment says clearly that they will not? Who is being prescriptive here?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The argument is circular and the Government are creating it. The intention underlying the Government's changes to regulations was to impose yet another list of priority people. We are purely saying that there should not be another list in the form of ex-offenders. We are not adding to that prescription. Two minuses make a plus. The Government are engaging in an awful lot of semantics.

Mr. Ainsworth rose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister wants to intervene again, although it is unlikely to help his case. However, we will not press these amendments, because we now have from the Government an undertaking that they should have given months ago. If they had done so, we would have avoided this debate. As the Minister has realised, the Opposition, far from playing on people's fears, are trying to allay those fears, so that people do not feel even more unfairly treated than many already do. On that basis, we have had an interesting discussion. We have teased out from the Government what I hope are categorical denials, which are long overdue. We hope that they do not slip in under the net when, in the far-flung future, these regulations are brought in, because if they do, a lot of people, especially many local authorities, will feel badly let down. We have aired the subject and I hope that the Government's colours are now well and truly nailed to the mast. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 17, line 22, leave out

`may' and insert `shall'.

The Chairman: With this we may discuss amendment No. 93, in page 17,line 24, at end insert

`to include particularly families with dependant children.'.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The purpose of amendment No. 76 is to require local authorities to frame their allocation scheme to give additional preference to people with the most urgent housing needs. As Members will be aware, clause 27 requires local authorities to frame their allocation schemes to give ``reasonable preference'' to people in housing need. A power is also included to enable an authority to give ``additional preference'' to households with ``urgent housing needs'', but there is no requirement or obligation for them to do so. It is our view that placing a duty on authorities to build urgent needs into their allocation scheme would still give local authorities the flexibility to define what is meant by urgent housing need. Therefore, we are not being prescriptive, but we are giving local authorities the ability to make their own decisions on what is urgent need. The amendment is entirely in keeping with the Government's intention and with the view that meeting housing need should remain the overriding priority in the allocation of social housing.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I fail to understand the intellectual logic. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that instead of ``may'' we will have ``must'' or ``shall'' but is then saying that it does not make any difference anyway because local authorities define what is meant by urgent need, what on earth is he wasting our time with?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The right hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening with sufficient attention. We want to place a duty on local authorities to take into account urgent needs in their allocation scheme so that the most vulnerable people are housed within the scheme, but it is entirely consistent to then say that local authorities should be able to establish what constitutes urgent need. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the proposal.

I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say to Conservative amendment No. 93. We are inclined to support it unless, as may be the case, priority is already given to families with dependent children. If that is the position, the amendment would not be necessary. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not want to embark upon the great ``may'' versus ``shall'' debate, which rages just beneath the surface of this Committee. I wish to speak to amendment No. 93. I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats are inclined to support it. I suppose on the grave of every dead Liberal Democrat is the motto ``on the one hand...and on the other hand''. Hopefully they will make up their minds by the end of the morning.

This amendment is about duty to families with dependent children. The Housing Act 1996 requires authorities to devise allocation schemes that give ``reasonable preference'' to numerous different categories including, specifically, ``families with dependent children''. I can see the force of the argument that will be deployed by the Minister, which is that clause 27 tries to simplify those criteria. We will no doubt get into the eternal argument about whether or not it is better to have things in the Bill. There is a real danger here of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We cannot agree that the inclusion for reasonable preference of families with dependent children, which is the existing situation, should cease to be an explicit criterion and becomes simply a matter for local interpretation. I take on board all the points made about being over-prescriptive, but I think that Parliament is entitled to send some messages about the sort of preferences we have in mind.

Some useful statistics have been prepared by Sarah Guy of the Catholic Housing Aid Society. They show that out of all local authority homelessness acceptances in priority need, in the fourth quarter of 1999, no less than 59 per cent. were households with dependent children. Judging from one's own surgeries and mailbag that sounds about right. The statistics also show that more than 2 million children live in households in which there is no paid adult in work and which, therefore, may be vulnerable to homelessness. It seems to us, not only on grounds of principle but on grounds of the reality as expressed in those statistics, that it is right to retain that sort of preference on the face of the relevant legislation. We are keen to hear what the Minister has to say.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment No. 76 seeks to ensure that letting schemes would have to give additional preference to particular descriptions of people within the reasonable preference category, in effect, requiring local housing authorities to identify the categories of people that it would treat as in urgent housing need. Some local authorities, particularly those in high demand areas, may well need to do that, but it would be wholly redundant to require others to do so when they have adequate accommodation to offer everyone social housing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is much more sensible to leave the decision to local authorities and to allow them to use their good sense to exercise additional priority where appropriate, but not require them to do so where it is not.

At first sight amendment No. 93 seems reasonable, but a brief examination shows it to be flawed. Where there is need, the provisions of the Bill will enable it to be recognised and met. Homeless families with children are already, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne pointed out, in the priority needs categories and account for a substantial proportion of those households who are assisted. Having children is not of itself an indicator of need. Many families with children are living in perfectly adequate accommodation—including many members of the Committee, who would not for a moment suggest that we should be given priority over others for allocation of council housing. We have perfectly adequate homes of our own—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Eastbourne is not adequately housed, but on his salary I am sure that he can make adequate provision for himself. I am sure that he would not want his needs to be put ahead of those of low-income households who have no other option. That would be the consequence of his amendment.

At our last sitting the hon. Gentleman argued strongly the case for elderly people and highlighted their needs, as did his hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham; elderly people constitute a significant proportion of their constituents. Their amendment would enable families with children always to take priority over elderly people, irrespective of need. That cannot be right. I hope that they recognises that although the amendment sounds attractive, it would have a perverse consequence.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I hear what the Minister says about areas of low housing demand. I represent an area of high housing demand where the local authority has to define urgent need. However, I am realistic and I understand that whatever the merits of our amendments my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I are slightly outnumbered here today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 17, leave out lines 31 and 32.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 91, in page 17, line 34, at end insert `or another authority's district'.

Amendment No. 83, in page 17, line 34, at end insert

`save that the factors may not be taken into account in any case where to do so would be unreasonable having regard to the need of the person or household for an allocation of housing accommodation.'.

Amendment No. 92, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—

`( ) any record of behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'.

Government Amendments Nos. 106 to 108

Amendment No. 96, in page 17, line 47, after `accommodation', insert

`which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As you are not to be with us at our final sitting this afternoon, Mr. Gale, I shall take this opportunity to thank you for the good-humoured way in which you have chaired the Committee. I note that we have not had recourse to your golden, silver, crystal or other balls—indeed, the only reference to them was made by you. I am delighted that they were not needed and I genuinely thank you for the way that you have chaired our sittings.

We are now moving back to some of the issues that we debated on Tuesday afternoon and beginning to look at the question of the determination of priorities for housing allocation. The Government, at short notice, tabled several additional amendments that have a significant impact on amendment No. 77. I hope that Government amendment No. 107 will give me an opportunity to communicate with my wife, albeit perhaps by e-mail rather than in a detailed letter. None the less, there is cause for celebration. I said in our previous sitting that

``New clause 5 would introduce a right of review of a decision to give low priority to an application''.

In response, the Minister said he hoped that there would be opportunities for reviews; however, he said:

``I first make some general points. It is difficult to achieve the balance between securing robust rights to review and ensuring that review of 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.''——[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 376-379.]

The Minister did not believe that new clause 5 would provide the perfect solution, but it took him only a few hours to find such a solution, embodied in amendment No. 107. I assure the Minister, with alacrity, that Liberal Democrat members of the Committee will support it, as it provides the right of review sought in my amendment.

Now that there is a right of review, we must ask whether we are happy with clause 27 as amended, because of the circumstances that can be taken into account when deciding to give low priority to applicants. Amendment No. 77 was tabled because we were deeply concerned about the criterion in new subsection (2A)(b), which states:

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

and gives a local authority carte blanche to stop anyone they choose from having a high priority. That would be especially worrying if there were to be no right of review, but the Government amendment introduces that right. However, the question remains: does the local authority have too much scope? Amendment No. 77 would remove that new subsection, but the Government have decided to replace it with an alternative, more detailed description of the circumstances. The Committee will have to decide whether to reject amendment No. 77 and to accept the Government amendment.

I am delighted that the Government recognise that the proposal as drafted is insufficient, but I am not convinced that they have the details right. I hope that the Committee will reject Government amendment No. 106, although I acknowledge that because of the opportunity for a review, something is needed in its place. I hope that we shall consider the Government's alternative formulation at a later stage.

The Government's proposal is unacceptable, although it is better than the Bill as drafted. I am anxious that in spite of the amendment many people may have their priority for housing removed, even if they are homeless. The Government's amendment sets out in much more detail than the Bill the circumstances in which an applicant will not be given housing priority. It will allow priority to be removed from an applicant if the authority is satisfied that he or she is

``unsuitable to be a tenant owing to unacceptable behaviour''.

The key point is that that decision can be made regardless of the applicant's housing need, which is the nub of our concern.

New subsection (2AA), set out in amendment No. 106, allows an authority to remove priority from people who fall within new subsection (2AB), which includes those who do not attract preference because the authority is satisfied when it considers their cases that the person involved is unsuitable to be a tenant, perhaps because of rent arrears or antisocial behaviour some time ago. The relevance of those factors should be considered in the light of the applicant's current circumstances.

The proposal is a welcome addition in one key respect: it ensures that the circumstances must be relevant at the time of the application. An authority could not remove a person's priority merely because of something that happened long ago. The amendment defines unacceptable behaviour as that which

``would entitle the authority to a possession order...on any ground mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2''

to the Housing Act 1985. Those grounds are very wide-ranging and they include the following: rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid or any other breach of the tenancy agreement; conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance to anyone in the locality, or when a person has been convicted of an arrestable offence in or in the locality of a dwelling house; and the tenant having by neglect or default allowed the condition of the home or of any furniture provided or the common parts of the building to deteriorate.

The question is whether those are appropriate conditions to be considered when seeking possession. In 1999, 130,000 possession orders were sought under the 1985 Act, but of those only 23,000 led to an outright possession order being made; the vast majority were rejected, 70,000 cases led to a suspended order, and most of the orders made were for rent arrears. As the Minister will be well aware, there is much concern within the Committee that very often those rent arrears arise as a result of failures of payment of housing benefit.

I genuinely believe that the proposed arrangements are far too wide and, above all, do not fully take into account the key issue of housing need. Even with the welcome review process, they could still cause a very large number of cases to be brought by local authorities.

It is clearly important to acknowledge that cases of proven antisocial behaviour should be taken into account. Nevertheless, that should be the case in exceptional circumstances only. That is clearly the Government's view. In the Green Paper ``Quality and Choice'', published in April 2000, the Government say:

``Any decisions to suspend applications would need to take account of the circumstances of the household in order to safeguard vulnerable groups such as those with mental or behavioural problems, or the children of families concerned. We would expect suspensions to be exceptional and that other ways of managing problems or risks may be more appropriate in many cases''.

My concern is that, even with the welcome amendments that the Government have introduced, we may have a situation in which local authorities, on far too many occasions, fail to take genuine housing need into account, and that they will rely on the aspects of the Housing Act 1985 to which I have referred.

The group of amendments contains several others. I particularly draw the Committee's attention to amendment No. 91, tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and his colleagues. It would provide an opportunity, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman will say in a minute, for other local authorities to help out in cases of housing need. We believe that that is a sensible and welcome amendment, and were the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues to press the amendment to a vote, he could be assured of our support.

Amendment No. 77 seeks to completely remove the issue from the face of the Bill. The Government have sought ways to improve what is on the face of the Bill without its complete removal. At the moment I remain unconvinced that the improvements go far enough, except those in amendment No. 107 in respect of the review. I look forward to hearing the Minister persuade me that I have got it wrong and that his amendments go far enough. I want to place it on the record that I hope that we can discuss the issue in greater detail on another occasion, not least because I believe that we are rushing into it, as the Government have only just tabled the amendment. The Committee should have longer to reflect on it during its consideration of the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have before us three amendments tabled by the Conservatives, which fall into two separate categories. The first category consists of amendments Nos. 91 and 96, dealing with out-of-district accommodation. I am glad that the Liberals have said that they will support, or are inclined to support, amendment No. 91. In the second category is amendment No. 92, relating to the records of previous tenants.

I am afraid that I cannot reciprocate the support offered by the hon. Member for Bath by supporting the Liberal amendment No. 77. The hon. Gentleman has explained that if the Liberal Democrats cannot have what they want, they would prefer to have nothing at all, but if they did, the result would be to take out any regard whatever for tenants' previous behaviour. Therefore, however ghastly certain tenants have been, however guilty of racial abuse in sensitive areas or of domestic violence to members of a family, and however insensitive to the nature of the neighbourhood, that will not matter and need not be taken into consideration. That is obviously wholly unacceptable.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I place it firmly on the record that, had we not seen the Government's amendments, I would have said clearly that amendment No. 77 was, by its very nature, a probing amendment to allow us to discuss these issues? I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we had accepted amendment No. 77 in isolation, without any amendments, that would have been unacceptable, for the reasons that he has given. I share his concerns about amendment No. 77 in isolation. As he has seen, our amendment has brought forth a large number of fruits from the Government.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That being said, the hon. Gentleman did have the opportunity not to move his amendment, in the light of what the Government had proposed. However, I agree with him that the Government's addition is welcome, although late, and does require further discussion. I am sure that Members will be keen to debate the addition on Report and in the Bill's later stages.

I welcome parts of the Government's amendments. Perhaps the Government should propose them first, although I know how they fall in the group, so that we may respond to the proposals. Our amendments, particularly amendment No. 92, depend on what the Government are proposing. We are going to this somewhat blind. However, I welcome amendment No. 107, in particular, with a review process. The absence of a review process was one criticism that I wanted to return to, and the hon. Member for Bath has made a fair point in welcoming that amendment. I am not clear about how prescriptive amendment No. 106 would now be, whereas our amendment is more flexible and gives greater powers to local authorities to determine what is unacceptable behaviour in their area.

I shall deal first with amendment No. 92 on the subject of unacceptable behaviour or, as we all know it, dealing with neighbours from hell. We all know that persistent antisocial behaviour is one of the biggest causes of misery in residential areas. That is a particular problem when it arises in social housing estates. We have all heard about it in our surgeries. I was asked last Friday to visit a group of constituents in a residential area with mixed tenure, where just three households of about 100 are wreaking havoc. Tenants have been beaten up and hospitalised. Their children are being terrorised in school. Spark plugs, stones and mud are being thrown at people, including little old ladies in gardens. Cars are being vandalised. That area had been perfectly peaceful. Many of its residents had been there for 20 years and had no trouble at all until those problem families were moved in.

The problem was accentuated by moving several problem families into the same area; the effect mushrooms. It is obviously absurd for a tenant whose previous record includes having been evicted for antisocial behaviour to be treated on an equal basis with well-behaved tenants or owner-occupiers. Why should neighbours from hell enjoy decent accommodation on a par with others who have a clean slate? Why should they avoid the inconvenience of less favourable or temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation? One school of thought would contend that problem neighbours are dealt with more appropriately within the private sector. Some interesting work has been done on that.

Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 gave grounds for landlords to evict people from shorthold tenancies, and section 162 of the Housing Act 1996 gave local authorities the power to apply for injunctions against antisocial behaviour. Subsequently, the Government introduced further criminal justice legislation and adopted limited use of antisocial behaviour orders, which should be used more extensively despite their flaws.

The key problem is that the system militates against good neighbours. Many of our housing estates are remarkable for the lack of incentives to promote good neighbourliness. Last year I visited the Irwell Valley housing association in Salford, which has turned the problem on its head. The staff of this association in a previously run-down outskirt of Manchester reflected on why 70 per cent. of their time and 75 per cent. of their resources were spent on only 10 to 15 per cent. of their tenants and homes. They wondered why 70 per cent. of their repair bill was spent on tenants who were either in arrears or had intentionally caused damage to their properties—a fair point.

Legally, housing associations can do little to reward or incentivise tenants who are living peacefully in harmony with their neighbours, looking after their property and putting something back into their communities. The Irwell Valley housing association introduced a gold service, in which the rights of tenants were reappraised. People who signed up to the service undertook to maintain a certain level of behaviour and responsibility. In return, they received preferential repair times, quicker access to better homes, access to training and job opportunities within the housing association's estates, reductions on goods and services and so forth.

Other housing associations are reflecting on what that interesting experiment achieved. The results of the scheme included a 12 per cent. reduction in the average level of arrears; rising customer satisfaction with 65 per cent. of tenants receiving a radically enhanced service; a 27 per cent. reduction in security costs; void turnround times reduced by almost 30 per cent.; and re-let times reduced by 18 per cent. The upshot was that savings were ploughed back into providing more and better accommodation and services. Everyone was happy.

When I visited the housing association last year I met many tenants who spoke in glowing terms about what had happened. Good tenants and good neighbours had been rewarded. The reverse side of the coin is the housing association's tough policy for dealing with neighbours who choose not to sign up and to flout the rules or to sign up but still flout the rules. That association probably has one of the toughest eviction policies allowed within the law, but it has one of the lowest eviction rates of any equivalent housing association in the country. It is interesting that being tough and providing incentives for people who play by the rules makes everyone behave better.

Another school of thought says that people who are in the most desperate circumstances and in most need of a home should be the best behaved tenants, because they have the most to lose. However, that needs to be reinforced by schemes such as the one that I have described, which highlight the rewards for being a good neighbour and the risks of not being a good tenant. Such schemes are being considered.

Wandsworth has come up with a scheme to produce contracts between the council and its tenants in order to cut down on criminal or immoral acts by people who fail to control their children, cause noise and disturbance, dump rubbish and so on. There are interesting examples to follow. It is right that local authorities should have powers to use their resources to clamp down on people who do not have a track record of being good neighbours and specifically on those who have been highly disruptive—whether through criminal or highly antisocial activities—and who are likely to replicate those activities in a new home.

I realise that organisations such as Shelter have raised concerns, and I agree that such stipulation should not be used lightly. The clause should not provide an easy option to be used against people who go into rent arrears, often because of the force of their domestic circumstances or the failure of the benefits system to pay their housing benefit on time. In no way does that constitute antisocial behaviour. I want to make it clear that we are talking about antisocial behaviour, not financial difficulties. There is a clear distinction. I therefore welcome Government amendment No. 107, which provides for a review procedure, so that tenants who feel that they have been wrongly classified as antisocial neighbours for what is not antisocial behaviour have a right of appeal.

Surely the underlying principle is that people who play by the rules and get on with their neighbours should not suffer at the hands of a minority of neighbours from hell. That is why I propose the rather more flexible amendment No. 92. I want to hear what the Government have to say. It is a key subject to raise on Report.

I shall deal more briefly with amendments Nos. 91 and 96, which represent an attempt to give some legislative weight to the increasing instances of reciprocal allocation arrangements between different local authorities. There is an increasing number of such arrangements in London. Westminster has arrangements with councils in the north of England. I believe that Camden has an arrangement with Kirklees council about passing on people who are low on the homeless list. One local authority might be able to offer certain housing conditions, whether in terms of type, number or both, that are not available in another. That is pertinent to London and the rest of the south-east, with the pressures that have often been discussed.

There is another point to the amendments. Such inter-council arrangements can offer a way out of the trap into which many people fall. They may be far from home, in miserable conditions, perhaps with no roof. The arrangements enable them to make a fresh start, among friends and family, in a part of the country with which they have some previous connection. They may have no hope of doing that as the Bill currently stands.

In the past year I have visited many inner-city areas in metropolitan boroughs in the north and in the midlands. I stood for a seat in Sheffield in the 1992 general election. My first photo opportunity there was on an estate in Brightside. It was a mass of empty, boarded-up council houses; the road was full of weeds, and there were dumped cars. I was told that those houses were going to be demolished. I have been back to Sheffield many times since then, but I went back to that estate last summer. I had another photo opportunity in the very same road, in front of the same houses. The only difference was that a few more houses were boarded up, a few more roof tiles were missing, and it was difficult to distinguish the tarmac from the weeds. That is a great waste, because those houses are perfectly liveable in, and could be renovated. The reason for that waste is largely to do with 50 years of misery under Labour in Sheffield, which I fear has not been reversed by the past 12 months under the Liberal Democrats yet.

My point is that 40,000 households are temporarily accommodated by London boroughs, including over 5,000 in bed and breakfasts. There are 40,000 local authority homes and 10,000 housing association properties in northern England standing empty at the current time so I have a great deal of sympathy with calls for a national housing scheme, which I know that councils such as Westminster, among others, are proposing.

The purpose of the amendments is to stop us losing sight of the fact that we should not just place responsibilities and obligations on local authorities within their own districts. There is far more scope for addressing homelessness by encouraging local authorities to look beyond their boundaries and come up with reciprocal arrangements with councils in areas where there is not such pressure on housing, particularly in the north of England.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

Amendment No. 83 is the mirror image of amendments Nos. 81 and 82 to clause 25, which we discussed on Tuesday, moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). Indeed, he moved them so eloquently that I thought for a moment that he was reading my notes.

The purpose of the three amendments is to ensure that the housing priority of the applicant is given the highest importance. The hon. Members for Bath and for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned the difficulties that local authorities have. While they have a duty to look after the homeless, they also have a clear duty to look after their tenants. We have to draw a fine line within the Bill. If we draw the line too widely, the homeless will suffer, but if we draw it too narrowly, the existing tenants will suffer in the ways that both hon. Members have suggested.

What we are trying to do with this amendment is to ensure that the reasons and needs that the Government set out in the housing Green Paper are reflected in the Bill. I have looked quickly at Government amendments Nos. 106 to 108, and it seems to me that the difficulties that we tried to address in amendments No. 81 and 82 have been considered very closely and have been dealt with. I will not take any more of the Committee's time and I will not press my amendment, should the Minister satisfy me that the Government amendments cover the points that have been raised.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I fully endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said with such eloquence.

Mixed tenure is a positive reason for our amendments. It is an important buzz phrase in the housing field, because if we are to prevent social housing from being increasingly ghetto-ised, mixed tenure has to be at least part of the future. However, it can be wholly derailed by antisocial behaviour on the part of so-called neighbours from hell.

I had a case in my constituency, on the imaginatively designed and well-built Kingsmere estate, which replaced some truly dreadful housing. I met with the four housing associations involved before a brick was laid, so that everyone was clear on tenanting policy—a of owner occupation, shared ownership and rented social housing. I suppose that it was inevitable that, early in its life, two or three problem families would somehow find their way on to the new development. The local newspapers carried wall-to-wall coverage about the problems of drugs, threatening behaviour and the half-repaired cars which always seem to feature in such cases. It was a real tragedy, but, after a great deal of effort from the police, social services, housing associations, local counsellors and even myself, the estate is now a happy community and a good example of mixed tenure working well.

That provides a positive reason to support our amendments relating to antisocial neighbours, because unless one is in a position to act quickly and decisively, a downward spiral can start that slowly turns a brand new, expensive and well-designed estate into the sort of estate that faces demolition. We have seen that happen time and again over the years.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

The problem has become more complex because of the right to buy. Many former right-to-buy houses have been sold on to private landlords, so councils find it far more difficult to deal neighbours from hell who have been evicted from public sector properties, but end up in privately rented houses on the same estate. Bolton overcame that problem by starting a mediation service between neighbours, whether in the private or public sector. The service is working extremely well, but the problems remain complicated. On one of our estates, more than 50 per cent. of the homes have been sold through the right to buy.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not deny that the situation is complex—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. However, he should not pretend that the right to buy is always the villain. We are not talking about a problem that solely affects social housing: a dreadful case in my constituency involves private sector rented accommodation in which a tenant with mental problems is causing misery to other tenants. None the less, if mixed tenure is to be one of the solutions for the future, with social housing continuing to exist cheek by jowl with other types of accommodation, we have to give people the powers to deal with so-called neighbours from hell.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

The debate has revealed a broad consensus—albeit a tough-minded one—that local authorities cannot be made subject to an absolute requirement to house people, even if those people in severe need, if the costs to the community of providing that accommodation outweigh the benefits to the individual. It is tough to say that, but we have to carefully avoid the philosophy that holds that a homeless person is necessarily a victim. There may be some homeless people who have victimised other people and so been the authors of their own misfortune. That does not mean that we should not do whatever is possible and practical to overcome the problems to which that gives rise, but we must not always assume that such people's rights are predominant.

We must therefore say bluntly that it may be right in certain circumstances to disqualify people from a tenancy. It is certainly right that in such cases people should have a right of appeal and know the reason for the disqualification and, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, services should exist to remedy the problems that gave rise to that decision. However, all hon. Members will know the type of complaint that can arise from their own constituencies—even in a constituency such as mine, a widely scattered rural constituency stretching across the Pennines; one can have areas with many of the characteristics of inner-city areas even in small market towns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and other hon. Friends are right to say that it takes only two or three profoundly disruptive families for an entire estate to become almost uninhabitable. Our surgeries are besieged by people who do not come bleating for charity but who ask why we cannot get rid of those who are causing the problems, so that they can lead a modestly civilised existence. A nuisance may sometimes seem relatively minor, such as refusal to control dogs, the amount of dog dirt left around, children, noise or abuse, but the range includes more significant issues such as allegations of drug dealing with people using premises as temporary accommodation and leaving syringes outside and so on. The litany does not require much imagination, because it is invoked repeatedly in our surgeries. Local authorities have to uphold the standards and quality of life on estates. If, in the hope of improving the life of one family or group of people, they take deliberate action that degrades the life of many people, they take a risk that any social, actuarial assessment might demonstrate to be wrong.

I am therefore sympathetic to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath, although I realise that his amendment is exploratory and that the Government's amendments have rendered it redundant. I am equally sympathetic to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne and for East Worthing and Shoreham about the need to ensure that advantage may be taken of areas in which housing provision is in surplus—although I caution against the assumption that people from London would necessarily find it easy to accommodate themselves to the rigours of Bradford or that the people of Bradford would expect people from London to do so.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Disgraceful slur.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether the slur is directed at Bradford or at London. In my constituency, Bradford is regarded as virtually a London suburb.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

As I was born in Bradford, I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a care.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for Bradford to survive in the premier league this season, although I fear that that expectation may be one goal too far.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

And I fear that we are wandering into the realms of fantasy.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

There is a fantasy league, Mr. Gale, as you know.

The serious point is that local authorities should be able to co-operate. In fact much co-operation exists between neighbouring or relatively neighbouring authorities. Westminster, for example, builds houses south of the river and there is an agreement about the division of accommodation allocated by Westminster and by the host authority. One must be cautious before assuming that one can move people up and down the A1 and expect them to settle. People are very particular; there are such things as local communities. When I was doing the Minister's job, I remember that there were parts of Bradford that had effectively become controlled by single criminal families. The local housing was controlled and, if the local authority tried to allocate a house to someone who did not meet the family's approval, they were bombed out. It sounds brutal, but that is the reality in some places.

I am sure that the Minister will explain his amendments, which go some way towards meeting the demands of the hon. Member for Bath, and which are entirely compatible with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends. The sum of it all is that we must not assume that a homeless person is inevitably and necessarily a victim. We must also assume that responsibility must go to a wider community, which sometimes means taking rather tough decisions about individuals for the benefit of the broader constituency for which the local authority is responsible.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I know that our morning sitting is coming to an end, Mr. Gale, so I wish to add my thanks to those of other hon. Members for your characteristically humorous and effective chairmanship of our Committee. We shall miss you this afternoon, but we shall be delighted to see Mr. Stevenson. Sadly, we cannot have both of you in tandem.

I hope that I will not incur your wrath, Mr Gale, if I briefly allude to our geographical excursion to Bradford. There does seem to be an extraordinary Bradford connection in this Committee. The hon. Member for Eastbourne announced that he was born in Bradford, and I must confess—this sounds like even more of a fantasy— that I spent a year of my life living in a caravan in Bradford some 51 years ago.

Amendments Nos. 77, 91, 83, 92 and 96 seek to vary the levels of preference of priority that different groups might attract, to change the balance between the various factors or to specify new factors that might be taken into account when assessing finer degrees of preference or priority.

We are in search of the four Ps: the perfect preference prioritising process. However, like the treasure at the end of the rainbow, which the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) will be pursuing that next week as she plays the lead in a well-known entertainment—

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The Wizard of Oz.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Like treasure at the end of the rainbow, it would elude us. We have established a vast, transparent and objective framework within which local authorities can come to balanced and fair judgements. The framework provides authorities with the flexibility to take account of local circumstance and the particulars of individual cases. It requires authorities to make balanced judgements, taking into account many factors. Authorities will not always make the right decisions; no one and no system is perfect and no system is foolproof. However, given a sound framework and discretion, local authorities have a better chance of getting it right than if the Government try to dictate every detail of every scheme.

Amendment No. 77 seeks to remove from the factors that the scheme may allow to be taken into account:

``any behaviour of a person or a member of his household which affects his suitability to be a tenant''.

The hon. Member for Bath is mistaken in proposing that amendment. It cannot be right that local authorities should be required to give reasonable preference to individuals who behave outrageously. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman would seriously argue that a violent, destructive, vindictive racist yob should be awarded reasonable preference.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that I placed firmly on record my view on that in an earlier intervention on the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I understand that, but the amendment is on the amendment paper in the hon. Gentleman's name and I do think that it is misguided. It would undermine the whole framework underlying local crime and disorder strategies and the use of antisocial behaviour orders to tackle such intolerable behaviour problems. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, quite rightly, that in some cases the homeless are not necessarily the victims. They may be homeless as a result of eviction because they have intimidated whole neighbourhoods and made other people's lives a misery. We must take account of that.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven O'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two O'clock.

Standing Committee D

Homes Bill

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

Before we continue our deliberations, I remind the Committee that we must conclude our proceedings by Five o'clock. I should also advise the Committee that under the provisions of Sessional Order D on programming, at the end of today's proceedings I must adjourn Committee forthwith, without putting the Question that I do report the Bill the House. Clause 27 PMS and PDS lists

Clause 27 - PMS and PDS lists

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

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 91, in page 17, line 34, at end insert

`or another authority's district'.

No. 83, in page 17, line 34, at end insert

`save that the factors may not be taken into account in any case where to do so would be unreasonable having regard to the need of the person or household for an allocation of housing accommodation.'

No. 92, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—

`( ) any record of behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'

No. 96, in page 17, line 47, after `accommodation', insert

`which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district'

Government amendments Nos. 106 to 108.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

When we broke up for lunch I was explaining to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) why amendment No. 77 was inappropriate. When I referred to the type of undesirable person who should not have automatic access to council housing, he promptly rose to his feet. Of course, I would not have made any such association.

I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that Govt amendment No. 106 is an additional provision and not, as he implied in his comments, a substitution for subsection (2A)(b), which is amendment No.77 seeks to remove. Individuals must face the consequences of their actions. That is essential for stable communities and a safe environment and for bringing home to those who behave badly that their behaviour will not be tolerated. However, I repeat that the provision is not a basis for backdoor blanket exclusions; it relates to the determination of priorities and each individual application will be considered on its own merit. That will involve a careful balancing of factors, including the seriousness of the behaviour and the applicants' housing need.

Amendment No. 91 would seem to be redundant. It would allow an authority to take account of a local connection between a person and another authority's district. One has to ask why. If it is envisaged that reduced priority would be given to those coming from outside the area, that can already be achieved under (2A)(c) by giving increased priority to locally connected individuals. Although they make some bizarre proposals, I do not honestly think that Opposition Members are actually suggesting that we should give higher priority to people without a local connection. I do not genuinely believe that is the purpose of their amendment. Of course, if there is a good reason to do so, in specific circumstances, there is nothing to stop an authority making such provisions. Subsection (2A) already makes specific provision for authorities to specify factors that may be taken into account.

Amendment No. 96 is closely related. I am keen that authorities should work together to enable allocations to be made across local authority boundaries, which seems to be in the spirit of this amendment. People's choices about where to live do not always fit neatly within administrative boundaries and there will be frequently be excellent reasons for seeking accommodation outside the authority in which an applicant is currently situated. Of course, facilitating movement from areas of high demand to areas of low demand areas make eminent good sense. Although I am not against the spirit of the amendment, it does not seem necessary to include it in the Bill. An authority's policy on offering people a choice of housing implicitly includes its policies in relation to its own accommodation and its arrangements with other authorities.

Amendment No. 92 also seems superfluous. Its effect is surely covered by subsection (2A)(b), which deals with behaviour that affects a person's suitability to be a tenant. Although I understand the intentions behind amendment No. 83, which was moved with admirable clarity and brevity by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), it does not add anything to the current proposals. In law, local authorities must act reasonably in balancing the factors to be taken into account against the needs of a person or household. So there is no need for the amendment.

We are introducing the Government amendments where we now feel that the drafting of the Bill has not achieved our original policy intentions. I am grateful to hon. Members who have helped identify matters that needed clarification or development. I begin with amendment No. 106. Members of the Committee will recall previous debates about the importance of housing authorities not being able to impose blanket bans on particular categories of applicant. As I have already said, we are maintaining a clear policy on that and I am confident that the provisions of the Bill ensure that there will be no scope for authorities to introduce such bans. However, there is another side to the issue. There may be circumstances in which an authority has reasonable grounds for deciding that it will not allocate housing to a person because that person is unsuitable to be a tenant of that particular authority, or because he or she is unsuitable to be a tenant generally. I am advised that it is inherent in the provisions of part VI that authorities have the power to make such a decision where the circumstances justify that. That is a normal and reasonable function for any landlord.

However, I am anxious to ensure that authorities have the scope to decide not to allocate accommodation when faced with an applicant who has recently been evicted from their home by the courts because of unacceptable antisocial behaviour and there is every reason to believe that their behaviour has not changed and is not likely to change in the immediate future. Such households may well be owed a duty under section 190(2) of the Housing Act 1996 if they have dependent children in their household; that duty applies to applicants who have priority need, but have made themselves intentionally homeless. Authorities must accommodate them for a brief, temporary period to give them an opportunity to find accommodation for themselves, and must also provide advice and assistance. Quite rightly, we have included applicants who are owed the section 190(2) duty in the categories of housing applicants who must be given reasonable preference. Those categories are intended to include everyone in housing need, and there is no greater housing need than actually being homeless.

By no means are all households who have become homeless intentionally likely to be unsuitable tenants of social housing. Some may have acted foolishly, for example, by taking on more than they could cope with: one thinks of a home owner who has over-extended himself on a mortgage, and then lost his home because he could not keep up the mortgage payments. In some circumstances, applicants may be deemed to have made themselves homeless intentionally, although I stress that those who are homeless in consequence of mortgage or rent arrears should not routinely be treated as intentionally homeless. My point is that if anyone were judged in such circumstances to have made themselves intentionally homeless, it would be wholly unreasonable to deny them any preference for housing allocations. We need to remember that all those owed the section 190(2) duty will have a priority need for accommodation, and many will be families with children.

My concern is to ensure that authorities maintain the discretion to decide not to give preference to applicants who have recently been evicted for antisocial behaviour, even if they are owed the section 190(2) duty, and other applicants whom the authorities consider unsuitable because of their unsuitable behaviour. That is what the amendment will provide. The authority will need to be satisfied that the applicant was unsuitable: unsuitability would have to be as a result of unacceptable behaviour on the part of either the applicant or a member of his or her household. A decision on unsuitability would need to be based on the circumstances at the time of the decision—authorities could not simply refer back to previous unacceptable behaviour without considering whether the circumstances have now changed for the better. The hon. Member for Bath generously acknowledged that that was clearly provided for in the amendment.

As to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, that will be defined by reference to the forms of behaviour that would give grounds for a possession order being granted in the court against a secure tenant. By way of examples, ground 1 applies where there is significant rent arrears or serious breach of tenancy obligations; ground 2 applies where the tenant or another resident has caused serious nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, or been convicted of using the accommodation, or allowing it to be used, for immoral or illegal purposes, such as drug dealing; and ground 3 applies where the property has been seriously damaged or neglected by the tenant or other residents.

I am conscious of the concerns that have been voiced by the hon. Member for Bath, who has picked up concerns expressed by Shelter about whether individuals who were evicted for rent arrears, possibly in cases where they did not get their housing benefit, might fall into that category. That is neither our intention nor, as I hope to demonstrate, will it be the effect of the amendment. In the first place, the definition makes it clear that we are talking about circumstances in which an authority is entitled to a possession order, not where it has simply applied for one. The courts have considerable discretion. If someone has only a trivial level of rent arrears, it is normal for the courts either not to award possession or to grant only a suspended order to allow him an opportunity to pay the arrears.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister makes a point that I confess had not occurred to me. How would we know that the authority was entitled to such a possession order had the matter had not gone been tested in court?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am coming to precisely that point. We are setting a series of tests that will have to be satisfied. Then we come to the point about review procedures that we debated on Tuesday evening. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the provisions that we have made to ensure that any such decisions will be subject to review so that an aggrieved applicant would have the opportunity for his case to be considered.

Let me continue. I was talking about the definition. First, the authority cannot simply apply for a possession order; it must be entitled to it. Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that any review body, let alone a court, would regard the applicant's behaviour as unacceptable if he or she had been evicted for rent arrears that were due to housing benefit delay. It would be a clear case that those were circumstances outside the individual's control and not unacceptable behaviour.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister says that such circumstances are absolutely clear, but in reality they are not as clear as he suggests. I am sure that he has seen briefings from Shelter and others giving examples where the case has not been clear.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It would be absolutely clear to the review body, or the court, that if someone had been evicted because of rent arrears that were caused by the failure of the authority to pay housing benefit, that would not make him unsuitable to be granted accommodation due to unacceptable behaviour. At that point there would be absolute clarity. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the test is not the fact of having been evicted, but the applicant's unacceptable behaviour. That test applies at the point of application, not in the past.

Thirdly, even where someone is evicted for rent arrears only, rather than for other reasons, the background is sometimes more complex. While the hon. Gentleman made the point quite reasonably that the overwhelming cause of possession actions is rent arrears, he will equally be aware that in a number of cases local authorities apply for possession on grounds of rent arrears because it is easier to secure that than to prove antisocial behaviour. If someone has been intimidating witnesses, for example, it may be impossible for the local authority to provide supporting evidence to get a possession order on those grounds. If we had limited the definition to possession on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, we would undoubtedly exclude certain people who have been guilty of perpetrating appalling behaviour, but have been evicted on grounds of rent arrears. That is the reason for choosing the wider framework.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bath and all members of the Committee will recognise that the amendment strengthens the Bill to deal with circumstances in which an individual who had been recently evicted for unacceptable behaviour could apply to the authority as homeless and in priority need and, in circumstances where the authority had little or no pressure on its housing stock, could claim that even if he had low priority the authority should provide him with accommodation. I think that everyone accepts that it would be nonsense to have a revolving door situation whereby an authority was unable to pursue action against someone who was guilty of completely unacceptable behaviour and was terrorising his neighbourhood and then used this mechanism to get straight back into council housing. That would not be an acceptable policy.

Turning to amendment No. 107, when the Committee met last Tuesday there was a very detailed debate about whether there was a need for applicants to have a right to request a review of decisions made by the authority concerning their application for accommodation. The hon. Member for Bath spoke eloquently in support of amendment No. 75 and proposed new clause 5. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I argued rather strongly against the need for a right of review solely around the issue of eligibility for an allocation under part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Some, therefore, may have been surprised that we tabled this amendment. Let me explain.

The effect of amendment No. 75 and new clause 5 would have been to give applicants a right to request a review of an authority's decision that he was ineligible for an allocation of accommodation by virtue of the new provisions in section 160A(3) or (5). I remain of the view that this area of decision-making is largely a question of good administration based on the facts of the case. However, during the debate, the hon. Member for Bath argued very persuasively for a wider right of review in respect of other decision by the authority concerning, for example, the applicant's relative priority for an allocation and any decisions as to the factors mentioned in new section 167(2A), such as financial resources, behaviour affecting suitability, and local connections. Those were not the subject of amendment No. 75 or new clause 5, which would not have extended the review in such circumstances. My remarks concerned the application of new clause 5 and amendment No. 75.

Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Bath has probably already guessed, I had already come to the view that there should be a right for applicants to seek a review of the interpretation of facts taken into account by a local authority in determining their applications. That should cover decisions about whether they must be given reasonable preference; whether they merit additional preference; and whether any other factors, including those set out in section 167(2A), should be taken into account.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As this is an amendment to clause 27, can the Minister confirm that the right of review that he describes does not apply to the issue of eligibility, which we discussed at some length, where eligibility refers to two different categories? One is immigration control and I have forgotten the correct term for the other, but it is used in immigration legislation. I draw his attention to clause 25(2) and the proposed new clause 160(5) which introduces another set of categories of ineligibility in addition to those that we discussed earlier, which the Secretary of State can introduce by regulation, so we do not even know what they are likely to be. Would they be covered by the review?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman has jumped slightly ahead. I was going to give him some good news. If he will bear with me, I will come to all those points.

The amendment provides that allocation schemes must be framed so that an applicant will have the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of his case, which is likely to be, or has already been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing accommodation. Those are all the facts of the case whether they are relevant to matters covered by the legislation, the code of guidance, or the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State.

I hope that I have answered the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions. No doubt he will seek to take some credit for the amendment. My team can work very fast, but not that fast. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the amendments were tabled only a few hours after our debates on Tuesday afternoon. The proposed change was already in the pipeline, and work in progress was well advanced. However, I will give the hon. Gentleman credit for persuading me to reconsider whether decisions on eligibility should be included in the right of review. The right of review provided by the amendment will extend to such a decision, which will have to be the first decision that an authority makes in the process of deciding whether to allocate accommodation to an individual applicant. I hope that the amendment gives the hon. Member for Bath what he wants, and justifies the e-mail that he intends sending. It also helps to ensure that allocation schemes must be as clear and transparent as possible and therefore help to deliver the Government's policy aims.

Amendment No. 108 changes an aspect of the Bill that currently does not achieve the intended policy. As currently drafted, subsection (4) requires that when a housing authority notifies a homeless applicant of the results of its inquiries into his application under part VI of the 1996 Act, the notice must be accompanied by a copy of the statement of the allocation scheme about the policy for offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under part VI. The provision ensures that homeless applicants who are accepted as being owed a main duty—and who, consequently, must be secured temporary accommodation by the authority until a settled housing solution can be found—are clear about what they can expect in the way of choice.

Clause 24 as currently drafted does not completely achieve that policy aim. It requires authorities to provide such a statement to accompany the statutory notice that it must give to all homeless applicants about the outcome of their application. That includes not only those who will be secured temporary accommodation pending something more settled, but applicants who are found to be not homeless, and those who, although homeless, are owed only a duty to provide advice and assistance. Such a wide obligation is unnecessary, and would be unduly burdensome on authorities and confusing to applicants.

To put matters right, amendment No. 109 will insert provisions in schedule 2 that will place a more limited requirement on authorities to provide a statement about their policy on choice in respect only of applicants who are owed the main rehousing duty under sections 193 and 195 of the 1996 Act. We are not dealing with amendment No. 109 now, as it also covers another issue and has been placed in a subsequent group of amendments, but I thought it was right to explain the effect of amendment No. 108.

The framework set out in the clause is robust and fair. It provides a transparent and systematic set of arrangements for assessing need, preference categories and priorities. The Government amendments will bolster and strengthen that framework. On that basis, I ask Opposition Members to withdraw amendments Nos. 77, 91, 83, 92 and 96, and I commend amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108 to the Committee.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, although I cannot say I followed it all. I noted the reassurance he gave that decisions of local authorities have to be reasonable. The concern behind amendment No. 83 is about the formulation of the clause, particularly new subsection (2A)(b), which relates to

any behaviour of a person . . . which affects his suitability to be a tenant.

That gives a very wide scope for authorities to reduce the priority given to people, possibly unfairly, for a wide variety of reasons. The hon. Member for Bath referred to people who have rent arrears.

I seek further reassurance from the Minster that applications will be given less priority only when it reasonable to do so, taking into account housing need.

That is the important part. Will authorities have to take housing need into account before they take that decision?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I can give him exactly the assurance that he seeks. It will be inherent in the system that authorities must take account of all relevant factors, including housing need. The specific provision of amendment No. 106 relates to people who have been evicted for antisocial behaviour. We had to ensure that the provision under which authorities will take into account housing need does not override very sound reasons for denying access to accommodation to people who have behaved in a completely unacceptable way and would be likely to make their neighbours' lives a misery if re-housed. That is the very specific and exceptional circumstance provided for under amendment No. 106. It is necessary because, as part of the general provisions, housing need is one of the factors that must be taken into account.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I had finished, but I thank the Minister for that reassurance.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister has gone some way to addressing some of the concerns that we raised, especially about the review process, which we should also take some of the credit for, however much he may like to keep it all for himself. We certainly flagged up this problem some time ago.

As regards the Minister's account of dealing with unsociable behaviour, this matter has only just come up in his amendment, so we need to look into it more closely. I hope that we shall have the opportunity on Report to debate this matter in rather more detail than we were able to do today, although given the time constraints I fear that may be unlikely. We still contend that our own amendment, which gives rather more leeway for local authorities to decide what is unsuitable behaviour, is a better way to proceed, but given the detail in which the Minister has addressed that problem, we will not press our amendment.

The Minister gave only cursory attention to our other two amendments regarding out-of-district allocation, although I note his support in principle for the amendment that seeks to foster closer relationships between authorities who have a larger supply of housing and those on whom there are the pressures that we all know about. I am not convinced that our proposal should not appear in the Bill, and the case he made was slightly flimsy on those grounds, but again he has acknowledged the principle, and I hope that he will push for such a measure behind the scenes and include it in the guidance that he will issue to local authorities.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the point about bad neighbours is that we should face up to the fact that local authorities should have the right to disqualify people from tenancies if they have an appalling record as tenants. Where I take issue with the Minister is on the framing of the Bill. Our amendment No. 92 says

``any record of behaviour of a person''

whereas the Bill only refers to

``any behaviour''.

That may be a person's current behaviour affecting his suitability to be a tenant, so the Bill does not empower local authorities to take account of a person's previous behaviour as a tenant, and he may temporarily appear to be all sweetness and light.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under our amendment, local authorities are able to take previous factors into account, but they must make their decision on the basis of the applicant's current position. They cannot use the fact that he was evicted several years before for antisocial behaviour to debar him from consideration if there is clear evidence that he has improved his behaviour in the meantime. I gave an example in Committee on Tuesday of circumstances in which it would be quite reasonable for someone who had been evicted for antisocial behaviour to be given another chance because of a change of heart and a change in behaviour, and that is what is provided for in this measure.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I take the Minister's point. In terms of the wording of the Bill, however, I cannot see how the record will count pari passu with the rehabilitative process that has led to a former neighbour from hell becoming a model neighbour. In view of the detail the Minister has given, we shall not press the amendment to a vote, but we will want to revisit the issue in more detail when we have had more time to consider Government amendments, on Report and thereafter.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We have had a fascinating debate, which began with the drab Christmas tree of amendment No. 77, on to which a large number of bright lights were subsequently hung by both sides of the Committee. It has shown the valuable work of the Committee in its best light.

As a result of a probing amendment, the Minister has been willing to listen to contributions from Government Back Benchers and from Opposition Members. That has resulted in significant changes to earlier Government proposals. The Minister also referred to a later concession that the Government will make in relation to advice. Again, that was a result of concerted efforts by both sides of the Committee. I shall welcome that change of heart at the appropriate time.

The Minister said that I may be able to take some credit from that. It is important to place on record that every Committee member should be grateful for the way in which each of us have been supported by a range of organisations outside this House. I draw special attention to Shelter—which has been referred to on a number of occasions—for providing all Committee members with extremely good briefing material, which, I would argue, was responsible for the amendments tabled by the Minister today. I am not claiming credit for myself; I was merely able to be the mouthpiece for that organisation in the work that it has done, as were other Committee members.

I am absolutely delighted by Government amendment No. 107. I am especially delighted by the Minister's interpretation of the amendment, as it showed that it will cover the issue of eligibility in relation to clause 25.

The Minister also acknowledged the merits of the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, such as that on relationships to other authorities. Although he was not prepared to accept the amendment, he placed firmly on the record his view that such an inter-authority relationship is valuable and can provide enormous assistance to homeless households.

The main issue raised by the clause relates to the various categories that local authorities can use to reduce the priority of applicants. I acknowledge that Government amendment No. 106, as presented by the Minister, is not a replacement for, but an expanded definition of proposed new subsection (2A)(b). Progress has been made, and I welcome the expansion of the definition and the further interpretation of the definition provided by his remarks, but I continue to have concerns about what he said.

I am mindful of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who summed up the debate very eloquently when he talked about the need for balance. We should balance our concern about the situation of the homeless with the needs of members of particular communities who may be affected by inappropriate behaviour of people allocated housing in their community. Both sides of the Committee have struggled to find a way of achieving that balance, and I am still not convinced that the Government's amendment No. 106 does so, because there are some quite serious technical difficulties with it.

Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister shakes his head, which is not surprising. He obviously believes that everything that he has proposed is correct. That is not the case, as he himself has admitted. He said that he had been convinced that the Bill did not achieve the Government's policy intentions. I suggest to him that amendment No. 106 is in the same category, because it will not achieve his policy intentions. The Minister admitted only a few minutes ago that this is work in progress. I remind him that that was the very phrase that he used during our debate on Second Reading. Amendment No. 106, welcome though it is as an improvement to the Bill, is nevertheless still work in progress.

I shall give just one example to illustrate why I believe that further work is necessary. Amendment No. 106 says in proposed new subsection (2AC):

``For this purpose `unacceptable behaviour` means behaviour which, if the person concerned were a secure tenant of the authority, would entitle the authority to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 on any ground mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (other than Ground 8).''

The critical word is ``entitle'': it would ``entitle'' the authority to a possession order. I asked the Minister how anybody would know whether the behaviour would entitle the authority to a possession order without the court having considered the matter. The Minister acknowledged that in 1999 there were 130,000 requests by local authorities for possession orders, and only 23,000 were granted. Surely the test of whether the authority is entitled to the order can be determined only when the court has studied the case.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there was an enormous difference between the number of possession orders sought and the number granted. The use of the word ``entitled'' is to make it quite clear to a local authority when operating these provisions that it cannot merely rest on the fact that it has sought or may seek a possession order in a particular case. To satisfy this test, it must show that it should be entitled to secure an order, which means that it must show that it has sufficient grounds to be confident that it will obtain an order. That is part of the process. We are trying to create a clear, precise definition that will avoid the problems that would otherwise arise if authorities were able to interpret this provision widely and indiscriminately. Without this amendment, someone evicted for atrocious antisocial behaviour could be put straight back into council housing. We do not want that practice to continue. I hope the hon. Member will accept that that is a necessary policy objective, and that we are pursuing the correct approach to achieve that balance.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I accept entirely that the policy objective is correct, but the debate about whether the amendment truly achieves it. There are two problems with what the Minister has just said. First, both of us acknowledge that local authorities did not expect to be granted all the 130,000 requests for possession orders, but they thought that they would try. However, surely the Minister does not believe that they did not expect to win the vast majority of them. In the vast majority of cases, the authority expected to win, but could not convince the court of its case. In cases in which authorities thought that they had sufficient evidence but did not secure the possession order, they could not demonstrate that they had a sufficient case. The Minister said that they would have to show that they had sufficient evidence for the entitlement. To whom would they have to show that?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I made the point previously and am reluctant to extend the debate too far, as we have many matters to cover this afternoon. I stressed that any local authority that took a decision would be open first to a review and secondly to a challenge in the courts. Therefore, any authority that applies will have to satisfy what is of necessity quite a rigorous test.

The hon. Gentleman deals with many such cases and will know that the seeking of a possession order is often a management tool used by local authorities to secure payment. It is used as a means to get people to pay their rent. If they pay their rent, there is no question of the authority being entitled to a possession order, so that could not conceivably apply.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister makes the point that other legislation needs to be changed, so that we do not have to waste the courts' time as a cumbersome means of addressing the issue—but that is a separate point.

I am conscious of the time, so I want to make a rather unusual suggestion to the Minister, which may never have been made by an Opposition Member to the Government. The Minister has tabled amendment No. 106 with very little notice. There will be an opportunity to reconsider the issue in a few days' time on Report. Given that I will certainly withdraw amendment No. 77, I ask the Minister to consider whether to give more time for consideration of the issue. He might also be willing to withdraw amendment No. 106, albeit briefly, to give more time for deliberation. Whatever the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 17, line 43, at end insert—

`(2AA) Nothing in subsection (2) requires the scheme to provide for any preference to be given to people to whom subsection (2AB) applies.

(2AB) This subsection applies to a person if the authority are satisfied (in the light of the circumstances at the time his case is considered) that he is unsuitable to be a tenant owing to unacceptable behaviour on his part or that of a member of his household.

(2AC) For this purpose ``unacceptable behaviour'' means behaviour which, if the person concerned were a secure tenant of the authority, would entitle the authority to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 on any ground mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (other than Ground 8).'.

No. 107, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—

`(2AD) The scheme shall be framed so as to secure that a person who has applied to the authority for an allocation of housing accommodation has the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of his case (including a decision as to his suitability as a tenant) which is likely to be, or has been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing accommodation to him.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

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

I call amendment No. 108. No, I am getting ahead of myself. I call Mr. Waterson to move amendment No. 97.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 17, line 40, at end insert—

`(2C) The authority shall be able to suspend subsections (2) to (2B) where it can reasonably show that to operate its terms would have a detrimental effect on the provision of local housing needs.'.

My whole life flashed before me for a moment, Mr. Stevenson. It would be a major hole in my life if I were unable to move this amendment, which I now do with inordinate pleasure and suitable humility.

The amendment represents another attempt to make the Bill recognise local variations in demand and supply, particularly in the supply of housing stock. The Local Government Association report to which I have referred says:

``A shortage of the supply of suitable accommodation, notably in London and the South East, means that the extension of the right to housing for all non-priority homeless people would present real difficulties within the level of available resources.

In other parts of the country, however, non-priority homeless people can be allocated quickly to accommodation although this accommodation may not be highly desirable and they may not view it, or treat it, as a permanent home.''

We all recognise that as a cogent description of the regional variations that exist in the real world of housing allocation.

It may assist you, Mr. Stevenson, if I say that I do not intend to speak for long on this amendment, but I may roam slightly generally, which will obviate the need for a stand part debate. It would wrong not to have a canter through the Delft system before we conclude our deliberations.

The LGA concludes that

``Authorities should also be given greater flexibility to develop locally sensitive allocations policies within the broad framework set by the housing register and allocations scheme''

and that

``There may be a case for an approach here of considering different approaches at regional or individual local authority level depending on the availability of accommodation in those areas.''

We can probably all agree with that. I repeat the example of my own borough council in Eastbourne where the average wait for a home allocation is currently three to four years. The council will shortly change the rules to allow children to be placed in flats, and it is hoped that that will reduce the wait to two to three years; we shall have to see.

Having spoken to Councillor Mrs. Ann Murray, the lead cabinet member for housing in Eastbourne, I know that the council is also keen on the choice-based system. I do not know how far that has got formally, but it is lining up for one of the Government's pilot schemes. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his reply rather than in the stand part debate. I cannot help feeling that it is difficult to see how such a choice-based system, which is often referred to in shorthand as the Delft system, will deliver with any confidence in an area such as mine where there is such an enormous imbalance between demand and supply of housing stock. In a nutshell, the Delft system involves the advertising of housing vacancies almost as if they were private houses for rent in the private sector. It is a system that works well not only in Delft but no doubt in other local authorities in Holland—which are doubtless cheesed off that it is has been called after Delft rather than anywhere else.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Edam.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Edam is of course known for its cheese. Delft has to be known for something; I seem to recall that it is for some sort of chinaware.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Yes—it is blue.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am pleased to hear that, as well as the ducks, there is Delft pottery on the walls of my right hon. Friend's constituency home.

Closer to home, there is a section in the Government document about piloting choice-based systems. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's detailed thoughts on that. A form of pilot scheme is taking place in Harborough, supported by the centre for comparative housing research at De Montfort university—which obviously intends to persist in its name despite the bad press that Simon de Montfort has recently received because of his views on minorities. That scheme is based on the principles of the Delft model of social housing allocation. The emphasis of the Harborough scheme, which has been given the brand name of Harborough home search, is on providing customers with greater choice by advertising. It is hoped to develop the scheme by advertising vacancies on a website—which leads on to the enormously important but not particularly relevant issue of internet access. Customers return coupons for individual properties, and what are called simple and straightforward criteria are used in determining allocations.

One of the scheme's selling points is said to be a high level of transparency—a theme that has washed through many of the debates on other amendments. In its summary of the scheme, the LGA report states:

``Particular attention has been given to ensuring that vulnerable households are given additional preference''

and are given a priority registration card and so on. It concludes:

``Vulnerable and homeless households are thus given a much greater degree of choice than under traditional systems.''

The Government have said that they intend to establish a small fund to support a number of pilot schemes.

To summarise my arguments, I wish to press the Minister on how far the schemes have gone and raise the conceptual problem of how the Delft system will operate in Eastbourne and other places where demand for housing is high and supply is low.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We believe that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially open to abuse. It would allow an authority to suspend the framework for allocating preference and priority to needy groups and to individuals within those groups. In areas of low demand, for example, authorities might find it unnecessary to operate a rigorous and testing prioritising process, but in those circumstances they would be able to offer a home to any eligible applicant whose behaviour or circumstances did not preclude allocation. There is no need to suspend the framework, as it does not affect the allocation process.

Our proposals already allow for the operation of local lettings schemes. Under section 167(2B)(b) of the 1996 Act, authorities are able to allocate particular housing accommodation to persons of a particular description in accordance with schemes known as ``local lettings schemes'', which could include key worker schemes where it might help attract modestly paid but essential staff to high-cost areas. Such a scheme might be used to lower the child:adult ratio on an estate with a high child density. The scheme might also be operated to provide housing for those who do not usually receive high priority on an authority's register—young single people, for example.

It is important to keep such schemes under review and to monitor their impact on those who are not part of the local lettings schemes. Local lettings schemes should not override the reasonable preference categories across an authority's stock when taken as a whole. I cannot envisage what circumstances could justify or require the amendment.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked about choice-based pilot schemes and his own authority in Eastbourne. Local authorities were invited to bid for funding under an £11 million challenge fund over three years from April 2001. More than 90 bids have been received: about 25 per cent. of all housing authorities have led bids and many more are involved as partners. Bids have come from areas of high and low demand. Almost half of all London authorities have led bids; as have 70 per cent. of metropolitan authorities, 50 per cent. of unitary authorities and 12 per cent. of district authorities. Bids have been received from areas in which full transfer has taken place and from those where the authority is still the main provider of social housing. The value of all the bids currently received is about £33 million and by the end of March we expect to be able to announce which bids have been successful.

Eastbourne has applied—

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

And has no chance.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It will be assessed along with the other bids, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am delighted to hear the Minister's confirmation that Eastbourne is on the list and I hope that it will not immediately be discarded on account of my probing amendment. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter and I hope that the Minister is grateful for the opportunity to deal with it. On the basis of my rudimentary arithmetic, the scheme is three times oversubscribed, so about 60 local authorities will be disappointed. I sincerely hope that Eastbourne will not be one of them. As a quid pro quo as I know that the Government like a deal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 17, line 41, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr.Raynsford.]

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 debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos.68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Minor and consequential amendments

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—

`. In section 190(2)(b) and (3) (provision of advice and assistance), for ``advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances'' there is substituted ``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.

In section 192(2) (provision of advice and assistance), for the words from ``advice'' to ``circumstances'' there is substituted ``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.

In section 193 (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) (as substituted by section 21 above) there is inserted—

``(3A) The authority shall, on becoming subject to the duty under this section, give the applicant a copy of the statement included in their allocation scheme by virtue of section 167(1A) (policy on offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under Part VI).'''.

In section 195 (duties in case of threatened homelessness)—

(a) after subsection (3) there is inserted—

``(3A) The authority shall, on becoming subject to the duty under this section, give the applicant a copy of the statement included in their allocation scheme by virtue of section 167(1A) (policy on offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under Part VI)'''; and

(b) in subsection (5), for the words from ``furnish'' to ``circumstances'' there is substituted ``provide him with (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.'.

We had a very useful debate on Tuesday about the provisions relating to advice and assistance. I agreed that there was merit in strengthening the current duty to move away from the overly subjective requirement for the authority to provide such advice and assistance as the authority considers appropriate in the circumstances and towards a more objective test. To that end I undertook to table an amendment to schedule 2 for consideration today and this is that amendment.

I made the point that the wording

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

appears in other provisions in the 1996 Act and that it is desirable to have consistency in the wording throughout the legislation. The amendment offers a useful strengthening of the existing duty. In each of the cases where the current duty is to provide

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

there is substituted

``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.

That means that local authorities will no longer be able to turn applicants away without providing any advice or assistance on the grounds that none

``was considered appropriate in the circumstances''.

The amendment will address some of the problems identified in Shelter's study ``Singles Barred'' that we discussed at some length on Tuesday.

I know there are still concerns that authorities may be turning people away without assessing their needs. Where this is the case, then authorities are not carrying out their current statutory duties. Under section 184 of the 1996 Act, where an authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy itself as to whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and, if so, whether any duty is owed. We will, in the code of guidance, give further advice about how authorities can best respond to that clear existing duty.

We have also taken the opportunity of the amendment to make it clear that local authorities may provide advice and assistance through third parties such as advice centres. That will enable applicants to access best possible specialist advice. I have in mind help with rent deposit schemes, or landlord referral services and possibly referral to social services. It provides a real opportunity for authorities to develop effective, preventive multi-agency working. I know my that hon. Friends and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), were concerned that applicants should be given

``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''—

that was the wording of her amendment—and that this should be supported by a power for the Secretary of State to specify what constituted ``reasonable advice and assistance''.

I made it clear on Tuesday that I was not attracted to the order-making provision, but I did explore the value of adopting the drafting of

``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''.

However, the legal advice that I have received is quite clear that the courts would be likely to take such

``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''

to be reasonable in the eyes of the local authority. The conclusion was that the proposed drafting would add little, if anything, to the current wording. The formulation that we are offering in amendment No.109 is stronger. It places a clear duty on local authorities to provide or secure advice and assistance to applicants. It is a substantial step forward, and I hope that the change will be welcomed.

I have covered the changes to sections 190(2)(b), 190(3), 192(2) and 195(5). New subsections 193(3A) and 195(3A) deal with another issue.

Amendment No. 108, which has already been agreed to, removes clause 27(4), which required a housing authority to provide all homeless applicants with a statement of its policy on offering choice. As I have already explained, that was inappropriate because it went wider than our policy intention, which is simply to ensure that those who are entitled to a rehousing obligation receive such information. Inserting new subsections 193(3A) and 195(3A) into the 1996 Act secures the original policy objective.

I commend the amendments to the Committee.

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

I am grateful to the Minister. I welcome the amendment as a strengthening of the current duty that potentially removes the degree of subjectivity that I was concerned about when I tabled the original amendment.

In trying to push the Minister to go a little further, I do not expect to be supported by Opposition Members, despite the game-playing that took place on Tuesday in respect of amendment No. 80. We heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) make a coruscating attack on centralised prescription and the pressure that it will put on local authorities when we discussed the amendment that dealt with the priority for ex-offenders.

Will the Minister reassure me about the duty that the amendment will place on local authorities to ensure that no one is turned away without an interview to establish vulnerability? That is the most important element of amendments Nos. 80 and 109.

Given the woeful performance of some local authorities in fulfilling their duties on assistance, will the Minister assure me that the amendment will ensure that nobody is turned away from an advice and assessment centre with no more than a list of alternative accommodation? I am a little concerned that the amendment may allow that still to happen.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I compliment the hon. Lady on an elegant attempt at a tactical withdrawal. The fact is that the original amendment originated from our friends at Shelter, who say:

``we do not believe this amendment''—

that is, the Government amendment—

``goes far enough to address our concern that authorities should be required to deliver a basic minimum level of service.''

Perhaps this should be a lesson to lobby and pressure groups such as Shelter that the average Government Back Bencher is prepared to go only so far in rebelling on issues like this, and are likely to raise the white flag at the first whiff of grapeshot. The hon. Lady remains a little concerned. Let us hope that her little concerns can be allayed by the Minister. I have a sneaking suspicion that they can.

During a previous debate, I quoted at length from the imaginatively titled Shelter report, ``Singles Barred'', which gave examples of people who had received dismal treatment from local authorities.

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

How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his position with that taken by his colleagues on earlier amendments, when they launched attacks on central Government for centralising the placing of duties on local authorities? When he thinks that he can make a little personal point, he is prepared to ally himself with the forces of centralised prescription.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I assure the hon. Lady that it is not a personal point, but a political point.

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. If any hon. Member were making an unparliamentary personal attack on another hon. Member, I can assure members of the Committee that I would step in to stop that.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I fully accept your ruling, but I was referring to the fact that the hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name when he was discussing my position on the earlier amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Indeed, it was a parliamentary attack on the hon. Lady and I make no apology for that. Like every other member of the Committee, she will have to face her own electorate in a few weeks' time.

The report from Shelter is pretty convincing. The original amendment, argued for by the hon. Lady and others, was based on what it considered to be appropriate. Shelter is clearly disappointed by the Minister's solution, but it appears that any majority on the Committee for pursuing the issue further has melted away. Therefore, I cannot take the matter any further.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington North asked for clarification of obligations on local authorities not to turn homeless applicants away without an interview. As I explained earlier, that provision is already contained in existing legislation. It was originally established in the 1977 legislation and carried forward into the 1996 Act. Section 184 makes the position clear. It says:

``If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves—

(a) whether he is eligible for assistance, and

(b) if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him under the following provisions''.

That is the existing law. I accept that the evidence that has been adduced shows that it is not effective in every area, and it is essential that it should be effective. In the code of guidance that will accompany the new legislation and amplify the existing code of guidance we shall emphasise the importance of local authorities accepting their responsibility to all homeless applicants, but we cannot add a further statutory obligation, because one already exists. The important point is to make sure that it works.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that the amendment is sensible. As I said, we believe, on the basis of considerable legal advice, that it is a much stronger and more effective formulation than the one proposed in her amendment. I hope that those who were engaged in promoting it—particularly Shelter—will recognise that. It is our policy objective that all local authorities should ensure that all homeless applicants are properly assessed and receive appropriate support or assistance.

All that I can say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne is that I will never be surprised at the Opposition's ability to move from one position to another, turning the most extraordinary somersaults without showing any shame at the inconsistency of their position.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 24, line 29, leave out ```the' and insert `the ``authority's'.

No. 87, in page 24, line 29, leave out `homelessness' and insert `housing'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

I call new clause 7.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Not moved.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. As you know, we are under the cudgels of a programme resolution and Opposition Ms have tried to curtail our remarks to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to have their day in court. It is amazing that at this late stage Liberal Members should choose not to move the new clauses, when we could have used the time to discuss more important things.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne that during the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee I joined him in seeking to persuade it to extend our deliberations until midnight on our last sitting. We were unsuccessful. Therefore, I hope that he will not continue to accuse me of trying to curtail the debate. May I also point out that there are some important issues still to be debated? I understand that, in particular, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is anxious to have a reasonable debate on his new clause. One reason for my generosity in not moving new clauses 7 and 8 was as a courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, who has not had the opportunity to make a major contribution to the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastbourne is so curmudgeonly about my generosity.

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

Neither of those was a point of order. If the hon. Member for Bath wishes to withdraw the new clauses, that is entirely a matter for him. We now move on to new clause 14. New Clause 14 Whether it is reasonable to continueto occupy accommodation

New Clause 14 - Whether it is reasonable to continueto occupy accommodation

Oona King (Labour, Bethnal Green and Bow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss New Clause 15. New Clause 15 Referral of applicant to another authority

New Clause 15 - Referral of applicant to another authority

Oona King (Labour, Bethnal Green and Bow)

I am pleased to speak to new clauses 14 and 15 as they seek to help victims of racial abuse. Anyone who doubts that tighter legislation in this area is required, need only speak to my constituents, both black and white, who have suffered racially motivated harassment and violence—families whose young children have suffered the most gratuitous and foulest language imaginable. They have had missiles thrown at them, excrement, burning rubbish and petrol bombs pushed through their letterboxes and suffered violent physical attacks. Such abuse takes place daily up and down the country. I sincerely hope that the Committee will take action to offer victims greater protection.

I know of a family with two teenage children living in owner-occupied accommodation who have experienced two years of racial harassment. This culminated in an attack on their home in December. On the night of the attack, their front door bell was rung constantly. When the father opened the door, a group of masked men rushed in, viciously assaulted him, breaking his jaw and his shoulder. When his wife tried to intervene, she was punched in the face. The daughter rushed upstairs to phone the police. The men entered the son's bedroom and assaulted him. They broke his nose, slashed his face and stabbed him twice in the thigh. Throughout the assault, the attackers continued to use racist insults. As a result of the attack, the father and son both needed extensive hospital treatment. The family were severely traumatised and, quite naturally, no longer felt safe in their home.

Six months previously, the local authority was informed by a monitoring group that the family were suffering racial harassment and were at risk of racist violence following an 18-month hate campaign. The local authority took no immediate action, but suggested instead that they maintain a diary. That suggestion has been made to many of my constituents; indeed, I have had to make it myself. The family duly kept a diary, and in the six months leading up to the attack they noted and reported 18 separate incidents of racial harassment. The local authority prepared a case to seek possession of the perpetrator's home, but the action was not followed through. The local authority did not offer to re-house the family, as they were owner-occupiers. After the attack the family were offered emergency temporary accommodation, but they had to turn it down because they were unable to pay the rent for that accommodation and the mortgage on their home.

What would new clause 14 do in such cases? It would amend the Housing Act 1996 so that it would be unreasonable for a person who was experiencing racial harassment to continue to occupy the accommodation in question. In such circumstances, applicants would be regarded as homeless and would be entitled to an assessment to determine whether they were in priority need as defined in the forthcoming regulations.

Fewer than half all local authorities have policies in place to address racial harassment. As many of my colleagues are aware, the authorities that have such policies are limited to initiating protracted eviction proceedings against the perpetrators, or to re-housing existing tenants. That leaves people in the private sector virtually unprotected. New clause 14 would substantially improve their ability to access the homelessness safety net.

It is clear that the existing legislation, which amounts to weakly drafted guidance, does not go far enough to protect those suffering racial violence, let alone those who suffer racial harassment or the threat of racial violence. A household may apply under section 175(3) of the 1996 Act on the ground that it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their accommodation. However, in practice many of those who flee racial violence are unable to use that route to establish that they are homeless. Their future depends on whether their local authority is prepared to exercise its discretion.

I am pleased to say that my own local authority has an excellent track record in that regard. In the past four years, I have come across only two cases in which the authority refused to accept a duty of care. In both cases, the homeless persons unit quickly changed the decision once more substantive evidence of harassment and the threat of violence was produced.

However, it is clear that the example of best practice offered by Tower Hamlets and a small number of other metropolitan authorities is not matched elsewhere. Ministers may well conclude that the way to iron out such anomalies is through clearer secondary regulation or more strongly worded guidance. If an authority cannot take its responsibilities seriously, it needs a little more encouragement.

This issue is too serious to leave to chance. I would argue that a clear parallel can be drawn between the experience of those suffering racial violence and those fleeing domestic violence. Section 177 of the 1996 Act states that it is not reasonable for those who experience domestic violence or the threat of domestic violence to continue to occupy accommodation. Sadly, Shelter's research indicates that authorities are much more likely to help people at risk of domestic violence than those at risk of racial violence. The current guidance merely offers a suggestion that authorities can take or leave. That is why I want new clause 14 or something similar in the Bill.

I recognise that there are problems. Local authorities will have concerns about the potential for applicants to approach homeless services with unfounded allegations of racial harassment. I also recognise that not all or even most antisocial behaviour directed at ethnic minority families amounts to racial harassment. However, in the many clear cases in which families are subject to race-hate campaigns, councils must have a duty to act. If Ministers hold a similar view—I am sure that they do—they and their advisers are no doubt more than capable of making the definition of racial harassment less ambiguous.

It would be preferable if the family that I talked about at the start of my speech were rehoused after its members were victims of racial harassment, but before they were victims of racial violence. Prevention is obviously better than cure. In the real world of the east end, many of my constituents, black and white, believe that they are victims of racial harassment, but it would be impossible to rehouse each family that claimed racial harassment. I ask the Minister to consider what protection can be given to those who, having suffered racial harassment, are deemed to be at risk of racial violence.

New clause 15 will ensure that applicants fleeing racial harassment or violence cannot be referred back to an area where they would be at risk of abuse. It mirrors a provision contained in the 1996 Act on domestic violence. When the Minister responds to both new clauses, I sincerely hope that he will share my and my Labour colleagues' determination that much stronger duties to help those fleeing racial violence should be included in the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We very much support the thrust of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). She knows about the subject only too well from her experience in her constituency. The briefings available lead us to be worried about the scale of the problem, which is especially bad in the east end, although places such as Bradford and other metropolitan boroughs are also affected. There have been cases of racial abuse in my constituency, so it is not necessarily a problem exclusively of inner cities and other urban areas.

There are various problems. We must see cases against the perpetrators through to court, as they often do not make it that far because those acting as witnesses fear severe reprisals. The 1996 Act provided some help, as it allowed managers from registered social landlords to appear in court as expert witnesses on behalf of tenants. That does not apply solely to racial cases, but generally to those of violence and antisocial behaviour. I have had experience of bringing the manager of a registered social landlord and tenants who were being terrorised together with the police, and we made successful progress in that way.

As the hon. Lady said, various ameliorative measures were added to the 1996 Act under section 177, but people can be homeless within their own homes because they are terrified of living there. I know of families who have split up because they are so scared that they have to sleep with other relatives. Mothers, fathers and children are split up because of the pressures. I know of people—the hon. Lady mentioned them, as did Shelter in its briefing notes—who have to sleep downstairs because of the fear that people might break in or set fire to the house in the middle of the night. The problem is, as the hon. Lady said, that people use those measures in a vexatious way.

I do not know whether the new clause is practical, although I agree with its sentiments. I hope that the Minister will take it on board and fashion something workable, but we must remember that people will use it as an excuse. If people claim that they are suffering undue racial abuse and that it is impossible to continue living in their house, a proper investigation should be undertaken. Genuine cases should have recourse to remedial action. The analogy that the hon. Lady draws with domestic violence, which was dealt with in the 1996 Act, is right. The Bill's provisions should be put on a par with that.

The law is flawed. Although we support the thrust of the new clause, we are prepared to take soundings from the Minister on the most practical way of carrying those principles forward.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for the graphic way in which she brought the problems that face her constituents and people in other parts of the country to the Committee's attention. I also thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his support of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

I hope that what I have to say will satisfy my hon. Friend and Opposition Members alike. Racial harassment is intolerable in a civilised society. Like my hon. Friends, I condemn it outright. No one of any colour, race, creed or nationality should be put in fear at home, at work or in public places. We all know that racial discrimination is widespread and, more seriously, that racial harassment is a fact of life for far too many people. It is clearly not right that people should be driven out of their homes by such behaviour. Tenants should be able to expect their landlords—especially social landlords—to deal quickly and firmly with the perpetrators.

Ultimately, we are dealing with any sort of violence or threatened violence. The Government take it seriously and are promoting the use of specific ``non-harassment'' clauses in tenancy agreements in the social housing sector. Any breach of a tenancy agreement will render a tenant liable to eviction. That builds on measures already in place to enable landlords to deal with racial harassment on their estates. The Government want those powers to be used more widely. For example, the 1996 Act allows local authorities and other landlords to ask the courts to attach a power of arrest to injunctions taken out to prevent breaches of a tenancy agreement, when violence has occurred or has been threatened. The Act also makes it possible for landlords to evict if a tenant, a lodger or a visitor to the tenant's property has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the vicinity of the property.

In earlier exchanges, I said that we will be extending the priority need categories of homeless people by order under section 189 of the 1996 Act. That will create a new category of applicants who will have priority need if they are vulnerable as a result of having to leave their home, because to remain there would carry a risk of violence towards them or any member of their household. The provision would cover, for example, a risk of domestic violence, or a risk of racially motivated violence.

Under the provisions of part VII of the 1996 Act, local authorities must consider whether it would be reasonable for applicants to continue to live in their current accommodation, before deciding whether they are homeless. If it would not be reasonable, and the applicant has nowhere else to live, then he or she is statutorily homeless. When deciding whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to live in his or her present home, authorities should consider if that would give rise to any risk of violence.

However, there is a case for reviewing the provisions and making it explicit that violence or acts of violence are grounds on which it would be unreasonable to continue to occupy accommodation. That would include racially motivated violence, and it is our intention to table an amendment to achieve that. Given that undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her new clause. I hope that I have satisfied her on the points that she raised.

Oona King (Labour, Bethnal Green and Bow)

I thank the Minister for the constructive proposals that he has made. I understand that they will give protection to people at risk of violence, including racial violence. Before concluding these brief remarks, I should like to thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his thoughtful contribution on an area that I wish was less subject to party-political point scoring. This is an opportunity for us to send out a clear message that people who are at risk of racially motivated violence will now get the protection that they deserve. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18 - New form of short term tenure for councils (short social tenancy)

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I was not aware that the new clause had been awaited with such breathless expectancy. I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm for it. It is an important clause, which builds on an element of the 1996 legislation that I piloted through the House—the assured shorthold tenancy. It also builds on the Government's housing Green Paper and on the social exclusion unit's work on unpopular housing. I hope that we can establish at the beginning that the measure is designed to make use of housing that might otherwise not be used. It is also designed to assist in housing people and to contribute to the maintenance of neighbourhoods that would otherwise become run-down, leading to degeneration. Those are the purposes of the clause, and I emphasise that the housing that would be provided would be available to those who come under the social needs category.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bath back in the Room. because it would have been soul-destroying for him if, after his heroic sacrifice of time, he had not been able to hear what I have to say. Knowing what an ecumenical chap he is, I am sure that he would have found that difficult to bear. I am grateful to him for not moving his new clause, as that enabled us to reach this point.

The purpose of new clause 18 is simply to create a short-term tenancy to allow property to be used temporarily when it would otherwise remain empty. That is the top and bottom of it. It builds on the Green Paper and on the exclusion unit's concerns about undesirable property. It attempts to find a use for property and in doing so to help to sustain neighbourhoods that might otherwise degenerate as the number of empty properties increases.

The housing Green Paper foreshadows the provision. The problem with current legislation is that it makes it difficult for councils to offer short-term and unlicensed property and practically impossible to offer self-contained property—there are limited conditions in the Housing Act 1985—without creating a secure tenancy after 12 months. Once a secure tenancy has been created, various rights are established, including the right to buy, as well as liabilities. Local authorities may find themselves with serviceable stock that they cannot use. I want to provide a way to enable them to use it.

There may be large-scale regeneration projects and local authorities throughout the country, especially in some northern cities, are in the process of demolishing surplus stock. The demographic trend of tenants is such that councils find themselves with more empty stock and part of the answer is to demolish it. That applies in Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle and other great metropolitan authorities, but London and some other areas are entirely different. The problem exists across a wide swathe of large metropolitan councils. Many projects take five or 10 years and demolition will gradually reduce the level of stock in the long term.

If vacancies arises in those properties because regeneration is planned and people have been decanted, the council cannot afford to let them on secure tenancies because they might incur considerable financial liabilities in doing so—it is barmy to repair property that is due to be knocked down—or be unable to secure the premises when they want to demolish the properties. A short-term tenancy would enable councils to use such property a number of times for long-term temporary accommodation for statutory or non-statutory homeless or potentially homeless households until the property is needed for redevelopment. It would certainly provide better accommodation than bed and breakfast or just dossing down, which is often the alternative.

Another potential benefit is the creation of sustainable communities. I do not wish to invoke Lord Rogers too frequently, but current wisdom is for mixed communities and mixed tenures. We know that vital groups of workers find it difficult to find accommodation and the measure might bring the two together. People who do not qualify for support under the homelessness legislation could be given short-term tenancies. They could occupy accommodation and generate an income, which would help the local neighbourhood in terms of a market for services, shops, hairdressing, bus routes, schools and so on, before entering the housing marketplace if that is what they want to do. That would contribute to the sustainability of the community.

Finally, the measure would generate income for the local authority, which would have a rent stream rather than a boarded-up, empty property. We all know that an empty property, as with an empty shop in a town centre, is a debilitating feature of the landscape and damages the whole viability of the community, whether a business or social community. The provision would help to deal with that problem.

I would expect the short social tenancy to be used in well-defined circumstances. It is not intended as a replacement for normal secure tenancies and it is not the same as a single secure tenancy for social housing, to which the Minister is attached and which was one of the main outcomes of the consultation on the Green Paper. However, it would give councils the equivalent of the assured shorthold tenancy and could be regulated in much the same way.

I do not expect the Minister to declare that the new clause is technically perfect in all aspects—he has parliamentary counsel to do the job for him—but I hope that he will agree that the spirit of the amendment is consistent with the Bill and what is, in many respects, a consensual policy on homelessness, inner cities and regeneration. It flows from the 1996 Act for which I was responsible and from actions for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible as Minister for Housing and Planning.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who was formerly a Housing Minister, has much experience in the matter. His proposal is most interesting, and follows lines that we are considering. It was one of the recommendations of the policy action team investigating the problem of unpopular housing and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was proposed in the Green Paper on housing, which received a positive response in consultation.

The provision would, in defined circumstances, enable a local housing authority to make an allocation that is not a secure tenancy. For example, that might be appropriate where house prices were not affordable to modestly paid key workers, who could be offered a short-term tenancy to enable them to save for a deposit or to establish roots in the area prior to buying a house. It would be possible, too, for similar arrangements to be used as a weapon in low-demand areas where there is unpopular housing. An authority might want to offer short-term tenancies in anticipation of the eventual redevelopment of an area, or to attract to a locality people who would not normally live there but who would bring greater economic prosperity.

As the right hon. Gentleman correctly anticipated, we are attracted to the principles underlying the proposal but we cannot accept it as it would add to the existing complexity of the tenure structure. We do not want to do that without considering the full panoply of housing legislation that relates to tenancies in the public sector and those that affect registered social and other landlords. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is not enamoured of the word ``holistic'' so I shall say that the issue must be considered in the round.

It may be possible to bring together the principal tenancies offered by registered social landlords and local authorities into a single tenure for the social housing sector. It would be sensible to do that as a considered and comprehensive package, rather than by introducing one step now and having to make subsequent alterations and amendments.

The proposal is welcome and we support its intention. We will further consider how it can be advanced in the context of other tenures to ensure that the right, long-term mix of tenures is available. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I anticipated the Minister's words but I want to query the need to

``consider the full panoply of housing legislation''.

That does not sound susceptible to amendment in another place, nor is it susceptible to legislation within an immediate time scale.

The Minister referred to what could best be described as the codification of tenancy, which would be a helpful tool for regeneration, and to allowing people to find a first foot on the housing ladder in areas where housing is scarce or to help community building where housing is over-plentiful. It would therefore be a pity to wait for a future Bill, under whichever Government's auspices, which may have no immediate prospect of consideration.

I shall withdraw the new clause, because I realise that the geo-political forces are weighed against me. However I hope that the Minister will say when

``the full panoply of housing legislation''

might fall to the attention of whoever has the portfolio. That would provide a little reassurance and the Minister could reflect on returning to the idea later in the Bill. The blurred outline might just take on a few thinly traced shapes for later consideration.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that

``the full panoply of housing legislation''

is uppermost in my mind. As I said, we have to consider all the various strands in the complex pattern rather than legislate immediately. I cannot provide assurance about amendments in another place or later in the passage of the Bill, but the idea is on the agenda for Government action within the reasonably near future.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I have two reflections. One is that ``reasonably'' is a wonderfully accommodating word: we cannot define it because it would then lose its wonderfully accommodating nature. Secondly, I recall the Minister wanting to deal urgently with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation and with commonhold five years ago at the time of the 1996 Act, but those elements of the panoply have not been pulled together with the urgency anticipated at the time of the Minister's utterances.

I shall not press the new clause to the vote. The Minister has said that legislation will occur at some stage if he is still the Minister with responsibility for housing—it is rather like the second coming. We all hope that it will happen in the end and that we shall be on the right side of it when it does. It may fall to others to implement the necessary measures. We have had a useful debate and we have all agreed that it would be a jolly good idea if anyone gets round to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. We are approaching the end of our proceedings, so I want to make the few remarks that are customary when we are not so pressured to finish at a particular time.

We have had three extremely useful and productive weeks—mercifully short by comparison with my experience of previous Committees, which went on for months rather than weeks. Our debates have been intensive and productive. We have ranged over several important issues that affect virtually every member of our society—home owners, prospective home owners, people seeking accommodation through a local authority or registered social landlord, people exposed to the miseries of homelessness or racial harassment and so forth.

We have ranged wide geographically. We have had a brief excursion in the Yorkshire dales, visiting the cat-loving cottagers who are the neighbours of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. We have discovered that some members of the Committee have extraordinary connections with Bradford, and we eventually reached the faded splendours of the south coast. I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman used his time productively to make a small paper boat—perhaps to evoke the delights of south-coast resorts such as Eastbourne.

We have considered a significant number of amendments with varying impacts and we have incorporated a number of changes into the Bill. That is exactly what a Committee should do—scrutinise a Bill and make it better. A number of those changes have resulted from specific points and concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for the way in which they have tabled their amendments and contributed constructively to the process of improving the Bill.

I am also grateful to the various bodies that advised us and gave us the benefit of their experience on a range of housing issues. I should like to thank all members of the Committee for the constructive and good-humoured tenor of our proceedings. In particular, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who started the Committee as a Whip and now joins me as a Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), his successor as Whip, who has ensured that we completed our proceedings on time; and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who has to carry out the generally thankless task of a Parliamentary Private Secretary, which he has done with his customary skill and enthusiasm.

I should like to extend my thanks to all the officials who have helped enormously with the preparations of briefs and information, to the police who have ensured our security, to the Hansard staff who, as always, have provided an extraordinarily accurate representation of our remarks, including language from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that I am sure has appeared in Hansard for the first time. I should like to thank the Clerk for advising you, Mr. Stevenson, and Mr. Gale, your co-Chairman, in such a way as to ensure the expeditious handling of our proceedings. Above all, I should like to thank you, and Mr. Gale in his absence, for the way in which you have presided over the Committee.

This has been a good-natured Committee. It has dealt with difficult and sometimes controversial issues in a constructive and good-humoured style. That owes an enormous amount to the way in which the Committee has been chaired. You, Mr. Stevenson, and your co-Chairman Mr. Gale, have enlivened us with some humorous insight. You have always made sure that we kept strictly in order. You have not allowed us to stray too far into the unforeseen byways of political controversy and you have kept a good pace that has ensured that we shall complete our proceedings on time. I am grateful to you and I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend's rest after three weeks of arduous activity in this Committee.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I associate myself with almost everything that the Minister has said. I should like to be able to ascribe to you and your co-Chairman the fact that we are finishing at five o'clock today, but it has nothing to do with either of you. It is the programme resolution.

On the whole, we have had a good-natured Committee, even if we have moved at a brisk pace at bayonet point. I thank you and your co-Chairman for your kind, indulgent and efficient chairing of our proceedings, Mr. Stevenson. I should also like to thank the officials, the staff and all those who make our proceedings run relatively smoothly, the Hansard writers and so on. I should like to thank all the members of the Committee. Just about every member has contributed to the proceedings, some more than others. I should particularly like to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their hard work on the Committee. The Minister referred to the model boat that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made. The Minister should have a care, as that is just the sort of example of the long-term therapy that most Housing Ministers engage in after any time in that thankless office. I also thank those who provided helpful briefings and draft amendments.

It has been an exciting Committee at times, despite an unprepossessing start, as it were. We had the alarums and excursions of the new heir to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). We have discovered some interesting facts. For example, as a child, the Minister spent some time living in a caravan in Bradford, but that was under a previous Labour Government, so we should not be surprised.

Even in this relatively peaceful and quiet backwater, the ripples of great events have sometimes been felt. In Committee, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East was deservedly promoted from Whip to a ministerial post. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North became the Whip, and we welcome that. All that happened as a result of the understandable wish of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to leave public office and spend more time with his lawyers.

I thank everyone concerned, particularly you, Mr. Stevenson, and your co-Chairman, for a generally harmonious Committee.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I associate myself with the remarks that have been made and the thanks offered to so many people.

I was interested in the comments by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and the Minister about the boat constructed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. It was suggested that it was a form of therapy. I am in a somewhat privileged position, because I can see the therapy involving paper that is required by Whips. Committee Members might like to have a look later, but I can assure them that the therapy for the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is the Opposition Whip, is to turn himself into a human paper shredder.

As right hon. and hon. Members have said, we have had an important three weeks discussing the Bill. Despite the occasional curmudgeonly outburst from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, this has been a Committee of great good humour, which has at the same time addressed serious points. As I said, we have truly demonstrated the value of Committee work and of the high-quality briefings that are provided for us by various organisations.

The Government have not sought to railroad every proposition in the Bill. There has been some willingness to listen and to take on board the ideas expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We should be grateful for that and for the evidence that we have given of the benefit of the parliamentary process. Sadly, however, the Government have not accepted as many amendments as we would have liked, so I am particularly looking forward to the next stage of our deliberations, next Wednesday.

I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and your fellow Chairman, Mr. Gale, for the helpful way in which you have chaired the Committee.

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

The paper boat constructed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon speaks volumes for his tenacity. Given that he spent a number of years in the European Parliament, was a member of the previous Government, is a former Housing Minister and is now in opposition, I am surprised that his hands were steady enough to put the boat together.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am happy to present the boat to you.

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

On behalf of my co-Chairman and myself, I thank every member of the Committee, the Clerks, the Hansard writers, the police and the Ushers of the House for their patience and forbearance. I now have the pleasure of announcing that the Committee's business has concluded.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at two minutes to Five o'clock.