Clause 25 - Abolition of duty to maintain housing register
Homes Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour/Co-operative)
There is widespread recognition of the difficulties about which the hon. Gentleman speaks. If there is significant evidence of such a track record, perhaps involving a court case arising from antisocial behaviour, action must of course be taken. We would not wish all the neighbours of such a person to be blighted for many years.
Many people who find themselves excluded by those blanket policies are in extreme need. Such policies work against the objectives of the Bill, which is supposed to take a preventive approach to homelessness. According to the housing Green Paper, we should continue to give priority to meeting housing need. Paragraph 9.13 states:
``We do not believe that anyone should be permanently excluded from social housing. We therefore propose to remove the power to impose `blanket' exclusions from the housing register.''
Yet that is exactly what is happening. In its current form, the Bill will not effect significant changes to such behaviour, which is extremely widespread. The Shelter survey that I quoted earlier estimated that upwards of 200,000 people were excluded or suspended between 1996 and 1998. Only four of 65 housing organisations surveyed had a completely open register; all the others offered some form of exclusion. Of 74 housing authorities surveyed, a separate study showed that only 25 per cent. of those with an exclusion policy stipulated the length of that exclusion and limited it in any way—meaning that they could exclude people permanently. I agree with the argument in the Green Paper that reductions in priority or suspensions of applications for housing should occur only in exceptional circumstances and be applied individually. The current blanket policies cannot continue.
Clauses 25 and 26 give applicants the right to apply for housing and all authorities must consider applications from eligible households. Under clause 27, individual households can be de-prioritised in certain circumstances. If the Bill is to stop exclusions, we must look closely at the wording of clause 26, which states that applications must be made in accordance with an authority's allocation scheme. The problem is that that will allow an authority to continue to exclude those who may be in genuine housing need. Of course, it is because the Bill also allows a much more permissive allocations framework that it could extend the number of those who could be excluded through the allocation scheme in a blanket form.
If we want authorities to change the way in which they act, the Bill should be more tightly drafted. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 to clause 26 will provide some of those safeguards. For example, amendment No. 81 clarifies the fact that anyone can apply for housing, strengthening that particular part of clause 26. Amendment No. 82 will require authorities not to frame their scheme in such a way that anyone will be excluded at that stage in the application.
I believe, and I hope the Minister will look very carefully at these amendments, that they will prevent people from being excluded at that initial application stage, but not prevent the authority, through clause 27, from being able to de-prioritise or suspend someone individually in exceptional circumstances, where the evidence clearly shows that that should be allowed.