Homelessness Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 July 2001.

Standing Committee A

Homelessness Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I welcome hon. Members to our first sitting. I have due regard for their well-being and comfort and it is in order for them to remove their jackets if they so wish. I cannot speak for my co-Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, as he will exercise his own judgment on such matters, but I ask hon. Members not to incur his wrath. I welcome new Members to the Committee and remind all hon. Members that all remarks should be addressed through me. I prefer to be addressed as Mr. Gale or Chairman and, as on the Floor of the House, the expression ``you'' is not used when speaking through the Chair.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I beg to move,

That, during proceedings on the Homelessness Bill, the Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at half-past Nine o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock.

I look forward to considering the Bill under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. The Committee consists of distinguished and well-informed hon. Members and I look forward to examining the Bill with them. A programme resolution has not been tabled, which reflects the widespread support that the Bill has attracted and our commitment to its timely passage through the House. Several members of the Committee raised a wide range of important points on Second Reading and we now have the opportunity to discuss the Bill in a more detailed and systematic way that will put its provisions clearly into context. We have allowed provisionally for four sittings and we hope that our deliberations will be completed this week. However, we are keen to ensure that the Bill is scrutinised thoroughly and, if necessary, we will sit next week or even beyond. I hope that that finds favour with members of the Committee.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It is a pleasure to be in Committee again under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I welcome new Members to the Committee. I do not know if you are familiar with the film ``Groundhog Day'', Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

As it happens, I am.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Splendid. Chairmen of Committees should have wide cultural interests and I expected no less of you, Mr. Gale. Members of the Committee who

have not seen the film will have no idea of what I am talking about, but speaking for myself and not, of course, for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I will try to make the proceedings as little like ``Groundhog Day'' as possible.

Members of the Committee, other than new Members, will see remarkable similarities between the Bill and what was part II of the Homes Bill. While the prospect of sitting next week is tantalising and attractive, I have every confidence that we shall conclude consideration of the Bill this week in accordance with the sittings motion. I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats, but some of our points were covered in the Committee that considered the Homes Bill.

I wish to take this opportunity to welcome the new ministerial team to the Committee. The fates of their predecessors are many and varied. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has reverted to the Back Benches and is obviously enjoying himself far more there than he was when reading out his ministerial brief. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the hon. Gentleman is reverting to type. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has made the enormous leap from being the Minister with responsibility for housing to being the Minister for Local Government, and we wish him well.

It was only a few days ago that some of us thought that we would not have the pleasure of these proceedings because, inexplicably, the Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. However, we are delighted that the Government have made a u-turn, and we are even more delighted that new Members of Parliament will be denied the pleasure of debating what was part I of the Homes Bill and seller's packs. It is sensible to have decoupled parts I and II of the Homes Bill. We are considering an amended version of part I. The Committee could have been spared its labours this week if the Government had taken our advice at the time—the provision would already be on the statute book.

I made it clear on Second Reading, as I do now, that, although we have some detailed questions to raise, we wish the Bill a fair wind and look forward to it being translated, albeit belatedly, onto the statute book as soon as is practicable.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and the Minister, I am delighted to be serving once again under your firm but fair chairmanship, Mr. Gale. Just before our proceedings began I muttered that you appear to be a glutton for punishment to go through these debates again, but I can assure you that, like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I will be doing everything I can to keep our deliberations relatively brief, while ensuring that we do justice to the detailed issues before us.

Although new Members may not, you, Mr. Gale, will be familiar with my predilection for seeking opportunities to send postcards home to Mrs. Foster.

During the passage of the Homes Bill, especially when we debated part II, there were many such opportunities, because the Government, in their infinite and great wisdom, saw merit in many of my amendments. As an assiduous reader of the legislation before us, Mr. Gale, you may be aware that, although I was successful in getting amendments through as a result of my wonderful contributions, some were not accepted by the Government. Mysteriously, some of those unsuccessful amendments have appeared in the redrafted Bill and so before we have even begun, I have seven postcards to write home to Mrs. Foster. I hope that before our brief deliberations are concluded there is the opportunity to write at least a couple more.

I was slightly taken aback by the hon. Member for Eastbourne's reference to the wonderful film, ``Groundhog Day''. You have already indicated, Mr. Gale, that you are familiar with the plot, but the comparison is not as clear as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggests. He says that he is keen for our deliberations to be brief. Why, then, has he seen fit to table amendments that were tabled by Liberal Democrats in our last round of deliberations? The hon. Gentleman took no part in the debates on those amendments, so it is interesting that the Conservatives are picking up some of our proposals.

Some amendments tabled by Conservative Members are identical to those that they tabled during consideration of the Homes Bill but subsequently withdrew—not because they hoped that the issues would arise at a later stage, but because they were fully satisfied with the Minister's answers. Having said that they were satisfied, I am surprised that they have chosen to bring those amendments back.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

On the second point, it will have crossed the mind of the hon. Member for Bath that the prospect of us winning the vote on some of the amendments was remote, as it probably is now. Also, I make no criticism of the excellence of his draftsmanship, and I am sure that he will agree that all too often amendments helpfully appear from another source and it is a photo finish as to which hon. Member tables them first.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I referred to amendments that the Conservatives had said that they were satisfied not to press. To those who have nothing to do during our deliberations and wish to while away an idle moment, I recommend looking at former amendment No. 67.

We want to progress as quickly as possible. The sittings motion is sensible and will, I suspect, receive support from all members of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind hon. Members that copies of a financial resolution in connection with the Bill are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that are reached during an afternoon sitting. Clause 1 Homelessness reviews and strategies

Clause 1 - Homelessness reviews and strategies

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 3, after `authority''', insert

`and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, and voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies (``strategic partners'')'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—

`(4A)The authority shall maintain a list of those organisations which are its strategic partners, which it may modify from time to time.'.

No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after `authority', insert `and its strategic partners'.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It may help if I say that I hope to pursue the same approach to debating amendments as I did in proceedings on the Homes Bill—to flag up the fact that we are keen to have a more discursive debate on amendments and either obviate the need for a stand part debate or considerably foreshorten such a debate. I hope that that will help.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

For the benefit of the Committee, those who have worked with me before will know that generally I am perfectly happy to allow a stand part debate—that is, a broad-ranging debate—at either the beginning or the end of our consideration of a clause, on the clear understanding that we do not try to do both.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful for that clarification. It may help if I say that I want to deal in some detail with the amendments, but with your indulgence, Mr. Gale, we should also like to make several points in a short stand part debate.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I made it absolutely plain that the hon. Gentleman may have it one way or another, but not both.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Your patience is legendary, Mr. Gale.

I begin our proceedings by pointing out a most unfortunate typographical error at column 274 of the report of the proceedings of the previous Committee. A sentence that should have read:

``We can argue how many angels dance on a pinhead for as long as Mr. Gale's patience lasts'',

has, sadly, become:

``for as long as Mr. Gale's pension lasts.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 274.]

I am sorry to relate that that mistake, which I only spotted in the past couple of days, has been repeated in the Library's otherwise excellent brief on the Bill. Hansard may want to take note, as we would not like the impression to gain ground that you draw a pension, Mr. Gale.

The amendments are part of a groundhog-day strategy: we debated the issue previously. Although we had a reasonably good debate, the previous Minister did not feel that we had a good point. I am sure that his successor will be much more willing to be flexible. The hon. Member for Bath will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that we forced the issue to a Division. If we did not, it was probably because we did not expect to win.

The amendments relate to strategic partners. The key amendment is No. 1, under which, in addition to the local authority, registered social landlords, co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered under the Housing Act 1996, members of landlords' forums, voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies would be involved in devising a homelessness strategy. I do not claim that the list is exhaustive; if other hon. Members have suggestions, no doubt they will make them during what I hope will be a short debate. It still seems valid to say that, for the strategy to be meaningful in a particular local authority area, it should be specified in the Bill that it includes those other bodies.

We and local government in general, irrespective of party loyalties, welcome the new duty placed on local authorities to formulate an overarching homelessness strategy. Organisations such as the Local Government Association have flagged up concerns about whether resources will follow the proposals in the Bill, although it broadly welcomes the proposals, as do we.

Recently, the LGA said:

``The LGA supports the proposed new duty on local housing authorities to formulate a homelessness strategy. The LGA would like to see this go further to provide a legal basis for an overarching strategic housing role.''

In the context of the relatively broad debate on the amendments, it would be interesting to tease out from the Minister the Government's current thinking on the matter. I make no bones about the LGA's support for the proposals because many of them emanated from good work that the LGA did a couple of years ago. However, it thinks that the legislation could go further. Has that idea been dismissed out of hand, or might it be developed when the provisions in the legislation have bedded down?

The LGA continues to say that there is,

``at present, no legislative duty on authorities to produce a housing strategy other than the requirement in S8 Housing Act 1985 to consider the housing needs and conditions of the district.''

However, it also says—this is a key point that I wish to develop—that as more and more transfers of stock take place from local authorities to RSLs, or there is a movement toward arm's-length housing management, it is vital to ensure that housing strategies do not become marginalised. That is why the LGA says:

``A broader duty would place housing strategies on a level playing field with other statutory plans, such as Community Care plans.''

I recognise that there is tension between that clear point and the broader point that I often hear the LGA make that it is currently subjected to too many plans, and that many plans place an enormous burden on local authorities. Therefore, we must be careful about imposing further duties. However, the LGA supports the provisions and can claim a role in their origin, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to comment on what the LGA says.

A further difficulty is the existing problems of housing and homelessness. On Second Reading, we debated the current state of play in the housing world. Shelter commented:

``During the election, a lot of attention was given to improving education and health services. We hear much less about the thousands of families stuck in grotty B&Bs . . . The current crisis-driven approach to homelessness is not working.''

I am sure that all members of the Committee are disappointed that housing did not feature as a major issue in the election campaign, despite the efforts of heavyweight housing organisations in the run up to the campaign. That goes for all the major parties. Shelter is right to complain because there is a crisis of the number of people who are ``stuck in grotty B&Bs''. The Prime Minister, no less, in The Big Issue on 3 June said:

``We have to do better . . . I accept we need to do more.''

The Committee will be familiar with Government figures, but they bear repetition. They show that homelessness numbers in England have soared by 8,000 over the past three years. There were tetchy arguments in the previous Standing Committee about how those figures should be interpreted, but the only way to interpret them is to say that they are rising—in other words, getting worse. The most recent figures from 15 June show that the number of priority acceptances has risen from 102,410 in 1997 to 110,790 by the end of 2000. The number of homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has also risen from 4,100 in the first quarter of 1997 to 10,830 in the first quarter of 2001.

The growing gap between rich and poor should be overlaid on that picture. The number of empty council properties in England rose by 7 per cent. under the previous Labour Government: there were 81,200 empty dwellings in April 1997, but by April 2000 there were 87,186. However, the construction of new social housing has plummeted by 37 per cent., despite the estimates of organisations such as Shelter that, over the next 10 to 15 years, 100,000 new units of such housing will be needed each year.

The Committee will study the proposals and weigh their merits, and I hope that it will improve them, if only marginally. However, they must be seen against a background of serious problems, and of a generally worsening housing situation.

Large-scale transfers of stock—another relevant issue—was debated at length by the previous Committee, so I will not discuss it in detail. It was also touched on by the LGA. The rate of those transfers accelerated sharply under the previous Labour Government. The Minister announced that 27 local authorities will be able to proceed with

``32 transfers of all or part of their housing stock to registered social landlords''—[Official Report, 22 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 10W.]

and that the programme will involve more than 328,000 dwellings over a two-year period. That is a phenomenal figure, and I should be grateful if the Minister would update us on what the total number of units would be if that was taken into account. I think that it would be in excess of 500,000.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

To save the hon. Gentleman from having to wait for the Minister's reply, I can inform him that the total number of units would be 580,000.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

That is extremely helpful, as that figure puts the issues into context. If that rate of increase of transfers were to continue during the lifetime of the second Labour Government, which is likely to be four or five years, what do they project would be the total number of transfers by the end of the Parliament, if it runs its full course, and what would be the national proportion of properties in the hands of registered social landlords, versus those in the hands of local authorities? I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to that, and the hon. Member for Bath might also wish to express his views about it.

The ground is fundamentally shifting under us as we debate such issues, as it did when we debated them previously. The whole picture is changing and, before long, registered social landlords will be the dominant feature on the social housing landscape and local authorities will be much less dominant. Indeed, it has been predicted for some time that we will see the death of the council house during the lifetime of the current Government.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

It would strengthen the hon. Gentleman's argument if he knew that the current projection, based on the present rate of transfers, is that by 2004—probably before the end of the Government's term in office—the majority of social housing will be in the hands of registered social landlords. Therefore, it is vital to ensure that mechanisms are in place to ensure that registered social landlords, and the other bodies to which the amendments refer, work closely with the local authorities, which will continue to be responsible for the homelessness strategy.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry that I have to agree with him, but I am sure that we will find something to disagree about later.

The landscape is changing. Councils are going out of the housing business, and, although they may not be shouting it from the rooftops, that is the Government's policy. One has only to look at a graph on a wall—rather as the hon. Gentleman has just described—to see where things are going to end. In addition, increasing numbers of rundown council estates in some parts of the country are likely to remain empty, either because of their condition or because of the level of demand in that area, or because people are looking for better accommodation in the private or voluntary sectors.

I made a comment in the Committee stage of the Homes Bill, reflecting on a point made by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is not exactly a Conservative-leaning think tank. The institute used the analogy of the difference between black and white and colour television; it said that a lot of social housing was equivalent to black and white TV, and that demand for it would lessen as time went on.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I remember doing so on a similar point in the Committee stage of the Homes Bill.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

Is not the important point the Government's commitment to improve social housing within a 10-year time scale, with the safeguard that it must have tenant approval? Are not those two commitments that were not given by the previous Government?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

At the risk of doing the ``Groundhog Day'' routine, in response to a similar intervention by the hon. Gentleman on the previous Committee, I made the point that that is not my party's policy that people should be forced into transfers. We certainly did not fight the last election on that policy and, even if we had, no one would have noticed.

We endorse the Government's stand. It is becoming a bit of an embarrassment that on a whole range of issues my hon. Friends and I must welcome and endorse what the Government are doing, and I will discuss the fallout from that in a moment. We are happy that this Conservative policy has been grabbed so enthusiastically by the Government and that they are running with it, heading for the touchline. We are cheering them on, on this occasion. If anything, they have been more rapid in this matter than even we would have been, although our policy would have been to speed things up and push ahead as rapidly as possible.

The only glum faces among the spectators—to continue the sporting metaphor—are members of the Labour party who belong to the old Labour syndrome. They are unhappy about the transfers because Labour in local government has traditionally seen council housing as a way in which to exercise power and patronage, in a semi-feudal fashion, over people living in a particular area. It is no coincidence, for example, that the late Alderman Andy Cunningham, when he was leader of his council—I forget whether it was Durham or Newcastle—used to present the keys personally to new tenants of council houses. He did that not because he was into public relations, but to emphasise the landlord-tenant—or vassal-lord—relationship that pertained between the Labour-run council and the tenants. That culture is disappearing, and quite rightly so.

We will deal with the question of demand for social housing in more detail in our discussion of allocations, but I want to make one quick point and move on. We know that massive differences in demand exist in different areas for social housing. A lady came to my advice surgery a week or so ago. She was a single lady who appreciated that she was low priority on the housing list, but she had been on the list in Eastbourne since 1997. That is an amazing fact, and I am trying to get to the bottom of it. She was not in any sense screaming the place down, but she thought that the time had come to visit her Member of Parliament and find out what was happening. That is a slightly unusual case, even for Eastbourne, but it shows the enormous gulf between our part of the country, in which there is great demand and limited supply and other parts of the country, where council estates, to an increasing extent, will be semi-occupied or wholly-unoccupied. All of that contributes to this problem.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The one area on which my hon. Friend has not touched is the provision of new social housing. The purpose of large-scale voluntary transfers is to enable the local authority to become a facilitator. However, it is housing associations that, by and large, build new social housing. Does that not further strengthen his argument that it is housing associations, which provide the new houses, that should be involved in the strategy?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly. Not only are housing associations unable to build as many new units as they would want—the Minister will be able to grapple with that point in her answer—but, increasingly, the burden is being passed on to them. We would say that that is right—it is Conservative policy—and at least the Government have got it right in one area. It may produce some difficulties within the Labour party, but that is a matter for others to sort out, and the quicker that they do so, the better.

As my hon. Friend reminds us, there has been a sharp drop, as I have already said, in the number of new units of social housing being built, at a time when private sector housing has been growing fast. It may save time—and save the Minister's officials from dusting off the previous briefing—were I to touch on the three arguments that the Minister's predecessor made against similar amendments. The first argument was that the blanket nature of duties would not fit with what the Minister called the diversity of the RSL sector. That has some merit, because although some housing associations have enormous numbers of units up and down and right across the country, some are large but based in a particular area in which they have their roots, and others are small and do not even appear on the radar screen. At the end of the day, that does not really matter. However big or diverse RSLs are, the future—and to some extent the present—belongs to them. They, and not local councils, will be running social housing. We must get that point across. There is no point in Labour Members or others in the Labour party feeling sad about it; that is the situation, and it is not going to change.

The second argument—which had more force—was that the bodies concerned are predominantly voluntary, and, although they are subject to regulation, imposing statutory duties on them is not the same as imposing statutory duties on local authorities. That is one of the parts A and B arguments that we had in the previous Committee—I hope that we find a new terminology during the short life of this Committee—as to whether it is worth including this sort of thing in the Bill or whether it is understood that such bodies will of course be intimately involved in evolving a particular strategy. As a result of the way in which the legislation is currently drafted, that will in large measure depend on the attitude of the local authority. If it is a grumpy, old-fashioned old Labour authority, which resents what is happening and is trying to hold back the tide, it may not involve such bodies or it may do so in a perfunctory way. The fact that such bodies are largely voluntary should not make a difference. They may be voluntary, but they are already treated seriously by the public sector, because, as was conceded in previous debates, they are regulated. They are serious organisations, some of which are extremely large and well run. Some are less so, but, if they have not already grown up, RSLs will have to grow up rapidly. They should be treated as equal partners with local authorities, whose role they are usurping.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be rather derogatory about local authorities. Does he not accept that the transfer to registered social landlords from local authorities is down to one word—money? I refer to Treasury rules. If local authorities were able to borrow more money, many of them could perform a service equally as valuable as that performed by the RSLs. I take exception to the fact that the hon. Gentleman used terms such as ``old Labour'' when referring to local authorities. I know many good local authorities. Indeed, my own authority has been a band 1 authority during most of the time that the banding system has been in force. Such authorities are extremely well managed.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It echoes some of the previous discussions about a similar Bill. I am not saying that all local authorities are bad managers of their housing stock, but many have been in the past, which is why successive Governments have favoured such a practice. If the hon. Gentleman considers that the Treasury rules are wrong, he must take up that matter with his Ministers. It is not for me to remind him that they have won a second term in office, but let him and his friends of like mind agitate from the Back Benches on such issues. Let him be in no doubt that such policy is not that of his own Government.

The third argument advanced by the Minister in January against similar proposals was that they would undermine the strategic responsibilities that were being placed on local authorities. He said that reviews could be carried out in partnership, as part of a multi-agency approach and so on. The then Minister said:

``It is important that local authorities . . . are clear about where the buck stops. Sharing responsibility would simply dilute it''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 280.]

That represents a distinction without a difference, if I may respectfully say so. Like it or not, they are now the serious players in social housing. The Minister put forward just another specious argument to exclude them directly from being obliged to be involved in producing such strategies.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the only organisation in a local area that can have an overview of RSLs and housing associations is the local authority? Many Labour Members wish to strengthen the strategic role of local authorities even beyond that under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was dismissive about diversity and RSLs. I was a chief executive of a small specialist association that dealt with the housing needs of women. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, by placing a statutory duty on RSLs, particularly those small associations that deal with specialist groups, he risks not having the opportunity to ensure that those who would not be accommodated by homelessness groups could also find access to housing? My association helped low-paid women who are essential to London's economy, and such associations may be pushed out of business altogether by such proposals.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am not saying that there is no force to that argument, but I do not believe that it wins the day. The proposal is not a wacky idea that I dreamt up on two separate occasions, and there is a view among some key players in social housing that it would be a good idea. The hon. Lady and others will remember the Green Pepper campaign that was co-ordinated by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and the Churches National Housing Coalition. It said:

``Green Pepper welcomes the requirement for a greater strategic role for local authorities through assessments of local need. However, it is important to emphasise that the applicants themselves, the voluntary sector and faith groups will have a great deal of knowledge to assist in audits of local need.''

I am sure that we all agree so far with such a statement. It went on:

``Where local authorities act on their own, they may not always be able to see the full picture.''

That is the point that I am trying to make. Others share the concern that local authorities that are not necessarily modern and forward-looking in their thinking may want to act on their own and not take any great notice of what RSLs think, despite the reality that they are, to an increasing extent, the ones who run social housing.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we continue the debate, I remind hon. Members that we should focus on clause 1. I understand that at the start of discussions on a Bill, especially on the first clause, Front Bench Members must set matters in context. However, I would not want those who have never before taken part in such proceedings to get the impression that a Second Reading debate is permissible on every clause.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I note what you have said, Mr. Gale, and intend to stick closely to the debate on clause 1 and on the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

I begin by warmly agreeing with his view, expressed both now and in the Committee on the Homes Bill, that it is a pity that clause 1 refers specifically to the local authorities drawing up a homelessness strategy in isolation from their other housing obligations. I share the hon. Gentleman's view, and that of the Local Government Association, that it would have been preferable to require local authorities to produce a single housing strategy that includes all the details required under this legislation. The key issue before us, however, is whether, given the changing social housing situation, clause 1 goes far enough in respect of the strategic partners other than the local authorities which have significant responsibilities for dealing with housing need.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne detailed his views on the issue of large-scale voluntary transfer. He argued that that was a Conservative party policy which, egged on by the Conservatives, the Labour Government have taken on board lock, stock and barrel and are implementing even more rapidly than the Conservatives would have done. I was interested in the intervention from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who made the most valid point of all. The rapid movement towards large-scale voluntary transfer is happening because tenants' choices are not made on a level playing field. Local authorities do not have the same rights to borrow money to improve their housing stock that are available to registered social landlords and others. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that the matter should still be left ultimately to tenants, but if those rights were equalised, local authorities would be able to make a stronger case to those tenants. We would not then see so many authorities adopting large-scale voluntary transfer.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a large number of the large metropolitan authorities that have not so far taken part in the LSVT exercise plan to do so in the next wave. All the evidence suggests that by 2004—as I said in my intervention—most social housing will be managed and run by registered social landlords.

When we discussed this issue during our debate on part II of the Homes Bill, Mr. Gale, you will remember that I moved an amendment similar to the ones being moved by the hon. Gentleman. However, my amendments were specifically restricted to including registered social landlords in the development of the homelessness strategy in conjunction with the local authorities and did not, unlike his amendments, include a range of other strategic partners. The most important relationship that must be got right when developing homelessness strategies is the relationship between the RSLs and the local authority. When we debated that matter last time, the then Under-Secretary of State for

Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said in response to my amendments:

``Registered social landlords are already under a duty to co-operate with local authorities to such an extent as is reasonable. That allows some discretion, but the provision is given teeth by the sector's regulator—the Housing Corporation.''—[Official Report, 7 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 969.]

Would it be sensible to accept amendments such as those proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, or can we rely on the Housing Corporation—the sector's regulator—to ensure that registered social landlords are delivering on that matter and, especially, on their prime function of ensuring that housing need is met?

As a result of deliberations and subsequent parliamentary questions that I asked, it is clear that the Government are keen for the housing regulator to have more teeth to ensure that registered social landlords meet their obligations. Prior to deliberations in this Committee, I wrote to the new Minister about the matter to ask whether she could reassure me that the Housing Corporation would have sharp enough teeth to ensure that my concerns would be met by changes to the way that it operates, rather than by amendments.

There are two routes to achieve that. The Housing Corporation's regulatory code is to be amended, and a new draft has been circulated for consultation. My worry is that although the consultation has led to a number of comments, we do not know whether proposals that would sharpen the teeth of the Housing Corporation will be accepted. In the absence of that knowledge, it is difficult to know whether we should support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, or if we can rely on the alternative route.

My concern about the current code that is out for consultation is that while specific reference is made to the importance of meeting housing need, it does not give that the prominence that I, and other organisations including Shelter, would like. A further worry is that there is no performance indicator in the mechanism for such a key task. Do the Minister and the Government wish to see that issue given a higher prominence in the code? What is the Minister's opinion of a performance indicator?

I am grateful for the helpful response to my letter that I received from the Minister on 9 July. In my letter, I raised the second route for beefing up the work of the Housing Corporation with respect to the intended statutory housing management guidance that is to be issued. I asked the Minister when the new draft would be published and consultation would take place. From her helpful response, I understand that the corporation intends to issue the draft statutory housing guidance at the end of this month and that there will be a 12-week consultation period. I am delighted to hear that, and perhaps we should await the responses. Unfortunately, given that we have all agreed that we want a swift passage of the Bill through the House, we will not know the results of the consultation. I would welcome some assurances from the Minister about that matter.

As you will have guessed, Mr. Gale, I am in two minds. On one hand, it is sensible to place the work, the role of and the relationship between registered social landlords firmly in the Bill. On the other hand, I have received strong assurances from the Government that the Housing Corporation will have the necessary teeth to ensure that my concerns are met. The Minister's response will be important in helping me to decide how to vote on the issue, should that be necessary.

I hope that the Minister is willing to ensure that my letter to her, and her response, are placed in the hands of the Housing Corporation, so that they are aware of my concerns. More importantly, in her reply on 9 July, she stated:

``The Corporation is determined to challenge associations which cannot demonstrate that they are fulfilling their primary function of accommodating people in housing need.''

I am delighted that she believes that that is what the corporation will do, but how will the corporation challenge the associations and make sure that they put matters right if they are failing?

The decision on which way to vote is difficult, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. Judging by the helpful responses that I have already received, I suspect that she will be able to persuade me.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

As hon. Members have said, in a sense we are here to complete unfinished business. For some of us, it is our first exposure to the intricacies of the Bill, while others have already made important contributions. The work on the Homes Bill has been invaluable in developing this legislation, and I acknowledge the debt that we owe to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and to hon. Members who helped to scrutinise and improve the Bill. I also acknowledge the role played by the hon. Member for Bath in that process.

The principal aims of the Bill are to set a coherent framework for local authorities to adopt in tackling homelessness, to strengthen the homelessness safety net and to extend choice.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Let me get on a little further, and then I will.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I might forget my point.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, his point cannot be very important.

The aims of the Bill have been widely welcomed, although I recognise that, over the next few sessions, we must explore with care its detailed workings. Bearing in mind your guidance, Mr. Gale, not to expound too widely on the background, I will say a little about that before turning to the amendments.

The causes of homelessness are not simple and vary from case to case. Rapid economic growth in London and the south-east must surely have contributed to the increased pressure on social housing in London and the surrounding area. We have made a start in dealing with the problem through initiatives outside the Bill. Some causes of homelessness are localised, as recent floods have demonstrated, and others are personal to the individual concerned, as in cases of relationship or family breakdown.

Although the Government have set the framework for tackling homelessness, local authorities are best placed to co-ordinate and lead the effort in their local areas, and to initiate preventative measures. That is why the Government's proposals for homelessness reform, set out in last year's housing Green Paper, included a policy of requiring local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Such a strategic approach will be effective only if it harnesses the efforts and activities of all the organisations providing services and assistance to homeless people that operate in an authority's area. A partnership approach is central to our proposals: we require local housing authorities to take a multi-agency and strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness.

Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill set out the basis for such a strategy, and require that it be kept under review. Many agencies are involved with people who are homeless, or at risk of becoming so, and they should work together to avoid duplicating services, which might result in the creation of gaps in provision. Local housing authorities should conduct reviews and draw up strategies in partnership with other authorities and agencies, such as social services authorities or departments, health service organisations, and those that administer housing benefit.

Registered social landlords will also be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas, they provide the majority of social housing and, as has been pointed out, the transfer programme is increasing their importance in delivering services to tenants and supporting local authorities in the performance of their statutory duties.

Several hon. Members have argued that the Bill should include statutory provisions to require registered social landlords to co-operate with authorities in the discharge of their duties and in the undertaking of homelessness strategies and reviews. I share the concern that has been expressed that registered social landlords should play their part, but I believe that that will be best achieved through revised guidance and enhanced regulation by the Housing Corporation as the statutory regulator of the registered social landlords sector. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for the prominence that he has brought to that issue, and for his acceptance that further statutory obligations are not essential at present and that our mutual objectives can be achieved through regulations.

A wide range of other bodies should also be engaged in reviews and strategies, and in the prevention and management of homelessness, including probation services and voluntary organisations that work with young people or with those suffering from mental health problems. Organisations that deal with rough sleepers also have a vital role to play. It is important to highlight that, in the Bill, homelessness includes rough sleeping. As there is not a simple, single cause of homelessness, co-operative approaches must be adopted that require several agencies to work together. Multi-agency co-operation recognises that agencies might have clients in common, and that many of the services that each of them provide can contribute to the prevention and management of homelessness. Multi-agency working is driven by the needs of clients, rather than by those of organisational structures.

Before I discuss the amendments, I will deal with some of the issues that have been mentioned, and, in particular, those that were raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He mentioned the increasing size of the problem of homelessness, and, in particular, the increased numbers of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I agree that those figures are too high, but 70 per cent. of the people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation live in London, and the economy and the housing market in that city are special issues that have created unique pressures. As many hon. Members who represent London constituencies have repeatedly said, those problems require London-based solutions.

That point underlines the need to ensure that local authorities can draw up strategies that are best suited to their local requirements. The Government have also set up the bed-and-breakfast unit to look at the particular problems of the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

The hon. Gentleman also raised issues concerning investment. We have substantially increased investment in housing—there has, for instance, been a £3.3 billion increase in the current year. We have introduced a new major repairs allowance of £1.6 billion from 2001-02 to encourage efficient management and proper investment in council housing. I want to stress that that money is not for new-build housing: it is for work on existing council stock.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of empty council properties.

Problems caused by pressures in different parts of the country call for local solutions. That would provide the best possible result, not just for the use of the properties, but for local communities and local people looking for housing. We have discussed stock transfers. I suspect that reports of the death of the council property have been greatly exaggerated. We are committed to increasing the number of stock transfers to registered social landlords, but only with the agreement of the tenants. Housing authorities can look at other options, but if they are to retain their stock, it should be through best-value assessment.

Amendment No. 1 specifies which bodies should co-operate with local authorities. The amendment would unintentionally catch out small landlords and oblige them to participate in homelessness reviews and strategies. Housing co-operatives and landlords of houses in multiple occupation are important housing providers, and some will want to engage with the authority. I expect local housing authorities to welcome willingness to co-operate, and to build on it to achieve real partnerships. Such arrangements cannot be forced, and may be undermined by statutory obligation.

My principal objection to the amendment—this re-iterates my predecessor's objections—is that it would undermine the strategic responsibility that we place on local housing authorities. Local housing authorities must undertake homelessness reviews in partnership as part of their housing and wider community responsibilities. It is important that authorities accept those responsibilities and recognise that they are lead responsibilities, shared with dilute accountability and performance.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequent on amendment No. 1. I would be surprised if local authorities did not keep lists of their regular contacts' telephone numbers, fax numbers, e-mail and personal addresses; but this is not a matter for inclusion in the Bill. We must take a sensible and strategic view on how to establish a robust and coherent framework for reviews and strategies; a framework that allows intelligent offices to run their affairs competently. We shall have to take a sensible view of how much detail is required in the Bill.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

If a local authority were to surprise the Under-Secretary by not acting as she expects—although we all agree on how local authorities should act—what mechanism will set them back on the path of righteousness?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

The Government have mechanisms to ensure that local authorities undertake their statutory duties. It is wrong to assume that many local authorities will not comply with the statutory duties given to them. If management and administrative functions were governed by prescriptive rules set out in the Bill, we would tie the hands of good local authorities without addressing the problems that the hon. Gentleman identifies.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I apologise for arriving late, Mr. Gale.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions recently remarked that private companies could be sent in when a local authority's homelessness strategy is deemed a failure. Does the Under-Secretary envisage that a local authority might find itself subject to the decisions of a private company that has taken over responsibility for the administration of the strategies that they are being asked to devise, and which we are debating?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I do not want to look at new ways of providing housing that involve threats to send in inspectors from private companies. The hon. Member for Bath talked about a way of working and the relationship between the different partners involved in dealing with the problem of homelessness—housing authorities, registered social landlords, housing associations and other agencies. Those are important relationships, and I support them. They must be based on mutual agreement and common respect, and must, at the end of the day, deliver the overall housing strategy, provide individual housing units that ensure that we can get rid of the scourge of homelessness and give people a choice of decent accommodation that meets their needs, whether temporary or permanent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has told us how much investment the Government propose. To put the Government's homelessness strategy into perspective, can she predict how many registered social housing units will be built during the course of this Parliament?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I cannot give a number off the cuff. The hon. Gentleman knows about the amount of investment and the money that has gone into repair and maintenance, which will be crucial as regards the number of units that are kept in the current housing stock. We need to reduce the homelessness figures. We must also use all the housing resources at our disposal so that people are properly housed.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I am close to concluding and want to deal with the point that the hon. Member for Bath made about the Housing Corporation. My letter to the Housing Corporation is now entirely a matter of public record. I do not want to commit to the Housing Corporation's view of the situation, but undertake to consult with it on the hon. Gentleman's detailed points.

On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne to withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

A sense of deja vu overwhelmed me for a moment. It is a bit rich of the Minister to shower all those compliments on the hon. Member for Bath when she talks about minor tinkerings with the Bill. Conservative Members can take responsibility for improving the Bill massively by causing the demise of part I of the Homes Bill. I do not want to go too far into all that, but the Minister and her friends, the Liberal Democrats, have obviously formed a mutual appreciation society.

A sense of deja vu overwhelmed me for a moment, because we went round and round the houses—if I may use that expression—the last time that we debated these issues, arguing over whether something should or should not be in the Bill: arguments A or B. Having re-read the previous debates and ministerial answers, and having heard the latest ministerial answer, we do not seem to have made much progress. The Minister talks about revised guidance and regulations and the role of the Housing Corporation. Although we shall debate it in more detail later, I am grateful for her confirmation that rough sleeping is included in homelessness, although the Bill does not say so.

The point remains: what will happen if a housing authority does not do what the Minister expects it to do and hopes that it will do? When I intervened, she explained the mechanism that would apply if a housing authority were in breach of a statutory duty. The whole point is that we are not putting a statutory duty on housing authorities to carry out consultations, so we are still left with the dilemma posed by the hon. Member for Bath over whether to press the amendment to a vote.

I was also interested to hear what the Minister said about bed-and-breakfast numbers, to which we shall no doubt return. The Government must learn that to set up a unit or crown a tsar will not always solve a problem. She indicates that reports of the death of the council house have been exaggerated, but one needs only examine the figures.

There comes a point where arguing on the same issue over and over again makes little difference. The Government would be sensible to include the amendments in the Bill, but as local housing authorities will increasingly be controlled by the Conservative party, the problem may go away. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Homelessness Reviews

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 11, at end insert

`; and

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

I shall attempt to be brief. We debated this amendment during the passage of the Homes Bill. The amendment would add a fourth requirement to clause 2(1). As subsection (1) stands, local authorities would carry out a homelessness review to look at levels of homelessness, the activities that are carried out and the resources available. They should also look at the availability of housing advice in the district.

I do not intend to go over all that again. However, we benefited previously from detailed research carried out by Shelter into the question of housing advice and the massive variations in the quality of that advice throughout the country. People from Shelter told different housing departments that they were single mothers, children or whatever in an attempt to get advice on housing. In one case, a single mother received absolutely dreadful advice that was of no help at all. The only thing that the housing department did right was to give her a customer satisfaction form to fill in on her way out. On the basis of that and other research, there is no doubt that the quality of housing advice often leaves a lot to be desired.

In a previous discussion, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), tried to defuse the argument by talking about a draft of the guidance notes, with which the Committee had been provided. There was much discussion, including comments from the hon. Member for Bath, about whether the draft guidance notes addressed the problem. The then Minister seemed to think that references to sources of data on homelessness dealt with the issue, but seemed to refer to the authority collecting information for its own decision-making purposes.

The Minister stated:

``The availability of housing advice, its quality and extent, should and will have to be considered as part of homelessness reviews.''—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 315.]

As a bold statement of what we want to achieve—and wanted to achieve before—I can do no better than to quote that. That approach must be right, but I remain unclear about how far we have progressed with the draft code.

The Minister concluded his contribution to that debate by asking the hon. Member for Bath:

``Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the notes will be incorporated within the existing code?''—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 316.]

He also promised to check the point.

We never returned to that question in that Committee. We now have a golden opportunity to return to it and to press the Minister to tell us whether the code of conduct has been improved and tightened up on the basis of evidence from Shelter and others.

Many people throughout the country are not receiving the level of housing advice to which they should be entitled. I tabled this probing amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to update the Committee on that point.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Committee will not be surprised to know that I have tremendous sympathy for the amendment, not least because it is, word for word, the same as amendment No. 67, which I tabled during the passage of the Homes Bill. I was interested when the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, ``We debated this during the passage of the Homes Bill.'' Indeed we did, but not a single member of the Conservative party took part in it. I am nevertheless delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue so eloquently.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The hon. Gentleman is right that we did not participate in that narrow debate on 30 January, but I spoke at some length—unusually for me—on the Shelter report in another debate, for which I cannot find the reference at the moment. I would not like to mislead the Committee unwittingly by suggesting that this was something that we did not care about.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman is right that the issue of the advice given to homeless people was debated on a number of occasions. I clearly remember the lengthy discourse that he gave us on one occasion. If he checks the record, he will find that he was responding to an amendment moved by a Government Back Bencher. I certainly would not wish to suggest that the matter is insignificant.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne says, the Government's response last time was that the subject was an argument A case. For Committee members who do not know what it is, argument A is similar to the suggestion that a Christmas tree should be decorated with as many baubles as possible. The problem is that once some baubles have been added, those missed off may seem to some people to be of no importance whatever. That argument has some merit in certain cases.

A more important result of that debate was an absolute assurance from the then Minister that the guidance to be issued to local authorities would include examples of best practice, and firm advice to ensure that that best-practice approach was adopted by local authorities. That Committee was told that copies of the revised guidance would be circulated later. My question to the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), whom we welcome to his place, is this: have the Government adhered to the undertaking given by his predecessor, and will it be possible for Committee members to see the most up-to-date version of the guidance so that we can be sure that those assurances have been followed through?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to express my pleasure at serving on the Bill? I am pleased to be working with my hon. Friend in supporting the Bill in Committee.

As has been pointed out, the amendment is similar to—in fact, identical to—that which was moved during the passage of the Homes Bill. In that respect, I am entirely with the hon. Member for Eastbourne in singing the praises of the film ``Groundhog Day''. It is a fine film, second only in its genre to the John Landis classic ``Three Amigos!''. The amendment reminds me of one of those sequences in ``Groundhog Day'' in which the events were slightly different but the outcome was the same.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Like the last general election.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Out of human kindness and sympathy, I did not draw that analogy, but as it is on the record, I am happy to endorse it.

Effectively, the clause is a transfer from Bath to Eastbourne. If that were a football transfer, it would not raise much money. Nevertheless, the arguments raised during debates on the Homes Bill are pertinent to today's discussion. It might be helpful if I briefly set out the aims of the clause.

Hon. Members may note that the clause already contains a number of broad points on guidance. It sets out the matters that local housing authorities must address when conducting a homelessness review. It specifies the purpose of such a review and it provides for the results of the review to be made public. The clause sets out the key steps that authorities should take to acquire reliable information and a sound understanding of the essential bases for formulating an effective strategy to resolve homelessness.

Subsection (1) specifies that a homelessness review

``means a review by the local housing authority of—

(a) the levels, and the likely future levels, of homelessness in their district''.

The authority must also review the activities carried out for the various purposes set out in clause 2(2). The review must include a review of the resources available to the authority, the social services authority for their district, other public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons for the various purposes set out in clause 2(2).

The purposes of homelessness reviews are set out in subsection (2). They are:

``preventing homelessness in the district . . . ;

(b) securing that accommodation is or will be available for people in the district who are or may become homeless;

(c) providing support for people in the district—

(i) who are or may become homeless; or

(ii) who have been homeless and need support to prevent them becoming homeless again.''

According to clause 2(3), once a review has been completed, the authority must provide for

``the results of the review to be available at its principal office for inspection at all reasonable hours, without charge, by members of the public''.

The authority must also provide

``(on payment if required by the authority of a reasonable charge) a copy of those results to any member of the public who asks for one.''

Taken together, those requirements provide a firm basis for drawing up homelessness strategies. They are the basic steps required. Individual authorities, having taken account of their local circumstances, may want to broaden the reviews to cover other matters, and I would encourage them to do so.

The amendment covers an important issue and it is good that we have another opportunity to discuss it. We intend that the provisions should do more than address the consequences of homelessness; they should help to avert it. Prevention, through advice and assistance, and through multi-agency working, will be an important aspect of all homelessness strategies and reviews. The availability, quality and extent of housing advice should all be considered as part of a homelessness review.

However, it is not necessary to list in the Bill every issue that should be addressed in a review. I take the view that housing advice falls clearly under clause 2(1)(b) if it is read alongside clause 2(2)(c)—the requirement that reviews must consider the activities carried out for the purpose of providing support for people in the district who are, or may become, homeless. We will, however, ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised code of guidance.

We will, however, ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised code of guidance. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Bath, I have taken note of the passage at column 316 of Hansard, in which my predecessor as Minister said that concerns would be incorporated in revised guidance. I understand that that revised guidance has not yet been finalised, but once it is available I shall ensure that hon. Members are given it as soon as possible.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Would it not have made enormous sense to make the redraft guidance available to the Committee? As the Minister acknowledged, the issue was flagged up before the election. Civil servants have a break from politicians during a general election. Surely the guidance could have been prepared. Will it be available before the end of the Committee stage, or at least before the Bill completes its passage through the House?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Gentleman says that the guidance could have been completed during the election, but, as he reminded the House before the election, his party was about to become the Government, and I am not sure that it would have been appropriate for civil servants to work hard on guidance that related to a Bill that had at that stage fallen, when, according to his best estimates, his party was about to become the party of Government. Unfortunately for him, that event did not come to pass—

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Minister cannot get away with that. Civil servants were clearly working on some parts of the Bill, because, despite its non-appearance in the Queen's Speech, it popped—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath must contain his excitement. As the Bill popped up as the first of the Session, that explanation will not wash.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that a proper protocol applies during elections. If at that point no signs suggested that the Bill would proceed, it would have been improper for the civil service to assume that the Labour party would win the general election and would immediately reintroduce the Bill to Parliament and complete the revised guidance relevant to that Bill. In saying that my explanation will not wash, the hon. Gentleman widens the boundaries of proper civil service behaviour and of what I am sure he and I would agree is the right action to take.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Gale, but someone somewhere amended the Bill. The Bill is not word for word the same as part II of the Homes Bill. Is the Minister saying that no such work was done during the general election campaign or since the previous Bill fell and that all the work has been done since Labour won the election? If so, I accept his assurance immediately.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

That is my understanding. I am not privy to the detailed day-to-day workings of the civil service, and I cannot categorically say that no civil servant gave—

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

You are a Minister.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

To respond to that sedentary intervention, I was not privy to the daily workings of the civil service during the last election but was out on the road trying to get elected, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman was.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Minister give way?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The argument is becoming circular and far removed from the amendment. It is time to move on.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am delighted to accept your guidance.

The issue is whether the proposal set forth in the amendment should be contained in the Bill or in guidance. During consideration of the Homes Bill it was suggested that some elements were already contained in the draft guidance and would be more fully placed in the revised guidance. The Bill itself strongly infers that local authorities should look for the availability of housing advice within their districts. Therefore, provided that we give an assurance—as we have already done—that the issue will be fully addressed in the revised guidance, it is reasonable that we should ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Member for Eastbourne was rightly chided for pursuing a particular avenue of debate. That must have been right because it was your ruling, Mr. Gale. However, the hon. Gentleman asked a perfectly reasonable question about whether the revised guidance would be available at some stage during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister at least assure us that an opportunity will be given to see that draft guidance before it becomes impossible to raise the concerns that we have been discussing?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Before the Minister responds to that intervention, I should make the Chair's position plain. The Minister cannot be responsible for what a Government Department was doing during an election when he was not a Minister in that Department. That is why I felt that the argument was becoming circular. However, the Chair takes the view that, when guidance notes are issued in relation to a Bill, those notes should be made available to Committee members as soon as practicably possible.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. As far as I know, the revised guidance will be available before the Bill's passage through the House is completed. I would like to ensure that I can make the revised guidance available on that understanding, so I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. That is my understanding of the situation.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Well, it took a while to get there, but it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for his remarks. We may have a much shorter debate on that basis. I do not want to reopen the argument, but it would have been nice if the point had been thought of, as it was clearly flagged up in the previous debate. Otherwise, what point do these debates serve—even debates on previous versions of Bills?

I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that draft notes will be available before completion of the Bill's passage through the House. It is probably optimistic to expect them during the course of this week, although that would be nice. It seems that we shall not return to consideration of the Bill until after the summer recess, so that should give abundant time to produce draft notes. If we could have them at some time during the summer recess—though perhaps not in August—that would be helpful.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 11, at end insert

`; and

(d) the number of empty properties in their district.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

`(5A) In formulating a homelessness strategy the authority shall make specific reference to—

(a) the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their district across all sectors and tenures;

(b) targets for the re-use of such properties for residential purposes; and

(c) a strategy for action to achieve the targets set out in paragraph (b) above, including action by any public authority, voluntary organisation or other body or person whose activities are capable of contributing to the achieving of these objectives.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

All members of the Committee are well aware that helping homeless people is not only a matter of finding a roof to put over their heads; those people need a wide range of additional services and support. Nevertheless, finding a place for them to live is important. In an earlier deliberation, we discussed the number of affordable houses being built, so we should now consider other resources that might be available to provide such accommodation.

One obvious resource is the large number of properties that currently stand empty. All Committee members will recognise that the figures are stark. There are well over 100,000 homeless families in the country, yet we have a staggering 750,000 empty properties. Clearly, when tackling homelessness, it makes a great deal of sense that the homelessness review and strategy should incorporate methods to bring empty homes back into use. A range of possibilities could achieve that, and it would be beyond the scope of even your patience, Mr. Gale, if I went through a list of those. However, hon. Members will be aware of many possible strategies that could be adopted by central Government and local government.

The Empty Homes Agency estimates that only half of local housing authorities currently have a strategy for effectively bringing empty homes and properties into use, which is why I moved amendment No. 14. Nevertheless, I am conscious that amendment No. 15, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is also being considered and I believe that it is far preferable and more satisfactory than amendment No. 14. While I have had the opportunity to introduce the issue, I would hate to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder. I hope that I can withdraw my amendment and that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to press his to a Division.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I thank the hon. Member for Bath for his generous tribute. I would not support his amendment, so he is kind to say that he would support mine instead.

Amendment No. 15 suggests that a specific reference to the problem of tackling empty homes in this country should be in the Bill. It contains a reference to local authorities adopting targets for reducing the number of empty homes, which is present to give the amendment teeth—it is meaningless without that.

I shall give a dozen reasons why the amendment should be in the Bill once it has completed its passage through both Houses. As the hon. Member for Bath said, nearly 750,000 properties stand empty yet, every year, local authorities accept over 100,000 families as homeless. We owe it to those people to try everything possible and to use all the available resources to help them find homes to live in. It makes sense to make the best use of existing resources. There are homes standing empty that could be used for people to live in. There would be no problems of finding money to build houses or of shortage of land—the houses are waiting to be used.

If we took a poll of public opinion anywhere in the country and under any conditions, we would find that they overwhelmingly want empty houses to be used, especially ahead of building new houses near them. The public would support the provision. When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, 10 hon. Members referred specifically to the need to do something about homes that stand empty. That represents a sizeable proportion of the hon. Members who took part in the debate.

Despite the considerable successes of the Empty Homes Agency, to which the hon. Member for Bath also referred, there has not been a noticeable reduction in the number of properties that stand empty. The Empty Homes Agency has encouraged local authorities around the country to adopt strategies to deal with empty homes in their areas, and has had the backing of Ministers. However, only about half of all authorities have adopted a strategy that the Empty Homes Agency reckons is worth the paper on which it is written. Conversely, half of all authorities left to do this voluntarily have not bothered to do it. That is why a specific reference in an Act of Parliament is needed to make the others comply.

The next reason is that an empty homes strategy is enormously complementary to the Bill's purpose of dealing with the problems of homelessness. Another reason is that it would help us to focus attention on the solutions to ending the scandal of empty homes, and would therefore give people the impetus to think about how the total number of empty properties could be reduced. A further reason is that solutions are needed to make a difference, because, despite the successes of the Empty Homes Agency and the fact that Ministers have backed its work, the number of properties standing empty stays stubbornly at about 750,000 every year—it may increase a little one year and decrease a little the next, but Members do not have to worry about looking up the latest figure each time they debate the issue because 750,000 remains pretty close to the mark.

The Empty Homes Bill, which I introduced during the 1999 Session, suggested solutions such as giving local authorities the power to vary the council tax payable on empty properties and extending slightly the power of compulsory purchase to allow local authorities to take up empty properties, even against the wishes of the owner who would prefer that it stood empty. The beauty of that Bill, I always felt, was that, even then, it required local authorities to have an empty homes strategy. The exercise of the powers to reach those solutions was tied to the strategy. Therefore, the purpose of the strategy is therefore to focus the powers which I submit a local authority should have in order to tackle the problem.

The ninth reason of my dozen reasons is that residents who live in streets and estates where properties stand empty would will us to do something about such properties. I know of areas with lots of empty properties that blight the estates or streets where people live. For the astonishment of Committee members, however, I shall refer to an article that appeared last week in my local newspaper, the Staffordshire Newsletter, under the headline, ``Pensioner to put `eyesore' home on the market.'' It tells the story of a well-built 1930s house that has stood empty for more than 20 years in an attractive part of Stafford, apparently as a kind of monument to a deceased husband. The local authority is powerless to do anything about it, and the residents are tearing their hair out.

The next reason is that all those homeless people who walk past empty homes in their homeless wanders would want us to do everything that we can to make those homes available for use. Craig Whitlock, a homeless person, came to my surgery on Saturday and told me that, during the time that he has been homeless, he has witnessed the deaths of 12 of his homeless friends while waiting for the local council to help by providing a property to live in.

My penultimate reason is that the Bill would be better if the amendment were included. To complete my dozen reasons, and to try to attract the Minister's attention and support for my amendment, this would be a popular measure that would enhance the Minister's reputation—and make her popular, too—were she to agree to the amendment. Given such a compelling final reason, I hope that she will say something helpful in response.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 15 tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, but not without wholeheartedly agreeing with the hon. Member for Bath that Liberals do not necessarily make the best amendments. We are minded to support the wise words of the hon. Member for Stafford. I commend him for his work during the previous Parliament on his Empty Homes Bill.

We are all aware of the Empty Homes Agency, a worthwhile organisation that was set up under the Conservative Government in 1992. It undertakes exceedingly helpful and useful work. It introduced the London empty homes hotline and it places emphasis on converting commercial buildings to residential homes. Given all the pressures on green-field space for new house building, it seems absurd that only about 13 per cent. of new residential homes are the result of the conversion of mainly commercial buildings, which we certainly support.

We have only to read the Empty Homes Agency report to see the cycle of decline that leaving homes empty brings about. It is not just the fact that they are eyesores or the cost that is estimated at about £7,018 a year to keep a house empty, but the general degradation of an area that ensues as a result of a run-down house becoming a dumping ground and a target for graffiti, young kids, drugs and so on. Such conversions must be a priority. Given our previous discussions on the Homes Bill, I am amazed that the Government have not included in the Bill as part of their homelessness strategy a measure to tackle empty homes.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the work of the Empty Homes Agency, I should like him to mention its great talent for shining a light on those who allow properties to stand empty. The agency's most recent report refers to a special dishonours award, and I shall not embarrass those at the NHS trust to which it alludes who left property standing empty opposite the building in which it held a meeting to discuss the problems of accommodation for its staff. My amendment would help local authorities to replicate the practice of shining a light on bad practice throughout the country.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is absolutely right. There are two sides to the Empty Homes Agency. Last year, I was asked to speak at its annual conference in London when it gave awards for best practice and disawards for worst practice. It cited practical examples of how often small groups—not great authorities—came up with imaginative ideas and advice on how to convert eyesores into liveable residential dwellings.

The Government have had a second chance to deal with the homelessness problem, and I am amazed that they have not included a proposal about empty properties in the Bill, because the situation has become worse. The number of people who are homeless has increased. At the end of last year, 71, 890 people had been placed in temporary accommodation at a cost of £375 million at a time when the number of empty properties had increased, too—the general ballpark figure being 750,000. I am talking about a time when economic activity was high and money was likely to be around to convert empty housing into liveable housing, but that has not been happening. The urgent need for empty properties to be dealt with has heightened, yet there is no mention of that in the Bill.

When we discussed the subject in connection with the previous Bill, I talked about my experience in Sheffield. I was a parliamentary candidate in Sheffield, Brightside in 1991 but, alas, I failed to unseat the incumbent, who is now the Home Secretary. My photo call was in a street in Sheffield, Brightside that was virtually full of empty boarded-up houses with weeds growing in the roads. About a year ago, in my new position on the Opposition Front Bench, I visited the same street in Sheffield and had a photograph taken. The only difference was that a few more houses were boarded up, more tiles were missing from the roofs and the tarmac road was indistinguishable from a grass road. That is a testimony to 50 years of Labour government in Sheffield that has not been helped by the past four years of a central Labour Government. Those empty houses added to the degradation of the area at the same time as green fields on the outskirts of Sheffield were concreted over for new, largely executive housing, so the problem is getting worse.

I fear that the Minister will not seize her hon. Friend's amendment with enormous alacrity, as she should. What are the Government doing about the empty housing problem? We were promised legislation following the pre-Budget report last year, but what resulted was a ``tinkering on the edges'' pledge about reducing taxes on properties that had been continuously empty for more than 10 years. That involves only a small number, because of the difficulty of proving that a property has been empty for such a long time.

We were also promised stamp duty exemptions on properties in areas of deprivation, which would help with the problem of homelessness and could be targeted at empty homes. We were promised that by April, but still we do not have the definitions of where those areas of deprivation are or where the tax reliefs are supposed to apply. Has the Minister any hot news as to when we can expect those definitions?

Conservative Members want to see a more concerted effort at homesteading, so that a larger proportion of the three-quarters of a million empty homes can more urgently be taken over by young homeless people, or couples, who have little prospect of getting on the first rung of the housing ladder. In return for zero or reduced rents or shared ownership, those people would spend their resources, with grants and help, on doing up those empty properties to make them habitable. The Government have made no mention of homesteading. They have been silent on the issue, even though it would be a practical solution to the homelessness problem.

In his intervention, the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned the worst offenders list. The Government must take a lead and, literally, put their own house in order. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are two of the worst offenders—approximately 11 per cent. of their properties are empty. That is more than twice the level that one might expect from the private sector, despite all the stuff that we hear from the Government about the problem of affordable housing for key public service workers, especially in my part of the world, in the south-east and in London. What initiatives have the Minister or her predecessor taken to make some of that empty housing available as affordable housing to key public service workers? When will the Government lead by their own example?

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford is long overdue and should have been included in the Bill. We have heard a lot of waffle and seen little action from the Government in tackling the homelessness problem and it has been left to agencies to do something about it. Given the revelation that, at best, a half of housing authorities have regard to an empty homes strategy as part of their homelessness strategy, this debate will send a strong signal and give a clear lead that dealing with empty properties is a fundamental part of dealing with homelessness. The strategy already exists—there is no need to wait for the funds to build new houses.

The Minister cannot even tell us how many new houses will be built. It is rather an admission that the new Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing has no idea—she is probably being given some in-flight refuelling—how many houses we can expect from the Government, given their appalling record of the reduced number of houses built in the past four years. Conservative Members thoroughly commend the hon. Gentleman's amendment, and we hope that he is not intimidated by his Whips on the Front Bench into wimping-out by withdrawing it.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

The two amendments touch upon an extremely important issue. There is an obvious contradiction in having large numbers of homeless people and large numbers of empty properties. It is the intention of the Government—and, I believe, most local authorities—to ensure that the lowest number of properties are empty at any given time. The amendments seek to focus authorities' thoughts on such matters.

As I discuss the amendments, I shall deal with some of the general points that were made by hon. Members, all of which are pertinent to the effort to grapple with the difficulties of housing homeless people and dealing with empty properties. Everybody involved in housing at the present time has to address those problems.

There are two reasons why I do not support amendment No. 14, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. First, in many authorities' areas, the number of empty properties can swiftly and sharply fluctuate and, therefore, the figures can rapidly become outdated. Secondly, we should not be overly prescriptive with regard to instructing local authorities about the content of their strategies. That should be determined by them in the light of their circumstances, such as the number of homeless people in their areas and the type and nature of their housing stock. They should be allowed to exercise their best judgment about how to deal with the difficulties that they face. The most important elements of the strategy are covered by the legislation; further elements might be considered as guidance—and an instruction that relates to the number of empty properties will certainly be considered.

Similar concerns are raised, and similar ground is more explicitly covered, in amendment No. 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's lengthy and strong track record of action with regard to the issue, and I agree with him that local authorities should make every effort to bring empty homes back into fruitful use. We encourage them to do that through the housing investment programme, and we expect authorities to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the problem of empty properties by having a clear strategy that matches resources to the scale of the problems in their districts. Authorities are also required to report the number of homes in their area that have been empty for more than six months and that have been brought back into use as a consequence of their actions.

I expect the homelessness strategy to address the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant properties in an authority's district. However, the ways in which that is employed to address homelessness will vary across the country—as will the cost-effectiveness of the different possible solutions. Issues such as empty properties require different strategies and approaches in high-demand and low-demand areas. I am sure that all Committee members can recount anecdotes about the empty properties problem. One of my first actions as Minister responsible for housing was to travel extensively, particularly around the north of England, to gain a clear understanding of the key factors with regard to the problem of empty properties. Local authorities should focus on the issues that are important in their areas so that they can take the appropriate local action.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I agree with the Minister's point, but it is the same as the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford in phrasing his amendment. Local authorities should not be confronted with prescribed ways to deal with empty homes; they should be allowed to deal with the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their particular districts across sectors and tenures.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, as it gives me another chance to address the matter. The central issue concerns whether such instructions should be included in the Bill or in guidance. The Bill should include only matters of a strategic nature: it should not be overly prescriptive about problems that might vary from one part of the country to another. For example, bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a major issue, but in the north of England there are major—and sometimes more complex—issues concerning empty properties.

I will borrow the example that was offered by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to illustrate to him the complexity of the problems. He mentioned that, when he visited Sheffield, he noticed that there were many empty properties in the city, but executive homes were being built in the green belt. There is no possibility of getting people who are thinking of buying an executive home in a nice country area to move into a tower block in the middle of a town; that is not remotely on the cards. Real thought must be given to quality and choice, which apply as much to areas of high demand as low demand, however much pressure there is on housing stock.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I accept that what the Minister said may be the case in certain circumstances. However, even with her limited experience in the post but from a wider experience of life, the Minister will be aware of a large number of converted tower blocks and warehouse conversions that are now occupied by people who have paid large sums to live there. I do not believe that the general thrust of her argument holds up strongly.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

From my wide experience of life, the most spectacular example of tower blocks being converted and brought into use is in Wandsworth. Those were not used to rehouse homeless people, but were sold off at high prices. If we are to tackle the deep-seated problems of homeless people, we must carefully examine solutions that include the nature of the property and the people who are homeless. Decisions about that are best made by the local authority, and all suggestions for the way forward can be made in clear guidance more properly than in the Bill. That includes the matter of homesteading, which some authorities are examining. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is correct that I have been given in-flight fuelling, and I can tell him that the target is to provide at least 100,000 new or improved homes for low-cost renting or home ownership. The Housing Corporation's target is 63,700 homes. Perhaps more importantly in response to his point, the NHS starter homes initiative is for around 10,000 key workers.

Authorities should take a view about what is important to their area, and it does not do to make primary legislation too prescriptive. I am not persuaded that every issue that should be addressed in a review or strategy should be listed in the Bill. However, we will ensure that that is fully addressed in the revised points of guidance, which I am sure deals with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

My hon. Friend says that guidance will deal with the matter and she has pointed out how in the past, the Government have given guidance to local authorities about strategically tackling the problem of empty homes. There has even been the stimulus of linking that to local authorities' housing investment programme allocations. What does the Minister think of the Empty Homes Agency's assessment that half of all authorities do not have an empty homes strategy? That is the best argument for why a measure is needed in the Bill.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I understand that while housing authorities produce housing strategies, not all necessarily produce homelessness strategies. Placing the duty on them to produce such strategies, with guidance for how that should be carried out, is the best way to ensure that local authorities seriously examine the matter of empty properties. That is a particular pressure point in some parts of the country, although not in others.

On that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

We have had a useful debate. I especially commend the contribution of the hon. Member for Stafford and also that of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The both raised the importance of the issue and the increasingly urgent need to tackle it. The Minister's response is unsurprising. It is similar to those we heard in previous debates from others who occupied his post. Our good friend argument A is, on this occasion eloquently expressed by the Minister, that only significant strategic issues should be specified in the Bill, and that everything else should be covered in guidance. Tackling the huge problem of empty homes and linking that with dealing with the significant problem of homelessness is a strategic issue that deserves to be specified in the Bill.

I intend to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford does not believe that if he presses his amendment and, as I hope, receives the support of many members of the Committee, a hole will open up beneath him and the sky will fall down. I assure him that it will not and that, if he is prepared to press his amendment, he will be surprised by the large number of people who will support him in achieving something for which he has long fought. Today he has the opportunity to deliver it, and we wish him well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

If the hon. Member for Stafford wants to press amendment No. 15 to a Division, he should tell the Chair at the appropriate time, which will be when we discuss clause 3, not now. He may then move his amendment formally, which I would be prepared to accept, but that is, of course, a decision entirely for him.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—

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

You, Mr. Gale, may have done so before I arrived—as I said, I was attending an Adjournment debate—but the last time we discussed a similar amendment, you disclosed an interest as it related to animals, and you may wish to do so again. If you do not, I shall continue. I, however, disclose an interest.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. I had not spotted the amendment, but it is well known that as the chairman of an animal welfare organisation I have an interest in homeless people and pets. I do not recall that causing a problem for the Committee when we discussed the matter previously, and I trust that it will not do so this morning.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I thought it a good opportunity to re-emphasise your commitment to animal welfare. As you know, I have a great deal in common with you, and I disclose an interest too, although it is much more humble than yours. I support a charity in my constituency—an organisation called Canine Partners for Independence—that has been adopted by the mayor of Worthing. It is a highly worthwhile organisation that trains dogs to perform duties in the home for people with disabilities. It does truly remarkable work and is desperately short of money. Anyone who would like to donate can ask me for the details afterwards.

As we discussed during consideration of the previous incarnation, the Homes Bill, we believe that homelessness reviews should mention animal welfare considerations. Such considerations can take two forms—homeless people who are rough sleepers, whom many of us see every day, who often have dogs with them, and people on homeless lists, such as elderly single people or families, who have a pet as part of their family from whom they are loth to be separated. In both cases, because of the framing of homelessness priorities and a shortage of accommodation, those people find themselves in a less beneficial place in the queue to secure accommodation.

In 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), was the Minister with responsibility for housing. His triumphs in reducing the number of rough sleepers in London from 1,000 to 286—as it was estimated when the programme was completed in 1996—are well documented. During his tenure, a hostel was set up in east London that dealt specifically with rough sleepers who had accompanying pets and it proved a great success. The previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East gave us examples of where that initiative has been replicated in other cities.

Rough sleepers may be loth to go into the hostels provided because they do not want to be separated from their pets. The providers of such accommodation must make a value judgment as to whether the dog—as it usually is—is an essential attachment to the rough sleeper or whether it is there for business reasons, because a hungry-looking dog pulls at the hearts of potential donors.

A more widespread problem involves people on the homeless register who are offered an 11th floor flat in a tower block, for example, who may have a dog that they regard as a companion and part of the family. Such cases may involve families or, more likely, a widow or widower who has replaced a human partner with a canine partner. It can cause enormous distress if the accommodation offered specifically excludes pets. Similarly, there is little prospect of people being able to take a pet into bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Homelessness reviews should include recognition of the problems of rough sleepers or people who find themselves homeless through no fault of their own and who are attached to pets and become trapped in a cycle of homelessness. When I last raised the matter, the Minister's predecessor said in his closing response to me:

``local authorities should cover this issue, along with others, in the guidance that they draw up as part of their strategy.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 319.]

He did not think that it should be built into primary legislation.

In keeping with the theme of our discussion about guidance, if the Minister is not minded to accept our amendment—as I have a hunch is the case—perhaps he or she could give some indication as to the possible success of ensuring that local authorities include in their guidance some recognition of the problems that can be posed by homeless people who have pets, and who are therefore excluded from the various homes that are offered.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I cannot declare an interest in the amendment because my cat ran away during the general election. [Hon. Members: ``Why?''] It could not stand Conservative canvassers knocking on the door. It is a matter of considerable personal grief. I am sure that the Committee does not wish to dwell too deeply on the matter, so I hope that it will be passed by.

I am indebted to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his brevity. He has a fetching pair of watches on his cufflinks, so each time that he scratches his ear he must be aware of the passing of time. I am also aware that the issue is important, although some people may not believe that it is the most essential strategic subject in connection with homelessness. The amendment would place on local authorities, as part of their statutory duties to undertake homelessness reviews, a specific requirement to review provision for the welfare of animals under the control of homeless persons. It is true that a number of homeless people have pets and are very attached to them. It is important that local authorities endeavour to ensure that those placed in temporary accommodation can keep their pets, as far as that is possible and reasonable, but whether there should be a statutory requirement to do so is another matter.

I know that such matters are of particular concern to many elderly people and it is important that local authorities make proper provision and treat the issue with sensitivity. Attachment to pets is often a substantial barrier to help people get off the streets and several local authorities have made specific provision to deal with it, such as providing kennels with night shelters or removing the ``no animals'' clause from registered social landlord tenancy agreements. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, in the previous debate mention was made of hostels and move-on accommodation in Leicester, Manchester, London and elsewhere. Such provision has, on occasions, proved important in ensuring that people move from the streets.

However, that is different from whether it is appropriate to place such a requirement in primary legislation or to give it more prominence than many other important matters that local housing authorities will have to deal with when drawing up their homelessness reviews. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. I fully recognise his concerns, but I believe that it is a matter that can be dealt with through guidance, as is our intention. The draft guidance on homelessness reviews and strategy will be issued towards the end of October, soon after Parliament returns from the summer recess, and will thus be available before the Bill has completed its passage through the House. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister. I could be impertinent and repeat the comments that I made to his predecessor last time we discussed the matter, but I am pleased that he has acknowledged its importance, that it has been taken seriously and that the message will go out to local authorities. However, as with so much else that we have discussed this morning, we wait with bated breath for guidance procedures if they are to be issued before the end of October—hopefully, before the Bill has been discussed on Report and Third Reading. In giving us the date, I hope that the Minister is guaranteeing that we shall have sight of the draft guidance before the Bill leaves this place, so that we can have the opportunity, if some of his promises are not down in black and white in the guidance, to take them up with him on the Floor of the House.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Clause 3 - Homelessness strategies

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 30, after 'homelessness', insert '(including rough sleeping)'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Rough sleepers—

'The Rough Sleepers Unit shall cease to operate with effect from April 2002, and its powers and responsibilities shall be devolved to local housing authorities.'.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am pleased to be a member of this Standing Committee discussing homelessness, on which I made my maiden speech. I referred in that speech to some of the homeless charities that deal with rough sleepers, a subject dealt with in this amendment and the proposed new clause.

First, I should declare an interest to the Committee. Some time ago, Mr. Lee, one of our distinguished Clerks, was a tenant of mine. I hope that he would confirm that I was in the model landlord category.

The amendment and the new clause would make certain that local housing authorities ensure that their strategy specifically includes the prevention of rough sleeping. That would render the rough sleepers unit redundant. The responsibility for dealing with rough sleepers should be transferred to local authorities—they are more in touch with the problems in their districts than the rough sleepers unit can hope to be.

The amendment is important because I know from my constituency surgery, that little provision is available for families who face possible eviction and sleeping on the streets after they have been evicted from private rented accommodation and offered 28 days bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on a case of that kind in my constituency. A lady in the circumstances that I have described came to see me. She has been evicted from private rented accommodation and offered 28 days bed-and-breakfast accommodation. She is expecting her fifth child on the day before she will be forced out of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation, so she came to ask me what would happen. I understand that, in the eyes of the law, she is considered to be intentionally homeless. However, that still leaves me in a difficult position as to how I should advise her. Will the Bill make a difference in her case?

District councils and their metropolitan or unitary counterparts should be able to put applicants in contact with sufficient numbers of providers of emergency accommodation to meet their local needs. That is what I would have expected to happen in the case of the lady who came to my surgery. In Committee this morning, the Minister spoke about local authorities having telephone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses of organisations in their locality who could provide such emergency housing services. However, a senior officer of the council involved in the case I have mentioned told me that that was not the case. A database needs to be created containing such information nationally, so that we can give the best possible advice to people in such circumstances.

New clause 1 would bring to an end the rough sleepers unit and allow that budget of some £198 million to be transferred to the local housing authorities in proportion to the level of rough sleeping in their areas. That was envisaged by the then Under-Secretary in part II of the Homes Bill. It would allow the budget of £198 million to go directly to the local authorities over three years. The administration budget of £3.6 million is included in that, as are the salaries of the senior staff: I gather that Louise Casey has earned between £70,000 and £75,000, that her deputy earned about £54,000, and that the third most senior member of staff earned between £45,000 and £60,000. All that money would then become available to go directly to the local authorities that assist rough sleepers in their areas.

In the previous Parliament, when the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was the Minister, he told the Committee that he envisaged that responsibility for rough sleeping would be returned to local housing authorities. I trust that that is still the Government's position.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths, and I am grateful that you were able to step into the breach at such short notice. I have been told that this is the first time that you have chaired a Committee, and it is nice to have a little seniority over you, as I now have a morning's experience behind me.

Clause 3 is vital. It requires local housing authorities to take a multi-agency and strategic approach to preventing, and responding to, homelessness. It sets out the basis for such a strategy, and it requires that such strategies are kept under review. Many different agencies are involved with people who are homeless, or at risk of becoming so, and it is important that they work together to avoid duplicating their services, which might create gaps in provision.

When local housing authorities conduct reviews and draft strategies, they should work with other authorities and agencies, such as social services authorities or departments, health service organisations, and those administering housing benefit.

Registered social landlords will also be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. Multi-agency co-operation is to be encouraged because it is recognised that agencies might have clients in common, and that many of the services that they provide can contribute to the prevention and management of homelessness.

The purpose of the strategy is set out in subsection (1). Local housing authorities must make plans to prevent homelessness in their districts, to secure sufficient accommodation and provide support for people who are homeless, and to provide support for people who might become homeless. They must also help people who

``need support to prevent them becoming homeless again.''

That is called the revolving door syndrome.

A strategic approach by housing authorities to the prevention of homelessness and to the management of its consequences is central to improving the lot of many of society's most vulnerable members. That will be greatly enhanced by multi-agency co-operation to address the needs of individuals, and I welcome the widespread agreement to that approach.

I referred to amendment No. 4 earlier in the debate. It seeks to make it explicit that rough sleeping is included in the term homelessness, and I assure hon. Members that that is already the case. The code of guidance will make it clear that authorities will need to take account of rough sleeping in their reviews and strategies.

New clause 1 would disband the rough sleepers unit and give local authorities the primary responsibility for addressing the problems of rough sleeping.

The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) made a point about a lady who visited his constituency advice surgery, and I want to respond to it. From the description that he gave, it was unclear how she would be judged by the local authority, and I do not want to hazard a guess about that, as I might get the answer wrong. When one looks through the details of such a case, it is easy to miss out a couple of factors that can affect whether a person is intentionally, or unintentionally, homeless, and that affects all that person's subsequent rights. I have a suggestion to make to the hon. Gentleman. Some excellent handbooks have been published that might help him and, when he has been a Member of Parliament for a little longer, he will begin to realise that judgments of this type must be made by local authorities and that we have to give our constituents advice on them. That would be far better than my hazarding a judgment on the brief facts presented by the hon. Gentleman.

There is no reason why families with children should have to sleep rough. If they are unable to find accommodation themselves, they can seek help from social services authorities. Although it is said that rough sleeping is the same as homelessness, there is quite a difference between the two. I have not come across a family or a person in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described who ended up sleeping rough on the streets. Although they may not have had the most desirable accommodation, they would not have ended up sleeping on the streets.

I am pleased that the Conservative party shares the Government's concerns about the plight of people sleeping rough. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire expressed his interest in the subject on Second Reading; it is a matter that seems to unite members of the Committee.

The hon. Gentleman's probing amendment is probably designed to discover the Government's intentions for the future of the rough sleepers unit, which was established on 1 April 1999. It had the specific objective of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in England to as near zero as possible, or by at least two thirds, by April 2002. The unit has already made excellent progress against that demanding target. It takes a partnership approach, delivered through a national strategy.

The unit's work draws together different programmes from across the statutory sector. It takes a joined-up approach to considering why people sleep rough and offering them an alternative to life on the streets, working across Government to ensure that all organisations with a stake in the problem—local authorities, the Prison Service, the Benefits Agency and the armed forces—do their bit to tackle the problem, considering prevention as well as cure. Some of the work that is done with agencies and Government Departments would be extremely difficult if it was merely devolved to local authorities, which would not come up with the innovative policies devised by the rough sleepers unit.

Figures show that between June 1998 and June 2000 the number of people sleeping rough on any one night across England had fallen by more than one third. In June 2000, there were an estimated 1,180 people sleeping rough on a single night. It is essential that the Government are responsible for addressing the problem of people sleeping rough. The new clause would cut short much of the unit's successful work and pass responsibility for tackling the problem of rough sleeping entirely to local authorities. That would not be remotely in the interests of people sleeping rough and it would not support the agencies' constructive work to help the vulnerable people who sleep on the streets.

The rough sleepers unit has begun consulting on a future strategy. The consultation will consider how to take forward measures to end rough sleeping and to prevent people ending up on the streets in the first place. That should continue once the unit has met its target in April 2002. The role of local authorities will be one factor in the analysis. They will need to build on their present successes in reducing the number of people sleeping rough, to ensure that numbers are sustained at a low level and do not start to creep up to the previous historic levels.

The rough sleepers unit consultation process will take into account what role local authorities should play after 2002. I therefore ask the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire to withdraw the amendment and not to press the new clause.

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): I wish to ask the Minister a few questions, especially in response to her query about new clause 1 and the future of the rough sleepers unit. When responding to similar amendments that we tabled to the pre-run of the Bill, her predecessor, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, said:

``it is not intended that the unit should become a permanent fixture. Work is already under way to develop an exit strategy . . . It is envisaged that eventually the unit will be wound up and responsibility will be passed back to local authorities.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 January 2001; c. 310.]

The Minister described the work of the rough sleepers unit as unique. As she sees it, what it is achieving could not be achieved if such work were devolved to local authorities. However, such action would only devolve it back because such functions were carried out by local authorities in the first place. Is the hon. Lady saying that the rough sleepers unit is still on track to be wound up after April 2002, as the previous Minister promised? Has such a decision been taken?

The Minister mentioned—I think that she was repeating her predecessor's comments—that the unit would be wound up after it had met its target in April 2002. [Interruption.] That was what her predecessor said. If the Minister wants to intervene, she is welcome to do so. Such comments presuppose that that target will be met, unless it has been altered. Can the Minister explain how that target will work? She said that the number of rough sleepers fell by one third between 1998 and 2000. Does that mean that the Government acknowledge that there is a rump of rough sleepers for whom alternatives to rough sleeping will never be taken up? Is there ultimately a zero target for rough sleepers or is it a matter of reducing their number to a rump level?

I am slightly confused about whether the Minister thinks that local authorities could carry out the job undertaken by the rough sleepers unit. We would contest that, although it was the responsibility of local authorities in the first place. They had a good deal of success with the rough sleepers initiative in the first part of the 1990s.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give me a chance to respond to those points? People must accept that the population of rough sleepers tends to be transient. The clear aim is to prevent people from ending up on the streets in the first place. To ensure that people are moved off the streets to somewhere more suitable as quickly as possible will be a permanent aspect of the work carried out in respect of homelessness. The consultation paper on how to continue the work sets out the current state of play, which includes considering the role of local authorities. Let us consider some of the work of the rough sleepers unit. It has, for example, identified the possibility of people who leave the armed services ending up on the streets. That could not have not have been done without the central strategic unit that operates nationally and throughout Departments.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That was a speech masquerading as an intervention, but I take the hon. Lady's point. Of course, the rough sleeper population will not be the same all the time for a host of reasons, most tragically because those who tend to be rough sleepers are most vulnerable to health or drug problems. About 75 per cent. of rough sleepers in Soho are consumers of crack cocaine and contribute to the drug problem there. The mortality rate of those rough sleepers will be higher than that of people who are not involved in such practices. I am not saying that we would be dealing with the same core client list, but I am trying to get a measure of exactly what the Minister thinks is achievable, by which the success, or not, of the rough sleepers unit will be judged, and of whether the Government can formulate what, if anything, will succeed the unit. I do not concur with her opinion of the success of the rough sleepers unit given the money that has been put into it.

Previously, we mentioned comments made by the head of Crisis, who gave the unit 10 out of 10 for intervention, but five out of 10 for prevention, and other people with long-standing expertise of dealing with rough sleepers. One such person is Cheryl St. Clair—I said that she was on the Christmas card list of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) but is not politically affiliated to us—who said that the biggest problem with the rough sleepers unit is:

``it is political. It is driven by political requirements rather than moral requirements.''

She also said that the unit has become obsessed by process and has lost sight of outcomes for homeless people.

On that basis, it is difficult to judge whether the rough sleepers unit has been a success at a time when many local authorities, not least Westminster, have been taking many initiatives of their own to deal with rough sleepers. More initiatives have been taken than for some time, which have been independent from, and in collaboration with, the rough sleepers unit.

I do not think that the Minister has justified the value for money effort of the rough sleepers unit. A lot of money is involved, and some highly paid professionals run it. We question not their integrity, but the value for money that they offer. The Minister has not made the case for the output that the unit has achieved. Therefore, six months on from when we received a similar answer from her predecessor, it is incumbent on her to tell us exactly what the Government expect the rough sleepers unit to have achieved by April 2002, and what will happen to the unit, or its successor or none, after that date. We have not received any details on that from the Minister, and on that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire made his case well for why we should continue to be sceptical about the merits and value for money offered by the rough sleepers unit.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I have already described the target set out for the rough sleepers unit and I am loth to repeat it for the sake of it, although I will. We set the specific objective of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in England to as near zero as possible, or by at least two thirds by April 2002. The unit is a substantial way down that road. Figures published in August—they are a bit out of date—showed that in June 2000 an estimated 1,180 people were sleeping rough in England, which was a 30 per cent. decrease. That is extremely good, in terms of the targets set.

The unit has also achieved permanent changes of thinking about rough sleeping and developed preventive strategies with central Government agencies. There is, and has been, a degree of sniping by the Conservative party about the rough sleepers unit, which is regrettable given the unit's track record. It has got results by taking a different approach that has stepped on the toes of some of the established charities that deal with homeless people—we saw that all over the papers when the unit was first set up—and it has thought innovatively about the causes of rough sleeping. It has identified vulnerable groups and worked with Government Departments to put preventive strategies in place. On that basis, it is correct to consult about how to take the process forward. It would be much better to have a consultation to consider the options and make a decision that will produce the best possible result for people who sleep rough, and in the process take into account the proper role that local authorities can and should play. I hope that on that basis and in recognising the genuine progress that has been made in dealing with the difficult human problem of rough sleeping, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

We are disappointed that rough sleeping is not specified in clause 3. However, as the arguments have been thoroughly explored twice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Does the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) wish to move amendment No. 15?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

You will not know, Mr. Griffiths, that this morning I received many plaudits, but they were all from Opposition Members.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Yes or no.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

No.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to move his amendment, can we do so?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Yes.

Amendment proposed, No. 15, in page 3, line 12, at end insert—

`(5A) In formulating a homelessness strategy the authority shall make specific reference to—

(a) the extent and nature of empty housing and vacant property within their district across all sectors and tenures;

(b) targets for the re-use of such properties for residential purposes; and

(c) a strategy for action to achieve the targets set out in paragraph (b) above, including action by any public authority, voluntary organisation or other body or person whose activities are capable of contributing to the achieving of these objectives.'.—[Mr. Loughton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 18, after `organisations', insert

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

After that excitement, we return to the mundane business of amendment No. 5. The amendment is simple, and I shall be brief. It reflects an amendment that we tabled in the Committee considering the Homes Bill. It would insert into the clause that deals with the homelessness strategy and how it is produced a provision that, in addition to public and local authorities and voluntary organisations, people who live in the authority's area, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, should also be consulted. No matter how expert many people are, those who have been or are homeless and those who are worried about becoming homeless may be the most expert in some respects. That is obvious. We do not understand why the Government did not accept the amendment last time, but we hope that they will be more charitable this time.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths, and I assure you that I tend to be brief where possible. I shall demonstrate the truth of that claim by saying that I agree with every word uttered by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), just as he agreed with me when we debated amendment No. 79 to the Homes Bill.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I, too, am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. It is rather fortunate that we are dealing with a relatively straightforward matter, because I fear that the attention of some Opposition Members may have wandered to things that are occurring down the Corridor. I trust that as soon as they have any information on that, they will share it with their fellow Members.

Unfortunately, I cannot be any more charitable than my predecessor was when the corresponding amendment was debated in Committee on the Homes Bill before the general election, because the situation remains the same. The amendment's objective is laudable, but unnecessary. The Government have consistently put people at the centre of our policies. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants and residents, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, to inform homelessness reviews and help in drawing up strategies. Engaging people in the area, working in partnership and on a customer-focused basis are our expectations of local government.

As we heard in previous debates, it is not necessary to place every detail in the Bill. Indeed, hon. Members will agree that that is not always desirable. On occasion, too much detail distracts attention from what is critical and central. The code of guidance is the place to deal with that level of elaboration, and I have already outlined the intention of the revised code of guidance. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Who am I to argue? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am slightly in your hands, Mr. Griffiths. Although we have no amendments to debate, a modest stand part debate will be helpful. I am happy to open that debate, but it might make more sense if the Minister speaks first, so that I can respond to what she has to tell us about the wonders of clause 5. Would she be willing to consider doing that?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I am happy to do that.

The main provisions of the Bill are designed to strengthen the safety net for people who become homeless through no fault of their own and who have a priority need for accommodation. That is right, as many of those people are among the most vulnerable individuals in our society.

However, less vulnerable households also find themselves homeless, or are threatened with homelessness, through no fault of their own, such as single people and couples who do not have dependent children and, therefore, do not fall within the priority need categories. The duty owed to such people by a local housing authority is limited to the provision of advice and assistance to help them to secure accommodation. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will strengthen that duty, but I shall not deal with them now. Clause 5 will give authorities more flexibility to provide assistance for homeless applicants who do not fall within the priority need categories: they will be able to use their discretion, so far as their resources allow.

Clause 5(1) will give local housing authorities a new power to secure accommodation for applicants who have become homeless unintentionally, but who do not fall within a priority need group. It will enable authorities to provide their own accommodation, to secure accommodation from another landlord, or to provide advice and assistance to ensure that accommodation becomes available. In fact, they can pursue any of the options that they can use to discharge a duty to secure accommodation for priority need applicants. We intend that it should be an especially effective provision in areas of low or mixed demand for housing.

Clause 5(2) provides a further power for local housing authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent households that do not fall within priority need categories from becoming homeless when they are faced with the prospect of homelessness within 28 days through no fault of their own. It will enable authorities to take steps to prevent homelessness for applicants who do not fall within priority need categories similar to those that they can take to discharge a duty towards applicants who are in priority need, and who face the threat of homelessness through no fault of their own.

The provisions in clause 5 will allow local authorities to be more flexible in their approach to helping applicants who do not fall within priority need categories and who are homeless, or are threatened with homelessness through no fault of their own. The extent to which individual authorities use those powers will be at their discretion—there will be no additional burden. However, through guidance, we shall encourage authorities—particularly those with the scope and resources to do so—to put those new powers to maximum use to assist homeless people who do not fall within priority need categories.

In the regulations that are intended to follow the Bill, the definition of people in priority need will be broadened.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to the Minister for that contribution, and I hope that she does not feel that I took her by surprise. It is an important provision and, although we are discussing the legislation for the second time, it would be wrong not to debate it.

Organisations such as the Local Government Association are broadly supportive of the measure, because it gives local authorities more discretion and allows them to take a more strategic approach, by looking at the matter from the point of view of prevention rather than cure. Clause 5 would amend section 192 of the Housing Act 1996. At present, the duty towards people who do not fall within a priority need category is only to provide appropriate advice and assistance to them in their attempts to secure accommodation. The new measure will give local authorities a wider power to prevent such people from becoming homeless in the first place.

I do not wish to re-run an earlier debate, but I remind the Committee that this is a minor victory for the Opposition. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) tabled an amendment about the advice that is available to people in that category and the requirement that should be laid on local authorities in that context. She did not demonstrate the courage of her convictions—unlike the hon. Member for Stafford a moment ago—because she did not support her amendment when we pressed it to a vote. However, a signal victory was achieved, because the then Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) was prepared to make concessions on the issue—partly, I am sure, because of the support that we were prepared to give to the hon. Lady's amendment.

In the Committee, the Minister referred to

``the variable, inconsistent and sometimes inadequate quality of local authority advice and assistance.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 343.]

He went on to say that he saw merit in strengthening the duty on local authorities. The amendment was lost, but the Government introduced their own amendments to schedule 2 of what was then the Homes Bill, and they have now reappeared as paragraphs 8 to 11 of schedule 1 of this Bill. Although there are no amendments to clause 5—perhaps that is an indication of the breadth of support for what it is trying to achieve—it is important to mark it to remind anyone who has forgotten that that improvement was a victory for the Opposition. That is worth noting.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I welcome the Opposition's support. It seems to me that the victory belongs not so much to the Opposition as to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, who raised the issue. She is one of several Government Members who have a huge amount of experience and expertise in the area of housing and who have contributed in many ways to the Bill—along with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), of course.

The Bill will provide help to people who, although not in priority need, none the less face the prospect of eviction and homelessness. As such, it is an important measure, and I am extremely pleased that the hon. Member for Eastbourne supports it, as does the rest of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Events which cause the duty to cease

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 40, at end insert—

`and states that the offer shall remain open for acceptance for not less than four working days from the date of the offer, or such longer period as the authority considers reasonable in all the circumstances.'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 40, at end insert—

`and states that the offer shall remain available for such period as the authority may determine is reasonable in all the circumstances.'.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We return to this issue, having dealt with it to some extent in the Committee stage of the previous Bill. In case he springs to his feet to try to claim it for himself, let me say immediately that the provenance for the amendment was an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. [Interruption.] If his relationship with the Minister gets any broader or deeper, we could be talking about the Privy Council—who knows?

We thought that amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, although it had its good points, was overly modest. The issue is how long applicants may take to make a decision on a firm offer of accommodation. We had some evidence, probably anecdotal, that some local authorities—no doubt those with enormous pressure of demand—require a decision within 24 hours. That struck all members of the Committee as being wrong. Clearly, if someone is minded to make a decision that quickly, that is another matter. However, 24 or 48 hours struck us as too short a period. If the hon. Member for Bath does not mind me stealing his thunder, he referred to the London borough of Southwark, which generously set the decision time on a definite offer up to 48 hours.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I rise merely to avoid misleading the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will see what I said. My understanding is that Southwark's standard practice is to work to 24 hours, but that it will allow a further 48 hours if an applicant requires it. In such cases, the time is brought up to the three-day limit that was in my original amendment. He is right to say that there are other examples of authorities in London and elsewhere where 24 hours is the normal practice.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful for that clarification. This is a matter in which practice varies widely. At the time, I think that all Committee members felt that applicants should have time to deliberate and talk to their families and advisers—legal advisers even—before making a decision that will affect their lives for a long time. People should not feel pressured into making such decisions in a short space of time. Indeed, the then Minister 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.]

Three days was the period proposed in the Liberal Democrat amendment then before the Committee.

That leads us to the question of allocations, but I shall only touch on the subject because we shall have a much broader debate on it toward the end of the Committee stage. Things have moved on since our previous discussions, because at that time 90-odd authorities had applied for the pilot scheme of choice-based allocation. I am pleased to say that my borough of Eastbourne—as well as Bath, I think—was among those successful in bidding to pilot the Delft or choice-based scheme. We shall see how that works out with the pressures that I have described on available housing stock in places such as Eastbourne. The new development may have a significant effect on the problem.

My amendment is narrow. We have debated it before, and it seemed to be common ground, even with the previous Minister. I hope that this Minister will take the same view that, in the great majority of cases, three days is too short a time in which to expect people to make such a decision. I have plumped for four days. This is a probing amendment and the Minister will be pleased to hear that I shall not press it to a Division. However, the Government should re-examine whether some minimum period should be included so that, allowing for flexibility and those who want to make quick decisions, the people involved, who are often in a vulnerable position, do not feel unduly pressured into making a hurried choice.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for the generosity of the hon. Member for Eastbourne in acknowledging that the provenance of the amendment came from one that I moved in earlier discussions of part II of the Homes Bill. He eloquently and, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, succinctly outlined the arguments as to why it is important that we ensure that homeless people are given reasonable time in which to make a decision about whether to accept a final offer of accommodation.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly said, the Government's intention is to ensure that homeless people are given greater choice about their future housing. Nevertheless, it is well known that homeless people are not given much choice at the moment. For example, local authorities will often give families or individuals who want to transfer several options from which to choose and yet, sadly, a homeless person or family will be given only one choice, not a range of options. The Government are keen to change that and I support their intention. Similarly, a household seeking to transfer will often have its preferences of area taken into account, whereas a homeless household or individual will not. A third issue is the type of housing. Households wishing to transfer often have a much greater say in the type of accommodation to which they move than homeless individuals or households, which are rarely given such a choice.

I hope that Committee members agree that the range of choice offered to homeless households or individuals is far narrower than for other categories of people. We seek to change that. All hon. Members would surely accept that the practice still adopted by several local authorities of giving a homeless household or individual a limited period in which to decide whether to accept a final offer is unacceptable and unreasonable. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, in an earlier amendment I proposed a minimum period of three days. The hon. Gentleman now proposes a minimum period of four days. That is a welcome amendment and, were there any likelihood of it succeeding, I would be happy to support it.

I am conscious of the way in which our deliberations and the decision-making process works. During our previous deliberations, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Ainsworth) made it clear that he was sympathetic to the concerns that I expressed then and which the hon. Member for Eastbourne has expressed today. The Minister said:

``I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, which is to ensure that, under Part IV, applicants have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer from a local housing authority. Applicants need time for deliberation, and possibly to consult relatives, friends or advisers on the options available.''

He went on:

``The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has made some good points in relation to the time it can take to explore educational opportunities in an area and to secure undertakings on repairs.'' —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c.355.]

I had several concerns about giving people only a short period in which to decide. I argued at that time and reiterate now that, in considering a final offer, a homeless person will want an opportunity to consult friends and relatives.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is worse than the one that he moved in our previous debate on the Homes Bill, because it would allow many local authorities to stick to 24 hours.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful for that intervention, but if the hon. Gentleman will bide his time for a moment, I shall come to that point.

In coming to a final decision, people must consider a number of issues: the opinion of friends and relatives; the suitability of schooling for any children involved; the impact of the decision on work that the individual might take up; and whether the local authority would give an assurance that any necessary repairs would be carried out. Many local authorities will not carry out repairs until an allocation has been made.

The hon. Gentleman obviously agrees that a 24-hour period would be unreasonable. I was delighted that the then Minister entirely agreed with that view and he went on to say that, in some cases, three days might be an unreasonable period, which is one reason why he was unhappy with my particular amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hesitate to interrupt and I have now given the wording to Hansard, but the Minister accepted that in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days was too short a period. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to undersell the case.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman is correct, as the Minister stated:

``I have already said that in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is unreasonable.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 357.]

I entirely agree with that.

In common with other Committee members, I accept that 24 hours is unreasonable and that three days is unreasonable in many cases. We have to decide whether we are likely to persuade the Minister to accept an amendment to four days. My amendment may not be the best way forward, but it offers another way out for the Government. It would allow the period to be ``reasonable''. I chose that word for several reasons: first, because the Minister himself said that there must be a reasonable period of time; secondly, because the word could be challenged in law--[Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) suggests from a sedentary position that that is not a sensible way forward. If he believes that, he has many further opportunities to table amendments to the Bill, which changes elements of the Housing Act 1996. I did a quick trawl through one part of the Act and noted that it made use of the word ``reasonable'' in legally challengeable ways in sections 175(3), 176(b), 177(2), 192(1)(a) and 195(2). I have no doubt that it is also used in many other parts of the Act.

My preference is for the amendment of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, because it would insert a firm minimum period into the Bill, but I am offering the Government another way out—by inserting a provision that would enable legal challenges—if they will not accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I hope that it is clear that it would be preferable to insert a specific minimum time period into the Bill, but that I am providing a backstop in the event that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members cannot persuade the Government to accept his amendment.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

To place the clause in context, members of the Committee will recall that clause 6 will ensure that the main homelessness duty in section 193 of the 1996 Act continues to apply until brought to an end by one of several possible scenarios. Clause 7 amends those scenarios and provides some important safeguards for homeless applicants to ensure that the duties cannot be brought to an end unreasonably.

Section 193 already provides for the duty to end where the applicant rejects an offer of suitable accommodation—that is, an offer of short-term accommodation rather than a settled home—intended as a discharge of the homelessness duty; where he accepts or rejects an offer of suitable accommodation, which is intended as a settled home, allocated under part VI of the 1996 Act; where he voluntarily leaves short-term accommodation provided as a discharge of the homelessness duty or makes himself intentionally homeless from that accommodation; or where the applicant ceases to be eligible for homelessness assistance—for example, an asylum seeker who receives a negative decision on his or her asylum claim.

I appreciate the intention of the amendments, which is to ensure that applicants under part VI have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer from a local housing authority. That is clearly important. Applicants need time for deliberation and possibly to consult relatives, friends or advisers on the available options. Applicants need a reasonable time in which to make informed and sensible choices.

Amendment No. 8 mentions a minimum period of four days. That appears to be a compromise between the three days previously proposed by the hon. Member for Bath and the five days subsequently suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) when these provisions were examined in their previous guise as part II of the Homes Bill.

A case could be made for any or, indeed, all of those periods, but I do not believe that they are necessary. Different circumstances will require different periods for consideration, which is why putting fixed numbers into the Bill would be unhelpful. On Second Reading, for example, I referred to a constituent who was in hospital having a baby when her mother came in waving the offer of accommodation. In such instances, a fixed period of three, four or even more days would be unreasonable. The personal circumstances facing an individual and the practical circumstances facing the authority must be taken into account.

We discussed previously the problem of empty properties. For several local authorities, consideration of the number of empty properties will weigh heavily on their minds as they decide what to do about making offers of accommodation and the length of time that applicants have to consider those offers. It makes no sense to specify a fixed period of time. I would argue, too, that there is an inherent danger that a statutory minimum would quickly come to be used as the maximum period to be allowed.

Amendment No. 12 would ensure that the authority provides applicants with a reasonable period in all circumstances to consider a final offer. I am not against the proposal in principle, but the amendment adds nothing to the requirements of general law. Local authorities must in all circumstances act reasonably in the undertaking of all their duties, and that extends to final offers. We must be careful not to burden the Bill with excessive detail obscuring the principal purposes of the legislation.

Hon. Members who raised that point have drawn attention to an important issue. I shall ensure that the relevant considerations of reasonableness are covered in the code of guidance. That will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Bath.

We are all concerned about the experience of homeless people who are made offers of accommodation and expected to make a quick response, when they might have to live in accommodation that they would not choose for themselves. The shift towards choice-based lettings, which is part of the Government's wider agenda on housing, will be extremely important, along with this legislation, in dealing with many of the worries expressed by hon. Members this afternoon. I ask, therefore, that the amendment be withdrawn.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I hear what the Minister is saying, but I would like to make a few points.

Everyone seems to agree that a fixed period of one, two or even three days is unreasonable. The Minister objects to the amendment on the basis that a minimum can become a maximum, but a minimum is exactly what it says—a minimum. It is also a bit much to balance the period of time in which people must make their decisions against the fact that there are a lot of empty council properties. I do not think that that situation can be blamed on people who fail to make quick decisions and, on reflection, I do not think that the point was germane to the issue.

The Minister said that the matter would be dealt with in the guidance, so I suppose that we must be content with that, but we could happily have dealt with it more briskly—today or in the previous debate—and put a lot of people's minds at rest.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows whether guidance has the same force in law as legislation and whether it would be possible to challenge a local authority that continues to operate a 24-hour policy on the basis of guidance.

This is a longer intervention than it might have been because I am conscious that some hon. Members are receiving interesting pager messages. I hope that in his response to this intervention, the hon. Member for Eastbourne will tell us the result of the ballot that has taken place.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Just to add to the tension, I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about guidance first.—[Interruption.] Ah, it looks as if the result is being circulated anyway. It may be worth recording that the result has made me smile.

There is a difference between guidance and legislation. We are not, after all, referring to the sort of people who would take the council to a judicial review about whether it is reasonable to give them X number of days in which to make a decision.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

In the exercise of their functions, local authorities must take note of the guidance, so guidance has force in the courts.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am sure that that is right, but people have to get into the courts first and have the means and desire to do so when they may have more immediate worries on their minds. That is the key distinction here. It is unfortunate that the Government are not prepared to put even a minimum period into the Bill. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Review of decisions as to suitability of accommodation

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I welcome the clause for its strengthening of applicants' rights to challenge the suitability of accommodation. I especially welcome the fact that it makes the system suit the individual rather than the other way round, as so often with our legislation. However, I wonder what difference it will make in practice to many of our constituents. Shelter expressed the concern about clause 5 that the powers may be somewhat theoretical in nature; I suspect that that could be said of this clause as well.

I want to illustrate my point by means of an individual case. On Saturday morning, a young couple came to see me who described themselves as homeless.

They had two children—a two-and-a-half year old and a nine-and-a-half year old. Yesterday they were offered a property and had only 24 hours to decide whether to take it. In their view it was unsuitable for them for several reasons. It was underneath a stairwell in which people congregated at night, and they thought that there would be a lot of noise when the children were going to sleep and that there might be drug taking. The wife thought that, when she came back with shopping, by the time she had taken her children to the top of the stairs and into the flat her shopping might well have been stolen. The property was a first-floor flat with a balcony, and she was worried that her two-and-a-half year old was likely to be able to clamber over the balcony and that she would not always be able to supervise the child. No doubt under the Bill they could request a review of the suitability of the accommodation and would, I hope, be told that it was not suitable for a family in their circumstances. However, in a local authority such as the one in my area, it is unlikely that further offers of accommodation would be made. How will the clause help such a family?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Cases such as that to which the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire refers are familiar to several members of the Committee. The clause was introduced to deal with anxieties expressed by Shelter, which welcomed it. This important provision has been included in the Bill in response to a recent judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of Alghile v. City of Westminster. That judgment provided a new interpretation of the provisions of the 1996 Act that deal with an applicant's right to ask for a review of the suitability of accommodation offered.

The provisions of the 1996 Act are wanting. They give applicants the right to ask for a review of suitability but do not require that authorities notify them of that right, as they are required to do for all the other aspects for which an applicant can ask for a review.

The 1996 Act also provides that the section 193 duty to secure accommodation comes to an end if the applicant refuses an offer of accommodation that the authority considers suitable. However, the Act does not make it clear that the applicant must have the opportunity to ask for a review of suitability and that a review must be carried out before the refusal of an offer can bring the duty to an end.

The effect of the current provisions is a deep lack of clarity. A 1997 High Court decision in the case of Byfield allowed applicants to accept an offer, thus avoiding bringing the duty to an end, and to ask for a review of suitability. That interpretation was overturned in March of this year, when the Court of Appeal ruled that applicants could not both accept an offer and ask for a review of suitability. Currently, therefore, if applicants want to ask for a review of suitability, they must refuse and take a gamble. If they lose and the authority upholds its initial decision that the property offered is suitable, the duty to secure accommodation ends and they will become homeless.

We do not believe that that is right, so we are taking the opportunity to clarify the law and put the matter on a statutory footing. The clause provides that applicants must be informed that they have the right to ask for a review of the suitability of accommodation offered before a refusal of that offer can bring the homelessness duty to an end. The clause also makes it clear that applicants may request such a review regardless of whether they have accepted an offer. Therefore, they can accept the offer and have a review of the suitability of the accommodation.

The clause will restore an important part of the homelessness safety net. It will ensure that applicants can ask for a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to them without taking the risk that the homelessness duty owed to them will be brought to an end if the local authority upholds its initial decision. Crucially, the clause will come into force as soon as the Bill receives royal assent. I hope that this important clause will stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I wish to probe the Minister about the clause a little further. We are broadly in favour of the amendments that the Minister is proposing to make to the Bill. Anything that increases the choice and suitability of accommodation offered to tenants must be right, although the bottom line is that a choice-based system will amount to nothing unless choice is available. As the hon. Lady said—and as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire recounted—there are horrendous cases of homelessness.

During the past three weeks, three such examples have been brought to my attention at my surgery, one of which concerned a female constituent who had attempted suicide. She had been allocated a flat on her own on the fourth floor of a council block, from which she had thrown herself within 24 hours. Fortunately, she was not killed, but she was badly injured. Such accommodation was obviously not suitable for someone who was receiving mental treatment. Several cases have been brought to my attention involving housing blocks that were riddled with damp. One concerned a family with children who have serious asthma problems and who had been moved into a damp flat. Subsequently, one of the children had visited hospital three times with asthma-related problems that were exacerbated by the dampness.

Another more familiar problem concerns the suitability of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which in many cases is all that is on offer. One constituency case involved a mother who suffered from a complicated medical condition. Her husband was desperately looking for work, but the only work that he had been offered involved night security. The family were unable to be in the bed-and-breakfast accommodation during the day—the terms of most bed-and-breakfast accommodation—as a result of which the husband was unable to sleep. The wife's medical condition made it highly undesirable for her to share bathroom facilities with other families. The family had been offered bed-and-breakfast accommodation some miles away from the school that the children attended and they had already been through a disruptive cycle because they had moved from their base. All such cases highlight the unsuitability of accommodation that may be offered.

How will the review system work? Realistically, on requesting a review, can the Minister maintain that the case will not be prejudiced under the new system? I am referring to ``heavy-handed'' treatment from a housing officer who may suggest that, if a person applies for a review, it will prejudice their chances of receiving a decent property within the terms of the discretion available to various housing officers. I am not saying that that would be a deliberate ploy, but given the desperate circumstances of many housing departments with a lack of available accommodation, it may come into it. Who will carry out such a review and how sure can a tenant be that it has been carried out properly, independently and objectively? If the review is upheld, what is the next stage? How will alternative accommodation be offered? That may turn out to be equally unsuitable. Where will the process end?

While welcoming the strengthening of tenants' rights that the clause is supposed to represent, we should like further information about how it will lead to the improvements to which the Minister referred?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

On the different cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I would not make a decision about whether the accommodation provided by the local authority was suitable. Clearly, it is up to the review to decide such matters, not someone who does not have all the facts to hand. The clause will improve the position in two main areas for those who want to challenge the suitability of the accommodation that they have been offered. They must be told about the right of review, which did not happen before. People cannot be offered accommodation and then left to work out for themselves at some stage further down the line that they could have requested a review of its suitability. The council will conduct the review.

It is particularly important that a person's acceptance of an offer should not prejudice their right to a review of the accommodation's suitability. The hon. Gentleman talked about a heavy-handed housing officer pressuring someone into accepting an offer and then telling them that they cannot question its suitability. The point is that people can accept an offer and then, if need be, have a review of the accommodation's suitability. That represents an important improvement to the rights of people moving from homelessness to permanent accommodation. I hope that hon. Members will therefore support the clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My point is not that the housing officer will not have to change his ways, because officially what the Minister says is right. However, we know that a housing officer has the leeway and discretion to say, ``Well, if you don't go along with this, you're entitled to a review, but it won't help your case.''

In addition, the Minister says that the council will conduct the review, but could the review panel include the housing officer who made the offer in the first place? Where is the independence and objectivity of the review process?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

A local authority will have to conduct internal reviews in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. It gives effect to the European convention on human rights, which includes the right to a fair hearing, so there are external constraints. I agree that quite a number of tenants or prospective tenants will not be looking to make such a challenge, but we are talking about setting up a procedure that protects tenants' rights and ensures that, in all reasonable circumstances, they can challenge the suitability of their offer. We are also discussing access to information about their rights. That constitutes a substantial improvement to the current situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Persons claiming to be homeless who are at risk of violence

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My observations relate more to what is not in the clause than to what is there. In Committee on the Homes Bill, we discussed at length the problem of domestic violence leading to homelessness. Opposition Members fully support any strengthening of the legislation and the availability of alternative accommodation for people who are homeless through no fault of their own, but because of violence or the threat of it that does not necessarily constitute making them unintentionally homeless. That includes the threat of violence from neighbours, which may escalate into rather nasty cases of violence. We have all probably dealt with cases of intimidation that lead to violence from antisocial neighbours.

When we discussed the matter previously, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who was a member of the previous Committee, proposed new clause 15, which dealt specifically with racial violence. At the time, we said that she presented her case effectively and forcefully, and we were supportive of it. I responded to the points that she made about her new clause, although she saw fit to withdraw it because the Minister was sympathetic and promised to consider the situation with a view to ensuring that her points were included in the thrust of the regulations, even if they were not in the Bill. However, I cannot see any reference to homelessness caused by racial violence or threats of racial violence in this Bill or in the explanatory notes. Yet, as we have seen in the events of recent weeks, that menace has not gone away and may be more topical now than when we discussed it in January, although the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow gave harrowing examples of racial abuse against her own constituents.

We all know the problems of the hon. Lady's east London constituency, in which residents had missiles thrown at them and burning rubbish and petrol bombs pushed through their letter boxes. I remember her mentioning long-term hate campaigns that may not result in actual violence but that are intimidation of such a high order that people live in fear for their lives, which constitutes racial abuse.

I have encountered cases in my constituency in which people who live in their own home—they are private-owner occupiers—or who live in council or another sort of landlord accommodation leave their home because of abuse that they are getting at that address and not because there is something wrong with the home. Those people will sleep on sofas and floors with friends or relatives but, to all intents and purposes, they are in need of alternative accommodation. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow gave the example of people who had their own home but who could not afford to pay the mortgage on that and rent another residence. They wanted to do that because they were scared stiff to live in their own home.

Such people are not only tenants, but owner-occupiers, and are virtually unprotected by current law. We must improve their access to the homelessness safety net. I hoped that the hon. Lady's comments would lead to a beefing up of the Bill, or at least the accompanying notes, or the promise of problem being addressed in the code because otherwise people will fall through the safety net.

The hon. Lady rightly said that under half of local housing authorities have provisions for such racial abuse and violence that affects peoples' homeless status. A similar figure was heard with regard to other conditions this morning.

I think that it is correct to raise this matter when discussing clause 10. We concur with the new provisions that deal with violence, intimidation and particularly women fleeing home from domestic violence, but will the Minister address the issues that I raised about the apparent absence of a beefing-up of help for those who are the subject of racial rather than domestic or ordinary violence?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Before the Minister responds, the Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for raising that particular point. During our debate on Second Reading, I referred to the knowledge that all Committee members would have that the Government are consulting on their intentions to extend the homeless priority categories. That would be a welcome extension. The Minister gave me an undertaking that she would make available in the Library copies of that consultation document. I am grateful that she has not only done that, but has sent me a copy of the document.

I note with considerable interest that many concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman are covered in the consultation document and that specific reference is made to cases of racial harassment. My question is technical, because I am slightly confused. Why is the wording in clause 10 so detailed when the issue is still undergoing consultation, in respect not only of people who are at risk of violence but of various other categories? Is it appropriate to have such detail for one category when others are still being consulted on, and when will we have an opportunity to debate some of the details raised by the hon. Gentleman?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I welcome the intervention from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham because it provides an opportunity to place on record some details of the provision and the arguments around it.

The Housing Act 1996 includes provisions that ensure that people who are at risk of domestic violence if they remain in their current home must be treated as homeless on the grounds that it is not be reasonable for them to continue living where they are. Housing authorities are also prevented from referring a homeless case to another local authority if the applicant or any member of his or her family would be at risk of domestic violence in the district of that other local authority. The provisions provide important safeguards for people who have experienced domestic violence or who are at risk of it. Regrettably, the number of people who face such distress is by no means insignificant. Labour Members in particular have substantial experience of working with such people.

However, violence can be motivated by other things and may come from different quarters; the perpetrators are not always members or ex-members of the family. Racially motivated violence in particular can be a depressingly familiar fact of life for far too many people, and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to some discussions about that. No one should have to live under the shadow of violence, whatever its motivation. There is no rationale for distinguishing between a risk of domestic violence and any other form of violence.

Clause 10 will extend the protection currently provided for homeless applicants at risk of domestic violence to applicants at risk of any violence. Clause 10(1) will amend section 177 of the 1996 Act to provide that it would not be reasonable for an applicant to continue living in accommodation if there were a probability that that would lead to any form of violence against the applicant, a member of his or her family or anyone else who might be expected to live with the applicant. That includes racial violence.

Clause 10(2) will amend the conditions of referral as set out in section 198 of the 1996 Act. They provide the criteria that determine whether one housing authority can refer a homeless case to another. Currently, the conditions are not met if applicants or anyone who might reasonably be expected to live with them are at risk of domestic violence in the district of the other authority. Clause 10(2) will extend that safeguard and provide that the conditions for referral of a homelessness case are not met if applicants, or anyone who might reasonably be expected to live with them, have suffered violence in the district of the other authority and there would be a probability of further, similar violence if the victim returned to that district.

The hon. Member for Bath asked about consultation on the provisions. This Committee and the other processes in the House offer the opportunity to explore the Bill's wording. We will, of course, consult widely on the code of guidance. The explanation given this afternoon provides more detail about the way in which the clause will operate and gives me some reassurance that it extends to racially motivated violence. The clause includes important protections for the victims of violence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Section 204(4): appeals

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Section 202: reviews—

`After section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision) there is inserted—

``202A Section 202: reviews

(1) This section applies where an applicant has the right to request a review of a decision by an authority or authorities under section 202.

(2) If the applicant is dissatisfied with a decision by the authority—

(a) not to exercise their power to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review under section 188;

(b) in a case where the authority have secured that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under section 190(2)(a), to cease to secure that accommodation is so available before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant);

(c) not to exercise their power to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review, under section 200(5); or

(d) to exercise their power under either section 188 or section 200(5) for a limited time ending before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant), or, in either case, to cease exercising their power before that time,

he may appeal to the county court against the decision.

(3) An appeal under this section may not be brought after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, after the date on which an appeal is brought).

(4) On an appeal under this section the court—

(a) may order the authority to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation until the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or such earlier time as the court may specify); and

(b) shall confirm or quash the decision appealed against,

and in considering whether to confirm or quash the decision the court shall apply the principles applied by the High Court on an application for judicial review.

(5) If the court quashes the decision it may order the authority to exercise any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) above in the applicant's case for such period as may be specified in the order.

(6) An order under subsection (5)—

(a) may only be made if the court is satisfied that failure to exercise the power in accordance with the order would substantially prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue the review against the authority's decision in his case;

(b) may not specify any period ending after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired.''.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Mr. Griffiths, you are new to our deliberations, so you will not be fully aware of the importance of postcards written to Mrs. Foster. However, for some members of the Committee—not least myself—they have become a significant feature of the passage of homelessness legislation. I am delighted that in clause 11 there is--already, before any deliberations have taken place—an opportunity for me to write another postcard to Mrs. Foster.

During our deliberations on part II of the Homes Bill, I expressed concern about the availability of accommodation for people seeking to challenge a decision by a local housing authority. At that time, the Government were not minded to accept my amendments; however, I am absolutely delighted to see in the new Homelessness Bill the very wording that I had proposed as an amendment at an earlier stage of our deliberations. Unfortunately, the Government have not gone as far as I would have liked: they covered one part of the amendment but not the other. The purpose of the new clause is to seek to persuade the Government to even the situation out and ensure that both aspects of my concerns are covered. In doing that, I shall deploy the same arguments that were, clearly, very successful.

I apologise to the Committee for the complexity of the new clause. To ensure that it fully meets all the various aspects of the legislation, the new clause has become somewhat complex, although the issue is simple. Let me explain it in a simple way.

When a homeless person or household applies to a local authority, the local authority must make two decisions: first, whether the person is deemed to be unintentionally homeless—the eligibility issue; and secondly, the priority that is to be afforded to a person who has met the first part of the test—the priority issue. If a person is unhappy with the local housing authority's decision, he has two opportunities to challenge it. The first is during the review process, which is an internal review carried out by the local authority itself. We discussed that in an earlier debate. If the person is not satisfied with the outcome of the review, the second stage is the appeals process, in which there is an opportunity to ask the court to decide the matter.

In our earlier deliberations, I argued that, during the review process and the subsequent appeals process, a person seeking to challenge a local authority's decision would be disadvantaged if he or she did not have accommodation during that period. I proposed several amendments that would seek to ensure that, in cases that were likely to be won by the applicant, it would be reasonable for the local authority to provide accommodation.

With regard to the second stage—the appeals process—the Government were not initially prepared to accept my proposal. However, I am delighted that in clause 11(4)(a) the Government clearly state that they now accept that a county court should be able, if it thinks that it is an appropriate course of action, to instruct a local authority to make accommodation available to an applicant during the appeal period.

Strangely, however, the Government have not so far seen fit to accept that the same principle is valid with regard to the internal local authority review process. It is equally true that a person who is going through the review process would be disadvantaged if he or she did not have access to accommodation. The Government will argue that, in such circumstances, accommodation will probably be made available, because existing legislation gives the local authority the opportunity to do that. Indeed, the right of review is contained in section 202 of the 1996 Act, and section 188(3) gives local authorities the power to provide accommodation during the review period.

Sadly, it is the clear experience of many people who have gone through the process that local authorities do not make accommodation available, despite the fact that they have the power to do so. The Government have provided strong guidance to local authorities that they should make that accommodation available. The guidance says that authorities should

``give careful consideration to the merits of each case'',

``consider the personal circumstances of the applicant and the consequences for him or her of deciding not to exercise their discretion''

to provide accommodation. However, although the power exists, in far too many cases local authorities do not provide that accommodation.

I moved amendments to part II of the Homes Bill that sought to make it more likely that local authorities would provide accommodation in such circumstances. The Government responded—perhaps not unreasonably—by saying that, if accommodation was to be made so easily available, many people would seek a review, although it did not stand much of a chance of succeeding, in the knowledge that it would provide them with accommodation for a period of time at least. Thus vexatious requests for reviews would be made, merely to get accommodation.

Although the Government put forward a reasonable point, they had made a similar point with regard to an earlier attempt by me in respect of accommodation during the appeals process. On that occasion, they were prepared, in effect, to say that if one solution does not work, a different solution should be found. Therefore, with regard to the appeals process, it has now been accepted that the county court should be allowed to make a decision on such matters and, if it considers that it is appropriate, to instruct the local authority to make accommodation available.

Therefore, I make a simple appeal to the Committee. Having already accepted my arguments as a way of achieving that end without causing the problems that the Government foresaw initially in respect of the appeals process, I now appeal to the Government to accept exactly the same logic in respect of the review period. Failure to do so would mean that, in the early stage when more people are likely to have their claims tested, they will be put at a significant disadvantage if they do not have that access to accommodation in the event that they have a strong case—a strong case which, under my new clause, would be judged by the county court.

My proposal is clear. I am sure that the Government will want to redraft my complex new clause, but I hope that today I shall be able to write at least the first lines of a postcard to Mrs. Foster to tell her that we are getting somewhere. I look forward to the Minister saying that that is the case.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I should like to comment on the serious intention of the hon. Member for Bath, although his speech and his new clause are a long-winded way in which to amend section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. There is a more simple way of doing what has taken him a page and quarter of gobbledegook to do. If the word ``may'' in section 204(4) of the 1996 Act had been altered to ``must'', that would have eliminated the entire need for the hon. Gentleman's new clause. If the local authority had to provide accommodation during the period when an applicant was appealing against its review procedure, that would have had the same effect as the new clause. However, the hon. Gentleman is now about to tell me that I am wrong.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to tell him why he is wrong. If a local authority had to provide accommodation in all cases, undoubtedly a large number of people who did not have a leg to stand on would request an appeal for exactly the reason that I described earlier, which is at least to ensure that temporary accommodation was provided to them for the period of the review process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue when he referred to the appeals process, because we have already sorted that out—at least to my satisfaction. We are now dealing with the review process, not the appeals process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We are discussing an appeal against the provisions of the review process. If the hon. Member for Bath had read the further qualifications under section 204(4), he would know that paragraph (a) refers to

``during the period for appealing under this section'',

while paragraph (b) states:

``if an appeal is brought, until the appeal (and any further appeal) is finally determined.''

In other words, my suggestion of amending the word ``may'' to ``must'' would have applied only when an applicant appealed, which is surely the whole thrust of section 204 of the 1996 Act. It deals with a situation in which an applicant appeals against a decision by the local authority on review under sections 188, 189 and 200. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath is quibbling again. Perhaps he would like to tell me where I am wrong.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

There are two stages, the first of which is a review process that is carried out internally; there is then an appeals process, which is an opportunity for a second bite at the cherry. We could, of course, use confusing terminology and say that an appeal is being made against the review, but that would involve us in the appeals process. In the first case, the person is saying that he is not happy with the decision that was made and is asking that the case be reviewed. It is that particular stage to which I refer.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I think that we are both arguing about the same thing: the powers to be used when, in an applicant's opinion, the local authority has failed to review the case properly. The applicant has the power to take the matter on a point of law to the county court on appeal. We are discussing the duty of the local authority and whether it should house that applicant during an appeal to the county court.

That is what we are arguing about.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Well, that is what the Act says.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman constantly refers to the 1996 Act. I suggest that he looks at the clause that we are debating, clause 11, which already significantly amends section 204 of that Act. Section 188, a few pages earlier in the 1996 legislation, should also be amended.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I have already referred to sections 188, 189 and 200. The hon. Member for Bath is just trying to ensure that if the local authority fails to review properly in accordance with those sections and an applicant decides to appeal to the county court, the local authority will have the right to re-house.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

No.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Well, that is my understanding. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will tell me. The hon. Member for Bath's amendment is otiose and unnecessary. It is a wrongly worded way of achieving something that could be brought about much more simply.

The clause amends section 204 of the 1996 Act, but with highly complicated wording. I had to read it about three times before I understood it—and I am not sure that I fully understood it even then. New section 204(4) will be added to the original section 204. Subsection (3) states that an appeal may not be brought until

``after the final determination by the county court of the main appeal.''

I wonder whether the drafters are in a muddle. They seem to be saying that the main appeal on a point of law has to take place before the subsidiary appeal against detailed aspects of failing properly to operate previous clauses and the review.

Subsection (6) states:

``An order under subsection (5) . . . may only be made if the court is satisfied that failure to exercise the section 204(4) power in accordance with the order would substantially prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue the main appeal.''

An element of tautology is discernible here. We have already been told under subsection (3) that the final appeal must be brought before the substance appeal, but in subsection (6) it seems to be the other way round.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I have just listened to the hon. Gentleman's account of what subsection (3) says, but it sounded different from the wording in the Bill. He said that the appeal could not be brought ``until'' after the final determination of the main appeal, but it does not say ``until''. Until he realises that, what he said is meaningless.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I accept that. Let me read out subsection (3) for the total avoidance of doubt:

``An appeal under this section may not be brought after the final determination by the county court of the main appeal.''

In other words, the main appeal has to be heard before the substance appeal. If I am wrong, the Minister will tell me. If I am wrong on subsection (3), I presume that there is no contradiction with subsection (6). Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

It does not matter. When the appeal has been dealt with by the county court, that is it. Time is up.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We are talking about two appeals: one on a point of law and one on a point of substance. The question is which comes first. The wording of this complicated section 204A is not clear. The Minister may tell me that it is quite clear, but speaking as a layman, I do not believe that it is. Will the Minister explain the procedure in clear, simple English? I shall sit down and allow the Minister to explain it.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I shall attempt to do what the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asks of me before I proceed with clause 11 and the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bath.

I have a little chart that shows that the court may require the local authority to accommodate only if the court has already quashed the local authority's decision not to accommodate and is satisfied that, if the applicant were not accommodated, that would substantially prejudice his ability to proceed. They are not consequent but parallel actions. As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, the county court's determination of the main appeal deals with whether a person should be accommodated while an appeal is taking place. Therefore, what he presents as an apparent sequence of events is in fact not a sequence but a series of parallel developments that ensure not only that the person must have succeeded to some extent in establishing the problem of accommodation, but that the failure to provide accommodation would prejudice the person's ability to continue with the action. The hon. Member for Cotswold is incorrect. I hope that that elucidates a complex issue.

On clause 11 and new clause 2, I note the predilection of the hon. Member for Bath for postcards. It is a triumph of consensual democracy that a Bill that was apparently entirely written by Opposition Members and introduced by a Labour Government may be going on the statute books. If they could agree who had written what, our cup would run over.

Before I turn to the new clause, I shall explain in some detail the purpose and effect of clause 11. Homeless applicants have the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law about decisions made by the local housing authority that relate to their homelessness application. That right applies when applicants have asked the authority to review a decision that, for example, they do not fall within a priority need group and are dissatisfied with the authority's decision on review, or if the authority has failed to provide a decision in the required period.

Authorities may at their discretion continue to secure accommodation for an applicant pending an application to the county court and must take into account the circumstances of each case in deciding whether to exercise that power. Currently, if an applicant wants to challenge an authority's decision not to exercise its power to continue to accommodate, he or she must ask for a judicial review of that decision by the High Court. The High Court has the power to quash the decision if it is unlawful and may require the authority to accommodate the applicant until the application for judicial review can be heard.

Clause 11 inserts a new section, 204A, into the Housing Act 1996, and gives the county court powers that are broadly equivalent to current High Court powers to consider decisions made by the housing authority not to accommodate pending an appeal to the county court on a point of law. Therefore, in future, the county court will be able to deal with all aspects of appeals that relate to homelessness decisions and co-ordinate the appeal on the substantive homelessness decision, together with any application to consider the authority's decision not to continue to accommodate.

Proposed new section 204A(2) gives applicants the right to appeal to the county court against an authority's decision that results in their not being accommodated for the full period until the final determination of their appeal against the substantive homelessness decision, which I shall refer to as ``the main appeal''. Proposed new section 204A(3) provides that such appeals cannot be brought after the final determination of the main appeal on the homelessness decision, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Cotswold.

Proposed new section 204A(4) gives the county court new powers, to which the hon. Member for Bath referred. The court may require the authority to accommodate the applicant for a period before the court hears the appeal against the authority's decision not to accommodate. The court must confirm or quash the decision of the authority that is being appealed against. In considering which to do, it must apply the principles of judicial review that are used in the High Court. If the county court quashes the authority's decision, new section 204A(5) gives the court the power to require the housing authority to accommodate the applicant for a period specified by the court, subject to certain conditions.

The conditions are set out in new section 204A(6). First, the court can require the authority to accommodate only if the court is satisfied that a failure to do so would

``substantially prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue the main appeal''.

Secondly, an authority cannot be required to continue to accommodate an applicant after their main appeal has been finally determined. Those are the two parallel points that I mentioned earlier.

Clause 11 will provide new rights for homeless applicants and new powers for the county court that will enable the court to deal with all aspects of appeals against a local housing authority's decision on a homelessness case, including any decision not to continue to accommodate the applicant pending the appeal.

Let me respond to the other point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold by saying that, as far as I can see, the substitution of the word ``must'' for ``may'' would mean that, instead of the local authority having discretion subject to appeal, that discretion would go and the local authority would have to accommodate and therefore go down an entirely different route from the one that I have set out. Far from that change simplifying matters, it would bring in an entirely new meaning.

I admire the construction of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, which has a certain familiarity. He may have hit on a device that could save millions of pounds by taking templates for legislation and dropping new words into them. That could be a productive way to construct our legislation in future. It could lead to mass unemployment, but it might be useful.

Clause 11 gives the county court the power to intervene in decisions by housing authorities not to exercise their discretion to continue to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to the county court under section 204 of the 1996 Act. New clause 2 would give the county court similar powers to intervene in decisions by an authority not to continue to accommodate pending a review by the authority of its decision on the homelessness case. I can see the attraction of the symmetry of provision that the new clause seems to offer when taken with clause 11. However, as with so much in life, the issues are not simple or clear-cut. The two instances are not equivalent, although the hon. Gentleman sought to convince the Committee that they are.

A fundamental point is that the homelessness legislation makes clear distinctions between those who have a priority need and those who do not, and between those who have become homeless through no fault of their own and those who, through their own action or inaction, have brought homelessness on themselves. That reflects reality. It is essential to ensure that vulnerable groups—such as those with dependent children and those who are less able than others to look after themselves—have somewhere suitable to live, but it is not practical or reasonable for local housing authorities to have to arrange accommodation for everyone every time that they face having to find a new home.

Since its inception in 1977, the homelessness legislation has given housing authorities an immediate duty to secure accommodation for new applicants where there is reason to believe that they are homeless and in priority need—until the authority has had a chance to look into their circumstances and satisfy itself whether they are indeed homeless, whether that was caused by the applicants and whether there is priority need. That interim duty is imposed by section 188 of the 1996 Act.

It is right that authorities should have that obligation and that applicants should have the right to ask the authority to review any decision—for example, that they do not have a priority need or that they became homeless intentionally—that goes against their interests. It is also right that authorities should have the discretion to continue to accommodate applicants during a review where there is good reason to do so.

Case law, particularly the London Borough of Camden v. Mohammed in the High Court in 1997, has established that authorities must balance the objective of maintaining fairness for homeless persons where it has been decided that no duty is owed to the applicant, and the possibility that the applicant may be right and that depriving them of accommodation may deny them something to which they are entitled. The court also set out clear criteria that authorities must consider when deciding whether to exercise their discretion to continue to accommodate an applicant after the interim duty under section 188 has ended.

It is appropriate that discretion as to whether applicants should continue to be accommodated once the authority has completed its detailed inquiries and satisfied itself of the facts of the case should rest with the authority. In the Court of Appeal in the case of Ali v. City of Westminster and Nairne v. London Borough of Camden, which concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by an authority not to exercise its discretion to continue to accommodate, Lord Justice Otton said:

``Local authorities are well used to dealing with these type of cases. They know the circumstances of the applicants, and the range and availability of accommodation in their area. They have policies in place to guide them in exercising their discretion. It is a matter of common sense that such decisions should remain within their ambit, and not the courts.''

Of course, there needs to be an avenue of redress for applicants in the event that an authority does not make a proper and reasonable decision—for example, by failing to give due consideration to all circumstances, or perhaps failing to consider them at all. Currently, that route is an application for a judicial review of the authority's decision by the High Court. The hon. Member for Bath may jump to his feet at this point, and insist that that mechanism is too remote and inaccessible for the average homeless applicant. Like the hon. Gentleman, and no doubt all other members of the Committee, I believe in the importance of the principle of access to justice. However, I also believe that it is important that the discretion of housing authorities is not undermined. There is an inherent tension.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Minister explain why there are two different strands? An appeal against the authority's failure to review properly must go to a judicial review, which is a difficult way to progress to the High Court, but the failure to continue to house an applicant pending that judicial review is a matter for the county court. Why can we not have a step-like approach, which would be normal in law, in which the county court decides both matters in the first instance before progression up through the legal system?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The points of the hon. Member for Bath are similar to that of the hon. Gentleman. There is a tension between the principle that local authorities should have the discretion to decide the proper protection of a person during a review, which is not the same as a judicial review through the High Court, and the right of a person who is challenging that internal review to be able to do that properly and not be disadvantaged by the fact that he or she is deprived of accommodation.

The route suggested by the hon. Member for Bath provides for an appeal to the county court and it is therefore likely that the discretion would be undermined. The hon. Gentleman made a point against himself when replying to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cotswold that ``may'' should be replaced by ``must'', in indicating that that would undermine the discretion of the local authority. In attempting to maintain the point supported by Lord Justice Otton that it is desirable for local authorities to exercise their discretion, the Government believe that the rights of a person who is appealing are best maintained by ensuring that the authority retains discretion and, at the same time, allowing a route of judicial review through the High Court, but not by suggesting that an appeal that would become a matter of course should go through a county court.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Before we go through a tortuous, though necessary, discussion, I ask the Minister a simple question. Does he believe that the decision on whether the local authority was right to deny someone accommodation during the review process should be made in a county court—as the Government have accepted for the appeals process—or through judicial review? If he believes that it should be through judicial review, will he explain why the Government believe that judicial review is appropriate for one case and county court for the other?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

That is because appeals on the process and on accommodation are not exactly the same.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I did not ask that question.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to clarify his question.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I was trying to separate the debate on the local authority's decision under review or appeal from the issue of whether it is right to deny accommodation. If there is to be a court intervention on that specific question, should the court concerned be the local county court or the High Court through judicial review? If it is not the county court, why does the Minister want one system for appeal and another for review?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

As I understand it, that is because the determination of the local authority's discretion in its review should be protected while still allowing for a review process. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Government have made it clear that it would be in order for appeals on the first part of the process to proceed through the county courts. However, the hon. Gentleman is attempting to provide a symmetry to the proceedings that is unwarranted because of the tension that I described. That is why the processes cannot be symmetrical in the way that he would want.

Applying to the courts to overturn an authority's decision should be a matter of last resort and considered only when it is clear that the authority has not made a proper decision, and that is also the view of the Court of Appeal. In the case of Nacion v. Brighton and Hove Council, Lord Justice Tuckey said:

``the provision of temporary accommodation pending appeal (and the same applies pending review) is entirely in the discretion of the council. Where a council...has obviously considered the material factors it is an entirely futile exercise to seek to say that in some way that discretion was wrongly exercised...Applications for judicial review on this basis should be strongly discouraged. It is only in a very exceptional case that there will really be any reasonable prospect of interesting the court by way of judicial review to interfere with the exercise of the very broad discretion which the council have.''

Why then are we making provision to improve access to justice by giving powers to the county court to intervene in authorities' discretion to continue to accommodate pending an appeal to the county court but not pending a review by the authority? Why should applicants still have to go to the High Court on that issue pending the review by the housing authority? That question was put by the hon. Member for Cotswold and pursued by the hon. Member for Bath.

The answer, put simply, is that there is no overriding need to improve access to the courts in seeking a review of an authority's decision. That course of action should be pursued only in exceptional circumstances, whether it is to the High Court or the county court. However, when an applicant wishes to apply to the court to review a decision not to continue to accommodate at the same time as he or she is making an appeal to the county court on the substantive homelessness decision—that is, for example, that the homelessness was intentional or that there was not a priority need—it does not make sense, either from the perspective of the applicant or the courts, for the two applications to be considered by different courts.

Put even more simply, where the county court is considering an appeal under section 204 of the 1996 Act in regard to the homelessness decision, it makes sense that it should also consider any application to review the authority's decision not to exercise its power under section 204(4) to continue to accommodate pending the appeal.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. I suggest, as tactfully as possible, that his understanding of the situation—like that of the hon. Member for Cotswold—is somewhat confused. I shall put the situation as simply and succinctly as I can to give the Minister one more opportunity to explain the Government's position.

The situation is simple. An applicant can request a local authority to review its decision in respect of eligibility or priority. That is an internal review process, which is carried out under the discretion of the local authority. Nothing in my proposal would in any way fetter the local authority in carrying out that review process. However, it matters significantly during the review period whether the applicant has accommodation. In some cases, local authorities will continue to provide accommodation and in others they will not, to the disadvantage of the applicant. It therefore seems sensible for someone to be able to decide whether the local authority is right to refuse to continue accommodation—in respect not of the decision it makes during the review process but merely of its decision not to continue to provide accommodation.

The existing law states that there is a right of challenge to the courts, by the process of judicial review to the High Court. My proposed alternative is that, in the specific instance of an appeal against a local authority's decision, the local county court instead be given the opportunity to decide the case. I want a degree of symmetry—for the sake of common sense. The Government used the argument that it is more sensible to use the local county court in deciding to change the appeals procedure. The Government decided that it was crazy to use the High Court for that matter and that the local county court should be used instead.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that access to justice demands quick, clear decisions? The local county court could make a much quicker, clearer decision by hearing in parallel the matter of whether a local authority should continue to house and that of whether the local authority used the correct discretion on its review period. That would create much quicker, clearer justice.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I cannot agree. The hon. Gentleman again confuses the two-stage process of how such matters are considered. I do not want to fetter the right of local authorities to try to sort those matters out themselves first at a local level. Only if they cannot do so should the matter go to court. I am discussing only whether accommodation has rightly or wrongly been denied to a particular applicant for the review process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that consideration should be quick and clear but I would go further and say that those aims would be more easily achieved by the local county court, which can take account of local circumstances.

Those are the very arguments that the Government used in making a decision in respect of the changes that they proposed in the Homes Bill. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept new clause 2 because I have drafted it in a misleading way, I hope that he would agree that there is strength in the argument that it is better to go to the county court to decide these matters, if a court must be involved, than to go to the High Court through judicial review. That is all I seek. The matter may appear complicated, but that is because the Government complicated the legislation by adding a range of additional categories. I welcome those additions, but the clause must cover all those eventualities.

Given that I am prepared to withdraw the new clause, I hope that the Minister will at least agree that he should reconsider that issue.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

As the hon. Member for Bath made clear in his earlier contribution, he is pleased that under section 204A the Government have said that when an appeal is before the county court, it is sensible that that court should be able to make a decision on accommodation as well. He accepts that that is a logical step. I sought to persuade him that it is not logical to go a further step when a review is undertaken by the local authority itself and one wants to ensure that the local authority's discretion, with reasonable provision, is upheld.

As I said before, our position conforms to the opinion of the High Court. That court's opinion emphasised that under those circumstances, attempts to overturn the properly exercised discretion of the local authority in determining whether it should continue to provide accommodation while it reviews whether the interim criteria should be firmed up, need to be preserved. As the hon. Gentleman said, judicial review is a possible remedy that should be used in exceptional circumstances alone and should properly be taken through the High Court. It is not that there is no remedy, but the symmetry that the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce is not there, and I freely concede that that is the case. However, that symmetry could be achieved only by pulling the tension between a local authority's discretion to review their own activities and the rights of those subject to that discretion to take action if they are dissatisfied with that discretion too far away from the proper exercise of that local authority's discretion. That is the nub of the case.

It is not a misunderstanding of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, but a difference of opinion about how best one proceeds to allow local authorities to exercise their discretion in respect of the review. The Government's position is that the course of judicial review through the High Court is the right course of action, so we cannot accept the new clause.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I promise that I do not intend to intervene again on this matter. Will the Minister tell me what difference it makes to the fettering of the discretion of the local authority in respect of the decision whether to continue to provide housing if the right to challenge that decision is made in the High Court or the county court? Surely in either case there would be a fettering of that discretion by allowing either of those routes to be entered into. I do not understand why one route is considered by the Minister to massively fetter the discretion of the local authority, whereas the other route is not. If there is no difference between the two, surely the symmetry argument comes into play.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

As the hon. Gentleman knows—given that he underlined such a point in an earlier contribution—there is a difference. That difference is that judicial review through the High Court is a process to be used in exceptional circumstances. It is not to be used as a routine course of action if the first course of action fails, as has been suggested in some quarters might be the outcome of an appeal through the county court.

The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to the difficulties that would arise for a local authority if the word ``may'' became ``must''. I suggest that, while the two acts are not exactly parallel, the fact that a person may decide that an appeal to the county court was the routine next step would have the effect, while maintaining a theoretical discretion, of bringing us to the situation where, in effect, ``may'' had been replaced by ``must''. The reality is that, in seeking to maintain that proper space between the right of a local authority to exercise discretion and the right of the individual to seek redress, judicial review through the High Court is the right course of action and that is the approach that the Government wish to take.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 12 July at half-past Nine o'clock.