Orders of the Day — Homes Bill

House of Commons, 7 February 2001.

APPLICATION OF PART VI OF 1996 ACT TO EXISTING TENANTS

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 46. Amendment No. 56, in clause 27, page 17, line 34, at end insert— '() In any scheme, the local housing authority shall state its policy for ensuring that people in need of a move on any of the grounds listed above, and who are existing tenants shall, all other things being equal, have prior claim to new built property over those who would be first time tenants of the local authority, provided that first time tenants can still be offered adequate accommodation.'. Government amendment No. 51.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Government amendments Nos. 46 and 51 and new clause 15 seek to simplify the provisions in the Bill that ensure that existing tenants in the social housing sector who seek a transfer of accommodation from a housing authority must have their application considered under the allocation scheme. In other words, they have a right to have their application considered, a right for reasonable and additional preference to be considered, and a right to seek a review of decisions about their application. The policy intention has not changed, but we have identified a simpler way of achieving it. Amendment No. 46 removes clause 24, which is unnecessarily complex. It is replaced by new clause 15, which in turn substitutes for the current subsections (5) and (6) of section 159 of the Housing Act 1996 a new subsection (5). Amendment No. 51 will make a minor consequential change to schedule 3. Under amendment No. 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), existing tenants would be given priority over new tenants in the allocation of new-build accommodation. I find it extraordinary that he considers such detail appropriate to the Bill. We are setting up a robust framework in which local authorities can operate choice-based lettings schemes. The framework will provide authorities with the discretion to make local decisions, based on local knowledge, and appropriate to local circumstances. The framework sets out the principal issues that authorities should take into account in drawing up their priorities and preferences. They are, in the main, closely related to need, but the framework is not prescriptive—nor should it be. Local authorities should have discretion. It makes no sense to direct every nuance, to insist on every detail and dot every i and cross every t. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats' suggestion is curious because considerable discretion would be removed from local authorities by amendment No. 56, yet the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) speaks frequently about diktats from Whitehall and the Government's centralising tendency. Hon. Gentlemen should be clear about their objective. Do they wish to allow local authorities more discretion, or do they wish to be centralisers? I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey shows himself to be a centraliser, and amendment No. 56 is inappropriate. I hope that he will not press it to a Division, and that the House will support new clause 15 and the Government amendments.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not wish to detain the House. I shall deal first with amendment No. 56, tabled by the Liberals. For once, I agree with the Minister. The amendment would include in the Bill an incredibly detailed, micro-managed proposal, despite the Minister's reluctance to include many other proposals that we think should be in it. However, the last thing I want to do is to intervene in an argument between the Government and their Liberal Democrat allies. Of course, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will make his own case in a moment. As for the unlamented demise of clause 24, we agree that new clause 15 represents a much less clumsily drafted approach to what the Government want to achieve. We have no difficulty with new clause 15 or Government amendments Nos. 46 and 51—the second of which is a drafting amendment, so far as I can tell—and we shall not therefore seek to divide the House on any of them.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall speak to amendment No. 56. There is of course no difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and me, on any occasion, in any circumstance. The Minister knows that that is true, but he likes making the odd bit of mischief, so I shall forgive him. I represent—I still think that the figures are accurate—more council tenants as a proportion of my constituents than any other English Member of Parliament. Therefore, this debate and these provisions are of crucial interest to my constituents and me. The Minister may not have spotted the fact that amendment No. 56 was not intended to determine what the policy should be, but to ensure that local authorities state their policies. I am keen to ensure that each local authority puts out its policy clearly in the shop window. The objective of the proposal is slightly different from the one that the Minister suggested. Importantly, amendment No. 56 deals with people in need of a move on any of the grounds listed elsewhere in the Bill. There is no argument about those grounds. People may need to move if they are overcrowded, or on medical grounds, or whatever. However, when existing local authority tenants need to move, all other things being equal"— that is an important phrase—they shall have prior claim to new built property over those who would be first time tenants". The reason why I tabled the amendment—I shall not press it to a Division—was to get the Government to think about such issues, and to ensure that local authorities are required to address the controversial question of how they choose between long-standing tenants who live in accommodation that is inadequate by the local authority's own definition, and people who would be new tenants. From his experience in his present constituency, and from the one that he previously represented—they are both in inner London—the Minister will know of one of the great complaints that tenants who live in overcrowded and damp accommodation frequently make. They desperately need to move because they are ill, or they live in an upstairs flat with no lift. However, people then come off the housing list; the existing tenants do not begrudge those people being housed, but they move into brand new properties. Meanwhile, the existing tenants remain on the fourth floor of a block with no lift, or in a flat that is damp, overcrowded and inadequate for them. They have no chance of moving into the new properties, and that is the cause for their complaint. It is a matter of equity. I accept that this is not the time and place to be over-prescriptive, and that local councils should be able to exercise their discretion. That is why people vote councils in and out; they choose between policies. I merely ask that the local authority publish its policy on this matter, so that people know what its policy is, and can decide whether to vote against the party in power at the next election. I ask for clarity so that we can remove one of the major causes of grief, aggravation and concern that existing tenants, many of whom have paid their rents for 20 or 30 years, feel towards local authorities.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

Like my hon. Friend, I represent many council tenants, and many of them have great problems understanding the housing policy that governs their ability to transfer. My hon. Friend's amendment is a good one, apart from the use of the words all other things being equal". The point is that things are not equal, and there is not a great deal of transparency. Most housing authorities fail to explain the transfer system, what the criteria for existing tenants are, and how new applications are dealt with.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I know my hon. Friend's constituency quite well, and I have visited the flats there when supporting his election campaigns. We are all the same boat, in that we are dealing with people who are trapped in a home and want to move. The purpose of the debate is to get the Government to consider the issue, and I accept my hon. Friend's proposition. Provided that adequately sized accommodation with adequate facilities is offered, the best system would not offer the best properties to first-time tenants. They should start with the old property and work their way up the quality ladder. Long-serving tenants should get the new properties as a reward for their years in the old property wilderness. That is a matter of equity, irrespective of people's background, culture or anything else. The Minister understands that I do not intend to divide the House on the amendment, but I hope that he will consider the issues involved.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

People find themselves in a trap when, having been on a housing waiting list, they are made an offer of accommodation. The problem is particularly difficult for homeless people who, in the main, are made only one offer. Invariably, they take the first available property, and in many instances, it is not suitable. They remain in that property for several years, and inevitably, their family circumstances change. However, they are trapped in a property that they have little or no hope of leaving. My local authority has a housing transfer list nearly as long as its housing waiting list. Fifteen years ago, it had 30,000 council properties at its disposal, but it has fewer than 18,000 today. As one can imagine, the vast majority of good properties have been sold off and the rump that remains is, in the main, made up of pre-war properties that require major renovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, many families have been trapped in a property for a long time, with little or no hope of ever getting out. That is because—quite rightly in some respects—the housing authority believes that they are adequately housed. However, many authorities refuse to recognise the conditions in which many of those families live. Surely the Minister has a responsibility to recognise that the Bill should offer hope to people who are trapped in properties while their children grow up. I hope that when he replies, he will tell us that the Government are considering the issue realistically and sympathetically, and that they intend to do something to help.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This short debate has identified two main issues. First, it has shown the importance of simplifying the provisions, which is what the Government amendments will do. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for his support. Secondly, the debate has highlighted the position of existing tenants against that of new tenants. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) emphasised that there were two parts to amendment No. 56. First, the council should state its policy. The Bill provides for exactly that. It requires authorities to prepare a detailed policy that will apply to people who seek transfers. The measure gives them greater involvement in the allocation of accommodation than is currently the case. The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) both made an important point about the respective needs of existing tenants and new tenants. We all know the sense of extreme injustice that many existing tenants feel when they are trapped in properties in poor condition, yet see new tenants getting more attractive properties ahead of them. That is worrying. We therefore want to make two important changes to the allocation system. First, we want to ensure that, unlike what happened under the Housing Act 1996, the allocation process takes full account of the needs of those who want a transfer. Secondly, we want to make a significant shift from bureaucratic allocation systems in which officials make the decisions, often with little regard for the feelings and interests of the tenants, to a more choice-based system. We acknowledge the constraints that are inevitable in areas of high demand. Nevertheless, we want to try to involve those who apply for council or housing association homes more in decisions about their future. It is important to give more choice to the public and more respect to their views. That will probably lead to the results that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Portsmouth, South want. When the public exercise more choice, the system has to respond to the wishes and aspirations of people who are aggrieved about the current arrangements. I hope that both hon. Members realise that the Bill is in line with their objective, but that we do not propose to achieve that objective through centralising diktats from Whitehall. We are providing the framework, but each local authority must develop its own system.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

The Minister has made a helpful point, provided that local housing authorities take note of the framework and intend to introduce transparent policies. An existing tenant has the right to know that his or her application for transfer has been considered according to proper criteria. Tenants should also have the right to know why applications are rejected. How does the Minister intend to ensure that local authorities effect that policy?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is fairly new to the debate; he was not a member of the Standing Committee. We had detailed debates in Committee about methods of ensuring that the new allocation policies were made available and that people had an opportunity to appeal against the assessment of the facts on which their allocation had been determined. It is not appropriate for every allocation to be subject to an appeal; that would not be feasible. However, every applicant must be confident that the basis on which his or her priority is being assessed can be challenged. We have provided for that. We have invited bids from local authorities for imaginative new choice-based lettings systems. We have received substantive bids from 94 local authorities, and we will make decisions in the near future about the allocation of the £11 million in funding to support those initiatives.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will it be possible for the Department to state the new policy in simple, easily accessible form? Anyone who wants to take part in a tenants organisation debate on the subject can then obtain from a common website details of comparable systems, and be well informed for a local discussion. Tenants will be able to say, "This is what we've got at the moment, but we'd like you to do what Leicester, or Liverpool, does." Can the information be readily accessible?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman two undertakings. First, we certainly want to ensure that the new policy introduced by the Bill is fully understood, and we will arrange for appropriate publicity to ensure that tenants groups, local authorities and registered social landlords throughout the country are aware of the new arrangements. Secondly, one issue that is exercising us at the moment is how we ensure that, with the great interest that I have described—94 bids for new innovative choice-based lettings schemes—information is shared throughout the country, and good practice in one area can be understood by others. We are giving a great deal of thought to that, but we have not yet reached conclusions about how best to achieve it. I hope that, having heard that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will accept that his amendment is flawed and agree to withdraw it.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that a week or two ago we had a debate in this House on the Government's new regulations on secrecy in local government, on a prayer tabled by Conservative Members. The Liberal Democrats tabled a prayer in the Lords, which we supported, and which was to be debated tomorrow. It has just come to my attention that the prayer has been withdrawn. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to make a statement as a matter of urgency, explaining the Government's attitude, and whether this is another example of Lib-Labbery in action.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I have had no such information, and in any case this House cannot be concerned with procedures in another place.

PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE HOMELESS WHO ARE AT RISK OF VIOLENC

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation— '( ).—(1) Section 177 (whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows. (2) After subsection (1) there is inserted— (1A) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to violence on racial or other grounds against him, or against— (a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or (b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him. For this purpose "violence on racial grounds" in relation to a person, means violence from another person by reason of a person's race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, or threats of violence from such a person which are likely to be carried out.".'.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

All parties in the House and individuals will be grateful to the Government for responding positively to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) by bringing forward a new clause. That is welcome. The Minister was right to say that the general thrust of new clause 16 is in the same direction as new clause 19, which I tabled. I accept that the Government's new clause goes further than mine because it amends both sections 177 and 198 of the Housing Act 1996. Properly, in my view, the Government have added to the domestic violence provision, which gave protection before, the wider violence category, which is described in the new clause. I welcome that and I am grateful. The intention was exactly the same from my perspective, from that of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and from that of the Government. We are dealing with a huge and real issue. Far too many people are receiving threats in their own homes. These are most frequently threats of a racial character or are the result of a domestic dispute. Occasionally, there are other sorts of threat. There are occasional threats—happily, they are not made nearly as often as the others—of homophobic violence. Every year since I have been a Member of Parliament, people have come to me and said, "I cannot stay in my home. I am being persecuted on the ground of my race"—or of their sexuality or for some other reason. I am grateful to the Government for responding positively. I am keen to ensure that the tenant, the normal resident, is covered. I have also included, a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family"— and, because it raises a specific issue, any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him. I ask for that to be included, again from practical experience. On two recent occasions, the threat has been not to the tenant but to the tenant's partner. In one case, the tenant was safe while alone, but when the partner, who was of different race and had a home elsewhere, came to stay at weekends, the violence occurred. The other case is familiar to us all, and occurs when there is shared custody or responsibility for children. Occasionally, difficulties and threats arise because of a domestic breakdown in the past. People may feel that, if the child of the family stays with them, they will be under attack because the other partner has never accepted the child's right to stay with that parent or grandparent. 5 pm I am happy not to press my new clause, but I am keen that, by end of the process of getting the legislation right, we should have covered the tenant, the normal resident and people who, perfectly properly, come to stay. Ministers will understand that it is fine and good to protect the tenants themselves, but if their sons, daughters, parents, partners, wives or husbands are under attack when they come to stay, then a tenant's right to stay and to be protected is no good. Tenants need protection for their household, which should be properly defined. I am therefore keen to make sure that the legislation covers the household in all circumstances in which there is a threat of violence, whether domestic or otherwise.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

In common with other speakers, I welcome the enlargement of the provisions in new clause 16. However, there is an issue that I would like to raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Some of my constituents have suffered from domestic violence, racial harassment or harassment because of their sexual preferences. They feel strongly and deeply that they are being made to move from their home and from an area which they and their children know well and—certainly in cases of domestic violence—where the children are attending school and have made links with other children. While welcoming the potential for a place of safety for people who suffer the worst excesses of mindless violence, I should like to raise with my hon. Friend the need to examine the possibility of ensuring that the victims of violence can be properly protected in homes in which they may have lived for a considerable period. There should be rather more joined-up action across what I acknowledge is a wide range of statutory responsibilities, to ensure that those who would do those people harm are precluded from doing so.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I wish to make a brief point. The Under-Secretary will know that I did not have the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee, and my point—which, I hope, he does not think pedantic—may have been dealt with exhaustively then. As I understand it, new clause 16, which I support, amends section 177 of the Housing Act 1996, by adding the words "or other violence" after the words "domestic violence". It then goes on to define what violence—not "other violence"—means. Why is it necessary to add those words—I fully agree that the concept should be added—rather than deleting "domestic"? The new clause could just refer to violence, which could be domestic, racial or any other violence. I have a little campaign to try to ensure that legislation is no longer than it need be. In this case, that small point may just help.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

May I begin by congratulating the Under-Secretary on what, I think, is his first ministerial appearance at the Dispatch Box? Of course, he was promoted during the Bill's Committee stage—one of the many events that enlivened our debates. We support new clause 16. There was a debate on the general subject in Committee and there was general cross-party support for the proposal that we should be clear that we are addressing all types of violence. We agree with the Under-Secretary that it is certainly possible to put a narrow construction on the existing wording. As the hon. Gentleman said, it would be quite wrong for people to be disadvantaged in housing priority terms if they were in genuine fear of violence, whatever the cause of that violence was said to be. We heard an eloquent speech in Committee from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on the issue. Whether we represent Bermondsey, Eastbourne or anywhere else, we all know of the problem of violence and the threat of violence in social housing in some parts of our constituencies, and of the fact that people can be systematically terrorised over a long period. We recognise that there are different types of violence and different reasons for it. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) noted that the reasons for the violence may be domestic, and that all too often, the flash-point is access to or custody of children, or marital discord. Equally, the reasons may be racial or homophobic, or we may be talking about neighbours who simply do not like each other. We will discuss later the so-called neighbours from hell. That issue should be addressed more than it has been in the Bill. Antisocial behaviour bordering on the violent, and sometimes turning into violence, is an increasing problem in estates, blocks of flats and so on across the country. We agree that no distinction should be made between different types of violence. It is bad enough that people may be forced to flee their homes because of violence or the threat of violence, but it would be absurd if they then found themselves at the back of the queue for housing. I doubt whether there are housing authorities that apply the rules so narrowly, but the Minister is right: we should not leave it to chance. We are therefore happy to support new clause 16.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I welcome new clause 16, but I see in it problems that could persist into the future. Those of us who represent large numbers of council tenants have encountered cases involving all types of violence. Sadly, domestic violence is usually one of the easier cases, as it is clear who is perpetrating the violence and who is on the receiving end. Other types of violence are not so straightforward—for example, the threat of violence from the drug dealer in the block of flats against other tenants. I have a block of flats in my constituency where the Post Office has refused to deliver mail because of the intimidation and the hypodermic needles that are discarded almost daily around the block. It is a scandal that people in the block knew what was going on, but were so frightened to come forward because of the fears of violence that the matter went unattended to for a considerable length of time. There are many instances in which the threat of violence is a compelling reason for people not to say anything about what is going on, and to allow the criminal elements and the neighbours from hell to continue to make other people's lives a misery. A further issue is the malicious claim of violence. On more than one occasion, people have come to me with a fairly plausible story about a threat of violence, in the hope that that would be sufficient to get them rehoused. It is extremely difficult to prove such a thing, and the assertion was subsequently shown to be malicious. The people concerned were simply trying to work a scam to get rehoused. People may be desperate, but that is not acceptable. There should be a mechanism that allows people who have a genuine fear of violence to ask the local housing authority to move them because they are at risk. The housing officer may ask what proof they have and how often the police have been called. In most cases, the mere fact of the police turning up would be enough to ensure that violence ensues—perhaps not that day or the next, but within a short period. We need to assist local authorities in obtaining proof of what is going on, and we should give them some guidance about how to collect evidence of the violence that has supposedly been threatened. That is a very difficult issue that must undoubtedly be addressed. How right the Government are to have tabled new clause 16, but that will not be the end of the process. Sadly, the problem is going to get worse. On some estates, the threat of violence has become an epidemic, and is an essential part of the way in which those estates are run. We must find a mechanism to free people from the fear of violence. Any hon. Members who grew up on council estates where violence was the norm will know how awful it is to live with that fear hanging over them. Fear accompanies people on their journey home from school; parents worry about whether their children will arrive home, because of the threat not of abduction but of violence being dished out; people come home late in the evening and are afraid to go upstairs: some go and stay the night somewhere else because they are afraid to enter a block of flats and go up four flights of stairs, because gangs of violent youths are sitting on those stairs. The police cannot respond to every phone call from someone asking to be escorted home. We must find a mechanism to deal with the problem. New clause 16 starts the process but, sadly, does not end it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Does the Minister also agree that another important strategy—to which more publicity could perhaps be given—is the role of third parties in giving evidence, to preserve the anonymity of a neighbour who might otherwise have to give direct evidence, with all the consequences that that might have?

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

The point I wanted to make is that in some areas an individual local authority cannot tackle the problem. In the case of certain acts of violence, there should be a strategy involving several authorities. When one local authority tenant visits violence on another tenant of the same authority, although the difficulties that have been enunciated are very real, it is in some ways easier for the authority to deal with the problem. When the violence is perpetrated by a tenant of a contiguous authority, however—or even an authority further away than that—there should be a strategy that a group of authorities can define.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

rose—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I think that the Minister has probably finished.

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS AND LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

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

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies— '().—(1) Section 213 (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows. After subsection (1) there is inserted— () Where a local housing authority request a registered social landlord to assist them in the discharge of their functions under this part, the landlord to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions. (2) In subsection (2)(a) the words "a registered social landlord or housing action trust" shall cease to have effect.".'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We are now dealing with the important issue of the strategies and reviews of homelessness for which local authorities are to be responsible. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the Government's proposals, although I am sorry that they were not prepared to accept the importance of uniting authorities housing and homelessness strategies. In Committee, we made a great deal of progress in determining what should be the content of the reviews and strategies. The new clauses and amendments are intended to make further improvements. I shall not comment on the Conservative amendments, but I commend them—particularly amendment No. 15, which suggests that consultation during the development of strategies should include consultation with organisations representing people with mental and physical disabilities. We discussed that issue in Committee. Amendment No. 19 concerns another issue that we discussed then: the importance of involving homeless people in the development of strategies. I especially commend amendment No. 57, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which suggests that the primacy of housing need should be stressed in all allocation strategies. New clause 2 and new clause 3, which is intimately linked with it, raise an issue that was touched on during our Committee deliberations. However, because it was linked with many other issues, we perhaps did not have the opportunity to give it the attention that we might have liked. The Committee became aware during its deliberations, as I am sure the House is aware, that the registered social landlord sector is playing an increasing role in the provision of affordable housing. As we discovered from information provided by various organisations, by 2004, because of continued progress by local authorities in selling their council houses to RSLs, the majority of affordable houses will be in the control of RSLs. Therefore, if a local authority's homelessness strategy is to be successful, it is important that there be an intimate relationship between the local authority and the RSLs in its area. The existing legislation, the Housing Act 1996, requires co-operation between RSLs in a local authority's area and the local authority, but the problem is that, within that legislation, the nature of that relationship is largely based on the RSLs deciding what it shall be reasonable for them to do in respect of that co-operation. Clearly, if an RSL is not prepared to co-operate in the provision of affordable housing for people in need in a local authority's area, there can be serious consequences. Some people will stay longer in temporary housing. It could mean that some people are in less satisfactory housing. It might even mean that some people are not housed at all. The test, however, is whether that co-operation is deemed by the RSL to be reasonable. It is clear that the RSL would decide whether the relationship was reasonable. Indeed, the Minister, in relation to advice and assistance given by a local authority, said: 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."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 429.] Under the current legislation, co-operation between the two is expected, but it is for RSLs to decide whether the level of co-operation that they are providing is reasonable.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose contributions we so enjoy.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that unsought compliment. If a local authority changes its social housing priorities in the course of one financial year, either because of a change of administration or for any one of a number of possible reasons, how quickly will the hon. Gentleman expect a registered social landlord to respond in terms of the provision of accommodation?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It raises a more complicated point than I suspect even he is aware of. A large number of local authorities have transferred their housing stock to RSLs. At the time of the transfer, it was assumed that the RSL would abide by the allocations and priority procedures of the local authority. Over time, however, as local authorities change, registered social landlords have not been required to change their procedures. Therefore, there is not even a requirement for RSLs to change their procedures, let alone to change them quickly. I acknowledge entirely the concern that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may have that registered social landlords will be required to make changes overnight. Consequently, if he carefully reads new clause 2, he will see that I have included various caveats to ensure that although registered social landlords will be required to co-operate more fully with the local authority, they do not have to do so if that is against their constitution or if they can demonstrate that it would in some way subvert their main purpose and key activity. I am grateful to him for making that point and allowing me to expand on it. Some people may argue that registered social landlords will certainly want to co-operate. In a majority of cases, they do want to co-operate. Unfortunately, however, evidence from across the country has shown that some RSLs are not as co-operative as one might hope. In Committee, we heard of research done by Shelter that demonstrated that of the 61 large-scale and partial transfer authorities with which it was in discussions, 26 per cent. said that, after the stock transfer, it was less easy to house homeless households and people on the register. Interestingly—although I do not think that we should make too much of that relatively small sample—89 per cent. of the authorities surveyed said that they would favour greater statutory powers in the matter. The purpose of the two new clauses is clear. They would strengthen the current statutory arrangements for registered social landlords to co-operate in offering accommodation under the authority's allocation scheme and assisting in the discharge of the authority's homelessness function. As registered social landlords are an increasingly important part of the affordable housing sector, that relationship is vital. That relationship needs to be strengthened, and the new clauses propose ways of doing just that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I should like to speak first to new clauses 2 and 3, and then to our own amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 15. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to recognise the increasing importance of housing associations and other non-local authorities in providing housing. He is also right to welcome, as Conservative Members do, provisions that provide homelessness strategies and encourage local authorities to take a more preventive approach to homelessness. Our objection to the Liberal Democrats new clauses is their rather vague—I probably should not be surprised at that—way of approaching the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. We do not know why we need provisions "to strengthen co-operation", as the hon. Gentleman describes it, between registered social landlords and local authorities. We trust registered social landlords to decide what is reasonable. I echo the concerns expressed by the National Housing Federation about new clause 2. It states Whilst it is right that RSLs offer assistance in meeting local housing needs, it is also important that they remain able to offer housing to people in need through other routes. By offering referrals to specialist agencies, RSLs are able to ensure that a wider spectrum of needs is met. Vulnerable single people or couples on low incomes, for example, are often helped into affordable housing in this way. It is also vital that RSLs are able to consider whether a property on offer is suitable for the applicant, given their household's needs and the available support. We want to avoid a move towards sink estates, and so cannot support the new clause.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I agree on all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. There is great diversity among registered social landlords, and it is important to allow them to have regard to their constitution and key purposes. The new clause provides that those criteria can be used as exceptions, enabling RSLs not to co-operate if they believe that to do so would not be in their interests.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I do not disagree with much of that, but the new clause would not guarantee that local authorities could not press registered social landlords to act in a way that would be unreasonable and prejudicial to the provision of housing for other potential tenants. We believe that section 170 of the Housing Act 1996 is adequate for the task. It states: Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co-operate to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority on the authority's housing register.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the emollient advocacy of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and his helpful reference to the caveat in the new clause that a registered social landlord should not be obliged to prejudice the discharge of its other functions, it is important to know who will arbitrate disputes when they arise? As yet, that is unclear.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The flow of complimentary language between him and the hon. Member for Bath is most unseemly and unexpected. However, Conservative Members will not support the new clause. Far more important is the matter of the three amendments that we tabled in Committee. The Government greeted them with warm words then, but do not appear tempted to make those warm words more explicit in the Bill. We therefore feel it necessary to tease from Ministers more action and commitment than they have so far offered. Amendment No. 18 would add rough sleeping to homelessness as a requirement for housing authority reviews. In Committee, we discussed at length the problems faced by rough sleepers, which are different from those faced by other homeless people. Rough sleepers' problems include dependency on drugs or alcohol and difficulties with social services, and their requirements with regard to the housing authority's review policy should be included in the Bill. In Committee, we also discussed the role of the rough sleepers unit. We used the example of the rough sleepers initiative so ably introduced by my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when they were housing Ministers in the early 1990s. They did a great deal to tackle the problem of rough sleepers. We believe that devoting a budget of £200 million to a quango filled with well-paid people is not the best way to concentrate resources on rough sleepers, and that it would be better to endow local authorities with the task. That is why we want the Bill to specify that rough sleeping should be part of a homelessness strategy. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his unwillingness to accept the amendment. We are not convinced by the reasons that he has produced so far. Amendment No. 19, which is perfectly sensible, deals with homelessness strategies and whom local authorities should consult. The issue was covered in Committee at some length, and we congratulated the Government on the more holistic—that ghastly word, which we all vowed not to use—and comprehensive approach to including other partners in formulating homelessness strategies and using partnerships to execute policies to deal with homelessness. We thought it was simply an error or drafting omission that nowhere in the Bill is there an undertaking that when formulating or modifying homelessness strategies, the very people those strategies are to help—homeless people—should be consulted. I mentioned in Committee the work done by organisations such as Shelter, which we all congratulated. It has been very supportive with regard to the homelessness measures in the Bill. Its report, "Closing the Gap", is a prime example of good practice and the way in which needs are translated into action. For that report, Shelter consulted the victims of homelessness. To consult homeless people seems a straightforward proposal. I should be grateful if the Minister explained to the House why he has not felt able to include such a provision in the Bill thus far. Amendment No. 15 deals with local authorities consulting specialist organisations that represent people who have physical and mental disabilities. As chairman of the Conservative disability group, I spoke with some concern in Committee. I think that what we are trying to achieve fits in neatly with what the Government are trying to achieve and with the spirit of the Bill. I cannot see why such a provision has not been included. Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of homeless people, including rough sleepers, are over the age of 50. They are therefore much more vulnerable to the mental and physical effects of poor accommodation or rough sleeping and have a higher proportion of physical or mental disabilities. They have less easy access to mainstream advice services. In terms of physical accommodation, it is straightforward stuff—wheelchair and door access, ramps and rails. People in wheelchairs should not be put in flats on the fifth or 15th floor of a tower block, making them prisoners in their own home. We have all seen people at our surgeries who have been offered wholly inadequate accommodation. It is also a question of the area in which physically disabled people are housed. They need accommodation where an eye can be kept on them—where sympathetic neighbours, be they wardens or others, will look out for them or provide them with companions. When people with mental disabilities are able to go back into the community, where they are placed and whom they live next to are very important. Families with young children will be less understanding and sympathetic to their situation. Organisations such as Mencap raise the problems of the resettlement of people with learning disabilities who remain in long-stay hospitals due to the absence of suitable accommodation for them when they come out—another form of bed blocking, effectively. The Local Government Association report, "No Place Like Home", made certain proposals. It stated: Social services and, where relevant, health authorities should be involved in the allocation plan for households deemed to be in particular need of settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds in order to ensure that the need for support is both assessed and provided as part of the allocation process … Housing, social services and health authorities should jointly agree hospital discharge planning arrangements … Local housing authorities should maintain a register of wheelchair adapted properties in the council and housing association stock and, where feasible, in the private sector. So on, and so forth. We agree with those proposals. In Committee, we were given undertakings that argument A, which was cited by the hon. Member for Bath right at the beginning of the Committee proceedings, would not be trotted out as the all-encompassing excuse for not including measures such as those proposed in the new clause and amendments in the Bill. Argument A is essentially that if we mentioned certain groups of people, we would have to mention everyone—but we are talking not about a small special interest group, but about a large proportion of the population. According to DSS figures, up to 8.5 million people have disabilities of varying severity. That is one in five adults. Even if we think that that is too broad a qualification, we should remember that there are 700,000 wheelchair users in England and Wales alone. That is 700,000 people for whom special accommodation must be provided. If it is not, they will have varying degrees of problem in gaining access to and egress from the homes allocated to them. Why the Minister cannot concede on reinforcing the necessity to have regard to people who are specialists in dealing with people who have mental and physical disabilities, I do not know. We do not want to place enormous restraints on housing providers; nor are we asking for an enormous amount of extra resources. All we are asking for is that the Bill should state that regard must be had to the particular needs of a large part of the population—possibly the largest special interest in the population. During our consideration of people with mental disabilities, the Minister quoted the Housing Act 1996. That Act was panned by the then Labour Opposition when it was introduced. It was remarkable how much of it the Minister was able to cite as the reason why our amendments should not be accepted. He said that our points were already adequately covered by the 1996 Act. The Minister said that mental illness was a priority category under the 1996 Act. We are talking about delivering strategies on including physically and mentally disabled people—not just acknowledging as a priority that they exist. Our amendments are straightforward and not contentious. We mostly agree with the thrust of what the Bill is trying to achieve. However, we cannot see why the Minister, despite the warm words that he trotted out in Committee, has not felt able to stipulate in the Bill first, that the victims of homelessness should be consulted, and secondly—and perhaps more important—that local authorities should have greater regard to disabled people of various descriptions in formulating their homelessness strategies. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to refer to the amendment in my name. I should be grateful to know whether the Government support the view that local authorities should be required to meet housing need before housing demand. I shall give an example that prompts my concern. Local authorities own land. There is often pressure on them to sell it to realise the value of the land. Land is often needed for social housing, whether it is owned by the council or by a registered social landlord. I often get the impression that the Government are putting pressure on local government to get rid of housing and land. The result is that housing for those who need it, which does not bring the dowry that housing built by developers might bring, is squeezed out because land is developed for houses for those who may love them, but do not need them. Second and third homes should never be a priority when housing need remains unmet. When about 14,000 people are on the waiting list, as they are in Southwark, we should not be developing land in the borough for second or third homes. I have a question about the perfectly acceptable Conservative amendment No. 18. Under the Bill, or under the amended Bill if the amendment is accepted, will local authorities have to take into account the circumstances of people who, because they are single adults or are not rough sleepers, are not priority homeless? I offer two examples of people in my constituency who have fallen through the net in the past three months. The first was a young, single woman, aged 21, who was sleeping in a car. She was training as a nursery nurse. She did not have housing priority as a homeless person. As she could find nowhere to live, her training was at risk; training and undertaking placements when one has to sleep in a car every night are hardly an easy life style. During the wet and cold winter period, she was extremely vulnerable. 5.45 pm The second case involved a young man, aged 19, who was also sleeping in a car, in Camberwell. He was holding down a cleaning job for four hours a day—his first job. He was unable to live in his home with his mother and her new partner because the partner would not accept him. He was unable to stay at his girlfriend's home because he had once committed self-harm there—a suicide attempt, or a call for help. Understandably, the family were nervous about that and told their daughter, "No, you can't have your boyfriend here". Neither of those people had priority for local authority housing, nor did they qualify under the rough sleepers initiative, because they were not unemployed and had not been rough sleepers for six months. We must ensure that we do not leave that category of people in such a predicament. When I went back to the local authority, it accepted, to its credit, that the case of the young man was a priority. As someone whose father and uncle had committed suicide and who had himself attempted self-harm, he should have been categorised as vulnerable and thus given priority need status. Thankfully, he has now been awarded that status—at my request—and has been given accommodation while his needs are assessed properly. Sometimes, however, going through those hoops for six months, three months—even one month—might be too much for such people. Both those people were in dire circumstances. My colleague in my constituency office, who daily copes with such cases—as do the constituency staff of many parliamentary colleagues—will testify to the acute urgency of ensuring that people in such desperate circumstances are not left homeless, because of the great risk of suicide and other problems.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I declare an interest inasmuch as I am the adviser on homelessness in the cabinet of the London Mayor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) describes his amendments as unconten-tious. As he is a member of a party that, in government, was almost singlehandedly responsible for the huge explosion in the number of rough sleepers on the streets of London and for the large number, within that group, of people with serious mental health problems, and as that party constantly turned its face away from creating any rights for people with disabilities, I find much of his argument unbelievable. I am delighted that perhaps he is beginning to acknowledge that those matters warrant everyone's consideration. As in so many matters that have to do with compassion, the Conservatives are late to the party, but if they have arrived, that is good.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady can be forgiven as she was not a member of the Standing Committee, but perhaps she will acknowledge the figures that were eventually accepted by Ministers. Between 1991 and 1996, under the Conservative Government's rough sleepers initiative, the number of rough sleepers in central London alone fell from more than 1,000 to 286. Does she agree with those figures? If so, her argument is completely bogus.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I did not serve on the Committee, but I have read all the Hansard reports of its proceedings, and it seems to me that what was essentially wrong with the previous Conservative Government still characterises the Conservatives' approach. They still get bogged down in putting their faith in figures that, in the main, compare unlike with unlike, which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) were so keen to do. No, I do not accept the reading of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of the policies that the Conservative Government instituted to try to tackle the problem that they had created—too little, too late and, in my view, grudgingly. I am astonished by the hon. Gentlemen's grudging response to what the present Government have done, and especially to the work of the rough sleepers initiative. If they are worried about this issue, they should offer firm thanks to Louise Casey and that initiative, who are on target to reduce rough sleeping in the capital by two thirds by the date that they have set. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham argues that the additional funding that the Government have given should be returned to local authorities when the RSI winds up in 2002. That would simply increase the burdens of rough sleeping that are borne, in the main, by only four boroughs in this city. We should consider ways to prevent, not encourage, rough sleeping. I heard the story about the two constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who had to sleep in their cars. I was surprised that the first example that he cited was not immediately recognised by his local authority as requiring prioritisation on the grounds of vulnerability. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are holes in the fabric. They result from the previous Government's failure to replace, or to allow local authorities to replace, housing stock that had been lost, and their failure to allow local authorities to enter into partnerships or even to repair and maintain their existing stock. We have too few affordable properties in this city. In the medium and long term, steps must be taken, but there is also a need in the short term. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey does not need my advice, but he might be interested to know that organisations that have received contracts from the rough sleepers initiative tell me that an increasing number of young people who are coming into the centre of London—thank God, no longer from other parts of the United Kingdom, but certainly from the outer London boroughs—are under the misapprehension that if they take up rough sleeping they will be prioritised for housing. We must make it abundantly clear that that is not, nor will it be, the case. The purpose of the rough sleepers initiative was, rightly, to prioritise the most vulnerable of those who are on our streets. The initiative is working effectively and well, and that is the strong view of the majority of those long-established charities that have worked in the area for many years. However, in London at least, there will have to be an integrated policy that takes account of the fact that, in many instances, rough sleeping by people who are particularly vulnerable, either as a result of mental illness or physical disability, is not a problem exclusively of bricks and mortar. It is also a problem of maintaining people when they eventually achieve a form of permanent housing. In my constituency it is not unusual for a person who has been rough sleeping, and for whom one has eventually managed to find permanent housing, to run away when the first electricity or gas bill arrives, because they cannot yet take absolute control of their life. It is not unusual for those in the older category of rough sleeper especially—many of whom have been in the armed forces, so they have been used to camaraderie and a life in which the individual does not necessarily have to take day-to-day responsibility for living—to be overwhelmed, when they are in their own property, by the sheer loneliness. Someone said to me the other day, "You look at a wall at 4 o'clock in the morning and there is no one to talk to; I go back to the street." For that reason, there is great need for a pan-London strategy, to ensure not only additional affordable housing but additional support. I am not arguing, and those organisations that already have excellent schemes in place would not argue, that the most vulnerable people must have someone living in their flat or bedsit 24 hours a day, to ensure that they know how to turn the gas off and the light on, pay the bills and wash themselves. I am arguing that there are schemes that work well and that, as has been said at other stages of the Bill's progress, it is important that central and local government start to disseminate across a much wider field examples of best practice so that we do not go through the pointless, time-wasting and expensive process of reinventing the wheel. Equally, to return to the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I am arguing that to disburse the additional funding that the Government have put into the rough sleepers initiative among, in the main, the four local authorities that carry the largest rough sleeping burdens is not the way that we can most actively and cohesively prevent people from returning to our streets. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I do believe that there will be difficulties for local authorities, because in some there will be an element of nimbyism. They may not necessarily want people who have been rough sleepers, who may be recovered alcoholics or recovered drug users, in their locality but, speaking exclusively from the perspective of a London Member of Parliament, we simply must ensure that there is a cohesive, integrated strategy that ensures that we never again have people with nowhere to rest their head other than a shop doorway, and that those who are mentally ill are properly supported: a long-term strategy that ensures that we create truly integrated communities where local authorities, registered social landlords and anyone and everyone that we can attract into this field will provide the housing that, at least in London, we desperately need.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise to the Under-Secretary for not joining the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in congratulating him on his first outing at the Dispatch Box, but many of us in Committee had the opportunity to congratulate him on his promotion. Having said that, I found this outing rather disappointing, because he claims that, under new clause 2, some of the freedom and flexibility of registered social landlords would be removed, which would be appalling, and that we should respect the sector's diversity and flexibility. However, at the same time, he categorically told me that I need not worry because, in fact, all registered social landlords were under the control and dominion of the Housing Corporation. The Under-Secretary admitted that such landlords were regulated by statute and that they have statutory duties, but he now tells us not only that the Housing Corporation will issue new guidance but that there will be strengthened guidance. I want to provide a mechanism to strengthen the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. However, having told me that I could not do that, he now describes an alternative by which that will be done. Of course, in doing so, he generously answered—so avoiding my having to do so—the question about who would have control over such issues, asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The answer is that those who hold the purse strings control the issues. Given that the Under-Secretary has given that response, I intend to withdraw the motion.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

rose—

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way now. I assumed, by the way in which he ended his previous remarks, that he had finished his speech and was seeking to persuade me to withdraw the motion.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On the Under-Secretary's response to amendment No. 57, in the Government's view, should local authorities meet need before demand?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister appeared to be perorating, but I wish to intervene on his reference to section 189(1)(c) of the 1996 Act. That section refers to identifying people in priority need, but it has nothing to do with consulting specialist groups that represent people with mental and physical disabilities on the best strategy for dealing with them. As I pointed out in Committee, they are two entirely different issues, so my point is not covered by referring to a section in the 1996 Act.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In the context of amendment No. 18, and assuming the veracity of the Minister's words about local discretion, how can he seriously suggest that the inclusion of the words "including rough sleeping" would either circumscribe that discretion or, still less, prove justiciable?

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

There is an obsession with the phrase "rough sleeping", although I accept it gives rise to real needs. Many rough sleepers have multiple needs, and one could argue that they could be covered by every single category that one might care to name. However, the bottom line is that they are homeless.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

DUTY TO PERSONS WITH PRIORITY NEED WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS INTENTIONALL

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

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

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Right of review of eligibility for allocation of housing accommodation— '—() If a local housing authority decides that an applicant for housing accommodation is ineligible by virtue of subsection (3) and (5) of section 160A for an allocation by them, they shall inform him of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.'. New clause 6—Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need— '().—Section 188 (interim duty to accommodate in case of an apparent priority need) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows. (3) After subsection (3) for the words "The authority may continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review" there is substituted— The authority shall, if the applicant requests a review of the decision, consider whether to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant pending a decision on a review, and shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular— (a) any new information provided by the applicant since the authority's decision was notified to him; (b) whether a decision not to continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation will substantially affect his ability to pursue his request for a review; (c) the merits of the request for a review, as they appear to the authority at the time the request is made.".'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The time that it took you to read out the items to be debated, Madam Deputy Speaker, shows just what a long and complex group of amendments and new clauses this is on the subject of housing applications and allocations. The group covers three themes. First, some of the amendments and new clauses seek to ensure that the law is applied in practice, and in ways that meet policy intentions. Secondly, others seek to apply minimum standards to ensure that bad practice improves, and that there is more consistency, where appropriate, between local authorities. Thirdly, others seek to achieve a proper balance between local authority discretion and meeting housing need. 6.15 pm Some of the new clauses and amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), but others have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I shall draw the House's attention to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend's amendments that were not discussed in Committee. For example, amendment No. 52 deals with the level of support that should be given when a relationship breaks down and one party is left without accommodation. Equally, amendments Nos. 60 and 53 raise the important issue of the level of support that should be given to people whom the police believe need protection because they have reason to fear violence to their person. No doubt my hon. Friend will air those issues should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and myself. New clause 4 deals with the minimum time that a homeless person should be given to consider the final offer of accommodation made by a local authority. The issue was debated in Committee, and I pointed out that a homeless person, when presented with a final offer, needs time to consider the offer and to take into account the implications of accepting it for working arrangements, and the effect on the arrangements for his children's education. He also needs to be given time to find out whether the local authority is prepared to carry out any repairs to the property that might be required. During our deliberations, the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary suggested that they would not accept such an amendment. However, the Committee clearly took the view that the practice of many local authorities, which allows only 24 hours for a homeless person to make a decision, was unacceptable. We referred to several authorities, including my own, that operate such a 24-hour policy. The Under-Secretary described it as unreasonable and said: in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is too short a period in which to expect a person to decide on a final offer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 356.] His argument was that if three days appeared in the Bill as a minimum period, it would in many cases become the maximum. I do not accept that argument. Many of us might prefer a longer period, and in new clause 17, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests a minimum period of five days. That suggestion is attractive. However, a minimum of three days, provided that it is backed up with strong guidance making it clear that it is a minimum, will at the very least ensure that the practice of allowing only 24 hours, which is currently followed by far too many authorities, is outlawed.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He said that it proposed a period of five days, but did not explain why that relates to the first, not the final offer. Why do Liberal Democrats believe that five days should be allowed for a first offer but only three days for a final offer? Can the hon. Gentleman explain that curious logic?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

That is a matter for my hon. Friend. Indeed, we look forward to his explanation. However, it will not have escaped hon. Members' attention that all too often, the first offer and the final offer are the same. Too many local authorities do not provide homeless people with the range of choice that the Minister would like. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make that point when he replies to the Minister's question. New clause 5 deals with the right of review. I place on record our gratitude to the Minister for agreeing, under pressure from Liberal Democrat Members, to include a review period in the Bill. We have tabled new clause 5 to clarify the Minister's exact intentions for the review. In the original measure, people's eligibility for housing assistance and the priority that they would receive were not subject to review. It provided for the local authority to decide; there was no review period to deal with cases in which someone did not agree with the decision and did not believe that the correct information had been used to make it. The Government have now acceded to our request for a review. Did the Minister mean what he said in Committee when I asked whether the review period covered eligibility? He replied: 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."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 419.] I took that at face value. I hope that I am right, and that it means that the review process covers eligibility. Decisions about eligibility are made under clause 25 whereas the right of review has been included in clause 27, which covers priority. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the same opportunity exists for reviewing eligibility as for ascertaining the priority of an eligible homeless person. Such a clear statement would persuade me not to press new clause 5, at least. New clause 6 deals with another issue that we discussed briefly. What happens to homeless people during the review period? Will the local authority ensure that they are given accommodation? Section 188 of the 1996 Act provides that local authorities have the power, but not a duty, to provide accommodation for a person who is undergoing a review. In most cases, the power is not exercised. When I raised that in Committee, the Minister said that requiring local authorities to provide such accommodation in all circumstances would place too great a burden on them. I hope that he has noted that I have taken his anxieties about my earlier formulation into account in new clause 6, which would place a less stringent duty on local authorities. It would require them at least to consider whether to accommodate the individual who is undergoing a review. Given that significant watering down, I hope that the Minister will support the new clause. New clause 7 relates to a review or an appeal in a county court. It deals with the length of time that should be allowed before an appeal is made to a county court, accommodation during the appeal and the period for the appeal. Under the 1996 Act, those who are dissatisfied with a decision about support from a local authority can take the matter to a county court, but must make the appeal within 21 days. I do not intend to repeat the lengthy debate that we had in Committee, but there are good reasons why a 21-day period may not be long enough for a person to assemble the details that are required for an appeal to be heard, let alone to succeed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Notwithstanding the brickbat that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) for my tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I genuinely enjoy his advocacy of the argument. However, given the preponderance of cases in which local authorities choose not to provide accommodation pending the outcome of an appeal, what assessment has he made, in his constituency or more widely, of the financial and logistical burden that falls on others?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Thereby hangs an interesting tale. It is difficult to make such a calculation because current arrangements, whereby local authorities often do not even provide accommodation for the period of the review, let alone for the time required to develop an appeal, mean that many people cannot prepare for a review or an appeal because they have to worry about the more urgent matter of trying to get a roof over their heads. Research shows that few appeals have taken place. It would be difficult in current circumstances to assess the increase in the number of appeals and thus in the cost. I regret that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. However, he knows that there will be hundreds of appeals throughout the country. If accommodation is to be provided for a few weeks in each case, he can calculate the approximate magnitude of the figure. He has made an interesting point, which shows that a 21-day time limit can put people off. The Minister was worried about over-prescription. He will note that new clause 7 shows much greater flexibility than a previous amendment that I tabled. Under current legislation, it is not possible to extend the period beyond 21 days even if both parties want to do that. At least new clause 7 provides for an extension with the agreement of both sides. It also deals more flexibly with providing accommodation during the appeal period. 6.30 pm As for new clauses 10 and 11, I suspect that the Minister has been honing his quotes to demonstrate how my hon. Friends and I frequently stress the importance of giving freedom to local government. No doubt he has a third quote up his sleeve. He will say that the problem with the new clauses is that Liberal Democrats want to impose things on local government, which is contrary to what we say on other occasions. The new clauses would give the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to housing and social services departments to ensure that there is an adequate level of service, and consistency in key areas of practice. New clause 10 would apply to the allocation of social housing by an authority under part VI of the 1996 Act, and new clause 11 would apply to a local authority's homelessness functions under part VII. During our deliberations in Committee, the Minister referred frequently to the crucial importance that he attached to the guidance that will be issued by the Department. Yet he will acknowledge that where the law is incredibly complex, as it is concerning homelessness and allocations, guidance is a vital instrument for implementing policy intentions. Unless there is direction on some of the specific issues contained in the Bill, there is a real danger that some authorities will ignore the guidance. In some authorities, therefore, the quality of provision would be well below a minimum acceptable standard. Before the Minister tries to jump down my throat to tell me that it is wrong to issue directions and guidance to local authorities, I ask him to be careful. Were he to say such a thing, I would remind him of occasions when the Government have done just that, not least with social service departments. Were he to challenge me, I would say that often such directions are given to social service departments without any additional resources being provided to enable them to carry out the functions demanded of them. Finally—the House will no doubt be pleased to know—I shall talk about new clause 12, which deals with the importance of setting out a basic minimum set of standards in regulations, to ensure that the provision of advice and guidance to certain groups of homeless people by a local authority is acceptable. That is a key issue. In Committee, the Minister was more than willing to accept that the level and quality of advice and guidance offered by local authorities varies enormously. He acknowledged that the research findings in reports undertaken for the Department, and by organisations such as Shelter, have demonstrated that huge variability. I hope that, as it has been accepted that this should appear in the Bill as one of the duties of a local authority, he will also accept that it would be sensible specify minimum standards of service delivery. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for having taken a fairly long time to introduce the new clauses. I am sure that you will be aware that there are many important issues involved. The House will be aware that there are more to come, and no doubt we shall be hearing about some of them from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for dealing so fully—I might almost say exhaustively—with his various new clauses and amendments. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not express a view on every one of them—at least not in any detail.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Go on.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is eager to do just that. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath has not been persuaded by any behind-the-scenes deal not to press new clause 4 to a vote. If he does press it, as I hope he will, we shall be supporting him. That is not because the new clause represents an earth-shattering change to the Bill. It is because, if we divide on it, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be able to register our support for those of our amendments that are included in this group. If we do not, they will fall, and will have to be voted on later under the programme motion, taking up time that might otherwise be used in debate.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I have always believed that our procedures mean that we listen to the debate before deciding whether to press a matter to a Division. However, having heard the Minister's response to similar amendments in Committee, I doubt whether I shall be persuaded to withdraw the new clause.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Let us hope that the Liberal Democrats stick to that resolution. They will have our support in the Lobby if they do so.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

That is a back-room deal.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It is a front-room deal. It could not be more open—though it has been said that the best way of keeping something secret is to make a speech on it in the House. I am sure that, even these days, that is untrue. I will be speaking to amendments Nos 16, 17 and 20. Before doing so, I shall comment briefly on two of the more significant new clauses that the hon. Member for Bath has tabled. In Committee, when we debated the substance of new clause 4, I think everyone was horrified at the prospect that authorities were giving people 24 hours to make up their minds on a housing offer. The Minister took the view that that was unreasonable, and so did we. It is perhaps not untypical of the Liberal Democrats that they seem to be proposing two different periods, one of three days and one of five. We seem to be in period inflation. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has the opportunity, I have no doubt that he will explain the merits of five days. I shall not trespass on that internal argument among Liberal Democrats. Turning to new clause 5, people such as Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter, and the London Government Association have expressed their concerns about removing rights of review and rights of appeal. In Committee, we consistently supported the argument that these rights should be preserved in such circumstances. We said that the Government could be going too far in sweeping away the position that is set out in the Housing Act 1996. It will be most useful if I touch on amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 20, which feature a range of concerns that we debated in Committee. It is right that we should return to those issues on Report because the Minister did not take them on board in Committee. I know that there are Members in the Chamber who were also members of the Committee and who may wish to speak on these matters. Amendment No 16 to clause 27 would insert the words, to include particularly families with dependant children. I know the argument that the Minister will advance. I can almost hear it now. He will say that we should not be too prescriptive in Bills, particularly when dealing with categories of people who are given priority. However, we felt strongly that messages should be sent out. In Committee, the debate on allocations and priorities, for example, was driven by a series of press leaks by the Department to the effect that released prisoners would be given some sort of priority in terms of homelessness.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Not true.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Minister made that clear in Committee; that is why there is not an amendment that touches directly on the matter. We are taking the Minister's assurances at face value, as is only right. We are pleased that there has clearly been a rethink on the issue within the Department, and that the Government have backed off, no doubt having received much critical comment. This matter has featured in the media on at least two occasions. I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that that was nothing to do with him but, as the Government think they are good at the art of spinning, somebody obviously thought that it was worth spinning.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept, once again, my clear and categorical assurance that not only is there no intention to give prisoners a direct priority in housing allocation—a point I have made repeatedly—but there was no leak from the Department on the issue? If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will probably recall that one bout of press speculation followed a press release that he himself put out making that unfounded allegation. When we are thinking about where press stories come from, Conservative central office is probably the answer.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not think the Minister can get away with that. First, I have accepted his assurance, but if it makes him feel better, I will say again that I acknowledge that that is not now the Government's intention. Whether it ever was is perhaps academic. We certainly did not think the issue up; it featured in the media, which is why we commented on it. In fairness, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said in a debate in the House that, if the matter was going to be spun, it was an odd thing for the Government to spin. Sometimes, though, as we have seen in recent weeks, spin doctors get out of control. In any event, we are delighted that, at this point, the proposition does not form part of the Government's proposals. Perhaps we can leave it at that. We still think, as we did in Committee, that we should not move away from a principle set out in the Housing Act 1996. The Minister will say that this is an opportunity to simplify matters in the light of that Act, which we accept. Under the Act, authorities are required to produce allocation schemes that give "reasonable preference" to numerous categories, including families with dependent children. I say again that I see the argument for making some simplification. However, we take the view that if only one category is to be singled out, it should be families with dependent children. Parliament is entitled to send that sort of message. I referred in Committee to the useful work of the Catholic Housing Aid Society. I shall not refer to it again in any detail, except to say that, among other things, it shows that, of all local authority acceptances of priority need, nearly 60 per cent. are households with dependent children. That chimes with my mailbag and surgery and is a perfectly legitimate issue which could be included in the Bill. Amendment No. 17 raises the important issue of so-called neighbours from hell. There was near unanimity in Committee that perhaps the most difficult sort of issue in which we are asked to get involved as Members of Parliament concerns people who behave antisocially. It is often significantly easier to deal with the problem if such people are in social housing rather than in private housing. Having said that, we all face such problems in our constituencies. The Bill should send out a much clearer message that people should not and cannot behave antisocially. Earlier, we talked about violence and the threat of violence, and the effect that that can have on neighbours. We are now talking about a range of activity from the mildly antisocial through to genuine violence, which encompasses people breaking windows or making a lot of noise and encouraging their children to be noisy and difficult with certain neighbours. Such activity may even involve repairing cars and motorcycles on the front lawn or hanging out washing in a certain area. All those things can make a difference to a neighbourhood and to people's neighbours. There are also problems of racial abuse and other issues, which we have already discussed in relation to a different group of amendments. Such activity is one of the biggest causes of unhappiness in many estates throughout the country. 6.45 pm Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 gives landlords grounds to evict people from shorthold tenancies. Section 162 of the 1996 Act gives local authorities the power to apply for injunctions against antisocial behaviour. The Government have introduced antisocial behaviour orders but, on any view, their use to date has been disappointing. I will not repeat the experience of the Irwell Valley housing association in Salford, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) dealt with it at length in Committee. The association's approach, which involves being tough with antisocial people and trying to reward those who behave as good neighbours, produces high levels of customer satisfaction and low levels of arrears, and so on. The Committee also discussed a scheme by Wandsworth council—so often the trailblazer in these matters—for contracts between it and its tenants to cut down on criminal and immoral acts in council housing.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the difficulty that many local authorities face with the kind of tenancies that he described. There was considerable cross-party agreement on that in Committee. However, does he not accept that the wording of amendment No. 17 is rather woolly and open to interpretation?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Like everything in this Bill or in any other piece of legislation, the amendment is subject to interpretation. We hope that local authorities will apply the measures reasonably. However, the point of the amendment is that we need to give them a steer so that they can—and should—take account of people's previous behaviour. If people have a record of bad behaviour, rent arrears or whatever—we went into that in detail in Committee, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will remember—that could and should be taken into account. That does not mean taking into account a criminal conviction such as a speeding fine, as some councils do. It means taking into account the fact that there are genuine grounds for concern that tenants who have behaved badly vis-à-vis their neighbours in the past may well do so again.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is right that my hon. Friend should focus, as the Committee did, on obviously antisocial and, in some cases, even criminal behaviour. In that context, will he take the opportunity to distinguish between behaviour which, we all agree, should be denounced and counteracted by public agencies—and, possibly, be the subject of police investigation—and cases of honest disagreement and dispute between neighbours? On the latter, would he not commend the important contribution to the resolution of those conflicts that can be made be mediation services, of which there is an excellent example in Aylesbury?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is another excellent example in Eastbourne. We discussed in Committee—and I am sure that this will have wider resonance across the House—the problem of receiving one set of neighbours at one's advice surgery one week and then, to one's horror, seeing on one's list of appointments the next the people about whom they were complaining. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my experience: we are seen as arbiters of these problems, which are extraordinarily difficult to resolve.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

They are invidious.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Indeed. We should set aside the situation in which two perfectly respectable and responsible sets of neighbours, neither of whom are behaving criminally or particularly reprehensibly, simply do not get on with one another. Whatever they do, there will always be a dispute about something—whether an overhanging tree, an uncut lawn or a badly parked car. We all know of such cases—I certainly have experience of them—which have gone on for years, blighting the lives of both sets of neighbours and sometimes costing them an enormous amount in legal fees and causing other problems to no eventual purpose. Finally, I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 20 which, on the face of it, would provide a dramatic power for an authority effectively to suspend the operation of a certain provision when it can show that continuing to operate it would have a detrimental effect. I explained in Committee, but perhaps I should do so again, that we have in mind the clear distinction that exists between authorities that have an excess of supply over demand in respect of social housing, and those where the opposite is the case. I understand that there are parts of the country, particularly but not exclusively in the north, where someone looking for a new flat or house will go to the local council and be shown two or three nice options that afternoon. I discussed the situation in Eastbourne recently with Councillor Mrs. Ann Murray, who is the lead cabinet member for housing under the new and highly successful Conservative administration of Eastbourne borough council. The average wait in Eastbourne can be three to four years, which is phenomenal. When people contact me and come to my surgery, it is extremely depressing to write off to the housing department knowing that one will get a letter back stating that those people will have to wait three to four years. The council hopes to reduce the waiting time to two to three years, which may not seem like a great leap forward, simply by changing the rules so that children can be put into council flats, which has not been allowed so far. May I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that Eastbourne is one of the 90-odd authorities that have applied for the pilot scheme for choice-based allocations? As I recall, the arithmetic was rather depressing. It seemed that only about a third of those that had applied would be eligible for the scheme. None the less, it is an interesting concept. We had a longish discussion in Committee about the so-called Delft system. Closer to home, Harborough is ahead of the game, having undertaken a particular pilot scheme. My only comment—and this is the point of our amendment—is that a choice-based system is all very well and up-to-the-minute and trendy, but how is it to operate in a place such as Eastbourne, where there is a vast excess of demand over supply? I can see that it would make a difference in some cases. That is why I am particularly keen that Eastbourne should be successful in becoming part of the pilot scheme and getting some of the dosh out of the Minister—we get precious little else in Eastbourne. It will be fascinating to see how the scheme would work in such places. If I were the Minister trying to decide on a wholly dispassionate basis how to allocate the resources for the pilot schemes, I would consider Eastbourne a particularly good example of one end of the scale, where there is great demand and a thoroughly inadequate supply. I hope that the Minister will look warmly and encouragingly on the Eastbourne bid, although there is a more serious general issue at stake.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the hon. Gentleman encourage the Minister also to look favourably on the bid from Bath and North-East Somerset, where there is a much greater mixture of housing provision than I imagine is the case in Eastbourne?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Before we get to that stage, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman's local council electors do what the voters of Eastbourne have done, and get rid of a thoroughly incompetent, inept Liberal Democrat administration. I shall not go further down that path, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, probably would not allow me to do so. There are questions about how a choice-based system would work in areas such as Eastbourne. That is the point of the amendment. I commend our three amendments to the House. As I explained, because of the quirks of our procedures, it is unlikely that we shall press those amendments to a Division. Hence my support—breaking the habit of a lifetime—for the Liberal Democrats' new clause 4.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful to be called, and I shall speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name. However, I begin by observing that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) started his speech by having a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for speaking for 20 minutes on seven new clauses. The clock shows that the hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke for 20 minutes on three amendments. We must take care not to be over-critical of colleagues doing their job. On new clause 17, the Minister again sought to make mischief, but I shall disappoint him. Unless the Minister responds positively, I shall happily support new clause 4 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, and I am glad to hear that the Conservatives will do so too. New clause 17 is entirely compatible with new clause 4, for three reasons. First, unfortunately—because of my own bad handwriting, I concede—the text as printed is not the same as the text as drafted. It should have read "final offer", not "first offer". We always speak of the final offer in this context, so I hope that the Minister will accept my explanation. Secondly, new clause 4 refers to a minimum of three days for an offer to be considered. I suggest in new clause 17 that a period of five days should be set. That is not inconsistent. The important thing is that there should not be a 24 or 48-hour turnaround. People are often on a list for a long time, and the offer may come with no warning. They may be away, visiting family or on holiday, so they must be allowed a reasonable period within which to receive the offer and respond to it. That should be at least three days, potentially five days, and possibly longer, if the local authority considers that appropriate, after consultation with tenants. In many cases, people receive only one offer. The Minister must know from his personal experience that it is entirely unfair to give them a ridiculously short time within which to accept it. I hope that he will be positive and accept the new clause moved by my hon. Friend. The third specific point that I included in new clause 17—I had seen new clause 4 before I drafted it—allows people to inspect the premises with an independent adviser. It is no good expecting them to accept the offer without looking at the premises, or, if they are allowed to go in, to be accompanied only by the housing officer, who will clearly be determined to tell them that the property is acceptable and that that is the only offer that they will get. People must be allowed to inspect the premises, to be accompanied by an independent adviser and then to judge whether the offer is reasonable. That leads to new clause 18, which would require the local housing authority to inform applicants of their right to request a review, independently of the local authority, if they are told that they are ineligible for housing. One of the great causes of complaint is that people make an application, the local authority decides and that is the end of the matter. I have tabled four amendments, all of which derive from issues regularly raised by people who come to my surgery and to others. It is often the case that people who experience a relationship breakdown in a home that they rent or, much more frequently, in a home that they own are told that they cannot be housed by the local authority and that they are intentionally homeless. If, for example, people bought their home under the right-to-buy scheme and the marriage comes to an end, one partner will usually stay in the home. The other partner may leave, possibly with some finance. However, it may not be possible to raise any finance. The partner staying in the home cannot raise it, so there is no money available at that moment. I ask Ministers to accept that, when the family home can no longer be the family home, the person who leaves should be able to look to the local authority for housing. Such people may or may not have children, but if they are parents, they may want the child or children to stay with them for a weekend, the school holidays or whatever, yet they find that they have nowhere to go. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to those amendments. 7 pm Amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 60 relate to a later part of the Bill.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled separately from those of his Front-Bench colleagues. Given that there is no Liberal Democrat Whip available in the Chamber at the moment, will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) passed over to him as to why he is tabling a separate set of amendments? Is this another example of Liberal Democrat anarchy?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I knew that I should not have given way to what was clearly going to be a silly intervention. People are entitled to table amendments from the Back Benches. Our Front-Bench colleagues do their job and all my hon. Friend's new clauses and amendments have my support. However, I represent more council tenants than any other Member of Parliament in England, including all the Labour Members, and I hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will accept that these issues are of huge interest to my constituents. I have tabled amendments, as the hon. Gentleman could have done, although I notice that he did not.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, a number of amendments were tabled by Labour Back Benchers? That seems to be a perfectly appropriate way for all hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend must have been blessed in that Committee, because I have served on many Committees in which not a peep comes from Labour Back Benchers and they all happily toe the Government line.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to make the point that it is legitimate for Back Benchers and Front Benchers to table amendments and new clauses. If the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is unfamiliar with that basic constitutional fact after spending nearly four years in the House, it is about time he became aware of it. Will the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at least accept that, while there is a case for the three-day period and for the five-day period, it is stretching a point to say that they are not incompatible with each other? Will the hon. Gentleman, who is rather self-effacing, accept from me that his preference for a five-day period proves that, by comparison with his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he is simply more liberal?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Those are judgments that must be made by others. The Government have a policy that all the Opposition parties find unacceptable. The good thing is that they now have two alternative proposals that they could buy off the shelf. One contains a word that was misread, and the other has the endorsement of those on the Conservative Front Bench. The Minister has no excuse for saying that he has no choice, and I sincerely hope that he will buy one of our options. I seriously look forward to that happening. The other amendments relate to serious matters, and have been referred to supportively by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. Some people need personal protection, often urgently. I am trying, with the help of my local authority, to have someone in that predicament re-housed. Indeed, four families who are trying to get re-housed are on the books in my constituency office, having visited my surgery. I would like it to be the law that, when the police say to a local authority that people must be moved for their own safety, and that their safety cannot be guaranteed where they are because there is a serious risk to their life, the local authority must have a duty to move them within 28 days. That should have an priority overriding other responsibilities. I know that such a proposal would have the support of the police, who get very frustrated in these circumstances, as do local authority officers trying to juggle all kinds of competing priorities. Amendment No. 60 is linked to that proposal. The issue of people at risk from violence has been dealt with and we have received a positive response from the Minister. However, people whose mental or physical safety is at risk sometimes need to be moved. Those circumstances might involve threats rather than actual violence. I am dealing with a case at the moment involving a serious assault that took place not far from the Elephant and Castle. The youngster who was seriously injured is not able or willing to give evidence if he still has to live in the area in which he was assaulted. That is perfectly reasonable. The family will not support him in giving evidence, and the police understand that. The Crown Prosecution Service's clock is ticking away, and it insists that there is a date by which it will have to decide whether it can proceed. The prosecution will not be able to proceed without the evidence of that individual. My proposal is that, if re-housing is a precondition of someone's being able to give evidence in criminal proceedings, he should be re-housed within the time limit required by the criminal justice system. Amendment No. 55 relates to the circumstances in which councils have to juggle competing priorities—as they all struggle to do—and requires that they assess the length of time someone has been in a particular category of need, in their list of considerations. They would have to form their own view about that; I am not trying to dictate to them. For example, account should be taken of the length of time someone had been ill, suffering from the after-effects of a stroke, and therefore been unable to go up and down stairs, or of the length of time that a family of seven had occupied a one-bedroom flat. The amendments relate to practical matters, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to all of them. I also hope that he will accept a new clause in the form of—or similar to—that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in so far as they are compatible. I want to raise a specific point with the Minister, relating to agricultural tied cottages and the effect that the Bill will have on them. A couple came to see me in my constituency surgery in Wincanton last week—my constituency could not be further removed in character from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Mr. Brice and Ms Parsons came to see me because they had been served notice to quit an agricultural tied cottage. Mr. Brice had previously been made redundant from his post at a farm. The difficulty in the case is that the landlord is trying to introduce a market rent, having given notice to quit in the interim. The local authority would normally have a duty to re-house the couple as homeless, and there is some urgency about the situation because the lady in question is due to give birth within two weeks. However, they cannot be re-housed because the matter has to be reviewed by the agricultural dwelling homes advisory committee under the terms of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The notice to quit is not valid until that review has taken place. That is a conundrum to which the Minister may not have an answer immediately and, if that is the case, I would be glad if he wrote to me on the matter. It seems perverse that a provision intended to give protection to tenants is, in this instance, doing precisely the reverse by preventing the local authority from doing what is clearly necessary—that is, re-housing a couple in need as priority cases because they are effectively homeless. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the matter his consideration.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had an interesting debate involving a considerable number of amendments and new clauses, and a number of speakers. I shall try to do justice to all of them in the shortest possible time that I can. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little time to deal with the large number of issues raised. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases but I will look into the circumstances surrounding the issue and write to him. New clauses 4 and 17—there are some interesting textual problems here—return to an issue discussed thoroughly in Committee. As I said then, I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment to ensure that people accepted as unintentionally homeless and who are temporarily accommodated by a local authority have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer of an allocation under Part VI. That is important because by making it a final offer the authority will have in effect given notice that they intend to bring the homelessness duty to an end. Applicants will need time to give the offer careful consideration. If they are not immediately taken with the offer, they may well feel that they want to consult with family, friends or, in some case, their legal advisers. They should be given a reasonable time in which to do so. As I said in Committee, my genuine fear is that specifying a minimum of three or perhaps five days would make that period the yardstick according to which many authorities might decide to operate. It could, in effect, be construed as a Government-approved maximum period for consideration, which, in my view, would be an unhappy outcome. In some cases, three or five days will not be enough. Flexibility is required, so that account can be taken of the circumstances of individual cases: the situation does not lend itself to narrow prescription. I shall not comment on the lack of clarity on the part of the Liberal Democrats, who have specified both three and five days. If I had not understood from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he had intended his new clause to refer to a final offer, I would have asked him why he thought it reasonable for a time limit to be placed on a first offer but not on a second or third offer. New clause 5 requires authorities to notify applicants of a right to request a review of a decision that they fell within an ineligible group, and of the time allowed for the making of such a request. The Bill gives applicants the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of their case. That includes decisions about eligibility based on the applicant's personal circumstances, including immigration status. I can tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that there is no confusion about the scope of the review. As I made clear in Committee, the eligibility issue is covered. There cannot, of course, be a dispute about circumstances in which someone is validly deemed ineligible, but the basis on which the decision is reached—the facts of the case—will be open to the review. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would take that two steps further. It would ensure first that when an applicant was made aware that he had been deemed ineligible he would be informed of his right of review, and secondly that a time limit would be imposed on that right. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's intention, but I would like to consider further whether the ends we both wish to achieve might be better achieved through an amendment or through guidance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his proposal, in return for my undertaking that I will give further thought to the issues that it raises. As for new clause 18, I have begun to wonder whether, as a child, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was ever caught copying at school—and copying rather sloppily too. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Bath seem to agree strongly about some things, but not about everything. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is clearly keen to assert his independence, and appears to be trying to shift his party's housing policy from the policy to which his shadow Home Office responsibilities relate. Amendment No. 18 seeks to give applicants a right to be informed when a decision on eligibility has been made, but also requires such a review to be independent. Let me say a little about the conduct of reviews. When undertaking a review, a local authority must provide for a proper or appropriate review in the light of the circumstances. It must take into account the laws relating to human rights and to judicial review; it must pay attention to what rights it is considering, and what procedures are appropriate. Having considered all those matters, it will be able to decide what is right in the circumstances. In his amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks again to determine the minutiae of arrangements. We think it right to leave the authority a measure of discretion, and I therefore do not propose to support the amendment. New clause 6 provides for circumstances in which a local housing authority has decided that it no longer owes an interim duty to accommodate, and notifies the applicant. It would place a specific duty on the authority to consider continuing to secure accommodation for those seeking a review of the decision. The current legislation gives authorities powers to ensure that accommodation remains available to applicants pending a decision on a review, but does not place an obligation on them to do so. It is for an authority to consider—on the basis of the facts of the case, and with regard to the resources available—whether to exercise those powers. The authority must exercise its discretion reasonably and with consideration, but the new clause seeks to specify in some detail how it should exercise its discretion. 7.15 pm In Committee we discussed, on many occasions and in different contexts, the need to strike the right balance between giving authorities discretion in the carrying out of their functions and specifying in detail what they must do. It is never easy to draw the line, but our approach in the Bill has been to establish a clear framework in which authorities can make their own judgments, informed by local knowledge—knowledge of the facts of individual cases, in the context of the many pressures that authorities have to balance. I believe that, ultimately, the exercise of local judgment will lead to better outcomes than detailed, inflexible instructions set out in statute. It is not that the issues for consideration specified in the clause are inherently implausible; they are not. They could be incorporated in guidance to authorities on issues that they may wish to take into account. Important factors have been missed out, however—not least the other pressures on accommodation in an authority's area. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will probably be more aware of those than most hon. Members. The new clause would also have unwanted and adverse effects. It would perversely encourage appeals against authorities' decisions even when there was no realistic chance of success, simply because that would guarantee a continuation of accommodation for the period of the appeal. It would have resource implications for authorities, which could in some cases result in cases of lesser need gaining priority over those in greater need. As I have said many times, it is a question of getting the balance right, and we do not believe that the new clause gets it right. It is too prescriptive; it would encourage vexatious requests for reviews; it would add to bureaucracy; and it would take away an important discretionary power from local housing authorities. In a recent press release headed "Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns", the hon. Member for Bath said: Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns. Labour's centralising tendency is undermining local democracy. I must say to the hon. Gentleman "Get your Liberal Democrat tanks off local government lawns". New clause 7 seeks to amend the provisions on right of appeal to the county court on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. It would allow an extension of the current appeal period of 21 days. Like new clause 6, it would place a detailed duty on authorities to consider continuing to ensure that accommodation was available to applicants who sought a review of the decision under section 202. I have just dealt with the issue of consideration, and I believe that the arguments here are the same. Authorities should be given the tools with which to do their job and discretion to make difficult judgments, and they should be accountable for those judgments. We dealt in Committee with the proposal to extend the appeal period beyond 21 days. As I made clear then, I do not think that the current 21-day period is unreasonable, and it is important for appeals to be dealt with quickly. The new clause, however, raises one point that I think merits further consideration. Part VII of the 1996 Act introduced a right of review of homelessness decisions, and a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if the applicant was not satisfied with the authority's decision on review. The aim—rightly, in my view—was to allow grievances concerning homelessness decisions to be heard locally by the county courts, rather than the applicant's having to go through the more costly and remote processes of judicial review in the High Court. My understanding is that in considering appeals against homelessness decisions by a local authority, the county court has powers equivalent to those of judicial review by the High Court in every respect, save the power to require an authority to accommodate the applicant pending the appeal. That means that applicants are required to make a separate claim for judicial review to the administrative court in London, if they wish to seek an injunction requiring their local authority to accommodate them on an interim basis. As I have said, authorities currently have discretion to decide to continue to accommodate pending an appeal to the county court, if they wish. Any court would need very clear evidence that an authority had acted unreasonably before granting a mandatory injunction; indeed, it would be inappropriate for a court to do otherwise. Nevertheless, there will always be a number of applicants who seek leave to apply for judicial review, and the court must give careful consideration to such cases. I should like to consider whether there is a case for giving the county court power to require an authority to accommodate, so that consideration of homelessness cases need not be taken to the High Court. As I am sure the hon. Member for Bath will appreciate, that will require discussions with colleagues in other Departments, but I undertake to engage in such discussions. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the motion. New clauses 10, 11 and 12 seek to provide the Secretary of State with the power to give directions to local authorities on the exercise of their powers in relation to homelessness. Again, that raises the question of how to balance local discretion against central policy. I am surprised that hon. Members are so attracted to provisions that give powers to the Secretary of State to determine how local authorities shall conduct their business. I have already referred to one quote from the hon. Member for Bath. I give him one more: Our problem derives from the decision by the current Government and the previous Conservative Government to adopt a model that is designed to keep as many hands on the tiller as possible, denying local authorities freedom."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 369.] Get those Liberal Democrat hands off the tiller. Give local authorities more discretion. On amendment No. 52, the breakdown of a relationship can be one of the most distressing and traumatic events in a person's life. If children are involved, it may be especially wretched—for each partner and, above all, for the children—but whether, on break-up, either partner is intentionally homeless is surely a matter of particular circumstance. Relationship breakdowns vary in their emotional impact, their financial impact and in the way they impact on each partner. Some can be amicable, but not all are, as we know. That surely is the point. No two cases are alike and there is a need for each circumstance to be assessed on the individual merits of the case. I do not agree that it should necessarily fall to the local authority to accommodate one of the partners in every case of relationship breakdown, particularly where the relationship may have been a casual one and has not lasted for any length of time, but that would be the effect of the amendment. It would place an unacceptable and unreasonable burden on local authorities and send the wrong signals to people who were experiencing difficulties in their relationships, but were capable of resolving their problems and housing themselves. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will accept that the amendment is not appropriate. On Government amendment No. 47, one of the Bill's aims is to facilitate the development of allocation schemes that can be framed so as to give more choice to applicants. That should include, wherever possible, more choice about the properties that they wish to apply for, and more choice to make a trade-off between holding out for a more desirable property and opting for something perhaps less desirable, but more easily available. For applicants to be in a position to exercise that choice, letting schemes will need to offer as much transparency as possible. People in the housing queue, particularly in areas of high demand, should be given an idea of how long they are likely to have to wait for particular properties in particular areas. To facilitate that, it will be important that authorities provide as much feedback as possible about the level of priority and length of waiting time of successful applicants. That will help others to make a judgment about how long they may have to wait for a similar property. Such feedback can, of course, be couched only in the most general terms. It is essential that there are safeguards against the release of confidential and sensitive personal information. As drafted, clause 26 does not quite achieve that policy. That amendment will allow authorities to let applicants have general information about those households who have been successful in their application. It will not, however, allow authorities to divulge the fact that someone is currently applying for accommodation. The Data Protection Act 1998 will ensure that authorities cannot divulge sensitive personal information. At first sight, amendment No. 16 seems reasonable, although a little thought rapidly shows it to be flawed. It seeks to give additional preference to families with dependent children. Its effect would be always to place the needs of families with dependent children above those of the elderly, the disabled or other groups. In Committee, we heard the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) make an eloquent plea for the needs of elderly people to be met. In the House, we have heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) make a passionate plea for the needs of people with disabilities to be met. We recognise the wide range of needs. I hope that they will recognise that, if we give additional priority to one group, by definition, it downgrades the others. Many families with children are not in need. Many affluent families with children would not deserve priority over a poor or disabled household. Therefore, it is not appropriate to pursue the amendment. I am sympathetic to the intention behind amendments Nos. 53 and 60, which are to ensure that authorities respond quickly to the immediate rehousing needs of people whose personal safety may be at risk. However, the Bill already facilitates that. Clause 27 requires that allocation schemes must be framed, so that reasonable preference is given to people who need to move on welfare grounds. That will include people who need to move to alternative accommodation because they are at risk or are under police protection. The clause also gives authorities the power to give additional preference to particular descriptions of applicants who fall within the reasonable preference categories. The provisions will ensure that authorities continue to be in a position to respond promptly to requests for housing assistance from the police. I would be very concerned if an authority did not respond positively to a formal request from the police to assist in the rehousing of someone whose safety was known to be at risk, whether as a result of agreeing to testify in proceedings, or otherwise. From my experience in my constituency, there was close and quick collaboration between the police, the local authority and the Home Office to rehouse the families whose identity was unintentionally and unfortunately revealed in the annexe of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report and who might have been put at risk by that disclosure, so I know that the arrangements can work. I would be alarmed if they were not working. I invite hon. Members who have evidence that they are not working to let me know. Amendment No. 21 addresses the case of an applicant whose behaviour is so unacceptable that an authority, taking account of the rights of other residents, refuses to allocate accommodation. I make it clear that the Bill, as amended in Committee, already provides authorities with the right to refuse an application in such circumstances. Section 167(2A) to (2D) will make it clear that such a person need not be awarded any preference whatever. Therefore, there is no need for any further amendment. Amendment No. 17 seems superfluous. It proposes that account be taken of any record of behaviour that has affected the terms of a previous tenancy. That is already covered by subsection (2A)(b), which deals with behaviour that affects a person's suitability to be a tenant. Amendment No. 55 seeks to place further statutory prescription on allocation schemes. It would add a fourth factor to the three already specified in the Bill. We know that unsatisfactory housing conditions or medical or welfare considerations are currently taken into account a great deal by local authorities, which already consider the length of time that applicants have been waiting. It is probably one of the most common factors used by housing authorities throughout the country. Because of that, it is not necessary to make particular provision to make it clear that that factor may be incorporated by local authorities. It is already widely known by authorities that they may do so. Amendment No. 20 is unnecessary and, if accepted, would be open to abuse. It would, in effect, allow an authority to suspend the framework for allocating preference and priority to needy groups and to individuals within those groups. I am not sure that that was the intention in tabling the amendment—I sincerely hope it was not. Although some authorities in high-demand areas face real challenges in managing applications, all are still able to allocate some housing through the register. Under the Bill, transfers within the authority will be handled through the provisions of the allocations or lettings schemes. I cannot think that hon. Members want to remove that sensible framework. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment. I apologise for the length of my response, but the number and detail of the amendments made that necessary. I hope that hon. Members recognise that the amendments are unnecessary and that none should be accepted, with the one exception of Government amendment No. 47, which I commend to the House.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I congratulate the Minister on that tour de force, but there would have been no need for him to rush if we had had a decent programme motion. I thank him for his willingness at least to reconsider aspects of new clauses 5 and 7. However, I am completely horrified by his lack of confidence in the Government's legislation, which is such that he believes that provision for a minimum of three days could be interpreted as the Government agreeing to a maximum of three days. If that shows the faith that he has in this Labour Government, it is all the more reason why we should press the new clause to a vote.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion on Companies, the Ayes were 329, the Noes 7, so the motion was agreed to.