| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I undertake to keep a watchful eye on that, personally and on behalf of the department so that it continues beyond.
I have considered the question of best-value performance indicators before it was raised and I broadly take the view that this particular best-value performance indicator would be going much too far. If we had to have a best value performance indicator for this type of thing, we would have to have a great many, which ultimately would not be sensible or effective. However, I certainly give the undertaking that the noble Earl sought.
Baroness Hamwee: Before my noble friend responds, can the Minister help on this? He pointed us to the current legislation, as has the whole debate, referring to advice and assistance which a local housing authority considers appropriate and presumably reasonableness has to be imported into that. He reminded us of the change in the schedule which will take out the subjectivity. Is there in fact such a difference between the legislation as it now applies and as it will apply when this schedule comes into effect? Am I right that there has to be imported that degree of reasonableness into what a local housing authority considers appropriate? If so, does it make any difference what the guidance says in either of those two circumstances? Is there not the same problem? From the Minister's face it would seem that I am not making myself wholly clear!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand entirely what the noble Baroness is saying. Three points: first, there is a change because the provision, for the reasons
I stated, is now less subjective, as the noble Baroness acknowledges. Secondly, it is applicant specific. Thirdly—and this is not a change in legal principle—the authority is obliged to act reasonably in the context of Wednesbury reasonableness; it would have had to have done so before but the obligation is different.The final question was about the guidance. The guidance is not part of the statute but if a local authority acts flagrantly against the terms of the guidance, it would be relevant material in considering whether or not the local authority had acted Wednesbury reasonable.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his long answer. Various people have pointed out that good advice is key to the prevention of homelessness, which is one thing on which we can all agree. We can all also agree that there are many authorities that provide very good advice and a good pattern that we would like everybody to follow. The fact, however, is that they do not. We have heard examples this afternoon of authorities giving people poor quality advice—and I could offer many more if the Minister wants.
This is not about the amount of accommodation that local authorities have available. It is merely about a basic minimum standard of advice to people. I remind Members of the Committee that there are three minimum requirements: an assessment of housing and related needs; appropriate and timely information about the availability of accommodation in the area; and information and advice about the right to review.
The Minister said that this is going to be in guidance but the fact is that guidance has a much weaker legal status than what is written on the face of the Bill. That is why so many people in the housing world are very concerned. They are the people who pick up the pieces when the legislation does not work and that is why they are concerned to see something rather better on the face of the Bill.
I shall look in more detail at what the Minister said and we may return to it at another time. I still have concerns but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Events which cause the duty to cease]:
Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 13:
- Page 4, line 40, at end insert X, and states that the offer shall remain available for such period as the authority may determine is reasonable in all the circumstances"
The noble Baroness said: We have just had a discussion about reasonableness. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for local authorities to give homeless applicants a reasonable period of time within which to accept or refuse a final offer of accommodation. This issue was discussed in the last Housing Bill and in this Bill in another place. Homeless people are often given 24 or 48 hours to make a decision—not always, but I must emphasise that we are dealing here with where things do not go well rather than where people do give a reasonable
time—and a homeless person is not always in the best frame of mind to make a quick decision. If one has children one has to make decisions about where they are to go to school, and if one has relatives that need to be cared for there are quite a lot of things that need to be taken into account. It is important that we try to make sure that local authorities are genuinely reasonable in the amount of time that they give to applicants when they are offered accommodation.I suspect that when the Minister comes back there will be discussion about whether it is reasonable to talk about reasonableness in legislation. I point out that there are three other places in the Bill where reasonableness is mentioned. In Section (7F), when making an offer of assistance to a homeless applicant, the authority must be satisfied that it is Xreasonable". In Clause 13(10), notification of allocation decisions should be made available by the local authority, Xfor a reasonable period". Section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 states that a person is homeless if it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their accommodation. We have already had that discussion earlier this afternoon.
I do not intend to speak about this for long but it is important that we make sure that it is not acceptable for local authorities to give a short period of time to homeless people when they are considering offers. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is a reasonable point I want to make. In the context of giving advice to a person who is about to get accommodation, what is reasonable notice? I have an example of someone who was rung up one day, regrettably by the Westminster council, and who was told that they must accept the accommodation the next day. That is most unreasonable. I do not say that that happens only in Westminster; there could be other examples as well. The dilemma that the Committee and the Minister have is that if one day's notice is unreasonable, what is reasonable? Is it seven, 14 or three days? When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether thought has been given to that, or whether the councils will simply be told that they must be more reasonable than some of them have been in the past. In that context, we should also understand the problems that the noble Baroness has mentioned. In the example I gave it involved a single person and the question of children and work did not come into it. Nevertheless, the atmosphere in which such events occur is, XTake it or leave it". When the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, replies, I should be grateful to know what she considers to be Xreasonable" in this context.
Lord Fearn: I support the amendment put by my noble friend. Following what has already been said, it is essential that the staff, who should be fully trained, although at times they are not, should find out the state of health of the person who comes. The applicant fills in a form and speaks to one person or maybe two. There is no follow-up regarding the health side. As a previous MP, I have tackled many cases in my surgery where I realised that people were schizophrenic and not always able to act on their own but able to fill in
the form at the time. However, their health circumstances had never been investigated by those who were supposed to be trained in housing matters with the homeless. Will the Minister say whether the time limit of one, two or three days takes into consideration the health status of that person, especially when that involves a young, single person who has not declared his state of health at that time?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: It was not the reference to Westminster by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that has brought me to my feet. In fact, the very point to which he was alluding had already struck me during the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
- Xreasonable in all the circumstances".
The reason why I say that and would be hesitant about agreeing to her amendment, is because—as she reminded us in response to an amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lady Hanham, we are dealing with national rather than regional or local legislation—the circumstances will be very different from the point of view of local authorities around the country. If, as in Westminster, 80 per cent of vacant housing stock is needed for the statutory homeless or those in statutory priority need in the course of a year, that would mean running the rest of one's housing policy with 20 per cent. The pressures to get an answer from an applicant will be different from an authority where all its local authority housing is empty and it has all the time in the world.
I have a nervousness about the word Xreasonable" in any case. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, herself put up an amulet against the charge. The definition of an act of God in Blackstone's Law Dictionary as an act which no reasonable man would expect God to commit has always seemed to me in a sense to concentrate the mind on how sensible it is to use Xreasonableness" as the basis for a judgment of that sort.
I warmly commend Amendment No. 15 which I am sure will be spoken to in a moment by my noble friend Lady Hanham; it is quite astonishingly sensible. When I consider in the light of the words which the Home Secretary spoke yesterday—they appear to have got him into some trouble with some parts of the community—that there are people coming up to housing benefit appeals four years after they have arrived in this country and are not able to speak the language and would therefore presumably not be able to read the document which is being referred to here, the fact that there should be an allowance for having it read to him or her seems to be eminently sensible.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: Two amendments in this group appear in my name—Amendments Nos. 14 and 15—and I want to discuss them briefly. On Amendment No. 14, one of the significant aspects of this legislation is the removal of any time limits on temporary accommodation or on the acceptance and provision of acceptable permanent accommodation. Proposed new Section (7C) seems to compound the difficulties that will be faced by housing authorities in this regard by local authorities being able to reject, seemingly without constraint, any number of qualifying offers without any provision for judging whether that is a reasonable or lawful response. For the moment, the deletion of this provision seems the best way of providing those constraints. We may have a better opportunity to think about how to rephrase it.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, should be taken within the context of the fact that there are unlimited qualifying offers. When the final offer is made, somebody has run out of steam. Either the applicant has finally accepted the accommodation or the local authority has run out of ability to help them. We need to set the matter against that.
On Amendment No. 15, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville has already said, there should be no question that somebody has understood the words relating to the qualifying offer. I know it is common practice in Parliament to suggest that somebody should sign in relation to what they have read and understood. In relation to the world in which we are trespassing at the moment—those who are homeless and many of whom are vulnerable—it would be correct not to assume that they could have read. Indeed, somebody should have ensured that they understood the matter and that, if they could not read, it was read to them and in a manner in which they could understand it. If that means that they have to be read to in another language, so be it. That is what the amendment should cover.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page