| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Maddock: The situation for local authorities—housing authorities—up and down the country is different in different places, which is why the legislation should remain as stated in this Bill. For example, there are places where there is hard to let accommodation that might be suitable for single people. Until now, single people have not been eligible for housing by local authorities or registered social landlords. If we are to make best use of housing in some parts of the country—I recognise that this may not be the situation that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, finds in her area—we should not pass these amendments. In areas of high demand I realise that such provisions will never be enacted unless more affordable housing is somehow made available throughout the country rather than just within specific areas. In some areas, it may be that local authorities could help key workers with their hard to let properties. Some of the properties were built a long time ago, not to the standard that we tend to build today, which is why they are hard to let. Nevertheless, some younger, single people would be grateful for some of the properties I am referring to. I am afraid that I am not mindful—I sincerely hope that some of my colleagues agree—to support the amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. Different conditions apply in different local authority areas depending, as the noble Baroness says, on whether it is an area of high demand, as is the case obviously in the borough that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, knows best. Places such as Knowsley, Liverpool or parts of Manchester present a totally different picture.
Having said that, I appreciate the concern that those who have been accepted as statutorily homeless should not be given undue priority over those in housing need who seek local authority housing, particularly in the case of homeless people who do not have a priority need for housing.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that the new power in Clause 5(1), which she seeks to amend by Amendment No. 10 does not affect the preference or priority which must be given to applicants under an authority's allocation scheme. The new power, which will only be discretionary, will be equivalent to the duty owed to families and vulnerable persons who
have become homeless through no fault of their own. It will allow the authority to arrange for accommodation to be made available by another landlord or for the authority to provide accommodation itself. Where the authority chooses the latter course, the accommodation will generally be made available on a non-secure—that is, a temporary—basis. I say Xgenerally" because that is the default position under the legislation whenever an authority provides accommodation in pursuance of a homelessness function, and that will apply equally to the new power in Clause 5(1).Having said that, it would be open to an authority to decide to allocate a secure tenancy to a non-priority need homeless applicant, as now but, where it did so, the allocation would, as now, have to be made in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the 1996 Act and in accordance with the authority's published allocation scheme. It does not affect how it operates this allocation scheme, but it gives the local authority a greater power than it has now, and as now such allocations would not in future depend on the new power in Clause 5.
Amendment No. 11 relates to the new power inserted by Clause 5(2). This extends the existing provisions of Section 195 of the 1996 Act. Currently, where the authority is satisfied that the applicant is a priority need and is not satisfied that he became threatened with homelessness intentionally, then the authority is placed under a duty to take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.
The new power enables an authority to take similar reasonable steps in cases where the authority is not satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and is not satisfied that he became threatened with homelessness intentionally. An authority might discharge this duty or exercise the new power through the provision of mediation in cases of relationship breakdown or in helping resolve delays in the payment of housing benefit where these have led to rent arrears. Where the authority is successful in doing those things, then homelessness is averted, to the benefit both of the applicant and his landlord.
Amendment No. 11 would secure that in a case of accommodation not under the control of the authority, the authority could not exercise the proposed discretionary power unless all persons having an interest in the property in which the accommodation is located are in agreement with those steps.
Where an authority takes the reasonable steps I have just outlined and is able to promote a satisfactory resolution—satisfactory to all sides—then an unnecessary case of homelessness is averted. Having to secure the agreement of all persons having an interest in the property would significantly hinder the authority's ability to avert what would be on the hypothesis identified as an unnecessary case of homelessness. That is why Amendment No. 11 would not be helpful in that respect.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will consider my remarks and not press these amendments at a later stage.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I note the lack of support from Members of the Committee. I am not going to press the amendments, but I want to be quite clear in what the Minister says.
Somebody who owns a property will not necessarily have that property in the private sector. The pressure cannot be put on a private landlord to go against his will. There are situations where people do not pay their rent; they break up the flat; they cause an enormous amount of mischief; and one can well understand why the landlord may say enough is enough. The local authority may step in and, with the powers available in the Bill, say, XSorry, we have a right to deal with this and under those powers we are going to do so. We are going to make sure that this person stays in your flat or your accommodation". It cannot be right to use those powers in that way. There must be a right of agreement with the landlord and an understanding of the reasons why he might or might not wish to keep that letting available to somebody who is being supported by the local authority. If the Minister can satisfy me on that point, I shall not push the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I should make it absolutely clear that nothing in this power enables the local authority to interfere if the landlord has grounds for possession in the sort of example the noble Baroness gave, such as when a tenant is guilty of antisocial behaviour to his or her neighbours, or trashes the flat or house. It is not intended for one moment to provide compulsion on private landlords. It is also worth making the point that if an applicant is threatened with homelessness as a result of his or her antisocial behaviour, an authority can be expected to find that person intentionally threatened with homelessness. The existing duty and the proposed power apply only to cases in which the authority is not satisfied that the applicant became threatened with homelessness intentionally. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 12:
- After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that local authorities meet basic minimum standards in providing advice and assistance to non-priority homeless people. There is a certain amount of deja vu in this for me, because I moved an amendment about the same group of people when debating what became the Housing Act 1996.
Local authorities are under a duty to provide advice and assistance to help applicants who are not in priority need and who do not qualify for their main accommodation duty. However, there is much evidence—and I am sure that the Minister has read Shelter's document, Singles Barred—that in some cases authorities fail to provide any advice and assistance to that group and that what assistance is provided is often of very poor quality. For example, it is quite common for applicants simply to be given a list of bed-and-breakfast hostels. Many people—not just me, but others who work in the housing field—are concerned that a lot of very vulnerable people are slipping through the net. Applicants are not getting adequate support to enable them to find their own solution to their homelessness and, ultimately, more people will end up on the streets. We know the Government do not want that.
The amendment would set out a basic minimum standard on the face of the Bill that should be met regardless of the individual circumstances of the client or the local housing market. It would require local authorities to carry out an assessment of an applicant's needs, to provide appropriate information about the availability of accommodation, and to provide information about an applicant's right to review.
That is not a significant departure from the current legislation. However, it would require those authorities that are currently providing a rather poor level of service to meet their responsibilities and deliver what I believe is the intention of the Government in this area.
The Government have said that they do not believe that the law requires further amendment, but if they do not accept stronger duties, they should set out the steps that they intend to take to ensure that standards in this area are raised. If the Minister is not mindful to have that on the face of the Bill as we have put it down, the Government should consider a specific commitment in the national homelessness strategy, which the Government are to publish in the new year, perhaps a new performance indicator under the best value regime to monitor local authority performance in this area and stronger guidance, including a clear statement that this issue should be addressed by the homelessness strategy that will be developed under this Bill.
Let me explain the current situation. In some authorities the quality of advice and assistance is extremely variable and, in some cases, extremely poor. Sometimes people do not even have an interview.
Assessments of vulnerability are not made consistently and there is no doubt that some of them contravene the statutory guidance. Much of the written information provided by authorities is often out of date, such as the sort of information they give on bed and breakfast accommodation. Standards of safety—another issue we will talk about later on in the Bill—are also of concern. Sometimes applicants receive no verbal advice at all; it is only written. It is also clear that some of the people who will find themselves homeless may not be literate, which may be one of the reasons why they are in difficulty.
One of the other areas, to which we will return later in the Bill, is that many applicants do not receive a written notice of the authority's decision and they are not informed of their right to review. If the Government are serious about preventing homelessness, that is something we need to look at. I know the Government in another place responded by bringing forward their own amendment at a later stage to strengthen the statutory duty, but my colleagues and I still have some concerns.
This new clause responds to some of the arguments that were made in another place, and it requires authorities to meet three minimum requirements: an assessment of the applicant's housing and related needs, so failing to interview and assess the needs of applicants who appear vulnerable would be ruled out; appropriate and timely information about the availability of accommodation in the area, and I have outlined the problems we have with the sorts of information that some local authorities think is satisfactory; and information and advice about the applicant's right to review of a decision, which is something we shall talk about at another point in the Bill. That is what we hope to achieve by these amendments and I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
XPROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
A local authority, in providing (or securing the provision of) advice and assistance under sections 190(2)(b) and (3), 192(2) and 195(5) of the 1996 Act, shall ensure that—
(a) an assessment of an applicant's housing and related needs is carried out, and that the results of that assessment are taken into account in the provision of advice and assistance;
(b) appropriate and timely information is provided about the availability of accommodation in the area; and
(c) information and advice is provided about the applicant's right to a review of a decision under section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision)."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page