Orders of the Day — Homelessness Bill

House of Commons, 25 February 2002.

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

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

The amendments were tabled in response to concerns raised during the Bill's consideration in another place and in this House on Second Reading and Report. The concerns centred on the fact that not all local housing authorities deliver a good service when discharging their duties to provide assistance and advice to homeless applicants who have been found not to have priority need for accommodation or to be intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The Government believe that it is extremely important that local housing authorities provide a good service and ensure that they meet their statutory obligations under homelessness legislation. I am mindful, however, that much of the concern expressed stemmed from the perception that some authorities are not doing what they are already required to do by statute.

The Bill strengthens the duties to provide advice and assistance, but the amendments will take that further. They will require an assessment of the applicant's housing need before any advice and assistance is provided, with a clear inference that the assessment must be taken into account in the advice and assistance proffered.

The amendments will also require that the advice and assistance given include information about the type of accommodation that would be appropriate for applicants. That in turn must include information about the likely availability of accommodation in the local authority area, where applicants should go and to whom they should apply in order best to locate it. I must emphasise that those requirements will not be exhaustive and will not mean that advice and assistance is confined to such matters. Examples of other issues on which applicants may need advice and assistance will of course be covered in guidance.

Amendment No. 1 is minor and consequential to amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8) in section 195 of the Housing Act 1996. One effect will be to displace what would have been new subsection 195(6), as inserted by clause 5(2), and to renumber it as new subsection 195(8).

The Government feel strongly that there must be increased emphasis on the provision of good quality, properly tailored and timely advice for those experiencing or facing homelessness. Those issues were raised, among others, by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The amendments will help to focus local housing authority minds on what must be done. Clearly, placing statutory duties on local authorities may not always be sufficient to ensure that good quality and consistent results are delivered on the ground, so we shall reinforce our message through clear statutory guidance. I commend the amendments to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

This is the last opportunity that the House will have to discuss the Homelessness Bill. The Bill started its life under the guise of the Homes Bill, which included provision for the seller's pack—the controversial part 1 of the Bill. Part 2 of that Bill, which has become the Homelessness Bill, was uncontentious and, had it been a Bill on its own, would have become law before the election. So, in a sense, the huge number of hours that both Houses have spent debating these matters has been unnecessary. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's official Opposition welcome the Bill—although we also welcome the opportunity to discuss the amendments.

The amendments will strengthen the duties on local authorities to assist homeless people who are not in priority need. When providing advice and assistance, an authority will have to assess the applicant's need and provide information about the availability, location and sources of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's needs. As well as applying to those who are unintentionally homeless but not in priority need, the amendments apply to people who are intentionally homeless and to those who are threatened with homelessness but not in priority need.

On Second Reading, I asked the Minister when she would publish the list of those in priority need. We were assured, in this House and in another place, that it would be published by Third Reading—yet here we are, considering complicated Lords amendments, which is difficult to do without having seen the list of priority homeless. We think that we know what will be on it, but it would have been helpful to see it.

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised everyone the chance of a decent home, and we all say amen to that. He also vowed:

"Our approach will be founded on the basic aim of ensuring that everyone has a chance to a decent home".

[Interruption.] Whatever Labour Members are saying, the Government's own statistics show that homelessness in England has increased by almost 12,000 in the past four years. The number of priority homeless has risen from 102,650 in 1997–98 to 114,350 in 2000–01—an increase of 11,700 or 11 per cent. under the Government's stewardship.

The Lords amendments are welcome, but the number of homeless is going up, the number of social housing units being built is going down and the number of empty homes is going up. The situation is getting worse and may be appreciably worse than the Government's official statistics indicate. Crisis—the charity formerly known as Crisis at Christmas—estimates that there might be up to 400,000 hidden homeless. The Government are aware of those figures, and I ask the Minister to instigate some proper research so that we can find out the true situation.

The number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation has soared. Since the election, it has increased by 9 per cent., from 11,340 to 12,290. It is all very well Lords amendments Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 requiring guidance to be given, but if the Government do not know the true state of homelessness it will be difficult for local authorities to give guidance and come up with strategies. A huge amount of money is wasted on short-term bed and breakfast accommodation. If a proper capital budget could be formulated so that private rented leased accommodation could be purchased, we could begin to get some people into long-term, decent homes, which was the Prime Minister's aspiration before the election.

Shelter strongly supports the Lords amendments. Throughout the Bill's passage, and that of its predecessor, the Homes Bill, it raised concerns about the quality of advice and assistance given to non-priority homeless applicants. Some local authorities are very good at providing such advice, but some—the laggards—are pretty poor, which is why we welcome the Lords amendments.

Shelter's concerns were highlighted in its report "Singles Barred" and were taken up by right hon. and hon. Members. Under current arrangements, it is common for applicants simply to be given a list of bed and breakfast hotels, irrespective of their needs. Given the deteriorating homeless situation and the fact that the number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation is rising alarmingly, there is an even greater need for the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of the true situation and what the Government are doing about it.

The bed and breakfast unit is trying to reduce the number of homeless people, but without the proper budget to do so. The rough sleepers unit has reduced the figures, but in a similar count of rough sleepers the Simon Community found the same number in just a few streets rather than the whole capital. The accusation is that, to get the count down, the rough sleepers unit has been deliberately massaging those people who are sleeping rough. That is a pretty serious accusation, and we want to ensure that we know the true number of hidden homeless.

In mentioning the hidden homeless, perhaps I should take a minute or two of the House's time to describe what Crisis and other organisations are getting at when they refer to the estimated 400,000 people who, despite the Prime Minister's aspirations, have no proper roof over their heads. They include all those who sleep anywhere—rough, in bed and breakfast accommodation, or on somebody else's floor or sofa—other than in a permanent house of their own. The number of such homeless is rising all the time because more and more people are not in a stable marriage, because they aspire to own a home at a younger age, because they are living longer and because a certain number of legal and illegal immigrants are taking up houses that would otherwise be used to accommodate the homeless.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

Shame!

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Lady says "shame", but it is a fact of life that people are coming into this country and taking up houses that would otherwise be used for the homeless. Until the Government recognise that fact—

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

Disgraceful!

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

It is not disgraceful. It is a fact of life, and if the Government do not recognise it, how will they provide a proper policy for the homeless?

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

Is it not true that there are two other factors that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned: house prices rising beyond the pocket of most people, and the failure to use funds derived from the sale of council houses to provide replacement social housing? They are much more significant factors than the ones that he mentions.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I am afraid that we are engaged not in a general debate on homelessness, but in a discussion of the amendment, to which we must revert.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing amendments that will give powers to, and impose duties on, local authorities, against the background of a general deterioration in the homelessness situation. Given that the Government have not provided the list of priority homeless that they promised, it is a little difficult—

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Did the hon. Gentleman look at the draft order that was consulted on between August and October? If he did, what does he think of the different categories that it sets out, which are exactly those proposed?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Exactly what I said—we have a good idea of what is in those categories because the Government published a consultation paper. Having consulted, the Government ought now to be able to tell us the results and publish the order. That is what we asked for on Second Reading, but we still have not been given it. To ask us to discuss the amendments when we do not know what the order will contain is a pretty shoddy way to treat the House. A statutory instrument could easily have been tabled and the matter could have been discussed upstairs before dealing with the amendments.

The amendments build on an earlier Government amendment, tabled during the passage of the Homes Bill, to strengthen the current duty to provide advice and assistance. Taken together, they should ensure that the quality of advice and assistance provided to non-priority homeless applicants will meet the basic minimum standards. We will all agree that that is a worthy aspiration, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say before deciding how to proceed.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton–Brown) says that he supports the Bill, but proceeds to rubbish it, which will come as no surprise to anyone in this House. If we have heard anything shoddy this afternoon, it is his level of debate. In so many such areas, a corporate amnesia strikes all members of the Conservative party. The concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed for those categories of people in inadequate housing or without a home comes as something of a surprise. I cannot remember him ever voicing his concerns when the Conservative Government were in power and laid the foundations for the housing crisis that we undoubtedly now have in London. 4.45 pm

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

If the hon. Lady believes that the record of the previous Government was so bad, will she explain why we maintained a substantial level of new build in social housing, a total that has almost halved—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I have already reminded all hon. Members that the debate is on the amendment.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I will, of course, abide by your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it breaks my heart because I have the figures at the tip of my tongue to show just what damage was inflicted on affordable house building, not least in London.

I most earnestly support the Government's clear commitment to making a sizeable part of housing socially affordable, and the amendments are therefore welcome, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions on these amendments. The provision of advice is essential in preventing homelessness and in assisting those people, of whatever category, who face the fact that they are or will soon become homeless. A properly integrated advice service is necessary to all local authorities. We have many good examples in some London boroughs of how such an integrated service can work. It requires integration not only by local authority housing departments but by social services and health departments.

Given the categorisation that is increasingly used in order to try to identify the most vulnerable in terms of housing need, local authorities need to be able to incorporate those advice centres that deal specifically with one category of person, be it the single homeless, women or the elderly. In future, local authorities should not automatically refer someone seeking advice to one of those single category advice centres, because there must be some way to integrate the advice provided, especially as local knowledge is so important to the issue.

The central point that I wish to make is that we are asking local authorities to take on a greater and more complex burden than the one with which they currently attempt to cope. I hope that the Government will consider providing the additional resources for local authorities that will undoubtedly be needed, not least to train their front-line staff once the strategy has been introduced and the advice service has been finalised and defined. In that way, the staff—who, day in and day out, will meet desperate and distressed people—will be able to provide the quality of service that will be essential to the strategy.

We should also have some way in which to monitor whether advice services are up to date with the most recent advice and statutory changes—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Such advice and statutory changes may impact on people who face the possibility of homelessness or who are already homeless. The most obvious example for those of us who represent London constituencies is the changes that have been made to the housing benefit system. It is not unusual for someone giving advice to be unaware of the changes that have been made, but advice must be accurate and up to the minute. Therefore, while I welcome the amendments, I strongly urge that the Government consider the issue carefully, especially the need for additional support and resources for local authorities.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that we are now putting great pressure on local authority housing departments. The Bill will place significant additional burdens on the housing departments of local councils, so extra resources, were they to be made available by the Government, would be most welcome. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that advice must be up to the minute, comprehensive and accurate; many housing departments will be required to improve significantly the range of training opportunities for their staff so that they can provide that advice.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way early in his speech. Is he aware that the Bill's money resolution provided £8 million, which has already been used up? The Association of London Government reckons that £20 million is required to implement the Bill, including the Lords amendments, in London alone? The cost for the entire country is therefore likely to be £40 million, which will largely be borne by local authorities up and down the land.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, as it is the next point that is logical for me to make. He will be well aware that the Government have accepted the new burdens principle: if additional burdens are placed on other bodies, the Government will make funds available to meet those requirements. There is growing concern in local government, not just in London but across the country, that the new burdens placed on it by the legislation, welcome as it is, will not be sufficiently met by the sums currently allocated in the money resolution, as the hon. Gentleman said.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but there is an area of disagreement between us. In his opening remarks, he said that had the homelessness provisions of the Homes Bill been dealt with separately, the measure would have gone through the House and another place very quickly indeed, and that there would have been no need for our subsequent lengthy debate. I fundamentally disagree; one of the great merits of that debate is that it enabled a large number of amendments to be tabled by parties on both sides of the House and considered by the Government.

The Government have considered many proposals and accepted some of them, sometimes reluctantly. As a result, the Bill has been significantly strengthened in a number of areas. The issue of the advice and guidance to homeless people was first raised in early discussions of the Bill; initially, proposals by Members on both sides of the House were rejected by the Government. I am delighted that at long last we are considering those proposals in the Lords amendments, because they strengthen the Bill significantly. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out, although many councils and their housing departments provide an excellent service in delivering clear, timely, up-to-date and comprehensive advice and guidance to homeless and potentially homeless people, sadly, as the Shelter report points out, a number of local authorities are not in the same league; some of them have not been providing particularly helpful advice and guidance. The Lords amendments strengthen the legislation, making it a requirement for all local authorities to provide high-quality advice and guidance, so I very much welcome them.

Like the hon. Member for Cotswold, I am concerned that providing advice and guidance to homeless people will be of minor assistance in tackling the problem, unless there is a significant increase in the availability of affordable housing for the many people who are either homeless or who have an unacceptable standard of housing.

Like many other Members, I am concerned about the availability of affordable housing. A small step that the Government sensibly took was the new deal for communities plan, which was designed to help to improve the quality of the housing stock. Unfortunately, although the Government made a commitment that £240 million would be available for the current financial year, the amount spent under the scheme, as a result of a range of difficulties that were apparently unforeseen by the Government, will probably be less than half the money allocated. There is a real problem, and the Government may fail to achieve their sensible target of bringing all housing up to a decent standard by 2010. I shall be grateful if the Minister comments on that issue.

The Minister will be well aware of some of the commitments that Lord Falconer made in another place. I know that the Government are keen on recycling. Part of the Minister's speech today is word for word the speech given by her noble Friend, although there is nothing wrong with that. She told us that the Government feel strongly that there must be increased emphasis on the provision of good quality, properly tailored and timely advice to those who are experiencing or facing homelessness. I suspect that she carries the entire House with her in that regard.

In another place, my noble Friend Lady Maddock asked Lord Falconer to give assurances that there would be clear indications of how local authorities' work in this area and their performance would be monitored. In response, Lord Falconer referred to plans to introduce a homelessness directorate within the Department. He said that part of the directorate's job would be to monitor the advice and guidance given by local authorities. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will say how that work is progressing.

The Minister in another place referred to existing inspection arrangements for local authorities as a second strand of monitoring. He referred specifically to the Government's plans for a national homelessness strategy and the relevance of that to the inspection of local councils' work. I shall be grateful if the Minister is able to give us any more up-to-date information about that work.

The amendments refer only to the advice and guidance that is to be given by local authorities. The House will be aware, however, that an increasing proportion of affordable housing is no longer in the hands of local authorities. We know that within the next three or four years more than 50 per cent. of affordable housing will be in the hands of registered social landlords.

The Minister will be well aware that throughout our deliberations on the Bill I have stressed the importance of close co-operation between local authority housing departments and registered social landlords. What thought have the Government given to ensuring that registered social landlords will be helped and enabled to increase the quality of advice and support that they are able to offer, preferably in conjunction with local authority housing departments? I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that and on whether advice and guidance will form part of the Housing Corporation's guidance to registered social landlords.

I know that the Minister believes that the link between registered social landlords and housing departments is an important one, for she has said so on several occasions. I hope that we can have her assurance that the issue of advice and guidance will form part of a close working relationship.

We listened with interest to the hon. Member for Cotswold. I suspect that some of us disagreed with some of his remarks. Perhaps some of us strongly disagreed with his remarks about people who come in from outside this country and take the homes of the people already here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on whether those were wise remarks for him to make. He might also wish to reflect on the wisdom of his reference to the massaging of people sleeping rough. Many of those people need a great deal of help and support. Massaging may be a small part of their requirements, but they need far more.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Gentleman is quoting me out of context. He knows very well that Crisis used similar language when the counts were made. It implies no lack of caring for those people; quite the reverse. We want to know accurately how many there are, so that we can take the appropriate action.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman is compounding his earlier error. There is a reasonable debate to be had about the massaging of the figures in relation to the number of people sleeping rough. That is not precisely what he said.

Oona King (Labour, Bethnal Green and Bow)

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton- Brown), does the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) agree that although housing asylum seekers is a factor, it is by no means the main factor? Is it not right to reflect on the impact of the right to buy?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Interesting though that may be, I remind hon. Members once again that they must confine their remarks to the amendment under discussion.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I accept, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not allowed to say anything in response, other than that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).

I have made it clear that my party and I support the amendments. The record will show that they were originally introduced by Liberal Democrats in both Houses of Parliament. We are therefore delighted that they are to form part of important legislation, which I hope will be on the statute book in a very short time.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I give the amendments a cautionary welcome. I have no doubt that the Minister's words and those of Lord Falconer in the other place about the aspiration underlying the amendments are well founded, but the Government need to be mindful of the consequences of such legislation, not because its motives are wrong, but because if it is implemented thoughtlessly, it could add considerably to the burden faced by local authority officers who are already hard pressed. It is difficult to legislate best practice into existence, which I assume is the aim of the amendments.

Speaking about the amendments in the other place, Lord Falconer said, and the Minister said similarly this afternoon:

"The concerns centred on the fact that not all local housing authorities deliver a good service when discharging their duties to provide advice and assistance to homeless applicants who have been found not to have a priority need for accommodation or to be intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2002; Vol. 631, c. 994.]

The key words are

"not all local housing authorities".

Around the country there are many well-run local authorities and housing departments, with first class officers who do as effective a job as they can in extremely difficult circumstances. There is a danger that in the detailed way in which the Government choose to implement the amendments, they risk imposing an undue extra burden on local authorities that are doing a good job. I seek the Minister's reassurance this afternoon that she will endeavour to ensure that that does not happen.

Problems of poor management can never be solved by legislation, but it is all too easy to place an additional burden on a hard-working officer who is already having difficulty getting the job done in the hours available, not because of anything to do with that person's job, but because of a small minority of problem cases in individual authorities.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of reports suggesting that, to date, the advice and assistance of some local authorities has been merely to refer people to Shelterline. Is he suggesting that we do not need the amendments? Clearly, the facts deny that view.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am not for a moment suggesting that we do not need the amendments. However, if the Government get the practicality of their implementation wrong, they could place an undue burden on housing officers who are doing a first-rate job. I am sure that he would agree that first-rate authorities are doing a first-rate job in many parts of the country. Such authorities would not countenance delivering an inadequate response to somebody who approached them with genuine need, but would do their best to deliver a practical, effective and proper solution. We need to support such people and guide towards better practice the authorities that take the actions that he describes.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he accept that we legislate and provide guidance on best practice not for those who achieve it, but for those who do not?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I fully accept that the role of such legislation and of the amendments is to set a clear signpost for local authorities about what is expected of them. However, difficulties can arise in terms of the minutiae of implementation and how the provisions are put into practice. Many local authorities are delivering best practice. I spoke to a local authority officer today who said, "We are doing these things already; the first thing that we do when somebody comes to us with a problem is sit down, talk through their needs and work out their individual situation, so we can look at the options that are available to them." There is no doubt that that is already happening in many local authorities, although as the hon. Gentleman said, some do not follow such procedures.

Will the Minister explain what local authorities will have to do differently as a result of the amendments? Will they have to follow new procedures and check what they do against new guidelines as they work through the process of greeting somebody? How will the process differ from the way in which they currently handle such matters? Will their work in this area be subject to additional scrutiny? That point is significant, because if officers need to spend more time preparing paperwork for inspection, an additional burden will inevitably be imposed upon them. Thus, the detail of how the Government implement the provisions is extremely important. It is all too easy for a zealous project team to impose on authority officers a pile of paperwork and a process that is vastly too onerous and represents overkill rather than an effective solution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned cost and highlighted the situation in London. The process has cost implications, and the Government always need to be mindful that every step they take potentially has such an implication. Costs may arise in terms of man hours rather than direct cash investment, but none the less, the Government need carefully to consider the matter when they think through implementation. In addition, if a case is simple—housing officers deal with some simple and straightforward cases—will the process create much more complexity for applicants? They also need to be mindful of that issue. Furthermore, as hon. Members have mentioned, it is all well and good having an excellent advice process for applicants with genuine needs, but in many parts of the country—my local boroughs of Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead and Mole Valley certainly fit the bill—the housing options do not necessarily exist to enable officers to deal with the problems that arrive on their doorsteps, even if advice processes are excellent. Regrettably, in the past four or five years, the number of new social houses built in this country has fallen dramatically.

My message to the Minister—I hope that she will respond to some of the points that I have made—is that the Government have a habit of imposing extra work on local authorities. I am still a councillor in the London borough of Merton and I have seen directly that that is the case. It is all too easy for 15 different small initiatives to create a significant block of extra work load for a local authority, especially when they come from different parts of Government. I seek the Minister's assurance that the legislation provides a signpost and will be handled lightly, except in the most pressing cases, and not impose huge amounts of unnecessary bureaucracy and time-consuming work on good, effective and hard-working local authority officers. I seek her assurance that it will be not an imposition on the best, but a route to tackle the worst.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I, too, will speak briefly, because hon. Members have covered several of the main points.

I share some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) as regards the implementation of the provisions. The issue of London, where homelessness is a massive problem, was powerfully discussed by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). The burden falls occasionally on the shoulders of London Members of Parliament, but most often, unfortunately, on locally elected councillors who do not necessarily have the wherewithal or the time to deal with such a large number of cases. I am worried that the provisions have been insufficiently thought through, and I hope that the Minister will be able to pacify my fears. I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate that we in London require considerably more resources. I represent a central London seat. Asylum seekers place a great burden on the city of Westminster in relation to housing.

As a quick aside, I want to say that the rough sleepers unit has been a great success during the past three or four years. Although concerns have been expressed about the massaging of figures, that should not detract from its achievements. Ms Casey and the Metropolitan police have played an important role in helping to clear up the streets in central London. I hope that they have done so in an effective and long-term way. I shall move off that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I can see that your tolerance has been taken almost to breaking point.

There is a particularly acute homelessness problem here in London. I hope that consideration will be given to increasing central Government resources or to targeting one or two experimental schemes to ensure that the right policy is put in place, not one that will cost a lot of money and create more bureaucracy further down the line.

The homelessness problem in London turns not only on asylum seekers. Many young people see London as a honeypot—an exciting area to live. They take casual labouring jobs, working initially on a part-time basis, and are then unable to afford to pay rent, start to sleep rough and spiral downwards. That leads to problems deeper than those that are dealt with by housing departments.

Will the Minister provide for an opportunity within a fairly short time—say, two or three years—to judge whether the provisions are working correctly? Will she ensure, through the new burdens principle, that, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), any ongoing problems do not place undue burdens on local council taxpayers here in London?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Opposition Members' explanation of their position on the Bill was more than a little bogus. It was always a good Bill that advanced the rights of homeless people, which is why it met with such strong support on both sides of the House. We must all recognise that a Bill can be improved in the course of its progress through Parliament; that is what this process is about.

This is an example of a good Bill having been made better by careful scrutiny during its passage. The amendments are a case in point. The issues that they deal with have been argued about right from the start, and we have tabled amendments that address some of the concerns that have been raised. This must be about the fifth or sixth time that we have debated the Bill, but hon. Members are still expressing those concerns. That makes me think that if we went through it another a half a dozen times we would still go on producing refinement after refinement.

This group of amendments is important because it deals with those who are homeless but who do not have priority needs. We all know that the homelessness figures, and those for people living in bed and breakfast accommodation, have been going up. The Government are extremely conscious of those figures, and of the fact that hon. Members on both sides have constantly raised them, and we have taken action to deal with them. I shall not go into the details of that action, because I might be ruled out of order. We have, however, taken action very quickly, and the numbers—hard and sad though they are—are not a patch on those of 10 years ago.

In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton–Brown) about the priority needs order, I would expect there to be a likelihood that some of the figures could get worse once such orders are in place. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is asking questions about the orders, because draft provisions have been consulted on and were widely known. He must know about the different categories involved, which include homeless 16 and 17-year-olds, care leavers who are vulnerable as a result of having been in care, people who are vulnerable as a result of institutionalisation—including those who have been in custody, about whom some Conservative Members were concerned—and those who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing domestic violence.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am sure that the Minister will understand that, following the draft provisions and the consultation, the House is still waiting for the Government's response to the consultation. Is the list of categories that she has just outlined to be the final list? If it is, I welcome it warmly—as, I suspect, will the vast majority of those who responded to the consultation—but we have not heard that officially yet.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We have a very good working idea, if I can put it that way, of the categories of people involved in these provisions.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) illustrates why these amendments are so important. The advice will be available not only to people with priority needs, which is why it is so important that we improve the quality of this service, and I understand why the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others pressed so hard to table amendments of this kind.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) asked a question about the nature of the advice and what exactly it would mean. The amendments represent progress because they would enshrine in the legislation the processes that should be gone through in giving advice to people who do not have priority needs. That would include making an assessment of their needs, and providing information on the location and sources of certain types of accommodation. The proposals would be effective because they set out the processes that those without priority needs need to go through to get the right quality of advice.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister has admitted that, when these categories of priority needs are published, the amount of homeless people with those priority needs will rise. I have told the House today how the figures have risen in the last three years. Is the Minister able to give the House any clear guidance on how far the homelessness figures will rise further as a result of these specific amendments?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

No, that is not possible. The hon. Gentleman will see what I said when he reads Hansard, but what I think I said was that the figures would rise in some areas. It is possible that the work that needs to be done to get the homelessness figures down will produce rapid results, and that by the time the priority needs orders come into effect the figures will have gone down, so that there will be a slight increase at that point from a lower base. It is impossible, however, to give an accurate estimate of the numbers, largely because this involves categories of people who have not been recognised under previous legislation. Therefore, we obviously do not know how many are involved, but common sense tells us that if more people are regarded as homeless and given rights to housing, the numbers are likely to go up. We shall look closely to see what happens in terms of those figures.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

To pick up the Minister's point relating to my comments, will she reassure me that any new process will not require all those authorities that are doing the job properly to make changes, but will set an alternative benchmark for those that are not?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

That depends on whether they are going through the process as it is now. The proposal sets out the procedures that should be gone through to ensure that people who are homeless but not in priority need get the advice and help that they require to secure accommodation. Local authorities will be able to decide quickly as to whether they already go through such a process—the matter is for them to judge—but the proposal represents an effective way to specify outcomes and ensure that people know what they have to do to provide an effective service. More detail will be given in guidance.

On monitoring, as has been said in another place, housing departments undergo best value inspections and work will be done through the new homelessness unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate asked about money. Already, £8 million has been allocated to local authorities to administer the new legislation and I understand that discussions are taking place around the possibilities of making additional provision. The spending review process is also in place. That, I hope, deals with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

rose—

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I hear the voice of my hon. Friend behind me. I give way to him.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Does my hon. Friend find it staggering, as we on these Benches do, that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is whingeing about the extra burden that may be placed on his public sector housing authority? The City of Westminster did everything possible to flog off every council house there. Should not we also remind him that there is the matter of £48 million outstanding? Will the City of Westminster chase—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must say that I cannot help agreeing with my hon. Friend.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

rose—

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

rose—

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I give way to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

On the basis of that brief exchange, may I point out that the sum concerned is about £24 million?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I am sorry, but that is not germane to the debate.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

rose—

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I want to make progress, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Bath was right to refer to the Shelter report, which highlights the need to give extra thought to advice for non-priority people. I am pleased that it has been possible to introduce what I think are simple and workable amendments that will improve the quality of service for those groups. He also asked about the decent housing target. The Government have made a huge commitment to that challenge and we are assured through all the local authority returns that we are still on target to meet it.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship between the housing associations and the local authorities and, in particular, responsibility for advice in areas where large-scale stock transfers take place. I have two points to make. First, the Department continues to work closely with the Housing Corporation, at both official and ministerial levels, to ensure that those in social housing are given a good service—a seamless robe, as it were—when that it is humanly possible. Secondly, a number of local authorities do not always appreciate that they will not lose all responsibility for housing functions in their areas just because they have transferred their stock. They will still be responsible for procurement.

I take the point of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about the need to have aspirations, while ensuring that they are practical. As I have said, the amendment would guarantee—without giving rise to a great pile of bureaucracy—that those needing advice received it, and that the advice was of a uniform standard throughout the country.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

May I return the Minister to an issue that was raised before she was interrupted by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and ruled out of order? She said that the Government had provided £8 million in compliance costs. Can she confirm that the money has already been used up in preparations for the Bill? Does she agree with the Association of London Government, which estimates the compliance cost for London alone at £20 million? By extrapolation, we can expect the Bill to cost authorities in England and Wales some £40 million. Are the Government likely to give that amount to local authorities, or will it be yet another of the burdens on authorities that the council tax payer will have to fund?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

As I have said, £8 million has been allowed for and allocated, but I understand that it has not been used up. Obviously, officials are constantly discussing the costs of implementing this and other legislation with local authorities, and we continue to keep the matter under review; but we are committed to funding new burdens, and that commitment has been recognised in this Bill as in others.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) thought that the implications of the amendments had not been thought through properly. Some of us may think that they were thought through for rather too long. Certainly it took an inordinately long time for the proposals in the Bill to be accepted. The hon. Member for Bath laughs, probably because he knows how long the discussions have taken.

I realise that Westminster is experiencing serious difficulties—some caused by the disposal of council houses mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)—relating to homelessness and bed and breakfast accommodation. That is one reason why measures of this kind are so important. Hard though it may be to provide permanent accommodation for homeless people, and to deal with the awfulness of being housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, there is also the category of people who have no housing, who have no priority under the legislation, and who are finding it extremely difficult to find somewhere to live. Those are the people who should benefit from measures such as this, which will enable them to receive advice and be pointed towards accommodation. 5.30 pm

I hope that that deals with hon. Members' queries. It is a small, practical but important provision which will go a long way towards improving what is an already good Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 — Events which cause the duty to cease

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may also consider amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Again, this is a small but important amendment that ensures that people understand the consequences when they are offered accommodation.

At Committee stage in another place, concern was expressed that local housing authorities should not be able to bring the main homelessness duty to an end with a qualifying offer of an assured shorthold tenancy with a private landlord before it was absolutely clear that the applicant had understood the written statement that explains that that person has no obligation to accept the offer and that, if they do accept it, the homelessness duty will end.

The Government had a lot of sympathy with that concern. I think that hon. Members will agree that the crucial point is that the applicant must confirm that he or she has understood the statement. That may involve the person reading the statement themselves or someone else reading it to them. However, it may involve translating the statement into another language, or explaining to the applicant step by step what the effect of accepting an offer would be.

The Government are therefore of the view that it is unnecessary for the Bill to refer to the means by which an applicant must come to understand the content of the statement. All that is needed is the central requirement that the person has understood it.

Amendment No. 2 would achieve that and simplify the Bill. It would have the benefit of emphasising the key requirement that the applicant has understood the statement. I therefore commend amendment No. 2 to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I suspect that we all agree with the Government's aspiration. It is a question of how it is done and what may happen if it is not done correctly, which is why we have tabled an amendment in lieu.

The to-ing and fro-ing that took place in the Lords is very interesting but perhaps I should explain what is in the Government's mind and what is in our mind. New subsection (7B) in clause 7 states:

"The authority shall also cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant accepts a qualifying offer of an assured shorthold tenancy",

It is an important part of the Bill's operation. The moment the applicant has accepted the offer, the local authority will not be under any of the obligations that we have talked about: to give advice, assistance and everything else. So it is important that the applicant has read and understood it. For some reason the Government want to take out the words in new subsection (7E) "read and understood". To the contrary, we would like to strengthen this whole matter and insert the words:

"the statement mentioned in subsection (7D), or that it has been read to him, and that he understands it."

We want to be crystal clear that, in accepting the offer, the applicant, who may not be able to read or may be of limited learning, understands what is being put in front of him. We all have constituents who come to our surgeries and articulate what their fear or their particular problem is, but who, if we asked them to put it down in a letter, would not be able to do it. It is thus an important matter.

In supporting the amendment in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Hanham said:

"On amendment No. 15, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville has already said, there should be no question that somebody has understood the words relating to the qualifying offer."

Those are important words. My noble Friend continued:

"I know it is common practice in Parliament to suggest that somebody should sign in relation to what they have read and understood. In relation to the world in which we are trespassing at the moment—those who are homeless and many of whom are vulnerable—it would be correct not to assume that they could have read. Indeed, somebody should have ensured that they understood the matter and that, if they could not read, it was read to them".

We all agree with that, and our fear is that it will not happen.

I do not understand why the Government want to take the words out. One would expect that when an offer was put in front of somebody, he would be asked—in a non-intimidatory way—whether he could read it and understand it. If there was any doubt whatever about whether he could read or understand it, he should have it explained to him—with patience, and for as long as it took.

In replying to my noble Friend Baroness Hanham, the Minister, Lord Falconer, said:

"Finally, Amendment No. 15 seeks to protect the position of applicants who, for whatever reason, would be unable to read a statement from the local housing authority about the qualifying offer. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. I give an undertaking to consider it and come back with some form of solution to the problem at Report stage because a solution is clearly required."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 30-32.]

What is the Government's solution? To take out the words "read and"—in other words, to weaken the provisions. Later, on Report in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer moved amendment No. 12, to leave out the words "read and", so the amendment was agreed to in another place. I cannot understand why the Government want to take those words out. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) or the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) wish to intervene? Apparently not.

It is extraordinary that the Government now want to weaken the clause. It is a serious matter when a qualifying person is made such an offer, because he could lose all his existing rights. If he has not properly understood that, the situation is serious. I look to the Minister to provide us with a real explanation of why the Government are doing this, so that we can consider whether we want to vote on the amendment.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for having spent a few minutes with me before our deliberations explaining his and his party's thinking on this issue. I listened with great care to what he said, and I note with considerable interest that he shares my concern that the important factor is the understanding. It is vital that the person concerned has understood the question on which he has to make a decision.

I also note, however, that the hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment in lieu would make no change whatever concerning understanding. The words

"and that he understands it"

appear in his amendment, just as the words "and understood" appear in the wording proposed by the Minister. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the crucial word is "understands", neither his amendment nor the Minister's proposed wording gives full details of how it is to be checked that the person has understood, so that is the issue that the Minister must deal with in responding to the debate. I shall listen with great interest to the assurances that she can give the hon. Gentleman and me that procedures will be in place to ensure that the applicant has understood the issue before him.

Inevitably, as one might expect, I have had discussions with Shelter. As I am sure that the whole House is aware, Shelter has played a valuable role in determining on and proposing amendments. I am delighted that on many occasions—sometimes after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing—those amendments have been accepted by the Government.

There is no doubt whatever of Shelter's view: "understanding" is the crucial word. Shelter's briefing makes the point succinctly and clearly:

"By omitting the requirement to read the statement, the amendment will ensure that those who are unable to read it are given a proper opportunity to fully understand it by having it translated or read to them."

Those are almost the same words as the Minister used in her introductory remarks, so it is clearly the Government's intention that alternative procedures will be set up to ensure that translation is available and that there are opportunities for someone to read the documentation to the applicant.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman explained one simple point: how is a person supposed to understand the offer if he has not read it? Without the amendment, the Bill makes it clear that he has both to read and understand the offer. He should then be asked whether he has read and understood it.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman and I agree that the crucial issue is understanding. Various mechanisms can help someone to understand: the individual could read the document himself; a translation could be prepared for him to read; or the document could be read to him. The amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman suggests that the person would have read the offer or would have had it read to him.

The Minister went further. She said that a translation would be made available and that there would be an explanatory discussion. That strikes me as a better way of proceeding. All those points will pale into insignificance, however, unless we make it clear that a variety of strategies will be offered to ensure that the person has understood.

The hon. Gentleman asks me how we shall know for certain that a person really has understood. His amendment does not address that question any more than the Government's proposals. Let us hear what the Minister has to say to reassure us. If we can be assured that there will be strategies to ensure that people understand, we may be able to make some progress.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to say a few words in support of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He has articulately set out the problems as regards literacy and the implications for someone who is illiterate or not fully literate in understanding often complex matters. Two further points need to be addressed. Before I do so, I should point out that—as we have been discussing private lettings—I am a small-scale private landlord, as listed in the Register of Members' Interests, although that is not specifically relevant to the detail of this debate.

In the few months I have been a Member of Parliament, my experience—like that of many hon. Members—is that at constituency level housing issues are much more complex to deal with than they first appear. There are always two sides to every argument, debate and discussion: for example, whether someone was allocated an appropriate property; or whether a housing application has been dealt with appropriately.

A stipulation that relies entirely on the use of the word "understand" leaves open a broad area for debate and discussion if things go wrong. Who said what to whom? Was something fully explained? Did the person read the documentation or not? If something goes wrong with a private letting after a few months and the tenant seeks additional help from the authority, matters of dispute in the initial discussion—for example, what was communicated to whom and when, or what was read or not read—could have significant implications for future housing. The Lords amendment, residing as it does entirely in the word "understood", leaves too much room for dispute at a later stage. It would not be prudent or sensible for the House to go forward on that basis.

The second point is fundamentally important. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) touched on it. It relates to the ethnic community, either people already in this country or those who come to the UK seeking accommodation. Anyone who has been involved with local authorities knows that nowadays they often have to produce documentation in a considerable number of languages.

As many people with housing problems have little or no knowledge of English, how can we be sure that an applicant who does not have a first-rate command of English and is dealing with an English-speaking housing officer is able fully to understand the legal implications of what they are doing? In those circumstances, if the legislation relies only on the use of the word "understood", it will open up a mine field at a later date.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman may have a valid point about relying only on the word "understood", but his amendment relies entirely on the use of that word. He rightly stresses the importance of translation for ethnic minority groups. Incidentally, such groups include not only people who come to this country from elsewhere, but many people born in this country for whom English is not their first language. That is crucial. After further reflection on that point, does he want to say anything about the new burdens principle and the cost of that translation service to some authorities, including his own?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Perhaps he did not hear me say that I was not talking only about those people who come to this country but also about people who are English nationals. There is no automatic assumption that people who are either naturalised Britons or who were born in this country have an excellent understanding, knowledge and use of the English language.

It is entirely appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the new burdens principle. As I said during our discussion of the previous group of amendments, the Government need constantly to be mindful of new burdens. Whether we like it or not, it is certainly true that local authorities already carry a burden of translation as regards vast amounts, if not all, of their official documentation. There would be no exception in the circumstances that we are discussing.

I would like to correct the hon. Gentleman in his remarks on the use of the word "understand". Understanding is part of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and his colleagues. The amendment still specifically provides either for someone to read or to have read to them the documentation relating to their case. There are thus three dimensions, not one.

The Government's amendment relies specifically on understanding alone and casts aside the issue of reading. Surely it is right and proper that anyone entering into a legal agreement should have read it or have had it read to them, and should have clearly understood it. If that is not the case, far too many grey areas will be left open.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

No doubt my hon. Friend, with his local government experience, knows what will happen. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society will be wheeled in and given an offer. According to the terms of the Bill, they will have to sign a statement acknowledging that they have read and understood the offer. By its nature, that whole process is intimidatory. Housing officers are busy people. They are not likely to give the applicant much time, so we need to take the greatest possible care in respect of these provisions.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank my hon. Friend for that cogent point on which the Minister would do well to reflect.

There are important issues as regards literacy and the grey areas that frequently exist in debates over individual housing problems.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is the second Member to speak in favour of the amendment, but unfortunately I am still having some difficulty in understanding it. Even if I asked him to read it out I am not sure whether that would help me to understand it any better.

Surely the crucial point is whether the person has understood the contents of the letter. It is not explanation that is important, as has been suggested. The issue is not about reading but about understanding. If people understand the letter, surely they will be able to make a decision.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the vast majority of cases in our daily lives when we encounter a terms and conditions document, we are supposed to tick a box to indicate that we have read and understood it. I suspect that, like me, he probably never bothers to read the terms and conditions document, and checks the box at the bottom of the page to move on. However, that document has legal force. If it says that one has no right to expect any service whatever from the person with whom one contracts, the law will fall on the side of that person. That is a fundamental issue in relation to the housing of people who are homeless or who are on the verge of becoming homeless. Very often, such people will not have a full grasp of the legal and regulatory issues, and it is surely right and proper that the law should at least ensure that they have read the terms and conditions document, or that it has been read to them, so that they know exactly what they are letting themselves in for.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Government have spent a huge amount of money on promoting adult literacy—indeed, there are radio advertisements about literacy gremlins. It is therefore tremendously important that terms and conditions should be read to people with literacy problems. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to support that approach.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Literacy is one of the three fundamental points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold outlined, which means that to rely simply on the word "understanding" is, legally, too grey. Knowledge of the English language or lack of it affects many of the people who have come to this country or who live in this country, besides many of our ethnic minority groups, which includes many of those who are most affected by the issues in this Bill. There are also those cases that present a potential for a dispute between an applicant and an authority. All those are realities.

The amendment in lieu goes some way to addressing pitfalls down the road for local authorities—pitfalls that are not addressed by the Lords amendment. I hope that the Minister will change her mind and allow the amendment in lieu to be made.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). This amendment represents a belt and braces approach. Perhaps I would understand if the Minister read the whole Bill out to me, but I still do not understand and appreciate her statement that the Lords amendment, which deletes two words, improves matters. I cannot see how that can be the case. However, I appreciate entirely that there is a thought in the Minister's mind that there may be a correct process to follow, particularly in London, where many people speak English not even as a second but as a third or fourth language.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Lords accepted precisely the amendment that we are now being asked to reverse?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

That was going to be my second point. It concerns me not least because the Conservative spokesmen in the Lords have local government experience in London, where there are clear and understandable concerns that people who do not speak English as a first language need to have such a statement read to them as a belt and braces approach to make sure that they understand it. Such people must understand the implications for their housing situation of declining an offer. I am perplexed about how the Minister can come to the view that by removing two words the rights of the most vulnerable in our society—who are homeless—will be safeguarded. I also share the constitutional concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. If the Lords discussed and proposed the amendment that we are suggesting in lieu, why was the deletion made in amendment No. 2 accepted?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

There has been a lot of discussion about not very much, and hon. Members will need to read and understand the Hansard record of the debate. I shall not deal in turn with each of the hon. Members who has spoken because they all said similar things, and they all agreed with what I said previously, which is that people should understand their position, what it means for them to get an offer and, more importantly, what will happen when they accept or refuse the offer.

It was originally proposed that people should read and understand the statement. Lords amendment No. 2 simply requires them to understand the statement, and the means by which they come to understand it should be left to the judgment of local authorities. Both the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the Government should come up with strategies to ensure that people understand the statement and they helpfully suggested some, including the use of an appropriate language. The hon. Member for Cotswold also said, with menace, that the statement should be explained to people very nicely until they understand it. Both hon. Members made it clear that they understand completely what it means to take people through the terms of a document so that they understand it.

The amendment in lieu, tabled by Conservative Members, would mean that the statement must be read by the person concerned or read to him, and understood. The Government believe that that would restrict the strategies that could be adopted to ensure that people understand the statement.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 contains similar safeguards, which ensure that any statement made by a defendant is not only understood by him but read out to him before he signs it?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

We are discussing how to ensure that someone understands what is meant by a housing offer. As several Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Bath have said, these are complex issues that people need to discuss in detail. That is why we proposed that there should be a burden on the local authority to ensure that people understand the housing offer and the consequences of their decision to accept or reject it. It should be left to the local authority to make arrangements as to the methods by which people acquire that understanding, whether it be by reading the statement themselves, having it read to them in English or, if different, their mother tongue or having it explained to them gently step by step as the hon. Member for Cotswold recommended.

Although some Conservative Members keep saying that they have been in the House only a short time, they show every sign of understanding that it is a big issue to take a person through the process of receiving a housing offer and making a decision. That is why we tabled the amendment in the other place. It arose from debate in the other place, and had not been raised earlier in this place. It is an improvement because it will not restrict housing officers to one or other means of making sure that people understand the process; it will place on local authorities the burden of ensuring that understanding.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Yes, but we have gone over the issue a few times and I have set out clearly the available choices.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Does the Minister realise that her approach places the burden of responsibility for explanation entirely on the shoulders of the housing officer without requiring applicants to take responsibility for themselves? Amendment (a) would provide an appropriate balance of responsibility between the two.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

The burden of responsibility lies with the people concerned because they have to decide what to do about an offer. Their choice has to be informed, however, and on that basis it is important that people understand the process, what is happening and the consequences. That is why the Lords amendment No. 2 has been couched in terms that place a duty on local authorities to ensure that people understand. My winding-up note merely repeats that.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Perhaps I can help the Minister with her winding-up speech. Will she give a categorical assurance that the burden of responsibility will be on the local authority housing department to ensure that applicants fully understand what is put before them? Will she also assure us that guidance will be provided to each local authority on a range of strategies that they are expected to use in different circumstances to ensure that that happens, including reading the document to applicants, translating it to their mother tongue, having an independent expert explain it to them or, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, taking them through it step by step?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of Lords amendment No. 2 is to place a duty on the local authority housing officer to ensure that applicants understand what is happening. I also assure him that guidance will be introduced. However, I cannot give a date for that or be specific about the range options that it will include because that would be restrictive.

We have had a good discussion on the different methods available to ensure that someone understands the process. It is in everyone's interest, including that of the local authority, to ensure that applicants understand what they are doing and the consequences of their decisions. As all hon. Members know, if someone does not understand what is happening, they complain or appeal.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We have had a—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had spoken. He cannot speak again.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order either to oppose the amendments or to agree to them?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I am advised that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to this group of amendments so he does not have the right to speak again. The debate has come to its conclusion.

After clause 11 — A new clause

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

The issue of accommodation for children in need and their families under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 has arisen repeatedly during the consideration of this Bill, both in this House and in another place. It is an important issue—probably the most important that we will discuss this evening—and will also be considered in relation to the Adoption and Children Bill. Lords amendment No. 3 will address the central concern—namely, it must be clear that social services authorities have the power to provide accommodation for children and their families under section 17 of the 1989 Act. There is also the separate question of ensuring good co-operation between the housing and social service departments in working to meet the needs of such children and their families.

The Minister for Housing and Planning, my noble Friend Lord Falconer, has met a number of social services directors and was impressed by their arrangements to ensure that their department works together with the housing authority—or housing department, in the case of unitary authorities—to find an appropriate solution for the whole family when dealing with families with children who are intentionally homeless or ineligible for housing assistance.

Lords amendment No. 3 would ensure that all local authorities adopt similar co-operative arrangements. The amendment, which would insert a new section, 213A, in the Housing Act 1996, would require housing authorities to have arrangements in place to ensure that social services authorities were made aware when a housing authority was dealing with an applicant whose household included a child under age the age of 18 and had reason to believe that the applicant might be homeless—or threatened with homelessness—intentionally, or might be ineligible for housing assistance. The housing authority would also have to inform the social services department of the decision taken on the homelessness application. These requirements would be subject to the applicant's consent, although withholding consent would not affect the housing authority's ability to alert the social services authority in any case when it was concerned that a child might be at risk of suffering significant harm.

Lords amendment No. 3 would also place a new duty on housing authorities. They would have to provide advice and assistance to the social services authorities where the latter were aware of a decision by a housing authority that a household that includes a child under 18 was unintentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness, or ineligible for housing assistance and the social services authority asked for assistance in the exercise of its functions under part III of the Children Act 1989. That new duty would not prejudice the current provisions on co-operation between authorities in section 27 of the 1989 Act.

Lords amendment No. 3 would also place a requirement on unitary authorities to have similar arrangements in place. They would have to ensure that, subject to the applicant's consent, the facts of such cases and the decision on the homelessness application were referred to the social services department by the housing department. They would also have to ensure that the housing department provided advice and assistance, such as is reasonable in the circumstances, to the social services department on request.

As my noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning undertook to do in another place, my Department and the Department of Health propose to issue joint guidance to housing and social services departments about co-operative working in the context of the new provisions. The provisions should ensure greater safeguards for families with children and address some of the issues that were debated at some length on Second Reading and Report. I am sure that hon. Members will have no hesitation in endorsing these actions, and I urge them to support Lords amendment No. 3.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Lords amendment No. 3 is a new clause, to be inserted in the Bill after clause 11. On a minor administrative note, I am not sure why it has been inserted after clause 11, which deals with appeals, when it would have been better placed after clause 8 on the review of decisions as to suitability of accommodation. Such an administrative problem arises because this is a new area that was not discussed when the Bill was previously debated on the Floor of the House or in Committee. This provision has been debated in the House of Lords and is now inserted in the Bill in the form of a new clause. Having said that, we broadly welcome the new clause, although we have a number of reservations that I should like to raise with the Minister.

The new clause would strengthen the current duty on housing and social services authorities—housing and social services departments in unitary authorities—to co-operate when a family will not be provided with accommodation under the main homelessness duty and children are involved. Such a situation most commonly occurs when a family is found to be intentionally homeless or when they are ineligible for assistance due to their immigration status.

The new clause specifies that the housing authority must, with the applicant's consent, inform the social services authority about the facts of the case and, at an early opportunity, notify it of its subsequent decision. The new clause also requires the housing authority to provide such advice and assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances in helping the social services authority exercise its function to children in need under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 when requested to do so.

Such a power already exists in the 1989 Act. Section 20(1) provides:

"Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of"

certain reasons. Subsection (3) provides:

"Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who has reached the age of sixteen and whose welfare the authority consider is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with accommodation."

Section 22(1) states:

"In this Act, any reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority is a reference to a child who is

(a) in their care; or

(b) provided with accommodation by the authority in the exercise of any functions".

Given that such a power is already enshrined in law, why is the new clause necessary? It will ensure that social services co-operate with housing authorities, but they already have to do so under the 1989 Act.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Gentleman may be able to help me. My understanding is that the Children Act 1989 requires social services to provide housing for the children, not the entire family. That is the nature of the amendment that I understand the Government intend to make.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That is precisely the point—the new clause deals with the children. As the duties of the local authority are already enshrined in the Children Act, I cannot see the necessity of the new clause. The only reason for it that I can see is that it will make social services and housing departments work more closely together. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

It is relatively easy for social services and housing departments to work together closely in a unitary authority. However, when a county authority provides the social services and a borough or district council provides housing functions, two councils will have to have mechanisms for dealing with each other. There will be an awful lot of people producing bits of paper and watching their back in case one or other council are sued.

Something might be fine as an ideal, but once it is enshrined in law, the compliance cost can be significant. We do not think that the Government will allocate sufficient funds to local authorities to enable them to implement the provisions properly and that the burden will fall on council tax payers. Can the Minister give us an idea of the compliance cost of implementing the new clause? What mechanisms will need to be put in place in district and borough council housing authorities and county council social services authorities? What protocols and disciplines will need to be put in place to make the new clause work?

Having said that, we welcome the Government's recognition of the need to protect children, particularly those intentionally made homeless, and often through no fault of their own. Excellent work is being done by some housing associations in dealing specifically with vulnerable children. I visited the Cirencester young person's housing association the other day, and met a young constituent of mine who had been abused by his parents. Through a friend, he secured a place in a little house provided by that association, which is divided into several separate bedrooms for such children. He is obviously flourishing and will eventually be able to move to a flat of his own. Housing authorities are becoming cleverer at dealing with such people, and we need to provide them with more support.

We need to be clear about where the Government will place such people in their list of priority needs. How will that list dovetail with local housing authorities' strategy on homelessness?

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

The philosophy at the centre of the Children Act 1989 is that the child should be the first priority. Everyone would assume that, in most cases, the best way for such children to be brought up is for them to remain with their natural parents. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that bringing together social services and housing is the best way to ensure that housing authorities are aware of that priority?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I accept the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am probing the Minister as to how that will work in practice. We have all heard of shocking cases of children falling through the net and being abused. The West case, which occurred in my constituency, was one of the worst in history. Obvious mistakes were made, but having discussed the matter in detail with Gloucestershire social services, I am sure that such a thing is unlikely to happen today. Let us all hope and pray that it cannot. We welcome the amendment in principle, but we want to see how it will work.

The amendment makes it clear that social services can act only with the consent of the applicant. Again, the question is one of understanding and of who said what at a particular time. For example, what will happen if a child, for whatever reason—they might be fearful or might not understand what is going on—does not give consent for social services to act on their behalf? The child could still be vulnerable, but the import of the amendment will be circumvented if they do not wish to give consent. What will happen in such situations?

If local government is to be reorganised along more regional lines, will regional assemblies have a role in this matter? The sharing of such responsibilities between a plethora of local government tiers would lead to increasing difficulties. I ask the Minister to explain, when she winds up the debate, how the amendment will work in practice.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I seem to be speaking to an entirely different amendment from the one that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has just defined. My hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the amendment will ensure that a child cannot be taken away from its family under the current statutory requirements of the Children Act 1989. If, for a variety of reasons, a family is deemed intentionally homeless, it will be the duty of the housing authority, working closely with social services, to ensure that the family can be kept together. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the amendment deals with abused children, but I suspect that they are already protected under the 1989 Act. I am aware of only one instance in which someone who was in desperate need of housing refused to approach the local housing authority because that person had been told that its response would be to place the children in care. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of a growing belief—I speak from my direct experience in London—that if a family with children are deemed to have become intentionally homeless, the housing authority's first step will be to contact social services to take the children into care. I understand that the amendment would prevent that.

Close working between the social services and housing departments—I am happy to say that such a relationship between the departments already exists in Camden—that will have a responsibility to assist such families means that the family will not be marooned and left to attempt to find their own housing and that children will not be taken into care. Children should be taken into care if there is clear evidence that they are being abused or are in danger within the family, but they should not be put into care simply because of a shortage of housing.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The hon. Lady will realise that no hon. Member would wish to see children taken into care purely for housing reasons, but surely she recognises that in some cases—happily small in number—a social issue that could lead to a child being taken into care comes to light only because of a housing issue. The housing department may be the first to get wind of a problem.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I have already told the House that I have had only one direct experience of someone who refused to approach their local authority because they believed that their children would be taken into care. I am not clear about the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have already said that if clear evidence shows that a child—whether homeless or not—is in danger from their family, for whatever reason, social services have a responsibility to act. However, if the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the danger to the child was the fact that the family had nowhere to live and that the child should be taken from an otherwise caring family and put into care, I would strongly disagree. It is my perception that the amendment would ensure that that could not happen.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I do not wish to describe the case I mentioned in detail, for obvious reasons, but a social issue that should have led social services to question whether to take a child into care arose only because of a housing-related matter being dealt with by the housing department. That is a very specific example.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

The hon. Gentleman makes the case for much closer working between housing and social services departments. I know from my experience of my local authority that such close working already takes place. When housing families, local authorities should work more closely not only with the Department of Health—as my hon. Friend the Minister said—but with education departments. It is almost impossible for local authorities in Greater London to rehouse every family within their own borders, so they must work closely with all the boroughs within the London conurbation.

I welcome the amendment. It will do much to allay the genuine or perceived fears of family members—not all local authorities have Camden's excellent record—and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to disseminate its contents, even before the Bill receives Royal Assent, to local authorities that have not yet introduced closer working between social services and housing departments. Families should not fear that if they present themselves their children will be taken from them and put into care, and they will still be homeless. That can create enormous tensions and strains in a family and, inevitably, it is the children who suffer.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right that there has been relatively little discussion during the passage of the Bill of children and homelessness. Today, we have already heard about the many homeless households, and recognise that a large proportion of them live in inappropriate temporary accommodation. Indeed, many homeless households live in extremely inappropriate bed and breakfast accommodation. We must recognise that those households include many children. The recently published Shelter report "No Room to Play: Children and Homelessness" states:

"More than 100,000 children in England become homeless every year."

It is therefore right that the House should address concerns about the support that legislation can provide for such children.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) rightly hoped that the Lords amendment would go a long way towards addressing some of the current problems. We must recognise that there are already many examples of good practice, whereby local authority housing departments and social services departments work together to meet the needs of homeless children and their families. However, that is not true of all local authorities, so we should include in the Bill a requirement that all local authority housing and social services departments co-operate in a way already practised by the very best departments.

I therefore welcome the Lords amendment, but I am conscious that it will not solve all the problems. During deliberation on the amendments in another place, reference was made to difficulties resulting from the Children Act 1989 and a number of court cases and judgments that have led to homeless families being under threat of their children being taken into care. I understand that the Government have made a clear commitment to reverse the effect of those judgments by amending the Children Act through an amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that that remains the Government's intention and an explanation of the way in which the change will be introduced.

I am conscious that the Lords amendment will require sensitive handling by social services departments. If a local authority social services department is to become involved, the agreement of the family concerned will be required, so sensitivity is essential. In another place, Lord Falconer said on 24 January at column 152 that he fully accepted the need for sensitivity and gave an assurance that appropriate guidance would be issued on the way in which that sensitivity would be exercised by local authorities. I should be grateful if the Minister told the House a little more about Government intentions on that guidance. 6.45 pm

The issue is important, but it is wrong of the hon. Member for Cotswold to suggest that there has been no deliberation on it during the Bill's passage. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that on a number of occasions in Committee I spoke to amendments I had tabled, expressing considerable concern about, for example, a parent's behaviour leading to a family being refused priority housing. Lord Falconer and the Minister expressed concern about that, and promised to amend the Bill. I am delighted that as a result of subsequent deliberation, Lords amendment No. 3 was tabled, but by itself it will not be sufficient to meet all the concerns of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. I hope that the Minister will give us assurances and guarantees that the amendments to which I have already referred will be made.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I should like to raise three issues, the first of which relates to the concerns that I outlined in relation to the first group of Lords amendments.

The new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 3 has the admirable aspiration of providing protection for children in families who become intentionally homeless. I very much agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), who spoke about the importance of protecting children in such circumstances. However, there will be times when the reasons for a family becoming intentionally homeless lead to significant attention from social services departments regarding the nature of the family and their suitability to care for their children. God forbid that that should happen frequently, but it should necessarily involve close collaboration between social services departments and housing departments.

The essence of what the new clause proposes already occurs in the vast majority of local authorities as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, some local authorities do not come up to scratch but, as one of my local authorities says, "We do it anyway as a matter of course." If there is a problem case, the authority always talks to social services about the issues surrounding it. I should hate an admirable provision to impose an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on the best authorities. I therefore repeat my question to the Minister: what processes will be imposed on housing officers and social services departments to deliver the requirements of the new clause? What specific requirements will she place on officers, and what additional paperwork will they have to deal with? In particular, what burden of regulation, supervision and assessment will be placed on authorities as a result of the new clause?

When the Minister responds to our debate, will she give an assurance that she will not allow the imposition of new processes to make the life of the better local authority officers more difficult than it is at the moment? As we all know, anyone who has any contact with, or knowledge of, local government knows how hard-pressed many of our local government officers are. I should hate a well meaning and well thought-out new clause to be implemented in a way that made matters much worse for them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) rightly said, there are resource implications, which often involve time rather than money. The Government need to be mindful of them as they set about implementing the Lords amendment, particularly in areas not covered by unitary authorities, where the social services department and the housing authority are miles apart and it is not simply a question of having a conversation down the corridor. Those organisations have contact points, but they lack the benefit afforded by unitary authorities of sitting within the same management structure in the same building.

There are two other specific issues that I would like the Minister to address when she replies, one of which involves the use of the word "assistance". A local housing officer has expressed concern to me. What does the word mean in this context? There is some concern within the profession that in reality social services will be given the right to resubmit an application to the housing department with a heavy lean in favour of it being accepted. That led to the comment, "If that is to be the case, if social services will become the arbiter in these matters, we will not bother to declare anyone intentionally homeless in the first place."

What are the requirements for the housing department in providing not only advice but practical assistance to the social services department in the implementation of these provisions? I focus on that point because it has a resource implication for many small district councils. If a county council's social services department is able to say, "No, these decisions are not right, you need to house these people", when the district council has decreed that the people concerned are intentionally homeless, the district council will end up in some instances funding accommodation, when under current legislation it would not be doing so. The Government should be mindful of that as they push through the amendment.

Secondly, I ask the Minister to be watchful of unitary authorities. The division between unitary and non-unitary authorities is not quite as clear cut as it would seem. An example within my constituency highlights that point. The Preston estate in Tadworth is one of the problem areas of Surrey. It is an area of some deprivation and there are significant social problems. The estate is divided between three different housing authorities. It is covered by a fourth authority, which provides the social services input. The estate itself is controlled one third by the London borough of Sutton, one third by Merton and one third by Reigate and Banstead. Surrey county council provides social services at present.

London boroughs such as Sutton or Merton have the vast majority of their housing stock within their own borders. The small offshoots that for historical reasons they control can often be easily forgotten. I suspect that the Minister would find quite a significant number of unitary authorities that have social services and housing under one roof but which have some property outside their boundaries. As she proceeds to implement this legislation, she will find that there is not always a split between the unitary authority and the non-unitary authority, which is articulated in the new clause. The clause suggests that for a unitary authority everything is under the same roof, but that is not the case.

The Government must be careful about the way in which they frame regulations and guidance notes. They must ensure that areas that do not fall within the boundaries of unitary authorities do not slip through the net because no one thinks clearly about their presence. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as the Bill becomes law and as the Department begins to implement it.

I welcome the principle behind the amendment. It is admirable that we should provide proper protection for children. However, I hope that the Minister will take care to ensure that implementation works with rather than against local authorities.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I shall try to answer all the queries that have been raised. However, some of them involve quite detailed, complex legal issues. If hon. Members still have concerns after my response, I shall ensure that they are dealt with in writing. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised a particular case, and it should be considered in some detail outside this general discussion.

The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is not right when he says that the issue before us has not been discussed clearly. The general principles and concerns that underpin the discussion have been some of the most hotly contested points in our discussions as the Bill has passed through its various stages.

The central issue is the welfare of families with children, not children on their own. It is about the interrelationship between homelessness legislation and legislation that affects children. At the same time, there is a series of complex issues. The issue was probably first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and by Shelter, which held out the prospect that if we got things wrong, or if we got the relationship wrong between responsibility under the Children Act 1989 and homelessness legislation, we would see a return to the days of "Cathy Come Home", when families were split up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, homelessness would be a recipe for children ending up in care in those circumstances. We must deal with the issues that revolve round the family.

The hon. Member for Cotswold and others will remember that we had much discussion on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report about the possibility of amending in part the Children Act 1989. There was also much discussion about the fact that despite the test cases—the ones to which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate was referring—and despite various assertions to the contrary, the power remained for social services, in considering the welfare of the family or of the child, also to promote the upbringing of the child by his or her family. During these discussions arguments were advanced by myself and by my noble Friend Lord Falconer in another place.

That was one of the key responsibilities. The knock-on effect of that was that of providing housing for a family, and not only for the individual child. It was the families with children who were intentionally homeless under the Act that did not qualify under housing legislation and homelessness legislation.

We are dealing with one of the most important amendments that we will consider this evening. It puts in place arrangements to make existing powers work properly. It is right that such powers are in place. It is also correct that some local authorities are already doing what we would wish. I stressed in my opening remarks that we have examined best practice and what local authorities are doing when they have to deal with these matters. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that other authorities act in the same way. I hope that explains from where the amendment has come.

Families that might be affected by the intentionality rules will be, for example, those who have been evicted for rent arrears or antisocial behaviour. The children of such families are vulnerable. I am sure that there are hon. Members who are familiar with such cases from their advice surgeries.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about consent and the consent of the child. That is not the issue that is before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate was right when she said that we are not talking about specific issues that involve children being taken into care and housed. We are talking about the housing of families with children, and that is made clear in the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman reads the proposed section 213A(1), he will see that it refers to

"where a local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant with whom a person under the age of 18 normally resides".

That is basically a family with children.

The issue of consent involves the exchange of information between two different departments or two different local authorities. The new clause deals with that and with the specific circumstances in which the social services or housing department makes an exemption where a child may be at risk. That is perfectly proper and in line with all the standard procedures and legislation affecting local authorities. I hope that that deals with the concerns of the hon. Member for Cotswold.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate spoke about the dissemination of information to local authorities. My noble Friend Lord Falconer and I have repeatedly discussed the powers of local authorities and their responsibilities under the existing legislation, which have not changed, despite the test cases known to my hon. Friend. I hope that we have already clarified the position, but steps will be taken to ensure that the information is properly disseminated. A further issue is the extent to which people know their rights. That comes down to advice and assistance, which we have discussed.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke about an amendment under the Adoption and Children Bill. That is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I shall not tread on their toes. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a great deal of discussion about the matter. I pay tribute to his own role, and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, who has pursued the issue vociferously, because of its importance for her constituency and also because of her concerns about child welfare in general.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister said that she did not wish to tread on other people's toes, and I understand that. Will she confirm that she agrees with her noble Friend Lord Falconer, who said that

"the critical issue is to ensure that the social services directorate has power, when appropriate, to house the family and not only the children. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health said in the Commons, on 17th January, and to which I referred on Report, we"—

presumably meaning the Government—

"have undertaken to bring forward amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill to address that issue"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2002; Vol. 631, c. 152.]

Can the Minister confirm to the House that it is still the Government's intention to do that?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

My noble Friend and I have spoken repeatedly about the matter, on which we agree completely. We are as one. We have discussed in detail the complexities of this part of the legislation.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke again about aspirations and what the process would be. The new clause is all about process. It is all about making sure that the families do not slip between two departments or two local authorities, as often happens. The new clause will make sure that the two departments or the two local authorities communicate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are some local authorities that do that extremely well, there are cases in which it will require something of a culture change to get two local authorities to talk to each other. The new clause will ensure that that happens, in the best interests of the families and the children concerned.

The hon. Gentleman says that that happens in his local authority, which is excellent, but it clearly does not happen in every local authority, given the anxieties that have been raised by Shelter, voluntary organisations and hon. Members about what happens to children or families when they are batted about between pillar and post. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, such families are often afraid that the children will be taken into care, so they are unable to access the kind of housing that is their right.

It would be worth the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and other hon. Members checking the procedures and protocols in their own local authorities or between the local authorities in their areas, to make sure that such cases are dealt with. There is a small number of cases, but they are difficult.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also asked about assistance. That relates to the various bits of legislation to which I referred earlier. We are not discussing the ability of a social services department to reverse a housing department's decision. The decision taken by the housing department involves intentionality, vulnerability, priority needs and so on, under the housing legislation. There is no question of the social services department saying that the housing department has got it wrong, if the family is intentionally homeless.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

No. I am in the middle of replying, and I might forget what I intended to say.

Responsibility for housing in that instance rests with social services. Different legislation applies, so the provision for assistance and advice does not mean that the clients get passed from one department to the other. The social services department exercises its powers under the relevant legislation. The issue is how different departments or local authorities work together to realise that. Having completed my reply, I give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful to the Minister. Can she say how the new clause will work in practice? It deals with those who are intentionally homeless and have children under the age of 18. The hon. Lady gave the example of people who are grossly in arrears of rent or who are subject to antisocial behaviour problems. Given the scarcity of housing resources, will such people have priority over people in a similar situation or people who are unintentionally homeless, but who have otherwise behaved perfectly properly?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

We are discussing a small group of people, who are not being housed under the homelessness legislation. Because they are intentionally homeless, the powers rest with social services, which wants to promote the upbringing of the child by his family. The aim is therefore to keep the family together. I thought that I had explained that. The new clause sets out in detail how that will be achieved. It specifies the joint protocols and the level of contact and liaison that is necessary between the different departments or local authorities to make sure that that happens. The process is exactly what the new clause is about. It does not mean that one group of people leapfrogs over another on the housing list because it is being catered for by social services.

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

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being in the Chamber earlier. I warmly welcome the new clause. Subject to the further underpinning of it, as we have discussed, it shows that the Government have listened and taken note of the problem. One of the ways in which the new clause may be implemented by local authorities is that it will allow a social services department to put time and sometimes a small sum of money into accessing a private tenancy for families who do not have the resources or the ability to access their own accommodation. In that way, social services departments may be able to help, as my hon. Friend said, without such families going back into the housing department system that has already failed them.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

There are a number of ways in which the powers can be exercised. The main point that I was making to the Opposition is that the powers are exercised by social services, not by the housing department. The procedure is slightly different because it is not under housing legislation. As the housing department and the authority will have responsibility for the homelessness strategy and will know where the housing is, they will be in a position to assist. I am told that they will be able to provide assistance, within the normal meaning of the word, to social services in exercising their powers. I take the point about properties that are located in other areas. Clearly, the issue will have to be taken into account. Of course, when families enter the system, they will be dealt with by social services, as their position will be considered under the Children Act 1989.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

In a borough that has a housing block in another area, it is conceivable that the natural instinct of the unitary authority will be to turn to its own social services department when a particular problem arises, even though the department covering the geographic area containing the block may have a much greater knowledge of local circumstances and about how to deal with the issue.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I take that point and I shall ensure that it is addressed.

I think that I have dealt with the details and technicalities of this difficult but extremely important area. I am absolutely sure that the amendment will improve the Bill and the safeguards that are provided. In particular, it will improve the safeguards for one of our most vulnerable groups—families who are intentionally homeless, in relation to whom the interests of the child must be carefully considered and proper arrangements made. I am very pleased indeed that it has been possible to bring the amendment from the other place and I urge all hon. Members to support it.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 — Allocation schemes

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Amendment No. 4 is a minor drafting amendment. The Bill gives local housing authorities powers to take account of unacceptable behaviour when making decisions about applicants for the allocation of housing. Clause 13 constructs a test of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. Where an authority has decided that an applicant is guilty of such behaviour, it will either have power under clause 13 to decide to treat them as ineligible for an allocation altogether, or it may decide to treat them as eligible but not to give them any preference under clause 15.

The policy intention is that the test of unacceptable behaviour should be exactly the same whether it is a basis for treating a person as ineligible or for deciding that he or she does not deserve to be given any preference. The test is deliberately constructed to be a very high one and it incorporates two main elements: first, the authority must be satisfied that the applicant or a member of his household has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour; and secondly, in the circumstances when the case is considered, it must be satisfied either that the applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant or that he deserves not to be given reasonable preference by reason of that unacceptable behaviour.

The qualification

"by reason of that behaviour",

which the amendment inserts in the clause, is essential to ensure that authorities do not have a broad power to decide to treat applicants as ineligible or not to give preference for reasons that are not linked to the unacceptable behaviour. The qualification appears in clause 13 in new section 160A(7)(b) to the Housing Act 1996. The provision deals with the treatment of an applicant as ineligible for an allocation, but was omitted from clause 15, which deals with the treatment of an applicant as deserving not to be given any preference. The amendment would merely insert that qualification in the clause and ensure that the provisions on unacceptable behaviour are clear and symmetrical.

As I said, clause 13 allows an authority to decide to treat an applicant as ineligible for an allocation because it is satisfied that he is guilty of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. When an authority is satisfied that an applicant is unsuitable to be its tenant, it may decide to treat him as ineligible or instead to consider his application but not give any preference for an allocation. As the Bill stands, the authority must notify the applicant of a decision to treat him as ineligible and of the grounds on which it has been made. With regard to a decision not to give preference, applicants have the right to ask to be informed, but the authority is not required to notify them unless it is requested to do so.

In another place—and, indeed, in this place at an earlier stage—there was pressure for an amendment to require authorities to notify applicants about such decisions. Unfortunately—this is where the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was misguided—the proposal's construction meant that it would also have required authorities to notify applicants about routine decisions taken about the facts of their application. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman is very entertained and is about to say that he was right all along. That is not the case. The Government reflected on the points that were raised in debate about his amendment. We saw the force of the argument that in areas where pressure on housing is high a decision not to give preference could have the same practical effect as a decision to treat an applicant as ineligible; that is to say, it could remove any realistic opportunity of his being allocated accommodation. [Interruption.] Again, the hon. Gentleman indicates that he is right. We have shown simply that the Government are prepared to listen and cherry-pick his amendments so as to take the good bits while still rejecting the wider and totally impractical elements.

The additional requirement should not add significantly to authorities' work load. We anticipate that, overall, only a small proportion of applicants will receive such decisions and our understanding is that the local authority associations support this proposal. The Government have therefore decided that authorities should be required to notify the applicant when they decide not to give any preference because of unacceptable behaviour, but they will not be required to deal with the confetti of decision papers that the amendment of the hon. Member for Bath would have required. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will help to achieve those effects. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

We heard a lot in Committee about the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) sending his wife postcards when his amendments succeeded. I have no doubt that his wife will be receiving a postcard in the morning. Tribute where tribute is due: he pushed the matter in Committee and it is now being dealt with.

The official Opposition broadly welcome the amendments. For too long, tenants who have exhibited patterns of unacceptable behaviour have been given preference when other people who have behaved perfectly properly are disadvantaged thereby. We welcome the amendments and the fact that the inconsistency between clauses 13 and 15 is being done away with, and the requirement for the local authority to notify people for whom preference has been withdrawn because of unacceptable behaviour.

I have one question for the Minister: what will happen in relation to the Data Protection Act 1998? Will one authority be able to give information on unacceptable behaviour to another authority so that it can judge how to treat people when handling preference?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

May I thank the Minister for accepting at long last the amendments that I tabled many months ago and tidying them up in the way that she has described? I am sure that honour is now satisfied and that at least a brief postcard can now go to Mrs. Foster.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I shall be brief, so perhaps it will be just half a postcard. [Interruption.] That is for the hon. Member for Bath and his wife to settle between them.

In relation to data protection, I was trying to envisage the circumstances in which such a situation would arise. As people would normally make applications to separate housing authorities, I cannot seriously think that it is an issue, but I shall check to make sure.

I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

Schedule 1 — Minor and consequential amendments

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

The amendments are complex, so I shall introduce them with some care. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.

During consideration in another place, attention was drawn to gaps in the existing provisions, which give the local authority the power to accommodate certain applicants pending a review by the authority of its homelessness decision and pending an appeal to the county court on a point of law.

The policy that underlies the current provisions is that pending a review by the local authority or an appeal to the county court, the authority should have the power to accommodate applicants who have a priority need for accommodation—that is, those who are most vulnerable. We think that that is the right policy, and it accords with the central thrust of the Bill; that only this group are owed the main homelessness duty to secure accommodation.

An assessment of the current provisions reveals two main gaps in the achievement of that policy, however. The first applies in respect of those applicants who have a priority need, but are considered by the authority to have become homeless, or be threatened with homelessness, intentionally and who, for whatever reason, were not provided with accommodation under the section 188 interim duty pending inquiries. That will include, for example, priority need applicants who were threatened with homelessness pending the inquiries and so did not need to be provided with accommodation. Where the authority finds that they became threatened with homelessness intentionally, the applicant may request a review of that decision and may become homeless during the course of the review. However, at present the authority has no power to accommodate in such circumstances.

The second gap applies more broadly to applicants who are pursuing an appeal to the county court. The current provisions—namely, those in section 204 of the Housing Act 1996—leave some doubt as to whether there is a power to accommodate applicants if the authority has not already exercised its power to accommodate pending the review.

Amendment No. 12 will close the first gap and provide authorities with a specific power to assist applicants who the authority have decided have priority needs but have become threatened with homelessness intentionally. The power will allow the authority to take steps to prevent homelessness or, if the applicant actually becomes homeless, to secure accommodation, pending a review of the homelessness decision.

Amendment No. 14 amends section 204 of the 1996 Act and makes it clear that, pending an appeal to the county court, the authority has a power to accommodate the same categories of applicant as it has a power to accommodate pending a review. It includes a specific reference to the new power provided by amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 14 also makes it clear that the power to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to the county court applies whether or not the power to accommodate pending a review had been exercised.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 amend sections 188(3) and 200(5) respectively. Those provisions give authorities the power to continue to secure accommodation for certain applicants pending a review. The concept of being able to continue to secure accommodation limits the scope of power and is unduly restrictive. Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 therefore change that to a freestanding power to secure accommodation.

The change to section 188(3) will clarify in particular that, pending a review, authorities have the power to accommodate applicants who have priority need but have been found to be intentionally homeless. Under section 190(2)(a), such applicants must be secured accommodation for such a period as will give them a reasonable opportunity to find accommodation themselves, but that duty may end before a review of the homelessness decision has been completed. There is currently some uncertainty as to whether authorities have a power to accommodate that category of applicant during the period after the section 190(2)(a) duty has ended and until the review is completed. That is because there is no explicit provision giving a power to continue to accommodate under section 190, and it is questionable whether the power to continue to accommodate under section 188 should apply in a case where the applicant is being accommodated under section 190.

I should add that the local authority representative bodies were consulted and are content with the thrust of the amendments. They do not add new burdens or provisions, but largely clarify, rationalise and consolidate powers that currently exist in a variety of different places.

I hope that hon. Members agree that the amendments close the current gaps and achieve the right policy, and I commend them to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I challenge the Minister to repeat what she just said without notes.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

indicated assent

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As she says, these are technical amendments. Although they are complex, we broadly welcome them. They clarify the powers that are available to local authorities to accommodate applicants pending review or appeal of the homeless decision, and they respond to concerns raised by the Housing Law Practitioners Association.

As this is the last time we will be able to speak on the Bill, I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the official Opposition wish the Bill good speed and hope that it will be placed on the statute book with all possible alacrity. It is needed, because homelessness is a pressing problem that affects people in the greatest need of help in our society.

I press the Government to bring forward their homelessness strategy and to introduce the statutory instrument on priority need and a Bill licensing houses in multiple occupation. Those are all essential strands of the Government's strategy for dealing with this ever- increasing problem.

Finally, I pay tribute to all those who have provided the Opposition with assistance and advice, especially Shelter, which has provided invaluable advice and has made our debate much better informed—which has, I hope, contributed to a much better Bill.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I, too, welcome the amendments, which plug several gaps that were identified by the Housing Law Practitioners Association and others.

It was perhaps slightly unwise of the Minister to nod her agreement that she would be prepared to repeat everything that she said without reference to notes. I say that not least because when Lord Falconer was similarly challenged, he said that it would not be possible, because

"For this, one would need a wet towel and every section of the Bill in front of one."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 1022.]

The amendments do not entirely close all the loopholes that have been identified. Nevertheless, most people are prepared to accept that they go a long way towards doing so and are therefore welcome.

Like the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton- Brown), I pay tribute to the many organisations that have done the House a great service by providing briefings to all parties during our lengthy deliberations on this important Bill. I, too, wish the Bill a speedy progress to the statute book. It is much needed and many people have been arguing for it for a long time. I am delighted that it can now move rapidly to Royal Assent, and rightly so.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

When I nodded in response to what the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was saying, I was suggesting that he was making a good joke, rather than that I could repeat all that I had said without notes. He asked about the homelessness strategy; it will be out very soon. Following on from that will be the priority needs order, setting out the new categories of people who will be entitled to housing, and other broad strategies to improve the provision of social housing and the position of people in the private sector.

People have repeatedly stated—as did the hon. Member for Bath just now—that this is the last time we shall debate this Bill, but there has been a continuous process of improving the Bill in all our discussions and debates, which shows that scrutiny in this place works. It has worked to great effect, even at this late stage, to improve the position of homeless families, children and people who are not in priority need, and of groups who previously had no help from the state with their housing.

I echo what other hon. Members have said about the enormous service that all the Officers of the House have given to us. I also echo what they have said about the importance of the Bill; it will lead to a dramatic improvement in the rights of people to housing and to housing advice. Despite some of the things that have been said, there has been all-party support for the Bill, and I look forward to seeing those rights in action out in the community.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14 agreed to.