| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and share experience with him, both in London local authority work and as a Member of Parliament. Apart from during evacuation, parts of my education, service in the Army and periods abroad, I have lived in London all my life. Therefore my perspective is essentially a London one. I feel deep compassion for those who have been alluded to by those who have already spoken. That applies both to the indigenous population and, a fortiori, to asylum speakers and refugees when confronted with the problem they have seeking housing in frequently dreadful circumstances.
I tell the following anecdote to illustrate that this is not a simple problem. I will make it totally local. I refer to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and to the City of Westminster. It is perfectly possible for the Royal Borough to put one of its housing cases into Westminster and equally possible that, simultaneously, even on the same day, Westminster is putting somebody into the Royal Borough. An immediate problem arises in parliamentary terms as to who the representatives for those people then are. Do people who have moved into the Royal Borough then look to the Member of Parliament for that constituency and do those who have been moved into Westminster look to the Westminster MP? It is a fact that the first most likely thing that they will want to consult their MP about will be their housing situation and, secondly, if they are asylum seekers, their problems with the Home Office, which, broadly speaking, in the last Parliament gave up communicating with asylum seekers so that all communication was done through Members of Parliament.
In those circumstances, the person who has the problem ideally should deal with the Member of Parliament for the housing authority that has put him or her into a borough other than their own. On the other hand, all the traditions of the House of Commons operate in the opposite direction. When I consulted the Speaker, my Chief Whip and the chairman of the Procedure Committee, all of them said that the matter should be dealt with by the Member of Parliament representing the constituency in which the person concerned lives.
That is all right provided that everybody accepts that principle, but there are 74 London Members of Parliament who tend to act arbitrarily and independently. Therefore on the advice of the Speaker, the Chief Whip and the chairman of the Procedure Committee that we should stick by the existing rule, I acted as a shop steward for the Conservative Members of Parliament and secured agreement that that was what we would do. I then sought, through my parliamentary neighbour, Karen Buck, who was the chairman of the parliamentary group of Labour MPs in London, that we would all agree to do the same thing. It was clear that the system would not work if some of us were using one practice and some another. I pay the greatest possible tribute to Karen Buck, but she was not able to get a definitive answer out of the parliamentary group of Labour MPs before the general election was called, so, for all I know, the problem is still unresolved.
I only tell that anecdote to demonstrate that if Members of Parliament, who are at the sharp end of the problem and who feel the compassion that I have indicated here, are incapable of organising a system among themselves to which they will all subscribe, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, I have the greatest sympathy for the local authority staff who also have to deal with the problem. I have sympathy too for the
officials behind the Minister who are trying to run a system when it is so difficult to get common sense to prevail in the way we operate.
Baroness Hanham: Very briefly, if I may address the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. As I see it, Sections 190 and 192 address those who are homeless but are not considered as being priority need, or who are homeless intentionally. They are a specific part of this Bill and the other Act. Those sections already provide an explicit requirement for local authorities to provide advice, to take into account the local housing provision and to ensure that advice and assistance is given to anybody who makes an application to them.
The amendment would have two effects. First, it would slightly widen what local authorities are meant to do, by making them responsible for making an assessment of the person and ensuring that that assessment is taken into account when they give advice. Secondly, it draws attention to the review that is now put into the Bill. That seems sensible. As a member of a local authority, I understand that some councils are better than others. My local authority or that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, may not need such advice, but others may, so I am not opposed to the widening of the existing wording.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has pointed out, the amendment prescribes what advice and assistance local authorities should give to homeless people. I agree straight away with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that advice and assistance for homeless people, including non-priority applicants, is an important part of local authorities' housing work. That is why the Xsatisfactory provision of support"—meaning advice, information and assistance—is specified in Clause 3(1)(c) as one of the areas that the homelessness strategies must cover.
However, we have gone further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, acknowledged, by including other provisions to strengthen the advice and assistance duty on authorities. Those provisions are set out in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11(b) of Schedule 1. Instead of advice and such assistance as the authority considers appropriate in the circumstances, the duty will be to provide or secure the provision of advice and assistance in any attempts that an applicant makes to secure accommodation. The provision is less subjective.
An authority acting reasonably—and they will all be obliged to act reasonably—will have to consider the advice and assistance that it should give in the particular attempts made by the applicant. It will necessarily have to take account of what the applicant needs to pursue those attempts, as well as the extent of any advice and assistance that it can reasonably be expected to provide. The requirement is in effect applicant-specific.
I imagine that the noble Baroness has in mind cases in which, as a matter of form, all that is ever given is a list of names and addresses of landlords and nothing
more. It is because the law or the terms of the Bill have been changed to make it clear the duty will be to provide or secure the provision of advice and assistance in any attempts an applicant makes to secure accommodation that the move is made from the general to the specific. The level of detail of the advice and assistance required by the amendment is too prescriptive on local authorities and would not be appropriate or helpful. We will of course cover the issue of advice and assistance in the statutory guidance which will accompany the Bill and we will deal with all the matters I have gone through. With respect, that is probably the most helpful way to do it, rather than sticking particular provisions in the Bill. What we have done instead, which is much more fundamental, is to change the form of the Bill so that the advice and assistance that has to be given is to secure,
- Xthe provision of advice and assistance",
Let me deal with two other points that have been made. A point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It was, in effect, that there is a real problem here because there is a great shortage of accommodation and one therefore pities the local authority staff who have to provide advice and assistance.
Housing investment has gone up in recent years. The Housing Corporation's budget for new, affordable housing will double between 2001–02 and 2003–04, with an extra #872 million. An extra #250 million has gone into the starter homes initiative. Resources for local authority investment have gone up from #750 million in 1997-98 to #2.5 billion by 2003–04. About #137 million is going into a new, safer community-supported housing fund. The figures have gone up dramatically over the past four years and will continue to go up, pursuant to spending plans already announced. I do not suggest that there will not continue to be a problem of homelessness but the investment is going upwards. Having said that, it will not be enough to provide for all the needs of homeless people in this country and that is why it is so important to reach a sensible legal arrangement of what the safety net consists of.
The second point I should deal with is whether there should be a new performance indicator in the best value arrangements in relation to the provision of advice and assistance. In the context of local government arrangements, the Government have made it clear that it is unhelpful to have a huge range of targets with which local authorities have to comply. There is always a temptation, in every area, to want a best value performance indicator in relation to that because, in every area, one thinks that would be the way to improve standards. All the views that we receive from local government are to the effect that the quantity of best-value performance indicators is not necessarily the way to drive up performance. It is far better to target those best-value performance indicators on a small number of areas to have the desired effect. It may well be that, in particular local
authority areas, it would be sensible to have a best-value performance indicator, chosen in effect by the local authority as an appropriate course to take—which they can do. Nationally, however, I do not think it would achieve the effects that Members of the Committee hoped for.I hope I have dealt with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The way that the arrangements have been changed mean that we are dealing with a fundamental point. Prescription on the face of the Bill is not the way forward. We will deal with many of the points in the guidance. Best-value performance indicators may not be the panacea in every area that people think and one should be more sensible about where one targets them.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point about best value targets, will the Minister undertake to keep a watchful eye on that? I suppose that it would be possible for those local authorities that are already doing a good job in this area to set best-value targets in this particular area, and for those local authorities that are already failing in this area not to set the best-value targets. Just in case there is a danger of the proposal slipping by, would the Minister keep an eye on the matter and perhaps come back to it at a later stage? I hope that he will do so in a year's time or whatever, and not in the Bill.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page