---

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I turn to Amendment No. 13, which is about the time in which the applicant has to consider the final offer of accommodation. It is very important that, when making that offer which will bring the homelessness duty to an end, the applicants have adequate time to consider the offer. The specific period of time necessary to allow this to happen will, inevitably, be different in different cases, depending, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said on the circumstances both of the applicant and of the local authority. The circumstances of the applicant which are potentially relevant to that consideration will, to deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, include the health, both physical and mental, of the applicant.

What is the right period of time? Under the law as it stands at the moment, local authorities must already give people a reasonable period to consider offers. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is not suggesting a specified period of time and I believe she is right in relation to that, because the moment you put a

10 Dec 2001 : Column CWH31

specified period of time on the face of the Bill as a minimum period, that becomes the operational period. What she suggests we say is already the law. That deals with the point raised by the two noble Lords to whom I have referred. Should it be put on the face of the Bill? If you put it on the face of the Bill, the very real danger here is that such a provision would be interpreted as meaning that a reasonable period must be allowed for considering final offers but need not be allowed in respect of any other offers. That would not be an acceptable outcome.

I suggest the right course in relation to this is that—it having been made clear in the remarks I have just made which I shall be happy to make again on Report—the law as it stands must already give people a reasonable period to consider offers. The only additional protection that is then required and is sensible is that that should be spelt out in statutory guidance and, of course, I give a commitment to this Committee and thence to the House that this will be done. Authorities must by law have regard to such statutory guidance in exercising their allocation functions under Part 7 of the 1996 Act. Where they do not have regard to it, or they have regard to it but choose not to follow it, they are liable to have to justify their position to the courts, if challenged. I hope that deals with the specific point raised by the noble Baroness under Amendment No. 13.

Amendment No. 14 was dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in her most recent remarks. That would cut across the main aim of the Bill, which is to strengthen the protection available to families with children and vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own. The current provisions in Part 7 of the 1996 Act contribute to the uncertainty faced by such households. Even though they may have a priority need for accommodation, if the housing authority knows that privately rented accommodation is available in the district, it can do no more than offer assistance to the household regardless of how vulnerable it may be. Even where the authority has a duty to secure accommodation, that duty is limited to just two years.

One of the aims of the Bill is to remove that uncertainty. Authorities will have an obligation to ensure that suitable accommodation is available until a more settled housing solution can be found. Not only is the experience of homelessness traumatic but the experience of making an application under the homelessness legislation is not always a pleasant one, particularly in hard-pressed areas where the demand for housing is high. With pressures as they are, the household may have to endure a fairly lengthy period in temporary accommodation which may, all too often now, include a spell in bed and breakfast accommodation.

So those turning to local authorities for help will normally be in pretty desperate straits. Many households who experience homelessness do so because of a number of underlying problems and

10 Dec 2001 : Column CWH32

difficulties, which means that they are likely to be vulnerable to homelessness again unless they can be found a home which is settled, affordable and secure.

The Bill has removed the time limit on the duty to secure accommodation for those who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need. That does not mean that it is a duty to secure permanent accommodation; it is a duty to secure accommodation until a more settled solution can be found. For many applicants that solution is likely to be an allocation of a social tenancy under Part VI of the 1996 Act.

There are other solutions and the authority should and no doubt will explore those other options. The Bill makes specific provision for the homelessness duty to end if the applicant accepts an offer of an assured tenancy. It also makes provision for the duty to be capable of being brought to an end by an assured shorthold tenancy, recognising that the private sector has a role to play here. An assured shorthold tenancy is not, however, going to be the right solution for all applicants.

The accommodation may be technically suitable but many tenancies are for a limited period only and may not be capable of offering the long-term form of security of tenure that some vulnerable homeless households need. Those authorities in the vanguard of best practice in meeting the needs of homeless families will already be carefully considering which of their homeless applicants will be capable of sustaining an assured shorthold tenancy in the private sector. They will not press those who are less well equipped to do so.

The new Section 193(7)(c) of the 1996 Act inserted by Clause 7 of the Bill will provide a safeguard which ensures that those applicants who do not consider that an assured shorthold tenancy would provide them with a settled housing solution would not have to accept it. That is the right position to adopt; it is entirely consistent with the theme of the Bill, which is to provide more protection for families and vulnerable people. I urge the noble Baroness, when the opportunity arises, not to press this amendment.

Finally, Amendment No. 15 seeks to protect the position of applicants who, for whatever reason, would be unable to read a statement from the local housing authority about the qualifying offer. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. I give an undertaking to consider it and come back with some form of solution to the problem at Report stage because a solution is clearly required. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, who is not here, but also, more importantly, to the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, who is.

Baroness Maddock: That was going to be my first point. I am grateful to the Minister for his lengthy reply and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It reflects on some of the reasons as to why it is unsatisfactory for people to make hasty decisions. I should apologise to Members of the Committee: I thought it would take up too much time to explain why this was necessary and I should perhaps have outlined the sort of circumstances I had in mind.

10 Dec 2001 : Column CWH33

The reason for not putting a specific time on it was to reflect that it will be different in different places. I am thinking mostly about the people who are homeless, admittedly, but as I said earlier on, different authorities are naturally in different positions to make offers. I was thinking about situations where, for instance, a family is offered accommodation that simply does not meet its needs—it may be too small or in the wrong place. Those are the sort of things I meant.

Another situation that often arises is that a homeless family will be told that it has a local authority offer—it may be a local authority empty property, an empty property that the authority plans to use in the private sector or a registered social landlord's empty property—but the applicant is not in fact told that the authority will do the repairs and so forth. A family may think that it cannot possibly live in such accommodation without realising the full circumstances, which is why sometimes it is important that there is a little time to go into the questions that are in people's minds about a particular property. If somebody is in work, they may have to go a long way to view the property. I have already explained the problems of carers' duties and schools. That is a little wide of my thinking on the amendment, but I am grateful to the Minister for going into it in detail. I will look at what he has said in due course.

Similar amendments were tabled in another place by the Conservatives, because this is an issue that concerns people. As with previous amendments, we all know what we want to happen, but we have to work out how to make the legislation work on the ground and not leave loopholes for those who do not want to help people. That is the aim of the amendment. I shall look more closely at what the Minister said and we may return to the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 5, leave out lines 6 and 7.

The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister for what he has said about Amendment No. 14, but I would like to look at it a little further. It may be that my amendment is not correct. Throughout the Bill I am concerned about the lack of time constraints on applicants. There are no limits on how many offers they may turn down. I appreciate that this is a qualifying offer and it is specific under the statute, but applicants will be able to go on refusing offers. That could result in an enormous amount of time being spent on one homeless applicant when there are enormous numbers of others and, as we have already said, limited suitable accommodation. This may not be entirely the right place to raise the subject and I shall withdraw the amendment, but I will come back to it in a different way. I beg to move.

---