| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his long reply to many different amendments. As I said earlier, our main concern is that housing needs should remain a priority for lettings and transfer policies. Those are the precise words used by the Government in their housing Green Paper some time ago. I quote again from the housing Green Paper,
- XAny decision to suspend applications would need to take account of the circumstances of the household in order to safeguard vulnerable groups such as those with mental or behavioural problems, or the children of families concerned. We would expect suspensions to be exceptional and that other ways of managing problems or risks may be more appropriate in many cases".
Other groups, including the National Housing Federation—of which I should have declared that I am a vice-president, although I do not have to do an awful lot in that role—the Local Government Association and Shelter, support the amendments. They have to deal with the situation. At this stage, I have to withdraw the amendment and I shall not be moving the others in the group, but I would be grateful if the Minister could undertake to consult a little wider with those groups, because they are of the opinion that perhaps we should have amendments along those lines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Applications for housing accommodation]:
7 p.m.
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 26:
- Page 10, line 7, at end insert Xand shall be entered in a register complying with the requirements of Schedule (Housing Applications Register) to this Act"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 26 is grouped with Amendment No. 40. There will be no great tears shed at the necessity to keep a housing register of all those who for whatever reason are involved in a local authority's housing. In most cases the register grows as numbers on it grow and those moving off it are of limited extent. It has always been the case, and will continue to be so, that local authorities will have to make decisions on allocations against the background of priority needs. The points system for such allocations is becoming increasingly complex and difficult. Some authorities, however, including my own, have been running common registers between them, registered social landlords and
even with private landlords who are working with the authority. These formed a real basis for ensuring that lettings were made on a basis which prevented too many people with multiple social needs being placed together in one small community.The extension of these priority categories, and the emphasis that will be placed upon them rather than on those who have non-priority requirements, will assist local authorities which still prioritise who receives the limited accommodation available. There must be some statutory requirement to record the allocations made and the decisions implemented. The suggested wording of Schedule 1A, which is included in Amendment No. 40, would provide guidance for that. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendments seek to restore a statutory requirement for housing authorities to have a register of applications for allocation of accommodation. This cuts across the thrust of the Bill which is to encourage authorities to move away from fixed registers and consider more flexible ways of operating their allocation schemes, which can enable them to offer more choice to those who seek a social housing tenancy.
Baroness Hanham: May I intervene? I may not have made myself clear. What I believe is required is not the traditional housing register where everybody went on in date order and the points rammed up. I suggest that for all those to whom the authority appears to have an obligation and whom they are treating as homeless persons or priorities, the decisions that are made must be recorded. It is not a case of keeping a list against which it works but rather one that records what happens, who is treated and dealt with, what housing allocations are proposed and how many offers people receive. That is what I mean by a register rather than the traditional register which concerns housing allocations under the points system.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is helpful. It is hard to imagine how a reasonable local authority can operate any housing allocation scheme without proper records being kept. It clearly could not do so and it clearly needs some list or register of applicants and some record of what it has done in relation to the applications. However, it is not for the Bill to specify or prescribe as far as local authorities are concerned what is the best means of administering their housing allocation arrangements. If an authority decides that it would be necessary or constructive to keep a particular form of register it will be for that authority to decide what form or type of register will best meet its administrative needs. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there needs to be proper administration but I do not believe that it is right for us to prescribe it in the Bill, particularly having regard to the way the noble Baroness has put her argument in support of the amendment. What we are dealing with when we talk about the register, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, described it in her opening remarks, is a formal sort of register which very few people will
mourn. What the noble Baroness is talking about is the record-keeping facilities for local authorities. I do not believe it is right to put that on the face of the Bill. The Bill builds in safeguards to ensure that all applicants must have their applications considered properly, including transfer tenants, and to ensure that applicants can obtain the necessary information that will allow them to assess how long they will have to wait for an allocation. The Bill provides a sensible framework of duties and powers. It is for individual authorities flexibly to construct the detailed administration arrangements as they see fit. Therefore the statutory requirement that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has in mind is not appropriate.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. The sad truth is that not all local authorities are quite as good and rigorous as others. It will be fundamentally important, as we get into the operation of this Bill, that there are no misunderstandings about who is housed and against what criteria.
I am sure that most authorities will do it in a most rigorous way, but if there is not a requirement for those records to be kept then there could be confusion and cause for challenge over a particular housing application.
I hear what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Allocation schemes]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 27:
- Page 10, line 19, after Xaccommodation" insert X(including temporary accommodation) which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 35.
Amendment No. 27 relates to the allocation scheme and the extension relating to those eligible for statutory housing by dint of being homeless and those to whom a duty will be owed. This extends not only the need for permanent but also temporary accommodation. The Bill gives no recognition to the fact that both are going to be difficult to supply—particularly in an over-stretched part of the country such as London. For those authorities in particular, it must be right that they are able to indicate that there are pressures on both permanent and temporary accommodation. They need to give a reasonable indication of the availability of both temporary and permanent accommodation, and the likelihood or otherwise of the need or prospect of choice in either.
The reality is that temporary accommodation is seldom a choice anyway, but there are areas which are so pressed for temporary accommodation that it should be proper for the local authority to indicate that that temporary accommodation might not even be in the borough—indeed, it might not even be in the same part of the country. That should be made clear, together with the permanent housing constraints.
Amendment No. 28 brings us to the nub of the Bill. It refers to those who are to be eligible under the homeless priority categories. My amendment adds a few more categories which I plucked from Section 167(2) of the 1996 Act to the Bill's provisions. However, neither it nor anything we have so far been told covers comprehensively those who will be eligible under the Bill to be considered as homeless.
The Minister was kind enough to send me and other Members of the Committee a copy of the consultation paper on the homeless priority needs categories. These are not spelt out in the Bill but unless they are all included at a later stage, they will be introduced by an order subsequently.
It is essential that the categories that have been in consultation, together with all those we have discussed today and which appear in the rest of the Bill, should be included in the Bill so they can be considered before the Bill leaves this House.
As I have said before, I believe that local authorities will have the greatest difficulty in fulfilling their obligations under the Bill, not only because of the increased number of categories, but also because of the limited time which they will have to keep people in temporary accommodation and the unlimited amount of time which can pass before an offer is accepted or reviews can be completed and refined.
Amendment No. 30 is interesting. It must be the first time that any suggestion of means testing has been considered in relation to homelessness legislation. What does it mean? Does it mean that if a person who is deemed to be homeless but who has more than a certain income—I wonder what that income is—he or she will not be helped? Will they be charged for such help? Will they be given more expensive accommodation? Will they have to pay more for whatever accommodation is provided to them? Not even the Explanatory Notes give any help with that and I suggest, therefore, in the absence of explanation, that it should be deleted.
Finally, Amendment No. 35 is a probing amendment, to see what thoughts the Government have on the provision of housing by any local authority to its community, not just to the vulnerable homeless. One of the greatest dangers posed by this Bill is that the only people ever to be accommodated by the local authority in future will be those with other social needs in addition to that of housing. There are no indications as to how priorities are to be judged or what discretion the local authorities will have to try to make allocations of properties in a way which will ensure that they have balanced communities. They particularly need to ensure that they have a sufficient number of ways to support themselves both financially and socially so as to encompass and embrace those less able to do so.
Under those circumstances, a local authority should have a discretion, where it can show a plausible reason for doing so, to cease temporarily to operate under the terms of this Bill and allocate properties to others who may not be governed by it. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |