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

I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 12, line 20, after `intentionally', insert—

`(i) for subsection (2) there is substituted—

``(2) The authority shall provide the applicant with advice and such assistance as is reasonable in any attempts he may make to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation.

(2A) The Secretary of State may by order specify matters to be taken into account in determining whether advice and assistance which the authority proposes to provide is reasonable and make provision as to the procedure to be followed in the giving of advice and assistance.

(2B) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations representing relevant authorities, and other persons as he considers appropriate.

(2C) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.''; and

(ii)'.

The amendment returns to the question of advice, which we discussed in connection with an earlier amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. In particular, it deals with standards of service in respect of advice to people who are in non-priority need and to people in areas of higher demand who are unlikely to be able to gain access to accommodation. The amendment is designed to strengthen the current duty, which at present can be discharged according to what the authority considers to be appropriate; it would introduce a greater consistency into the standards of service across the country; and it would bring the worst up to the level of the best by setting a basic standard.

That is important: non-priority applicants are wholly dependent on the quality of advice and assistance that they receive from local authorities and other advice agencies, because there is no realistic prospect of them ever receiving a tenancy from a local authority or housing association. I have received many letters in respect of constituents in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and from Westminster carrying the chill words ``We are unlikely ever to be able to consider you for an offer of accommodation.''

The sort of people we are talking about are those who do not fall into the categories of vulnerability that currently give them priority. They are adult children who are being forced out of overcrowded accommodation; or people living in private rented accommodation that they can no longer afford—that recalls our earlier exchange about the cost of accommodation in the private rented sector, which has become wholly unrealistic for anyone on an average income; or people in the private rented sector coming to the end of their assured shorthold tenancy whose landlord is unwilling or unable to renew it. That demand is one of the principle sources of applications to housing assessment and advice in my own area. Such demand also commonly arises from family breakdown. One of the partners, usually the man of the family, leaves home after a relationship breaks down and wants, rightly, to stay within the location so that he has access to the children, but has no means of being able to do so.

Such people are dependent upon the quality of the advice and assistance that they get. They comprise a large group; it accounted for about a quarter of all applicants to housing assessment and advice last year, or around 55,000 people. Of course, that is likely to be a huge underestimate, because the overwhelming majority of people in that category in London and the south-east would not even consider approaching their housing department, because they know the pressures. However, despite the importance of the advice service to such people, quality of service varies greatly across the country.

I pay tribute to the staff in the housing assessment and advice units in the two boroughs that I represent because. They have a tough job. However, in practice, the advice that people in the categories I have listed usually received is about as much use as a chocolate teapot. In Westminster, it usually consists of a piece of paper listing local bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or a note suggesting that they look in the Evening Standard or Loot. That is the sum of the advice that they are given. In addition, extreme pressures on the paucity of other advice services in central London, such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres, they are left extremely vulnerable.

In its report ``Singles Barred'', Shelter found an extraordinary variation in the quality of advice and assessment in different parts of the country that could not be accounted for by high demand. Indeed, some of the best performing local authorities were those in high demand areas—Camden and Ealing were singled out for praise. Local authorities in areas of high demand and in areas of low demand were among those providing extremely poor advice. In some, people were turned away without being given an interview or any advice. Assessments were not made consistently, so that potentially vulnerable people, who might not appear so on paper and would not necessarily fall into any priority housing category, were missed. None of the applicants surveyed received a written notice of decision, nor were they informed of their rights to review.

Such poor service can cause people to lose their homes unnecessarily when they could have been helped to remain in them. Some will fail to get available accommodation, particularly in the private rented sector. Some may have housing benefit arrears but be unaware that they qualify for housing benefit—it is very common for people who are in work to have no idea of the existence of housing benefit as an in-work benefit. Some who face a gap between their rent and their housing benefit payments may not know that in certain circumstances they would qualify for assistance with exceptional hardship payments, or they may not be aware of the availability of assistance through rent deposit schemes. Such provisions would be available to them if the quality of housing advice were consistent.

I am especially concerned about potentially vulnerable people who are missed—a problem I have come across on several occasions. One example that springs to mind involves a young gay man whose partner had committed suicide in his privately rented flat. He was extremely vulnerable and believed that he might be HIV-positive, but had not felt confident enough to be tested. He was experiencing quite severe symptoms of psychiatric distress but because of his age and the fact that he had not been diagnosed as HIV-positive, he did not fall into a priority group. Such people get missed.

The amendment is designed to set a framework of standards. I understand the concern expressed by the LGA about it being too prescriptive, but I think that if authorities are to be made to be concerned about the problem, they must engage with us in dialogue about how to make standards consistent across the country. The sort of standards that I am looking for are those whereby all applicants are guaranteed an interview to ensure that vulnerable claimants are not missed out; all applicants are given accurate and up-to-date information about the options available to them; and people have access to information about where they can obtain benefits and quality advice about landlord and tenant law, for example. In addition, all applicants should receive information and a written decision about the right to review.

My amendment is a probing one, but I hope that I have made the case for its proposals. The issue is a minefield; we must consider what it is reasonable for the Government to prescribe and bear in mind the danger of being too prescriptive in placing duties on local authorities. The quality of advice, especially in areas of high demand, is crucial to people who are unable to gain access to social housing. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to state what can be done to ensure that the local authorities that provide the worst services are brought up to the standard of the best.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North was careful to describe the measure as a probing amendment—a comment that might have followed an in-depth exchange of views with the Whip. We do not know whether Ministers will accept the amendment, but I can state provisionally—because we must first listen to the rest of the debate—that we are quite taken with it and that, subject to the observations offered by other members of the Committee and the Minister, we are minded to support it. I hope that the four Labour Back Benchers in whose names the amendment stands will have the courage of their convictions in the event of a Division.

In the housing Green Paper, the Government promised councils an enhanced advisory role. It proposed to extend local authorities' duty to provide advice and support requiring them

``to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness''.

Conservatives in local government warmly welcomed that proposal. However, the Bill falls well short of the Green Paper's modest suggestions in two respects: first, there is no clear mention of the multi-agency approach to homelessness advice—strategic partners are needed in that equation. Secondly, crucially, the requirement to advise people is too narrow, referring only to those seeking allocation of housing.

If the proposals are to have the profound effect on homelessness that we and the hon. Lady want, the scope of the advisory role, especially its preventive value, should be much wider and help people to secure or maintain housing under any form of tenure, including owner occupation. The Minister will agree—they may be famous last words—that many people who fall into homelessness are owner-occupiers who get into difficulties. Many owner-occupiers have problems paying their mortgage and repairing and maintaining the property, or simply coping with the responsibilities of owner occupation.

It is telling that Labour Back Benchers felt it necessary to table amendment No. 80 to encourage the Govt to consider a wider role than that is proposed in the Bill as drafted. The amendment builds upon the existing provisions of the Housing Act 1996 to enable persons to gain assistance from their council while attempting to secure accommodation themselves, rather than simply getting advice as part of the allocations process, important though that is.

That is not a new theme; it was pursued by the Local Government Association, which is very much in favour of a properly enhanced duty of advice to prevent homelessness before it reaches crisis point. I do not apologise for quoting again from the document ``No Place Like Home'', produced by the LGA's allocations and homelessness task group, which states:

``The current duty to provide housing advice is only in relation to homelessness and the prevention of homelessness. The LGA Home Ownership Task Group has recommended a broader duty for local authorities to ensure the availability of housing advice on a range of issues in order to better empower and enable applicants to help themselves.''

The LGA regards the advisory role as a corporate responsibility and not solely a matter for the housing department or a particular section. I hesitate to use the word ``holistic'', which is one of the most overused words in current jargon, but there should be debt counselling, help with access to welfare benefits, grants and so on, and a range of sources of advice. The LGA feels that other departments, such as social services and environmental health, can also play a key role.

The association mentions the importance of education in teaching life skills and ensuring that young people have realistic expectations of the local housing market. The document ''No Place Like Home'' states:

``There is a considerable lack of understanding amongst young people about housing availability''—

the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North touched on that point—

``and the potential consequences of homelessness. Schools and colleges could play a role in local authority prevention strategies by helping to ensure young people are more aware of the issues and by helping them to develop life skills and self esteem.

The report concludes:

``Local authorities should be given a broader duty and the resources to enable them to carry out that duty effectively to ensure the provision of housing advice on a range of issues, including home ownership and the private rented sector, in their districts.''

A local Conservative politician, Councillor Paul Bettison, who is chairman of the LGA's housing executive and leader of Conservative-controlled Bracknell Forest borough council, spoke about the problems that face hon. Members and councillors of all parties in all constituencies in a recent speech to the annual conference of Crisis. He said:

``By `quality', we aren 't just talking about the quality of housing on offer to prevent homelessness, important though that is. We need to ensure quality across the full service and that, for example, is why so much thought has been given by housing experts to the range and depth of the advisory role that should form part of any homelessness strategy.

We can have high numbers of houses available; we can have a good choice of housing available; we can have good quality homes available. All this will count for little if those people most vulnerable to homelessness do not know about it, or do not know how to access it.''

Councillor Bettison spoke in warm terms of Shelter's homeless-to-home scheme and its effect. He said:

``Shelter has been at the forefront in getting across this message''.

Hon. Members have Shelter's briefing papers on amendment No. 80; they are quite long and I shall not quote from them extensively unless the Minister presses me to do so. They refer, for example, to the experience in their housing advice centres. Evidence from Shelter's research and the document ``Singles Barred'', to which the hon. Lady referred, is that many local authorities fail to provide a decent service. People are turned away without being given an interview receiving any advice; assessments of vulnerability are inconsistently applied and in some cases contravene statutory guidance. Many applicants do not receive a written notice of the authority's decision and they are told nothing about their right to a review—a matter that we shall discuss in more detail later.

Shelter states that the new power is clause 20 is most welcome and makes an important point that is the ghost at the feast in many of our debates, stating:

``In areas where demand for social housing is high, authorities are unlikely to have any available accommodation to offer non-priority homeless people, as most of it will go to households in priority need.

The reality is that in London , most of the south of England and many other parts of the country this power is unlikely to make much difference.''

The Minister should reflect carefully on what Shelter says and ask whether the power is merely theoretical, given that in many parts of the country, especially in London and the south of England, it will have no effect. Shelter also mentions other categories of people at risk, of which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North gave some examples. It says that

``there are many other circumstances where people can lose their homes but will not be deemed a priority: in cases of extreme poverty, unemployment, sexual and physical abuse, family disputes and relationship breakdown.''

Shelter gives useful examples, but I shall mention one statistic first. As a result of reports from its housing aid centres, Shelter concludes that the level of homelessness services is extremely variable—to put it mildly—particularly for people not in priority need. It says:

``In 1999/2000 over 50,000 non-priority homeless people approached local authorities for assistance.''

I am not sure where Shelter got that figure, but it is quite a lot of people. If even a minority of them did not receive any help or useful assistance, that is a serious matter.

Shelter quotes several examples, but I shall give only one, because I do not want to detain the Committee. One of four volunteers involved in the research posed as a 30-year-old woman fleeing domestic violence. Shelter says:

``At one London authority Homeless Persons Unit, the applicant was told by the receptionist that a passport was essential, before he could pass on her details . . . The applicant was also informed that the local authority required a police or doctor's report to prove that it was unsafe for her to remain in her present accommodation. She was told that she was non-priority because she was single, without children and not pregnant. The applicant was left with no choice other than to return home.''

That was a piece of research, but had the applicant been a real person in those circumstances, she would have been forced to return to the place where she had suffered the problem of domestic violence in the first place. The unit did not give her any information. The one thing that it did manage to do was to give her a customer satisfaction survey to fill out as she left the premises—obviously, one box was ticked on that occasion.

The applicant went to another London authority and presented the same set of facts. Shelter says that

``the applicant was asked by the receptionist whether it was her first time there, and if she had somewhere to stay that night. She was then told that she would have to go to one of their Housing and Council Tax Customer Service centres first, where her needs . . . could be assessed. They would then refer her back to the Homeless Persons Unit.''

That is a significant number of hurdles for any of us to overcome, let alone someone who, in the real world, would be very distressed.

When the applicant presented at a metropolitan authority, a proper assessment of her needs was made. Shelter says:

``She was given a choice of emergency accommodation...and told that if the direct access unit was unable to find her a place in a hostel that day (nothing was available at the time), she would be offered a sofa there.''

Finally, the applicant went to a rural authority, where she was

``given a housing application form to fill in. She was told by the housing officer that, she could only assist and advise. The applicant was given contact numbers for a local women's centre and a list of . . . homeless accommodation . . . She was told that she was not a priority because she did not have children.''

She was given advice about not putting up with domestic violence, but at the end of the day she was still left with nowhere to go.

There are examples of other categories and types of cases in the document, to which I am sure most hon. Members have access. Again, Shelter has done useful research and produced some fairly hair-raising results, which show the enormous variability of the service offered.

On amendment No. 80. the Association of London Government says:

``While we support best practice guidance on advice and assistance to households not in priority need, we have reservations about the Secretary of State having the power to direct local authorities on the form such support should take.''

I certainly see the force of that argument. It is another of the ``damned if you do, damned if you don't'' arguments, which seem to crop up with alarming regularity, certainly in this Committee. How prescriptive should we be to deal with a practical, real-world problem? The ALG goes on to say:

``London boroughs will face significant additional costs relating to the extension of duties to households in priority need, and, in those authorities under the most severe pressure, resources are not available to meet additional costs to support non-priority households.''

That echoes Shelter on the simple fact that in large parts of the south of England and London, the new power may make no difference whatever. We sympathise with the points made by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends and I hope that the Minister will deal with them sympathetically and constructively.

Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour/Co-operative)

In response to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I rise to support the amendments, though I am always mindful of delaying the Committee and do not want to repeat the arguments. As a London Member, however, it is important to highlight some of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North.

London and the south-east are high-demand areas. We recognise the new power in the Bill to allow authorities to house non-priority cases, but it is unlikely in the short term to have any real impact in the Greater London area. There are substantial numbers of non-priority homeless—about a quarter of all homeless, amounting to 54,000 cases last year. Evidence suggests—and Shelter confirms it— that that could be a significant underestimate.

If we cannot provide accommodation, we should be able to provide a decent level of advice and assistance. On the basis of my experience as a London Member, approximately a quarter of all the cases at my surgery are housing-related, a significant number being non-priority cases.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North in noting that my local authority is under considerable stress. I recognise its difficulties, but the service that it provides can be variable. People often come to my surgery without any understanding of their own circumstances and the authority has failed to provide them with any helpful advice. Clearly, many such people are priority neither for housing nor for advice and assistance. That must change. The response of some local authorities to requests for assistance is to give the telephone number of Shelterline rather than to offer proper support .

We should examine ways of strengthening the current duty. Frankly, it hardly exists because authorities are asked only to provide advice and assistance ``appropriate'' in the circumstances, which leaves it wide open to interpretation. The weakness of that provision was demonstrated in the consumer exercise in the Shelter survey. Two of the authorities mentioned were in the London area.

The survey showed that the advice and assistance was variable and sometimes very poor indeed. That is hardly surprising when we know that some people were not even interviewed. How advice and assistance can be provided without interviewing people to ascertain their circumstances is a mystery. Sometimes no advice whatever was offered and no one was interviewed about their level of vulnerability or asked to check that their interpretation of the guidance was correct. I know of such cases from my constituency surgery.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned the provision of a written notice and telling people that there is a review mechanism. We need to look at that. While accepting local authorities' concern about being too prescriptive, there are areas on which the code of guidance will need to advise on what the advice and assistance should be. Everyone would accept that one needs to interview the person concerned to ascertain his or her housing needs. We should also provide information and advice on the availability of accommodation. If the local authority and the social sector cannot assist people with that, general guidance should be given to assist them in finding their own solutions to their housing problem. As has been said, there is also a need to provide assistance with benefits entitlement. In the London area, much accommodation is unfurnished and people need help to find out where they can obtain furniture if they want to move into such accommodation.

Giving a written decision and having it reviewed are important rights that should be available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, the Bill should strengthen the rights of non-priority homeless people because of the stress that exists in high-demand areas. I hope that the Minister will be able to do something to help with that.

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

We have had an excellent debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have a deep understanding of the issues and want better provision for the homeless have made clear and passionate speeches. I pay tribute to not only their contributions but those of Shelter, an organisation that has campaigned for many years on behalf of homeless people and has provided back-up, research and expertise to advise hon. Members on how to improve homelessness policy and how to draft amendments most felicitously to achieve some of its objectives.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am delighted that the Minister's appreciation of Shelter has moved seamlessly from Opposition to Government. I associate my party with his endorsement of Shelter, an extremely helpful organisation to which we are all grateful. There is a cross-party—indeed, all-party—consensus on these matters.

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

I have listened with interest to the points raised by hon. Members and agree with much that has been said. Authorities should take seriously their responsibilities to those who are unintentionally homeless but not in priority need. It is not acceptable for authorities to send such applicants away without adequate advice and assistance. Shelter's recent study, ``Singles Barred'', which has been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, reported on the variable, inconsistent and sometimes inadequate quality of local authority advice and assistance. The hon. Member for Eastbourne singled out the passage dealing with the 30-year-old woman and highlighted the different treatment that she received in different areas. He pointed out that in one area she was told that she was not a priority because she did not have children.

The hon. Gentleman, like all members of the Committee, will know that the Government are determined to change that situation, which is why we will introduce an order that will extend the categories of priority need to include women fleeing domestic violence even when they do not have children. That demonstrates the Government's positive response to that situation, but of course it goes wider, as it covers people who will not be within the priority categories even when they are amended and who should receive better and more consistent advice than they are getting at the moment. There is merit in strengthening the current duty to move away from the subjective requirement for the authority to provide

``advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances''

and move to a more objective test. Of course, nothing is ever quite as simple as it seems, at least not when considering amendments. The wording

``such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances''

does not just appear here. It appears in four other locations in the 1996 Act, and it would be inconsistent to agree one amendment without making comparable amendments elsewhere to ensure consistency throughout the legislation. For those reasons we do not intend to accept the amendment, but I do intend, if possible, to table an amendment to schedule 2 for the Committee to consider on Thursday.

I am less attracted by the second part of the amendment, which would have the Secretary of State specifying matters to be taken into account in determining whether advice and assistance that the authority proposes to provide is reasonable. There is such wide variation in the circumstances of different local authorities in different parts of the country that it is simply not sensible to specify nationally how authorities should respond in the light of local circumstances. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, there are enormous variations and we must recognise that. We do not wish to be unduly prescriptive, and we recognise the concerns that have been expressed in some quarters of local government about an excessively dirigiste approach if this part of the amendment were to be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North who moved the amendment, acknowledged that it might be a little over-prescriptive. In those circumstances, we believe that it is right to table an alternative amendment to enable the Committee to debate it on Thursday. That will be located in schedule 2. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment.

I must respond to one or two of the other points that have been made during the debate. The hon. Member for Eastbourne expressed concern that there was no reference to a multi-agency approach. We have been debating that for most of the morning. A multi-agency approach is fundamental to the way the Government want to see authorities discharge their responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry South-West—

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

North-East.

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

North-East—got it! My hon. Friend made the point very effectively.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne was a little unwise in highlighting the problems of owner-occupiers facing homelessness. He will recall the legacy of the previous Government who, in the early 1990s, managed to create a crisis of repossessions and the worst crisis of confidence in the home ownership market that this country has ever seen. I am pleased to say that the number of repossessions and the number of people plunged into negative equity have reduced consistently under this Government. Therefore, the extent of the problem facing owner-occupiers is significantly less than it was under the Government he supported. However, I accept that we need to do more for those home owners in difficulty in just the same way as we need to do more for other people in difficulty. That is precisely the purpose of this legislation.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to the legislation building on the 1996 Act. That is not an accurate description. This legislation amends some of the defects of the 1996 Act, which in certain respects significantly weakened the responsibilities for the homeless established in the 1977 legislation. If he has done his research, he will know that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1997 was introduced as a private Member's Bill by a Liberal Democrat Member with the support of the then Labour Government and that it was opposed by the Tory Opposition, even though three Conservative Members had sponsored the Bill. The official Conservative spokesman at the time took the interesting view that because it was in his view a Government Bill, the Opposition would oppose it. That is perhaps a comment on the Conservative party's lack of vision at that time. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 established the proper framework of responsibility for homeless people. We are now not just restoring it from the ravages of the 1996 Act, but enhancing it through the improvements set out in the Bill and through the extension of the priority need categories that I have already described.

I end on a point of agreement with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He rightly highlighted the need for high-quality services and he quoted Paul Bettison, the chairman of the LGA housing committee, with whom I have worked closely and harmoniously in recent months. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Paul Bettison's constructive and positive approach on this. We are happy to work with the LGA to carry forward the policies in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) spoke with feeling of his experience and described how a quarter of his surgery cases involve housing or homelessness problems. He recognised the variable standards of service offered in his area, while at the same time acknowledging the difficulty that his local authority faces because of local pressures. It is undoubtedly true that all authorities can do more and certainly those authorities that face less pressure than his can do a great deal more. We hope that with a clearer duty to provide advice and assistance to those not in priority need, we will enhance and improve the quality of homelessness services throughout the country. I urge my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North to withdraw her amendment.

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

I am grateful for the support that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, although to echo the Monty Python four Yorkshiremen sketch, I just dream of only one quarter of the people coming to my surgery having housing problems. I am also grateful for the supportive remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, although a little hintette of mischief-making just at the outer margins slightly undermined their generosity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his supportive remarks and his recognition of the needs that I outlined. I look forward to seeing the wording of the proposed new amendment that will move us on from the subjectivity of the present definition.

In light of the spirit of acceptance for the first part of the amendment, I will seek leave to withdraw it. I understand why the LGA and others have reservations about the potentially prescriptive powers in the other parts of the amendment, but I stand by the thrust of my comments about the need to iron out some of the worst practice. I hope that the DETR will continue to work with the local government and housing organisations to do what they can to raise the profile of best practice so that we deal with the deficiencies. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members:

No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

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

I beg to move Government amendment No. 85, in page 12, line 28, leave out `homeless' and insert `threatened with homelessness'.

Briefly, the amendment is typical of the Government amendments, being designed simply to improve and enhance the Bill. It would change ``homeless'' to ``threatened with homelessness'', which is, as all hon. Members will immediately understand, technically the correct drafting in the clause. It has no other significance beyond that.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.