Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 11, line 45, after `organisations', insert

`, registered social landlords holding accommodation in the district of the authority, tenants' groups'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 79, in page 11, line 45, after `organisations', insert

`local people, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness'.

No. 95, in page 11, line 45, after `organisations', insert

`people living within the authority's area including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.'.

No. 90, in page 11, line 46, at end insert

`to include organisations recognised by the Secretary of State as specialist in representing people with physical and mental disabilities.'.

No. 70, in page 11, line 46, at end insert—

`( ) Before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy the authority shall consult any guidance given by the Secretary of State in relation to best practice with regards to housing and persons with mental health needs.'.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

We move back to familiar territory. Subsection (8) states that

``Before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy the authority shall consult such public or local authorities, voluntary organisations or other persons as they consider appropriate.''

That raises the question of who the Government believe are the right organisations and persons to be covered by that provision. The amendments, which are similar to those moved by the Conservatives, propose that three categories of people should be considered: the first is our now familiar friend, the registered social landlord; the second is local people, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness; and the third is people with mental health needs. The Conservatives' amendment No. 90 adds an additional category, which I welcome, of people with physical disabilities.

We have dealt in some detail with the argument in respect of incorporating registered social landlords. The Committee acknowledges the growing importance of RSLs as the holders of an increasingly large stock of affordable or social housing. As we know, by 2004 they are likely to be the majority owners of such accommodation and they therefore merit specific reference in any consultation agreements. Another category, with which amendment No. 69 deals but which we have not discussed in detail, is that of tenants groups. I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge the importance of consultation with such groups.

I am delighted that the Minister's draft guidance has picked up the category of local people, in particular those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. A paragraph in the section entitled ``Duty to formulate homelessness strategies'' states:

``Before adopting or modifying a strategy, the authority must consult any local or public authorities, or voluntary organisations, as they consider appropriate.''

However, a paragraph in a later section states

``Before adopting or modifying a strategy, the authority must consult any relevant organisations. This should involve those who are participating in the strategy and those affected by its provisions. Where possible, homeless people, people who have experienced homelessness, and those at risk of homelessness should also be consulted.''

I am delighted that, since the tabling of the amendment, the Minister has given us a clear assurance that that category of people will be consulted. However, it would be helpful to place on record today—or, if he does not have the information to hand, later—examples of good practice of how that could be done.

I have talked to representatives of a number of local organisations who, while they acknowledge that it is important, sometimes have difficulty finding appropriate people to assist them. Shelter carried out a consultation exercise with such people, who were pleased to be consulted and provided valuable advice. I hope that that experience and that of other successful local authorities can be passed on so that all local authorities can benefit from it.

The final category, which comes in amendment No. 70 and is touched on in Conservative amendment No. 90, is people with mental health needs. This is a particularly important area that is not mentioned in the guidance notes. I hope that the Under-Secretary can respond to it positively. We are all well aware that people with mental health needs sometimes get themselves into difficulties with their landlords, be it the local authority, a registered social landlord, a housing association or other landlord. Some of them may simply have a phobia about opening documents and consequently do not respond in due time to their landlord's requests.

People with mental health needs can sometimes, to use the vernacular, go walkabout, without informing their landlord that they will be away from the property for some time. There are many examples—I am sure that many members of the Committee experienced it in their surgeries—of people who have fallen foul of their landlord in that way. I hope that the Under-Secretary can acknowledge the importance of consulting such people and the organisations that represent them such as Mind and many others. I hope that he will look favourably, if not on the words, at least on the spirit in which the amendment is moved.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

This group of amendments includes two tabled by Conservative Members to which the hon. Member for Bath has already referred. Amendment No. 95 is similar to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 79. I will not repeat many of the comments that the hon. Gentleman made in support of that. It just seems common sense and obvious that homeless people should be added to the list of important bodies involved in the consultation exercise. The hon. Member for Bath is right; Shelter carried out an interesting study entitled ``Closing the Gap'', which provided a lot of interesting information taken from people who are at the sharp end of the problems dealt with in the Bill. I cannot see how bringing such people into the net could damage arguments A, Z, Q or whatever the Under-Secretary might like to throw back at us.

Amendment No. 90 is important. As the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, it goes further than Liberal Democrat amendment No. 70, which does not take into account the need to consult strategic partners with expertise in mental health and physical disabilities. I speak as the chairman of the Conservative disability group and my constituency includes Worthing, which contains the highest number of elderly people in the country, if not in the universe—and I am delighted that it does. Long may it continue.

Of course, physical and mental disabilities especially affect older people. Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of homeless people, including those who sleep rough, are over the age of 50, and there is evidence that older people are more vulnerable to the mental and physical ill effects of rough sleeping and unsatisfactory home conditions.

Elderly people and those with disabilities tend to lack access to mainstream services and accommodation because they are easily overlooked, although not as much as they were. Since 1995, welcome legislation on people with disabilities has, rightly, raised their profile. However, there is still some inflexibility between funding streams and a failure of collaboration between specialist teams in social services and voluntary groups and so on.

Suitable accommodation for physically disabled people must take into account their use of wheelchairs, for example, and the fact that they may be able to walk only a short distance. Doors must be accessible and easily opened and there must be ramps and rails to allow people to get into and around their homes. People with disabilities should not be housed on the third or fourth floor of tower blocks because of difficulties if the lifts are out of order and the type of flooring used must be considered when housing frail people who are not steady on their feet. Those are clear, physical conditions to be considered when housing a homeless disabled person.

There are social considerations, too, especially when the person involved has mental health problems. It is not enough merely to adapt a house or to have houses suitable for people with physical disabilities without considering their surroundings. We must ask questions such as, ``Who are they living next to? Is there someone who can keep an eye on an elderly, disabled person? What companionship can be offered to people? Are sheltered warden schemes available?'' The community around them matters a great deal to disabled people. It is no good putting people with mental disabilities next door to young families, for example, who may have a lower understanding of their difficulties and who may not appreciate the circumstances of a person's mental disability and its effects. That will make life more difficult for the family living next door and for the vulnerable disabled person who needs a bit of a leg up. The social and geographical aspects of appropriate housing for people with physical and mental disabilities must be considered.

I support the proposals made in the Local Government Association report ``No Place Like Home'' for dealing with people with disabilities. They include the following recommendations:

``Social services and, where relevant, health authorities, should be involved in the allocation plan for households deemed to be in particular need of settled accommodation on medical grounds or welfare grounds in order to ensure that the need for support is assessed and provided as part of the allocation process.

Housing, social services and health authorities should jointly agree hospital discharge planning arrangements.''—

we discussed the problems of bed blocking—

``Local housing authorities should maintain a register of wheelchair-adapted properties in the council and housing association stock and, when feasible, in the private sector.''

As a key part of its housing strategy, a local authority in my constituency in Worthing, has transferred to Worthing Homes—a registered social landlord—some well-adapted bungalows for disabled people that are especially suitable for those in wheelchairs. My constituency has more than the average number of people who are not as mobile as others.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Has my hon. Friend considered the reverse situation, especially with regard to some mental disabilities? There have been some disturbing cases in my constituency involving people with mental disabilities who did not take their medication or who were placed in flats in small blocks. They caused enormous distress and nuisance to the other residents in the block, many of whom were elderly. I urge my hon. Friend to remember that there is another side to the problem, especially when flats and houses are close together.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

That is absolutely right. It does not serve people with low-level mental disabilities or their neighbours if accommodation is offered without any sensitivity about its suitability, both for the disabled person and those who live nearby. Both sides are losers unless those factors are taken into account; putting people with mental problems in high-rise blocks, for example, is not a good idea.

The issue should be given greater prominence in the Bill as it involves a broad range of people. The amendments are not prescriptive; they want the authorities to have regard to the needs of people with disabilities. In view of the legislation on disability rights, it is appropriate that living accommodation, which is such an important part of the lives of disabled people, should be given greater prominence in a Bill that deals with that subject.

The amendments go further than the recommendations in ``No Place Like Home'', which we support, by stressing the need to involve specialist charities, which bring their expertise and experience to the sector's work. I commend the amendments to the Committee, especially amendment No. 90, which, as the hon. Member for Bath will agree, goes further than the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Coventry North East, Labour)

Once again, we sympathise with the amendment's aim, but differ from Opposition Members about how to achieve the desired outcome.

The Government have been consistent in putting people at the centre of our policies. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants and residents, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, to inform the homelessness reviews and to help in drawing-up the strategies. We expect local government to engage with people in the area, to work in partnership and to be customer focused.

It is not necessary, or desirable, to put every detail in the Bill, but we will ensure that the matters are addressed in the code of guidance. It will be important for the Secretary of State to offer clear guidance on best practice in respect of housing and persons with mental health needs. Local housing authorities should tackle those needs directly through their homelessness strategies. The Secretary of State will give guidance on best practice in respect of other vulnerable groups. It would not be appropriate to view one deserving group as more worthy or important than another. To include one group in the Bill would imply that its needs were necessarily more pressing. I share hon. Members' concerns about the welfare of those with mental health needs. We will ensure that they are carefully addressed in the code of guidance.

I shall deal with the need to include those affected by local authority strategies. The Government have been consistent in placing people at the centre of our policies. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants and residents—including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness—to inform the homelessness reviews and to help to draw up the strategies. Again, it is not necessary to place every detail in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Bath asked whether we would make a commitment to spread examples of good practice. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is carrying out research into best practice in developing homelessness strategies, the results of which will be available later this year. I hope that that covers his concerns.

The hon. Member for—[Interruption.] I will get the constituency right one day. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised various issues. The Housing Act 1996 specifically includes as a priority need category homeless people who are vulnerable as a result of mental illness. Any homelessness strategy should include provision for that client group.

The supporting people strategy is the Government's new approach to providing housing with support for vulnerable people. The guidance recently issued on supporting people states that there needs to be an integral link between the homelessness strategy and the supporting people strategy in any area. The latter strategy will draw in links with the appropriate specialists to which the hon. Gentleman refers in amendment No. 90, so his point is covered.

Having given those assurances, I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am delighted that the Minister has assured us that those issues will be addressed. More important, in a sense, is the news that the DETR is carrying out research into best practice, which will be published and widely publicised.

I noted the new Under-Secretary's difficulty in coming to terms with the constituency of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He said that he would get there one day. Unless things have changed and there is a different arrangement under the new Whip, we have but one day left for him to get it right, so I suggest that he practises hard over lunch.

I have another gentle point for the Minister. He referred to the Government's new supporting people strategy and the importance of an integral link between it and the homelessness strategy. The Minister for Housing and Planning has already told us that there will be a similar integral link with the council's housing policy. I suggest that we are in danger of over-burdening local authorities with the requirements to produce a wide range of different strategies.

The Under-Secretary will be aware that, during our deliberations some months ago on the Local Government Bill, we considered the requirement for local authorities to produce a community plan. The Government gradually but reluctantly agreed that, by making it a duty on local authorities to produce a plan, we were able to bring a large number of other plans within a single plan. Now that he has his new position, I hope that, with his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Under-Secretary will be prepared to consider again whether there would not be great merit in finding a way to require local authorities to produce a single plan that integrates those various issues. I assure him that local authorities would warmly welcome that in preference to the scattergun approach involving a range of different plans.

However, that is a side issue to the main point, which was to ensure that very clear guidance will be given to local authorities telling them that the range of people that they must consult includes registered social landlords, tenants groups, local people including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, persons with mental health needs and, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham rightly adds, people with physical disabilities. We have had a clear assurance from the Minister that we are going to receive that, and with that assurance I intend to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I appreciate the comments made by the hon. Member for Bath. We will not press our amendments, but I do have a couple of points to raise with the Minister. We are encouraged by his assurance that these matters will be addressed in a code of conduct and best practice, especially with regard to provision for disabilities, with which I am most concerned.

Mencap has produced some interesting literature on the problems and the resettlement needs of people with learning disabilities who remain in long-stay hospitals, in part arising from the absence of suitable accommodation for them on coming out of hospital. A lack of housing alternatives is forcing many adults with a learning disability to continue to live at home with elderly parents, which can result in considerable pressure. Like anyone else, such people are entitled to move away from family accommodation and to make their own way in life, but Mencap estimates that there is a shortage of at least 5,000 homes a year to give people in that position equal access to their own home. That is a serious problem.

It is not only a question of giving a certain group of people priority. The people affected are a large contingent of the population—far larger than any other special interest group that may want to be singled out. Therefore, I do not go along with argument A. Housing accommodation must to be tailored to people with physical disabilities in particular; otherwise there may be a surplus of housing accommodation that is no good because it is completely inaccessible to someone in a wheelchair. Special provision has to be made or accommodation will not be suitable for people with physical disabilities.

Amendment No. 90 is not designed to gain priority treatment for anyone. Its wording purely asks that disability organisations should be included as specialists who should be consulted. Therefore, even after an authority has consulted those organisations before adopting or modifying a homelessness strategy, it may decide that disability requirements are a lower priority within that area. The amendment should not be read as giving priority to people with disabilities; it merely would include in the framework a provision that such people and the specialist organisations that know such a lot about them should be consulted as part of a homelessness strategy. The Under-Secretary is wrong to suggest that the amendments would give priority in allocation to people with physical or mental disabilities. I appreciate the recognition that he has given to the fact that people who fall under those titles have special requirements. That was the reason for tabling the amendments. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary looks as if he wants to rise before I have finished; he may want to intervene rather than make a speech after me.

I am not giving undue priority to the problem; there remains a case for including disability organisations in the Bill, though we shall not press the amendment to a vote. Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that he acknowledges the importance of the issue?

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Coventry North East, Labour)

Hon. Members have raised some important points. I hope to give the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham some assurance. I am grateful to him for not pressing the amendment. Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 specifies categories of people in priority need of accommodation so we are not ignoring the problem: the categories are already listed in the Act.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the appropriateness of accommodation. I assure him that good practice guidance will include suggestions from the LGA report, one of which was that local authorities keep a register of properties suitable for people in wheelchairs or others with disabilities.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

That was one of the recommendations that I highlighted. I do not dispute what the Under-Secretary says, but we are talking at cross-purposes. Section 189 of the 1996 Act refers to definitions of priority need for accommodation, but we are debating clause 18, which is about authorities drawing up homelessness strategies. If priority needs had been recognised within the strategies in the first place, there would be no need for a preventive measure. Citing the 1996 Act does not address my central concern.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Coventry North East, Labour)

People in priority need must be taken into account. They are already mentioned in the 1996 Act so they will be at the front of consideration when local authorities draw up their strategies. [Interruption.] It is already covered.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I hope that you will agree to a short stand part debate, Mr. Stevenson. Clause 18 deals with homelessness strategies, so it might be more appropriate to adopt a strategic view of what it says rather than pass rapidly on through it. We have already debated what should be included in the strategy and which bodies or organisations should be consulted.

Local authorities will face problems in formulating strategies. They will not be dealing with an ideal world, but with real problems faced by authorities today. Strategies will vary dramatically. It is almost possible to draw a line across the country and create two wholly different worlds of homelessness and housing—those who have a demand problem and those who have the opposite problem. I have already mentioned how long people must wait for housing in my constituency.

It is quite clear that the Government are panicking about rising homelessness figures. In last week's debate on the Bill—I do not want to rake over old coals—the Minister for Housing and Planning was forced to admit that homelessness had risen under this Government. In a spectacular own goal, having risen to correct the figures that I had quoted, he produced even higher figures. The figure for total priority homeless acceptances in 1997-98 was 102,650. The latest figure produced by the Minister was a staggering 108,000—a rise of nearly 6,000.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman now put on the record the number of priority homeless applicants who were accepted by local authorities in 1996, the last year in which the Conservative party was in power, rather than suggesting in this preposterous way that the Labour party inherited a figure after already being in government for a year?

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

It is no good the Minister throwing around $10 words like ``preposterous''. The figure is rising under his stewardship, and it is rising even faster than we thought.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Answer the question.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

The Minister is making a different point, which he is perfectly entitled to do, and more than capable of doing when he has his bite at the cherry. There is nothing he can say to contradict my figures, which show that during his stewardship there has been an increase of nearly 6,000. Consequently, the Government have panicked and only yesterday announced an extra £25 million to assist local authorities to house homeless households. Ministers have belatedly woken up to their failure to tackle homelessness.

It is quite instructive to look at the press release published by the Minister yesterday. It is headed:

``Raynsford welcomes extra money to help homeless''.

It talks about the £25 million being made available from April 2001 to assist local authorities and interestingly talks about local authorities being under increasing pressure

``in part due to the increase in homeless households who are asylum seekers given leave to remain in Great Britain, or former-asylum seekers.''

Clearly, despite some of the rhetoric that we heard in earlier sittings, asylum seekers remain a significant problem. They are a problem in London, of course. The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and I have crossed swords on this before, but we both agree that it is a factor. The Association of London Government seems to consider it quite a significant factor. There is also a knock-on effect. There is a major problem on the south coast in places like Eastbourne, which no one has yet addressed. Increasingly London boroughs, which we accept are under great pressure, are entering into private arrangements to accommodate asylum seekers in small guest houses and holiday lets. I have raised this more than once with the Home Secretary and his fellow Ministers. It was supposedly to be addressed by a consortium approach through the LGA, but so far nothing has happened to resolve it.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Let me just make this point. It is absolutely disgraceful, and I am sure that the h Lady, would agree that despite all the understandable pressures on some London boroughs—Newham is a good example, or a bad example, depending on how one looks at it—they are still following that course without taking the preliminary and essential step of informing the recipient borough or council. That puts an unfair burden on the range of services available in that area.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I just want to return to the point about asylum seekers. I wholly accept that the increase in the number of asylum applicants with whom local authorities are dealing is a factor in the demand. However, the accommodation problem in London and the south-east is caused by a long-term and sustained collapse in the supply of social housing. If he accepted that—and the fact that it is a responsibility that goes back for the best part of 20 years—we might have scope for common ground and a reasonable discussion.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

We are debating the issues in the fourth year of a Labour Government. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and I have quoted the falling figures for new social housing produced under the current Government. Those figures make the situation clear and I do not need to dwell on it.

It is interesting that the first point that the departmental press release makes relates to the problem of asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North is right to say that there is a problem with supply of social housing. The good briefing from the ALG also covers that point. I see the hon. Lady waving at me—I assume that she wants to intervene.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I was actively involved in pressing the Government to provide local authorities in central London with some form of assistance with asylum seekers. The reason that it is an issue is that local authorities are in many cases accommodating asylum seekers in the private sector, where we face an escalating problem of cost. That is why we need additional assistance. The Audit Commission has been actively involved in helping us to identify that the issue of rental accommodation in the private sector is the core of our problem. We need to recognise that.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

The hon. Lady is describing, probably unwittingly, the fault of a market. It is certainly not the fault of Conservatives that this country has a record number of asylum seekers—more than 75,000, and if one adds dependants the figure is heading towards 100,000. That is the result of a plain lack of so-called joined-up government—a phrase of which, funnily enough, we have not heard much of late, probably because it has so manifestly failed to be provided. It is no earthly good the Minister trying, with the best intentions in the world, to solve the problems of homelessness, particularly in large cities and such places as Eastbourne, if his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office are simply not doing their stuff.

I make no apology for mentioning Eastbourne; I use it as an example. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a deprived inner city area, yet the latest figures, which were debated with great concern by my local council only the other day, show that since April last year, 171 families or people have been housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, compared with 76 the year before and 50 the year before that. That is an enormous rise for a modest-sized south-coast resort, leaving aside what may be happening in other parts of the country.

If homelessness strategies are to mean anything, the Government must have a proper strategy of their own. Under the current Government, the supply of social housing has gone down while the homelessness figures have gone up. As the current edition of Housing Today reports, in an article entitled ``Labour's minimal impact on empties'':

``New Labour's record on reducing the number of empty homes has been dealt a serious blow after figures showed practically no movement four years after coming to power.''

I am expecting the Minister to leap up at any moment and challenge the DETR figures.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I challenge the hon. Gentleman to read the rest of the article.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I will not read the whole article, unless the hon. Gentleman insists. However, he is welcome to borrow my copy if he wants to read it all out.

DETR figures show that the total number of empty homes fell by just 4,300 to 762,700 between April 1997 and April 2000. The article goes on

``the number of empty properties owned by councils and housing associations actually increased during the period.''

If the Minister will not accept my arguments on the issue, will he accept those of Mr. Ashley Horsey, the chief executive of the Empty Homes Agency and a person well known to all of us? He is quoted, I assume accurately, in the article as saying:

``Over the four years that the current Labour government has been in power, and with speculation of a spring general election rising, the end of term report from the Empty Homes Agency on the government's efforts to tackle empty homes would have to be `has shown some promise, but only limited progress to date. Must try harder'.''

We therefore have a strategic picture of falling social housing provision, growing homelessness, growing numbers of asylum seekers—which the Minister accepts as a major, if not the principal, factor in many areas—and a failure to tackle the problem of empty properties. It is no earthly good the Government lecturing individual councils and local authorities about implementing strategies if they are so wholly at sea in terms of their own strategy—or lack thereof. When the strategies start to emerge, it will be extremely interesting and instructive to see how varied they are and whether there are dramatic differences between those of councils in the north and in the south. Such differences are, again, based on supply and demand as much as anything else, as the hon. Lady confirmed in an intervention.

We welcome homelessness strategies, as I think does every organisation involved. I hope that good councils already have a form of strategy, for their own consumption, which will just need to be dusted off and revamped to comply with the Minister's requirements. However, we must remember the situations that councils face as a result of the blatant failure of the Government's homelessness policy at almost every level.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: strategies will vary enormously from area to area. He slightly oversimplified the matter by saying that one would be able to draw a line between north and south and see fundamental differences between the two regions. He would be the first to recognise that areas in the south have problems of low demand; one example is Hastings, just along the coast from him, which has had well-publicised problems of that nature. Equally, some areas in the north have considerable pressures. However, I agree in general with his analysis that there will be significant variations between strategies in different parts of the country. That is all to the good and it is why we are encouraging strategies so that local authorities can develop an approach to homelessness that is appropriate for the needs of their area.

I hesitate to take us back into the territory of statistics but two statistical points must be made. Despite the best efforts of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the DETR figures that he was so pleased to quote show clearly and conclusively that when his party left office, local authorities had accepted 110, 000 homeless people in priority need categories. The latest figure is 108,000. I have said many times that that is too high and that we have much more to do in tackling the problem. It is simply untrue that we have more homeless households now than we inherited from the previous Government. That is a straightforward statistical point.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham fell into a similar trap in trying to interpret the figures on rough sleepers that were issued last week. I hope that he will not mind if I put the record straight. He quoted a figure of 286 rough sleepers in London at the end of the previous Government's term and implied that because there are now 546 rough sleepers in the capital, the number had, in his words, almost doubled. He is confusing unlike with unlike. The figure of 286 was based on head counts of people sleeping rough in a few selected parts of central London and did not cover the whole of the London area. Under the head counts instituted in June 1998, as a result of the Government's policy on rough sleepers, the number in London at that time was 620, which in June 2000 had reduced to 546. On a comparable, like-for-like basis there is therefore evidence of a reduction—not enough and there is still a great deal to be done, but it is a reduction. There were no comparable figures for London or, indeed, the whole of Britain. That was one of the reasons why, when in opposition, the Labour party wanted a more comprehensive strategy on rough sleepers. We supported the previous rough sleepers initiative, which did good work, but it was targeted at a limited number of selected areas. We take a more comprehensive approach.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am not sure what the Minister's point is. Is he claiming that this Government are more efficient at counting the number of rough sleepers? If so, that is not a great step forward. Otherwise, does he accept that, however one approaches the counting of rough sleepers, there is a substantial margin for error, even in the figures that he claims are more reliable?

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have had ample opportunity to place their different figures on the record. I hope that, having done so they will move on.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

I shall happily move on, Mr. Stevenson.

I found an aspect of the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne slightly surprising. In all his comments on yesterday's announcement about additional help for authorities that are meeting the needs of and accommodating homeless people, including asylum seekers, in private-sector accommodation, he did not acknowledge that it was a good thing that an extra £25 million had been secured to help local authorities. It was rather extraordinary that he referred to it and made party-political points, but could not bring himself to say that it was a good thing to provide extra help for authorities that have been under pressure.

That shows the difference between our two parties. The Conservatives are only too happy to identify and talk about problems, but when it comes to practical measures to deal with them, their party—

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

Surely the Minister would agree that it would have been even better to have given that £25 million three years ago, rather than three months before a likely election.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

If the hon. Member for East Shoreham—

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

No.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wants me to run through the investment figures since the election, I will happily give them to him and point out the increased investment that the Government have made through the capital receipts initiative, then the spending review and now the spending review 2000. However, I will not rise to that, as I fear that I would be out of order if I did so.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend remember that the first additional support for inner London authorities that were coping with those pressures was announced, I think, in June 1997? A number of different initiatives have helped the boroughs of Kensington and Westminster in my constituency over the past four years.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I well remember the Committee stage—it may have taken place in this Room—of the Bill that released capital receipts and honoured our election commitment to increase funding for local authorities. That was an early indication of our commitment to tackling the problems. We have made substantial progress since then and increased spending by a series of different measures, culminating in the spending review 2000, which has added substantially to investment for both the improvement of existing stock and a new generation of social housing.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne made perfectly fair points about the increased number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We recognise that that is a problem, which is why we have acted through the additional financial help that I have described. We have also recognised the need for a more strategic approach by local authorities with more emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. Clause 18 is about a multi-agency approach to ensure that there is more effective preventive work as well as more effective help for those who become homeless.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I hope that the Minister will deal in some detail with the point that I made about asylum seekers. In his multi-agency approach, does he include his colleagues at the Home Office, who seem to be a major factor in a major part of the problem?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has not given me an opportunity to get into my stride; I am trying to answer the various points. Of course I take my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office very much into account. We work extremely closely with them, and they are fully aware and supportive of the measures announced yesterday. Equally, we have been in close contact with them about the measures that they have taken to tackle that serious problem.

There is no secrecy about the figures, which I am happy to put on record. In 2000, there were 76,000 new applications from asylum seekers—up by 4,800 from 71,160 applications in 1999. It is a large number, but not as high as the figure suggested by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office had to tackle the appallingly inefficient system inherited from the previous Conservative Government, which had resulted in a huge backlog. The number of decisions taken by the Home Office increased from 33,700 in 1999 to 110,000 in 2000. The Government have taken action to speed up the processes, ensure that initial decisions can be taken quickly and reduce outstanding applications.

All that evidence demonstrates that the Government are tackling the problem with determination. We do not pretend that all the problems have gone away; we acknowledge their existence, and we are working to deal with them. The same applies to empty homes: yes, there are too many, but if the hon. Member for Eastbourne had quoted Mr. Ashley Horsey more fully, he would have revealed that the Empty Homes Agency warmly welcomed the Government measures. In common with any pressure group, the Empty Homes Agency rightly says, ``Can do better; should do more'', but it recognised that the Government had shown some promise. The hon. Gentleman missed out various passages, so neglected to mention that the Empty Homes Agency welcomed the changes in the rules on capital allowances for flats over shops to help to bring them into greater use. The reduced rate of VAT on properties being converted to residential use is another example.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

Will the Minister quantify those two examples: how many flats will be brought into use over the five-year period, and how many houses derelict for more than 10 years will qualify for VAT exemption?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

This is not a Finance Bill debate and the announcements to which I referred were made only recently. These are early days. The Conservative Government could have taken those measures, but did not. The present Government have taken them and they will make an impact, as the Empty Homes Agency acknowledges. The Opposition spokesman chose not to cite that passage in his selective quotation from the newspaper. It is typical of the Conservatives to use selective quotes to give a pejorative impression about the Government's performance rather than any attempt to establish the truth.

Mr Tim Loughton (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

Perhaps I can selectively quote the Minister's colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who quantified the flats-above-shops relief as likely to affect no more than 5,000 properties over five years and who was unable to provide a figure for the 10-year derelict VAT exemption because its impact would be negligible. Before trumpeting those great measures, should the Minister not admit the truth that they are tiny scratchings off the tip of the iceberg?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The Opposition spokesman quoted Mr. Ashley Horsey of the Empty Homes Agency, who did not refer to ``tiny scratchings'', but welcomed Government action to tackle the problem. As I said, we expect pressure groups to encourage the Government to do more. We understand that: it is politics and life. It is wrong of the Opposition, however, to pretend that the Government are doing nothing. That is simply not the case.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I divine that the Minister may have moved on from asylum seekers, but I remind him of the widespread practice of London boroughs placing people in places such as Eastbourne without reference to the local council or other local agencies. How does the Minister propose to deal with that problem, which is certainly not being dealt with by the Home Office or the LGA? Will any sum from the £25 million find its way to places such as Eastbourne, which has a secondary asylum seeker problem, as I have described?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Obviously, it is important to encourage good working relationships between the different local authorities involved when people are referred from one area to another. Not all of the areas that face less intense pressure than some of the London and south-east authorities have been wholly supportive or encouraging in helping their colleagues in London and the south-east—I am not talking about Eastbourne. I hope that the Opposition, like the Government, believe that there should be a co-operative approach throughout the country and that authorities should try to help, especially if those that have supplies of housing that are not in great demand. I pay tribute to some authorities that have been especially good at identifying low-demand properties that might be available.

The £25 million package announced yesterday is not ring-fenced for any one particular area. It relates to the cost of accommodation, and although it is likely that the bulk of it will be for the benefit of London authorities, because that is where the pressures are greatest, there is no reason in principle why Eastbourne should not also benefit.

The Government accept entirely the other adage used by Mr. Ashley Horsey of the Empty Homes Agency: must try harder. That is what we are doing—the Bill and the clause are all about ensuring more effective work to tackle the problems of homelessness. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the good sense of the clause and that they will agree that it should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.