Clause 21 - Abolition of minimum period for which an authority is subject to main homelessness duty
Homes Bill
12:45 pm
Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)
I thought that the Committee should tease a little more detail out of the Minister before accepting the clause, because it represents a significant change to the 1996 Act, in its abolition of the minimum 24-month period and the changes that it imposes on section 193 of that Act.
At the time the 24-month criterion was established, various fallback positions were provided. It was a controversial measure. Under that Act, local authorities are required to provide accommodation for the households they accept as statutorily homeless for a minimum of two years. As long as they confirm every two years that the household remains entitled to assistance, they may provide accommodation on a continuing basis; and if they cease to provide accommodation after two years, the household may reapply for assistance under the legislation. In short, it was not as though families—or whoever—were set adrift after the minimum two-year period had expired. Fallbacks and a route for reapplication were built into the legislation.
I have a briefings from two local authorities that state what has happened in practice. The first comments:
``The two-year limit has never really been implemented. In reality, homeless people are not able to find private rented accommodations and local authorities will assist until they can be placed in social housing.''
The other says:
``The two-year duty is to be repealed. However, in practice, in London authorities either deal with cases within two years or continue to deal with them after two years have expired.''
Shelter freely admits
``In practice, most authorities usually provide settled accommodation within the 24-month minimum period set out in the 1996 Housing Act, and continue to provide temporary accommodation where this is not possible.''
Therefore, I query why the Government feel that it is necessary to change the legislative terminology, given that, in practice, the fears expressed by many of their colleagues during the Committee stage of the 1996 Act have not come to fruition, and a number of fallbacks and safety nets were enshrined in that Act. I am genuinely curious to learn what has changed, or how that section of the 1996 Act has gone wrong and so prejudiced people that the changes proposed in clause 21 are necessary.