New Clause
62
Eligibility
for housing assistance
‘In
section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (Persons from abroad not
eligible for housing assistance) omit paragraph
(b).’.—[Mr.
Love.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Love:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
I make no
apology for tabling these new clauses. As one of the co-chairmen of the
all-party group on homelessness and housing need, I suspect that it is
my responsibility above all others to ventilate current issues of
concern in respect of the legal situation as it applies to homeless
people, who are some of the most vulnerable people in society, which I
expect everyone in the House to
accept.
New clause 62
is a probing amendment. It would amend the Housing Act 1996. The
intention is to ensure that the law in respect of applications for
accommodation as homeless is in compliance with the European convention
on human rights. That is why I say that it is a probing amendment. I
wish to ventilate some of the issues around particular court cases that
have been decided
recently.
Let me take
the Committee back to the duty to accommodate that is laid on local
authorities. As stated earlier, there are four requirements: people
must be homeless, they have to be in priority need, they have to be
eligible for assistance, and they cannot be intentionally homeless.
Normally, an applicant who has dependent children would be in priority
need. However, section 185 of the 1996 Act
states:
“A
person from abroad who is not eligible for housing assistance shall be
disregarded in determining for the purposes of this Part whether
another person...has a priority need for
accommodation.”
We
all realise that children are often a gateway to being considered and
accepted as homeless by a local authority. An applicant’s child
can be an important consideration in the decision on homelessness. If
that child is subject to immigration control because he or she is not a
British citizen, that child may be disregarded for the purposes of
determining whether
the applicant has priority need—that is, if the person is a
British citizen or has the right to remain in the country but the child
does not, the child will be disregarded as far as the homelessness
legislation is concerned. Therefore, they will not have a priority
need, as decided by the local
authority. There have
been a number of court cases in relation to that, which have ended up
in the Court of Appeal. In one such case, the judge decided that where
a dependent child is subject to immigration control, albeit the parent
is not, the parent cannot establish a priority need for accommodation.
That is the current situation. It was held to be incompatible with
article 14 of the European convention on human rights by the Court of
Appeal.
The
judge decided that current legislation discriminated against the
British citizen, who was the applicant, with a dependent child subject
to immigration control. The Court of Appeal’s basic principle
was that immigration control has no legitimate bearing at all on a
British citizen. Therefore, if the applicant is a British citizen,
their rights are considered to override the decision to not include
their children, who are subject to immigration control. That is all
very complicated and I am certainly not a
lawyer.
I bring the
matter before the Committee because the expectation was that, having
made that determination, there was an opportunity to go to the House of
Lords over it, as the Government did not seek to pursue it. Therefore,
the expectation was that the law would be amended to bring it in to
compliance with the convention. That has not happened. I know that the
Government have given some reasons as to why not, particularly to the
parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, because it has
not happened, public or local authorities are obliged to continue
applying section 185, although it is deemed incompatible. The law
continues to discriminate against those British citizens with children
who are subject to immigration control. We need to try to resolve
that.
Have the
Government considered the situation and do they intend to bring the law
on homelessness into compliance with the European convention on human
rights? That is an important consideration. It is deemed that people
are being discriminated against by local authorities, and it is right
and proper that the House should determine that that should
stop.
Mr.
Wright:
As my hon. Friend says, far more eloquently than I
can, the new clause would reverse the situation with regard to
homelessness legislation by repealing the provision requiring local
housing authorities to disregard household members who are not eligible
for housing assistance when determining whether an eligible applicant
has a priority need for accommodation. The most likely reason that
household members would be ineligible is that they are subject to
immigration control—they are either here illegally, or have
leave to enter or remain in the UK, conditional on them not having
recourse to public
funds.
My hon. Friend
explained that the new clause would require local authorities to take
into account such ineligible household members. Those members would
therefore be able to confer priority need on the applicant. In those
cases where the applicant was also
unintentionally homeless, priority need would confer entitlement to the
main homelessness duty to secure accommodation. About 70 per
cent. of homeless acceptances generally have priority need conferred on
them by a pregnant spouse or partner, or by the presence of a dependent
child. In the first instance, homeless acceptances are likely to be
provided with temporary accommodation. For around 70 per cent. of
acceptances, the homelessness duty is ultimately brought to an end with
an offer of long-term social housing. My hon. Friend mentioned, quite
rightly, that the new clause has been prompted by the fact that the
courts have declared section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996
incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It requires
a pregnant member of a British citizen’s household, or a
dependent child, to be disregarded for the purposes of determining
whether the British citizen is homeless or has priority need, in cases
where the dependent child or pregnant household member is a person who
is ineligible for assistance.
I am not a
lawyer—I share that with my hon. Friend—but everyone can
see that this matter raises some difficult policy issues about
ineligible persons from abroad being able to confer entitlement to
housing on another person, as well as difficult legal issues concerning
human rights. I fully sympathise with him in tabling the new clause,
but in my opinion—and I stress, I am no lawyer—simply
repealing section 185(4)(b) is not the answer. We need to find the
right balance—an appropriate balance—between our strong
policy that persons from abroad who are not eligible for assistance
should not be able to confer entitlement on someone else, and the
requirements and conditions of the European convention on human
rights.
I assure my
hon. Friend that we will introduce a remedy as soon as we can, bearing
in mind the difficulties that we have in trying to compete with those
various policy and legal objectives. With that assurance, I hope that
he will not insist on the new clause.
Mr.
Love:
Despite the threat of incurring the wrath of the
Conservative party, I will say first and foremost that it is important
for the UK to comply with the European convention on human rights. We
have signed up to it and we should respect decisions that say that we
are not complying fully with it.
However, I accept what the
Minister says about the complexity of some of the issues, especially in
a case where a child may be in the country illegally, which raises very
serious issues. I also accept that there is good will on the part of
the Department, and that he has reflected on matters and they are still
being considered. They need to be looked at, and I hope that he will be
able to find a way forward that continues to strike the right policy in
a way that complies with the convention. If we can achieve both those
things, it will undoubtedly satisfy the concern expressed in the new
clause. I hope that he will do that, and I look forward to an early
statement at some point in relation to the matter. On that basis, I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New Schedule
1
‘SCHEDULE
Demolition
notices
Final
demolition notices
1. Schedule 5 to
the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (exceptions to the right to buy:
final demolition notices) is amended as
follows.
2(1) Paragraph 13
(final demolition notices) is amended as
follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph
(5) (period of validity of final demolition
notices)—
(a) omit the
“and” following paragraph
(a),
(b) in paragraph (b) for
“(7)” substitute “(7A)”,
and
(c) after paragraph (b)
insert “and
(c) the
provisions of paragraph
15A.”
(3) In
sub-paragraph (9) (certain references to landlord to include superior
landlord) after “15” insert “(other than paragraph
15(7A)”.
3(1) Paragraph
15 (extension or revocation etc. of final demolition notices) is
amended as follows.
(2) After
sub-paragraph (7) (revocation notices)
insert—
“(7A)
Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) do not apply if the landlord is selling or
otherwise transferring his interest as landlord to another person or is
offering it for sale or for other
transfer.”
(3) In
sub-paragraph (8) (restrictions on service of further
notices)—
(a) after
“in respect of it” insert “, by the landlord who
served the earlier notice or any landlord who served a continuation
notice in respect of the earlier
notice,”,
(b) after
“when the” insert “earlier”,
and
(c) in paragraph (a) for
“it” substitute “the further
notice”.
4. After
paragraph 15
insert—
“15A This
paragraph applies
if—
(a) a final
demolition notice is in force in respect of a dwelling-house,
and
(b) the landlord transfers
his interest as landlord to another
person.
(2) The final
demolition notice (“the original notice”) continues in
force but this is subject
to—
(a) paragraphs 13(5)
and 15, and
(b) the following
provisions of this
paragraph.
(3) Sub-paragraph
(4) applies if the
transferee—
(a) intends
to demolish the dwelling-house,
but
(b) has
not—
(i) served a
continuation notice, and
(ii)
complied with the conditions in sub-paragraphs (8) and
(10),
within the period of 2
months beginning with the date of
transfer.
(4) The transferee
must proceed under paragraph 15(4) as if the transferee has decided not
to demolish the dwelling-house (and paragraph 15(5) to (7) applies on
the same basis).
(5) A
continuation notice is a
notice—
(a) stating that
the transferee—
(i) has
acquired the interest concerned,
and
(ii) intends to demolish
the dwelling-house or (as the case may be) the building containing it
(“the relevant
premises”),
(b) setting
out the reasons why the transferee intends to demolish the relevant
premises,
(c) stating that one
of conditions A to C in paragraph 14 is satisfied in relation to the
original notice (specifying the condition
concerned),
(d) stating that the original notice is to continue
in force, and
(e) explaining
the continued effect of the original
notice.
(6) A continuation
notice may not vary the proposed demolition date in the original notice
nor the date when the original notice will cease to be in
force.
(7) Sub-paragraph (8)
applies if—
(a) the
dwelling-house is contained in a building which contains one or more
other dwelling-houses, and
(b)
the transferee intends to demolish the whole of the
building.
(8) The transferee
must serve a continuation notice on the occupier of each of the
dwelling-houses contained in the building (whether addressed to him by
name or just as “the
occupier”).
(9) An
accidental omission to serve a continuation notice on one or more
occupiers does not prevent the condition in sub-paragraph (8) from
being satisfied.
(10) Paragraph
13(7) and (8) apply in relation to the transferee’s intention to
demolish so as to impose a condition on the transferee for a notice to
appear within the period of 2 months beginning with the date of
transfer.
(11) Sub-paragraphs
(7) to (10) above apply instead of paragraph 13(6) to (8) in relation
to a final demolition notice so far as continued in force under this
paragraph.”
5. In
paragraph 16(1) (notices under paragraphs 13 and 15) for “or
15” substitute “, 15 or
15A”.
Initial
demolition notices
6. Schedule 5A to
the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (initial demolition notices) is
amended as follows.
7. In
paragraph 2(1) (period of validity of initial demolition notices) for
“paragraph 3” substitute “paragraphs 3 and
3A”.
8. In paragraph
3(1) (revocation of initial demolition notices: application of
paragraph 15(4) to (7) of Schedule 5 to that Act) for
“(7)” substitute
“(7A)”.
9. After
paragraph 3
insert—
“Transfer
of initial demolition notices
3A(1)
This paragraph applies
if—
(a) an initial
demolition notice is in force in respect of a dwelling-house,
and
(b) the landlord transfers
his interest as landlord to another
person.
(2) The initial
demolition notice (“the original notice”) continues in
force but this is subject
to—
(a) paragraphs 2 and
3, and
(b) the following
provisions of this
paragraph.
(3) Sub-paragraph
(4) applies if the
transferee—
(a) intends
to demolish the dwelling-house,
but
(b) has
not—
(i) served a
continuation notice, and
(ii)
complied with the conditions in sub-paragraphs (8) and
(10),
within the period of 2
months beginning with the date of
transfer.
(4) The transferee
must proceed under paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 5 as applied by
paragraph 3(1) above as if the transferee has decided not to demolish
the dwelling-house (and paragraph 15(5) to (7) of that Schedule as so
applied applies on the same
basis).
(5) A continuation
notice is a notice—
(a)
stating that the
transferee—
(i) has
acquired the interest concerned,
and
(ii) intends to demolish
the dwelling-house or (as the case may be) the building containing it
(“the relevant
premises”),
(b) setting
out the reasons why the transferee intends to demolish the relevant
premises,
(c) stating that the original notice is to continue
in force, and
(d) explaining
the continued effect of the original
notice.
(6) A continuation
notice may not vary the period specified in the original notice in
accordance with paragraph
1(1)(c).
(7) Sub-paragraph (8)
applies if—
(a) the
dwelling-house is contained in a building which contains one or more
other dwelling-houses, and
(b)
the transferee intends to demolish the whole of the
building.
(8) The transferee
must serve a continuation notice on the occupier of each of the
dwelling-houses contained in the building (whether addressed to him by
name or just as “the
occupier”).
(9) An
accidental omission to serve a continuation notice on one or more
occupiers does not prevent the condition in sub-paragraph (8) from
being satisfied.
(10) Paragraph
13(7) of Schedule 5 applies in relation to the transferee’s
intention to demolish so as to impose a condition on the transferee for
a notice to appear within the period of 2 months beginning with the
date of transfer; and paragraph 2(3) above applies for this
purpose.
(11) Sub-paragraphs
(7) to (10) above apply instead of paragraph 2(2) and (3) in relation
to an initial demolition notice so far as continued in force under this
paragraph.”
10(1)
Paragraph 4 (restrictions on service of further notices) is amended as
follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph
(2) (further initial demolition
notices)—
(a) after
“dwelling-house” insert “, by the landlord who
served the relevant notice or any landlord who served a continuation
notice in respect of the relevant notice,”,
and
(b) in paragraph (a) for
“it” substitute “the further
notice”.
(3) In
sub-paragraph (3) (final demolition
notices)—
(a) after
“dwelling-house” insert “, by the landlord who
served the relevant notice or any landlord who served a continuation
notice in respect of the relevant notice,”,
and
(b) in paragraph (a) for
“it” substitute “the final demolition
notice”.
11. In
paragraph 5 (notices under Schedule 5A) for “or 15”
substitute “, 15 or
15A”.
12. In paragraph
6(1) (interpretation) after “Schedule” insert
“(other than paragraph
3A)”.
Transitional
provision
13. This Schedule does not
apply to notices served before the coming into force of the
Schedule.’.—[Mr.
Wright.]
Brought
up, read the First time, and added to the
Bill.
Clause 61
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 62
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
