New Clause
10
Disability
equality duty
‘(1) The
Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties)
Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2966/2005) are amended as
follows.
(2) In Regulation
2(3)(d)(iii) for “Part I or V of Schedule 1” substitute
“Part I, V or VI of Schedule
1”.
(3) After Regulation
2(6)(d)
insert—
“(e) in
the case of a public authority listed in Part VI of Schedule 1, 1st
December 2009”.
(4)
After Part V of Schedule 1 insert the following new
Part—
“Part
VI
Authorities
added by Housing and Regeneration Act
2008
The Homes and Communities
Agency
The Regulator of Social
Housing.”.’.—[Sir George
Young.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Sir
George Young:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a
Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 10, in clause 173, page 68, line 6, at end
insert—
‘(c) the nature and
extent of activities they should undertake in pursuance of their duties
under section 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
(c.50).’.
Sir
George Young:
I hope that this will be a brief debate. The
purpose of the new clause is to extend the duty to produce a disability
equality scheme for the two new bodies that are set up by the
Bill—the HCA and the regulator of social housing. The Committee
will know that disability discrimination legislation came into force in
December 2006. It places a duty on certain public authorities to
produce a disability equality scheme. The HCA’s predecessor,
English Partnerships, has been under specific duties to promote
disability equality. The Minister implied that the Government were
going to do what the new clause does when he
said:
“We will
table consequential amendments in due course to amend schedule 1A to
the Race Relations Act 1976, to include the regulator and the HCA. The
Disability Discrimination Act 1995...as amended by the
Equality Act 2006, now contain a general duty that applies to all
public authorities.”——[Official Report, Housing
and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008;
c. 184.]
Will the
Minister clarify when we are going to see those consequential
amendments? Will he confirm that those two bodies will have specific
duties to promote disability equality, as well as the general duty?
Will the HCA be added to the list of bodies subject the specific
duties, and will he set out a
timetable?
Mr.
Wright:
The Minister for Housing has written to the
Committee explaining our intentions regarding the equalities duties in
primary legislation, following a degree of probing in the oral evidence
sessions in December. She was clear that, in relation to the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995, there is no need for further legislative
amendment as the Act contains a general duty that applies to all public
authorities.
I would
like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members that we also
intend to amend the Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities)
(Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005 by order during the transition
period from the existing bodies to the Homes and Communities
Agency—that is the key point on timetabling. That will ensure
that the Homes and Communities Agency is subject to the specific duty.
Primary legislation is not necessary to do that. We also intend to
amend the regulations pertaining to sexual discrimination, so that the
agency is subject to the same specific duties under those regulations.
I
imagine that the same timetable will apply. I hope that he will see that
we intend to do very much as he wishes and more in the
future. There may be
some confusion regarding amendment No. 10. It would certainly not
achieve its outlined purpose as currently worded. Clause 173(1)
outlines the general area in which the regulator can set standards,
which is basically on social housing and services connected to social
housing. The amendment would not impose a statutory duty. It would not
require the regulator to do anything. It is also far too detailed to be
included in clause
173(1).
There may also
be some confusion over the status of housing associations and the
coverage of the disability equality duty. This applies only to public
authorities like the regulator; it does not apply to housing
associations, which the right hon. Gentleman knows are independent,
non-public bodies. I lay that down as a marker for consideration next
week.
Housing
associations therefore have no duties under the section 49A of the
Disability Discrimination Act. The Housing Corporation currently
encourages them to voluntarily follow that duty and produce a
disability equality scheme. Its regulatory code addresses disability
and equal opportunity
issues.
I hope that I
have addressed the right hon. Gentleman’s points, reassured him
as to our direction of travel—I think we are in the same car on
this—and I hope he withdraws the
motion.
Sir
George Young:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
11
Choice-based
disability housing
register
‘(1) The Housing Act
1996 is amended as follows.
(2)
After section 167(2E)
insert—
“(2F)
Subject to subsection (2), the scheme shall contain provision for the
creation of a disability housing register consisting
of—
(a) a record of
existing or planned accessible residential properties in the local
authority area, whether purpose built or adapted, with details of the
access features relating to each property and location details and
other residential properties which would otherwise meet the particular
requirements of disabled
persons;
(b) a record of
disabled persons who require such
properties;
(c) a service of
enabling and supporting disabled persons to bid for properties so
recorded and
(d) a mechanism
for ensuring such persons are accorded priority status for such
properties within the allocations
process.
(2G) For the purposes
of this
section—
“accessible
residential properties” means dwellings, flats and houses in
multiple occupation in England and Wales which provide a reasonable
means of access in and around the property and ease of use for disabled
persons or which may easily be adapted to provide such access and ease
of use;
“residential properties which would otherwise
meet the particular requirements of disabled persons” means
properties which would be suitable, either in terms of their size,
particular features or location, for disabled persons who have
disability-related requirements other than or in addition to access
requirements.
(2H) This section
is without prejudice to the right of disabled persons to bid for
properties other than those mentioned in subsections 2F and 2G
above.
(2I) In performing their
duties under this section, each local housing authority shall have
regard to any guidance given from time to time by the appropriate
authority.’.—[Sir George
Young.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Sir
George Young:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a
Second
time.
Again,
I hope that this debate need not be too protracted. The new clause
would introduce choice-based disability housing registers. Disability
organisations are very keen on that and they want local authorities to
set up accessible housing registers as part of choice-based lettings.
Accessible housing registers would gather consistent data on vacant
accessible or adapted homes and ensure that the properties are let to
disabled people who need those features and that they are given
priority over others in the bids for them. This would save money by
ensuring that more efficient use is made of existing accessible and
adapted housing. Unless local authorities operate something like that,
all the evidence is that disabled people in housing will wait longer
than non-disabled people for a property that meets their needs.
Disabled people can be placed in residential care or face longer stays
in hospital while an accessible property is found. Many adapted houses
are let to non-disabled people as a housing department strives to meet
some of the targets that the Government invite them to meet in void
turnaround times. Often that is because they cannot locate a suitable
prospective tenant within the time
limit.
Research shows
that for lettings in the social housing sector, on average only one in
six wheelchair-standard dwellings was let to a household containing a
wheelchair user despite an overwhelming demand for wheelchair-standard
property from wheelchair users. That is a frightening statistic and an
economic and social waste. If adapted property is not used efficiently,
it leads to adaptations being ripped out and thrown away, in contrast
to the ballooning demand for disabled facilities grants, to which the
Minister
referred.
In
a nutshell, operating one of those registers would enable a more
efficient allocations process by more accurately matching people to a
property that meets their needs. It would provide more accurate
information on future and current housing demand, and that information
would inform the local authority’s assessment of future housing
need in their area. It would save money by enabling a disabled person
to move out of a hospital or residential care more quickly. It would
also enable the recycling of adaptations as the register would identify
those who needed them. The late Disability Rights Commission calculated
that if all local authorities in England had operated one of those
registers in 2006, more than £70 million could have been saved,
money that could have been reinvested in meeting housing
need.
I understand
that the Government do not know how many local authorities have these
registers. The
disability equality scheme includes a commitment to establish what the
role is for AHRs within the context of choice-based letting. It seems
that there is a mismatch between properties available and the needs of
those looking for them. There should be more of these registers. It
would help if the Government could shed some light on where they are
heading in this important
area. 6.15
pm
Alistair
Burt:
I rise to support the general tenor of my right hon.
Friend’s remarks. I am not aware that local authorities have
quotas for the number of houses that should be available. I had an
issue recently with one of my own local planning authorities on behalf
of a constituent where it was difficult to ascertain whether there were
sufficient properties in the area available for those with
disabilities. The council quite properly believes it is providing for
the reasonable needs of those in the area but it was difficult to work
out quotas or anything else because no accurate figure
exists.
This all fits
with remarks I made earlier about the issues of an ageing society where
more people are in need of that sort of property. Our general approach
is to try to be transparent and permissive and the proposal would help
by making information available for organisations and individuals. It
would assist local authorities without necessarily demanding or
requiring that they adhere to a fixed number, which might change at any
stage. We could all do with such information.
If the Minister is not minded
to amend the legislation perhaps he might indicate how, through some
other form of guidance, the information might be made available to the
public, because it would help developers, local authorities and those
with responsibility for the provision of housing in the future. It
would certainly help individuals or families who are looking for
information about what is available in their area and would give a
general sense of the sort of issues we face, and the number of
properties that might be needed. It would be valuable information, some
of which might surprise the general public. If they were aware of just
how acute the need was, they might realise that provision was not
nearly as great as they
thought.
Andrew
George:
I hope the Minister will address the question of
what legal restrictions under present regulation there are on local
authorities to apply such a disability housing register—in other
words, to favour someone with a disability for whom a property would be
appropriate even though otherwise they have a lower housing need than
someone else on the housing register. In implementing a decision to
favour someone with a lesser housing need, and thus a lesser rating,
what are the restrictions on local authorities at present?
I fully endorse
everything that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said but
it would be very helpful if the Minister could give clarification,
which could be conveyed to many local authorities that do not much
differentiate in their decisions on properties—often scarce
properties—that are already adapted to meet the needs of a
disabled person.
Mr.
Wright:
I rise with trepidation to respond to a debate
which includes a former housing Minister, the right hon. Member for
North-West Hampshire, and a former Minister for Social Security and
Disabled People, the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire—very good Ministers, given their political
complexion.
I have
enjoyed the debate and understand and appreciate fully the sentiments
behind the amendment. I recognise that, as the right hon. Gentleman and
others have eloquently said, it is of enormous importance that people
with disabilities and access needs are housed appropriately.
We have mentioned the
disabilities facilities grant a number of times today. Each year, that
programme helps about 35,000 disabled and older people to live safely
and independently in their homes by making adaptations and improvements
such as wheelchair ramps, stairlifts and downstairs bathrooms. I have
mentioned the increase in funding from £57 million in 1997 to
£138 million in 2007-08, rising to £146 million next
year.
I
appreciate how important it is that disabled people looking for social
housing have the right level of priority for housing that meets their
needs, and I hope that addresses the point that the hon. Member for St.
Ives touched on in his contribution. That is why the Government
recently amended the legislation governing how housing authorities
allocate social housing to make it clear that giving reasonable
preference for an allocation—giving priority for local authority
housing to people who have medical and welfare grounds for moving
house—includes people who have to move because of a disability.
The amendment in section 223 of the Housing Act 2004 came into force in
April 2005 and was intended to meet concerns that the term
“medical grounds” was being interpreted too narrowly by
some local authorities and that people with disabilities were being
disadvantaged as a result.
The
Government want local authorities and social landlords to make the best
use of housing stock, including accommodation that is accessible or has
been adapted. I recognise that the so-called accessible housing
registers can be useful in that regard. However, I frankly do not
believe that forcing local authorities to compile registers is the
right way forward. I believe that it would be burdensome and could be
counterproductive; rather, it should be for local authorities—to
return to the point about local discretion—to decide whether a
register would meet their local needs and, if so, to set it up in a way
that best suits those
needs.
Furthermore,
although I appreciate that information about the overall stock of
accessible housing can be useful, I believe it is more important for
disabled people to have information about suitable, accessible property
that is actually available to them. The Government see the merits of
disabled housing registers and have taken a number of steps to
encourage local authorities to adopt that approach. The current code of
guidance on allocations recommends that housing authorities maintain
lists of properties that are suitable for disabled people and other
special needs groups.
The draft choice-based lettings
code of guidance, which we issued for consultation last year, builds on
that approach and provides detailed advice on how to
incorporate accessible housing within a choice-based lettings scheme and
encourages local authorities to maintain lists and databases of
accessible housing. It also advises on the type of information that
should be contained in such databases. My Department’s
disability equality scheme, which was published last December, included
a commitment to examine the role and effectiveness of disabled housing
registers within the context of our choice-based lettings policy. My
officials will commission that work in the next few weeks, with a view
to issuing good practice by the end of the year. The
Department’s disability equality scheme is also committed to the
development of the national register of social housing, which sets a
national standard for measuring accessibility and calls on social
housing landlords to produce consistent accessibility information for
each dwelling by April
2010.
Furthermore,
anecdotal information suggests that local authorities are recognising
the benefits of accessible housing registers and that take-up is
increasing. We have just announced that we are making available an
extra £168,000 to assist in implementing a London-wide
accessible housing register as part of the pan-London choice and
mobility scheme called Capital
Moves.
The London
accessible housing register was launched last September and will be
implemented over the next 18 months. I pledge to the Committee and to
the hon. Member for St. Ives that I will ensure that good practice
emerging from that exercise is spread to other social landlords to
encourage and assist them in implementing an accessible housing
register.
Although I
recognise that it can be useful to have information about the stock of
accessible housing in a district, I have found that disabled people
really want to know whether the house or flat that is available to rent
meets their access needs. The key lies with social landlords adopting
letting schemes that offer tenants more of a say in choosing where they
live. Under a choice-based lettings approach, landlords can ensure that
the advert for an accessible vacancy specifies the type and level of
adaptation and who was allowed to bid for the property. Local
authorities could thus ensure that accessible housing was prioritised
for disabled people, who could then choose housing that met their
individual and specified access needs. That is the best way to make
sure, as far as possible, that disabled people are matched to suitable
housing.
The
new clause would require local authorities to put in place a service to
support disabled people in bidding for properties on the register of
accessible properties. We recognise that some people with disabilities
may need additional assistance or support to take part in a
choice-based letting scheme, which is why we introduced a provision in
the Homelessness Act 2002 that required housing authorities to ensure
that such assistance is available free of charge. The draft statutory
CBL code of guidance, to which I referred a moment or two ago, provides
detailed advice on how local authorities can support disabled people
and enable them successfully to take part in CBL schemes. The good
practice that we are commissioning will back that up with practical
guidance, drawing on the experience of choice-based letting schemes,
so, with the greatest respect to the right
hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, that aspect of the new clause adds
nothing to what the Government are already
doing. Finally, the
new clause envisages local authorities maintaining a register of
disabled people. In the Homelessness Act 2002 the Government repealed
the duty to maintain a register of housing applicants. It would seem to
go against the grain of moving towards minimum regulation and minimum
added burdens, to introduce an obligation on housing authorities to
maintain a register of disabled applicants
only.
I hope that I
have set out the Government’s intentions in detail—we are
probably on the same page with both the right hon. Gentleman and the
hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman
will withdraw the
motion.
Sir
George Young:
That was a hopeful response. I detect that
the Committee wishes to make progress. I was pleased to hear what the
Minister said about promoting good practice, so against the background
of that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
| 
