| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Listowel: I should like to speak briefly to the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, and to express my deep concern about the current situation. This was brought home to me in a recent conversation with a housing allocations manager in a London authority, of 30 years' experience. He described how he had started, enthusiastic and there to help people and now at the end of each day he was depressed because there was no housing to provide people with. We all recognise that some local authorities are under tremendous pressure.
I also spoke with the manager in Barnardo's for families in temporary accommodation. He understands what is happening and his perception is that families are being threatened with their children being taken into care, not because it is a realistic proposition—it would cost local authorities #300 to #400 or probably more to look after such children—but because there is such a shortage of accommodation and they regularly use this is a means to put families off applying any further pressure to gain accommodation. They hope that they will stay with in-laws or find some other means. That can lead to families being in poor accommodation, and they can disappear from sight. Shelter has described case histories in which we learn that so-and-so is happening to a family but after that we do not know what happens to them.
I welcome the fact that at the latest meeting that we attended the Minister brought up this matter unprompted. It clearly weighs heavily on his mind and I look forward to his response.
8 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I said on Second Reading that we were in the process of investigating whether there had been any change in practice in the way that local authorities provide assistance for families with children who are homeless. We regard it as a very important matter and we need to get to the bottom of what is going on. Subsequent to that debate, there has been a further legal development in that one of the two cases, A v. Lambeth, has been heard and decided by the Court of Appeal, which has simply brought further confusion to what the legal position is. My colleagues and officials and lawyers at the Department of Health are studying the implications of that latest decision. It goes without saying that the more confusing the law becomes, the more one's concern about the matter rises.
In addition to discovering the detail of that recently decided case, I have seen—I said that I would do so—the social services directors of a number of local authorities, some unitary and some two-tier. The social service directors who I saw all had arrangements in place to ensure that the social services departments work together with the housing authority—or housing department in the case of the unitaries—to find an appropriate solution for the whole family when dealing with families with children who have made themselves intentionally homeless. Concern arises in relation to intentionally homeless families.
The authorities that I saw were therefore authorities in which the process was joined up between housing and social services. I have asked my officials to work closely with their counterparts in the Department of Health to see how we can ensure that this kind of sensible and co-ordinated approach is adopted much more widely. We need to see whether amendments to the law are required. What I said on Second Reading was that I would come back with a conclusion in relation to this while there was still time for the House to do something about it. That means that I will try to let noble Lords know what the position is before Report and that on Report at the latest I will say what conclusion has been reached.
It is plain that we are still at the development stage, so I have nothing definite to offer Members of the Committee today. However, I reaffirm my commitment to report back to the House before it is too late for something to be done.
On the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, it has been put forward on the basis that it is a means of raising the issue. She should hold that in the hope that we will be in a position to say that anybody who is intentionally homeless and who has children shall thereafter be treated as if they were unintentionally homeless. As everybody rightly says, a balance has to be struck. We must try to ensure that there is an arrangement in place where local authorities and social services and housing departments are motivated to work together to find solutions for families as a whole. I will report back in correspondence to those who are interested, and certainly at the latest on Report.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I thank the Minister for his concern and for his clear explanation. I am still concerned that the notions of Xintentionally homeless" and of Xunintentionally homeless" are sometimes very blurred. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 39:
- Page 15, line 23, at end insert—
The noble Baroness said: I am conscious of the hour so I shall not say as much on this issue as I intended. The purpose of the amendment is to require
Under the current requirements for accommodation provided for homeless households to be suitable, local authorities need only to Xhave regard to" housing standards on overcrowding and physical conditions. That does not mean that they have to meet those standards.
We all know that homeless households are often placed in temporary accommodation that is overcrowded or unfit. Accommodation will usually only be unsuitable for a household if it can be proven that, for example, disrepair or overcrowding will be harmful to that particular family. This amendment seeks to strengthen the definition of suitability, so that temporary accommodation for all homeless households has to meet the same minimum standard as that applying to all other households.
The Government are and have been trying to ensure better standards in all our housing, including houses in multiple occupation, and the Government have also just consulted on proposals to replace the fitness standard with a more modern standard based on risk assessment.
One of the other interesting areas is overcrowding and this amendment would have two effects. First, it would make the requirement that accommodation should meet minimum housing standards; but, secondly, it would specify the standard with which the accommodation would have to comply.
The legislation on the overcrowding standard is very much out of date and has remained virtually unchanged since the Second World War. The amendment would at least ensure a prohibition on the use of overcrowded accommodation for homeless households. One of the issues I was concerned about is that people sometimes have to make quick decisions and sometimes they are offered accommodation for which there would clearly be overcrowding. If this provision were passed, that would be one matter I would not be so concerned about.
It seems inconsistent that local authorities have the power to enforce standards in their area, but they do not have to meet those standards when they are accommodating homeless households. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this. This may not be the way to do exactly what we are asking, but I hope that he will understand the point I am making. I believe it is in line with the Government's desire in other areas of housing to improve housing standards in Britain. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue of housing standards. Overcrowding and poor standards are unacceptable; but it will take, as she interestingly acknowledges, a long time to address those deep-seated problems. Pressure on housing, particularly in London and the South, is growing. Many people live in unacceptable conditions. We have made a start in
Taken together, our measures will bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010; they will improve the supply of affordable housing in areas where it is most needed and promote sustainable home ownership and a healthy private rented sector. However, as everyone in this room knows, none of that will happen overnight. We are making progress. We know that more needs to be done. Amendments that strengthen the duty on authorities would not tackle the real problem. They would not increase the supply of suitable accommodation on the ground and would make no real contribution to the efforts being made physically to improve the standards of existing accommodation.
There must be real concern that, in the very immediate term, the amendments could add to the difficulties which many local authorities in high demand areas are experiencing in securing sufficient accommodation to discharge their statutory obligations to homeless people. The issues of fitness and decent standards of accommodation are very important and have been neglected by previous administrations for too long. They are real issues, but they must be addressed by devoting real resources to finding real solutions. That is what this Government are doing.
There is a general consensus that the housing fitness standard in Section 604 of the 1985 Act no longer reflects a modern understanding of the health and safety risks in dwellings. We are therefore trying to replace the standard with the housing health and safety rating system, which will apply a modern, risk-based approach to assessing housing conditions and will apply to all dwellings. We have consulted widely on this proposal and we are currently carrying out further work to strengthen the system and ensure its robustness.
We are consulting on proposals to legislate to enable the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low housing demand. These measures will give local authorities the power to tackle the problem of unscrupulous landlords who will not meet minimum standards of management.
All those reforms will secure better standards of accommodation, and we plan to legislate for them as soon as we have an appropriate vehicle. However, the Homelessness Bill is not the appropriate vehicle.
As Members of the Committee may know, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place has given an undertaking to review the current overcrowding provisions, which are very outdated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has said. At this stage, I cannot say what the outcome of the review will be, but I can give an assurance that the Government are determined to address poverty in all its manifestations and will take the necessary steps to do so.
I hope that that provides the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, with some reassurance and that she will not press her amendment.
XFor section 210(1) of the 1996 Act (suitability of accommodation) there is substituted—
X(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether accommodation is suitable for a person, accommodation shall only be regarded as suitable if—
(a) it is not overcrowded (within the meaning of section 324 (definition of overcrowding) of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68));
(b) it is fit for the number of occupants and it has adequate means of escape from fire (within the meaning of sections 352 (power to require execution of works to render premises fit for number of occupants) and 365 (means of escape from fire: general provisions as to exercise of powers) of the Housing Act 1985); and
(c) in the view of the authority it is fit for human habitation (within the meaning of section 604 (fitness for human habitation) of the Housing Act 1985).""
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page