| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: This is one of the few cases in which an amendment to the Rent Act 1977 was necessary, because the original definition of domestic violence was restricted to violence from some other person living in the property. As the Minister said in his remarks on the amendments, there are circumstances in which people can be subject to domestic violence from a former partner who is no longer resident in the property, or from other people who are not resident there.
Therefore, the changed definition covers violence that might be threatened or perpetrated by a person's associates, who are defined in Lords amendment No. 188. That is a welcome addition to the legislative framework and provides a better basis on which to bring relief to people who are the victims of domestic violence.
The problem is that, once people have been defined as being in a category of those who should be helped, they will not receive the same degree of help that they would have received under the 1977 Act. They may well find that the improvement worked by this group of amendments is entirely illusory because, despite being included in the categories of those to whom assistance should be given, the other changes to the 1977 legislation will nullify that benefit, and they will find that they are consequently no better off.
The amendments are one reason to be happy about changes in the legislation, but it is against a background of negative and destructive changes to the framework for
assisting homeless people. If implemented, the changes will cause a great deal of hardship and many problems to homeless people across Britain.
Mrs. Maddock:
As a result of the amendments, important clarification of those who will be protected from all forms of domestic violence will be provided. I hope that the Minister will consider the way in which the clauses operate and whether they do what we hope they will. All those who work with women--but also with men--who suffer from domestic violence will welcome the clarification. However, they will be concerned whether, ultimately, there will be accommodation to enable such people to escape the violence.
I hope that the Minister will examine how the provision will work in practice. As with some of the other amendments that we have considered today, he is giving with one hand in one part of the Bill and taking away with another hand in another part of the Bill. I am quite sure that those who work with people fleeing domestic violence will be watching carefully to see whether the provisions accomplish what we want them to, and I hope that the Minister will also be watching.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 188 to 197 agreed to.
Mr. Curry:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 199 to 201 and 205 to 209.
Mr. Curry:
We tabled this group of amendments in response to concerns expressed in another place that clause 196 could be used by less scrupulous authorities as a get-out. The amendments fulfil a commitment to make it clear in the Bill that the authorities must be satisfied that the advice and assistance that they provide is sufficient to enable the applicant to secure accommodation. Therefore, clause 196 is strengthened by ensuring that the authority cannot simply tell someone to go and find accommodation for himself and then declare that the matter is finished.
The other amendments disapply the alternative accommodation provisions in clause 196 in cases in which only a minor duty is owed to households accepted to be homeless.
The reason for the amendments is a wish to ensure that the provisions apply only in certain limited circumstance. We do not wish local authorities to be required to consider whether suitable alternative accommodation is available in every single case.
Mr. Raynsford:
The Minister has described the amendments as designed to cover the possibility that some less scrupulous authorities will seek to evade responsibilities to the homeless by use of the original formulation of the alternative accommodation rule.
Although the changes are welcome, they do not go far enough. The alternative accommodation loophole remains open, and authorities can still reach a decision that someone is able to find alternative accommodation--because the wording of Lords amendment No. 208 makes it quite clear that the decision ultimately belongs to authorities. The amendment states:
The only consolation is that the life expectancy of the changes is short--I have already given a clear sign that a Labour Government will restore a proper statutory framework of responsibility to homeless people that all authorities will have to discharge, including those that are reluctant to do so.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Mr. Curry:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 203, 211 to 216 and 229.
Mr. Curry:
These technical amendments will improve connected clauses.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 203 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 204, in page 100, line 38, after ("satisfied") insert
Mr. Curry:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 223 to 228, 304 and 324.
Mr. Curry:
A lot of concern has been expressed about the Bill's provision to place a duty on local authorities for two years, which would be renewable. It was said that such a duty might be difficult to observe in certain areas of housing stress or in respect of persons requiring particular types of property. After much reflection, I decided to meet some of those concerns.
I am aware that a small number of local authorities could have difficulty, so the amendment provides that, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority cannot manage, he can make a direction applying to it a 12-month derogation in respect of particular properties or persons. The Secretary of State will set the conditions, in liaison with the housing authorities. That welcome flexibility is at peace with that which I have sought to introduce throughout the Bill where a case for it has been made.
Mr. Raynsford:
There can be no clearer illustration of the nonsense in this part of the Bill than this group of amendments. Homeless people need permanent accommodation. The statutory framework that has been in place since 1977 rightly put the emphasis on helping homeless people to secure permanent accommodation. The Government are substituting a concept that only the more loony elements in Conservative Central Office, aided by the extreme fringes of right-wing think tanks, could have devised. Homeless people will have to be shoe-horned into temporary accommodation, even though it is unsatisfactory, more expensive and universally recognised as an inappropriate solution. The Government's dogmatic approach means that temporary accommodation must in the first instance be all that is offered to homeless applicants.
As a result, the Minister found himself in an impossible position. He was presented with evidence from a large number of local authorities, which demonstrated that it was far more sensible to put homeless people in their own housing stock, rather than in temporary accommodation--probably at far greater public expense. The Minister's first response was to allow a limited period--one year--in local authority permanent accommodation. When it was pointed out that it would be ridiculous to evict people from council housing at the end of one year, the Government responded by extending the period to two years.
When it was pointed out that a nonsensical situation would still prevail at the end of the second year, the Government came back with the extraordinary provision, in clause 172, of a Lords amendment that states that, although a local authority will not be permitted to house people in permanent accommodation for more than two years in any three, the Secretary of State may, on the application of a local housing authority, allow it discretion to permit homeless persons to remain in permanent accommodation for a further period, provided that it does not exceed one year.
Lords amendment: No. 198, in page 98, line 15, leave out subsection (4)
"their duty is to provide the applicant with such advice and assistance as the authority consider is reasonably required to enable him to secure such accommodation."
That does not effectively close the loophole against Wandsworth or any similar-minded authorities but will allow an authority that does not want to accept its responsibilities to the homeless to refuse to assist them, on the ground that the authority--and only the authority--considers that it is possible for the applicant to find alternative accommodation. That is a dangerous part of the Bill, and if it were to stay on the statute book any length of time, it would allow local authorities to drive a coach and horses through their responsibilities to the homeless.
("that the accommodation was suitable for him and")
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |